Managing Up When the Real Problem Is Above You
A practical hierarchy for taking initiative, overcommunicating smartly, and surviving misaligned bosses.
People change themselves, and they rarely change because you want them to. This is especially true when the person you would like to change is your boss. Of course, if you are one of the lucky ones to find yourself working for a really good manager, then congratulations. You are one of the fortunate few and unlikely to realise the advantage this brings until you experience the alternative.
I use the term manager more broadly than a single line of reporting. While you may have one direct manager or two in a co-structure, you will often need to treat others as your boss as well. This commonly includes your manager’s manager, particularly if they “grew up” in your business area, or a senior individual with a long-standing relationship with a key client.
One of my coaching clients found themselves having to contend with exactly this situation. They had a new direct line manager and a hands-on regional head - their manager’s manager - who had previously helped build the business and remained closely involved in its day-to-day detail.
Both expected to be kept informed. Neither was consistently communicating with the other.
My client would share information with one, only to be challenged by the other for being unresponsive or for failing to communicate. Each interaction reduced their room to manoeuvre. Responding quickly to one created exposure with the other. Staying aligned with both was challenging.
When I collected feedback at the start of the coaching engagement, the line manager’s view was clear. My client needed to be “more responsive” and should not need to be “chased for information”. They also needed to communicate better, as the manager did not want to be surprised by their own boss, particularly when they weren’t involved with the conversations that the regional head instigated by skipping a management level.
From my client’s perspective, these criticisms were symptoms of a deeper problem they did not control: two senior managers operating without sufficient alignment, each placing incompatible expectations on the same person.
Finding oneself caught between the dysfunctional relationship of two more senior managers is not a comfortable position. It is, however, a reality for many teams. Therefore, successfully handling this tricky situation is crucial to managing your manager. It comes down to how to best manage stakeholder expectations placed on you due to an imperfect situation. One thing I’ve observed is that the most successful people I work with view their relationships with their bosses very differently. They aren’t trying to avoid the person. They may not always agree, but they constructively engage with them. They view the relationship as crucial to their success, and they manage it intentionally, recognising that a common purpose binds them and that they must interact positively. In cases like my client’s, overcommunication is the simplest and most effective approach. Even when you think it shouldn’t be necessary or is placing an additional burden on you.
What distinguishes those who can thread the needle from those who are merely successful (promoted managers who are not effective) is their approach to managing up. They aren’t managing up to curry favours and position themselves for promotion, which is all too common in the workplace. They manage upwards to help their team accomplish its goals. People who are effective at getting promoted are significantly different to work with and for compared to those who are effective at teamwork and developing their teams. Threading the needle requires communicating proactively to demonstrate control, thereby reducing unnecessary and inefficient back-and-forth or one-off questions. It requires taking the initiative and empowering yourself in several ways, as described in the following hierarchy (starting at #1):
Rarely waiting to be told what to do.
Asking for permission judiciously.
Not being shy about making recommendations.
Leading with phrases such as “I intend to…”
Taking action and reporting back immediately.
Taking action and reporting back periodically.
Taking action and simply reporting back upon completion.
For a subset of the initiatives, projects or tasks you’re working on, run it past the seven previous steps and decide which is the most accurate for your current way of working and interacting with your boss:
Did you get handed the task and told to “just get it done,” or were you asked, “Please look into this”?
Did you ask your boss whether it was okay for you to spend time on that problem or opportunity?
Did you recommend that “we deal with this issue” or “we seize the opportunity”?
In your latest one-to-one with your boss, did you tell them, “I intend to spend time on X”?
After addressing a new issue, did you immediately inform your boss that you had done X to fix Y?
Do you provide regular updates to your supervisor on a fluid set of initiatives you are focused on, some at the start, some during, and some at the end of each project?
During your regular catch-ups, did you inform your boss that you had completed the review and then concluded that the solution is now being implemented for a problem your boss wasn’t even aware of?
There are three common situations I observe when coaching that disrupt even the most disciplined, reliable, and effective managers. Each has a detrimental impact, pushing you back down the self-empowerment hierarchy to a lower level of initiative, and is a source of intense frustration for each person I work with.
The last-minute demands and fire drills
Let’s begin with the all-too-common last-minute incoming call, email, or message demanding that you and your team drop the priorities they are in the middle of and work on something urgent for your boss. The friction entering your team comes from last-minute “fire drills” that disrupt your well-organised, disciplined plan. Nothing highlights the unique challenge inherent in junior and middle management roles more than the need to both lead and follow. Individuals in these roles have limited power. They must repeatedly alternate between interacting with colleagues of higher and lower power (see The Cost of Ineffective Leadership for a reminder ofcommon power dynamics in the workplace). The article “Why Being a Middle Manager Is So Exhausting” explains this power dynamic
Middle managers have a complicated relationship with power because power is activated and experienced in the context of interpersonal relationships. When interacting with our superiors, we naturally adopt a more deferential low-power behavioural style. When interacting with subordinates, on the other hand, we adopt a more assertive high-power behavioural style. Failure to conform to these role-based expectations can lead to social conflicts and confusion, so people are very good at learning how to play the part that is expected of them.
Junior and middle managers, however, are expected to play very different roles when moving from one interaction to the next, alternating between relatively high and relatively low power interaction styles. By virtue of their structural positions, they are simultaneously the “victims and the carriers of change” within an organisation, receiving strategy prescriptions from their bosses above and having to implement those strategies with the people who work beneath them. As a result, middle managers often find themselves stuck in between various stakeholder groups, which can produce “relentless and conflicting demands.”
Your goal is to protect your team’s focus while still responding to legitimate urgency. But saying “no” or “not now” is not an option for you. Especially as flexibility and adaptability are desirable traits in the workplace. Here are some pragmatic tactics for dealing with these inbound fire drills:
Add a “priorities sync” to your weekly one-to-ones with your boss: frame it as “to help me move fast on what matters most.” Reduce the capacity for surprises from above.
Establish explicit guardrails for true emergencies: specify what qualifies as an urgent situation. The turnaround that is expected. What, if anything, can be paused and put aside to change direction.
Time-box an “interrupt buffer”: block daily and/or weekly capacity in your schedule for ad-hoc work to limit the disruption caused by true emergencies.
Respond with options, not problems: when a last-minute demand arises, seek to understand the reason and, when appropriate, respond with two options and their respective impacts. “If we do X by 6pm, project Y slips by 48 hours, however if we keep Y on track, X will get done by noon tomorrow.” You stay helpful and protect your team’s priority work.
Inconsistent demands to be more (or less) involved with the day-to-day
The next frustrating situation occurs even with bosses with whom you have a good relationship and whom you understand how to keep on their good side. They retain the capacity to surprise you with their inconsistent demands, especially in relation to how involved you are with “the details”. “You weren’t on top of that issue. I need you more involved with the day-to-day” is just one example of a criticism you will be on the receiving end of. This is the structural tension for producer-managers. Your boss expects you to be forward-thinking, to empower others, and give your team more autonomy, while being urgently tactical so you have a detailed understanding of everything going on.
I wish I had a solution for you that always works. Unfortunately, that isn’t possible. More often than not, the latest barbed, “from the hip” criticism will be a symptom of your boss being under heightened pressure, often for something going on elsewhere, and having nothing to do with your team. Reacting emotionally, with frustration and defensiveness, is rarely a successful approach. Take a deep breath and remember this is part and parcel of being a producer-manager. Appreciate that the comment probably stems from something that happened to your boss, which they are reacting to. Acknowledge their reaction. If there is genuinely something that needs fixing, then address it. Otherwise, the best advice I have for you is to let the comment recede into the past. The half-life is usually very short and is quickly forgotten. Carry on with your prioritised tasks and goals.
Your boss listens to your underperforming team members
The last situation that works against you taking the initiative is when a vocal subset of team members complains, gossips, and generally badmouths you to your boss. I can all but guarantee it won’t be your A-Players making the noise. Instead, your under-pressure B- and C- Players will be reacting and trying to deflect, instead making out that you are at fault (for their underperformance). Instilling accountability in your team can come with negative consequences. By going directly to your boss, your subordinates are putting you on the back foot. So you have to justify and explain what is happening and why. All of which is very difficult to do without appearing defensive. An uninformed boss who is hearing about these things for the first time will, and should, naturally listen to people with “new ideas”, “a different way of solving that client issue”, or “aren’t happy with the way the team is run”. It is common for their criticism, shared with your boss, to be presented as them feeling they are not kept in the loop, being micromanaged, wanting more autonomy, or thinking they would do a better job if only something were different.
Here are two ways to deal with this situation should it arise:
First, keep your boss regularly informed about how well your team members are doing. Highlighting those we are exceeding expectations while at the same time ensuring your boss isn’t surprised by those who find themselves under pressure. You can use this as an opportunity to stay tightly aligned on how to respond if a team member tries to contact them.
Second, request that your boss ask the simple yet powerful question of anyone who comes to them to complain: “I am curious, how did XYZ respond when you raised this specific concern/issue/grievance with them?” Unless your team member has a good answer, your manager should send them away to speak with you directly.
Do not mistakenly trivialise the adverse consequences that can result from these scenarios. I have known senior sales and trading professionals lose out through demotion or even dismissal because they weren’t handled well. Not dealing with last-minute fire drills coming from a boss who is a seagull or a poor communicator manager type, or a blame-oriented manager type making inconsistent demands of you, or last but not least, an absentee or non-inclusive manager who listens to your underperforming team members over you, are recipes for disaster if not effectively addressed.