5 Top Tips for Managing Your Boss
As most bosses are human, they are also fallible. The qualities and strengths that propel people into leadership roles do not always translate into fabulous communication skills, so you may have to work quite hard to get the information and feedback you need, when you need it. Even if your boss is an excellent communicator, she will have her own perspective on what’s best for you and your team, and this will not always match your own view. You may even have different opinions about your roles and responsibilities within the organisation. This can lead to misunderstandings, time wasting and clashes which can sour the mutual respect and co-operation necessary for a mutually beneficial working relationship.
In order to get the best outcomes for you, your team, your boss and your organisation, you need to develop your skills of “managing up”. For obvious reasons however, your manager is unlikely to send you on a course about managing up; most bosses probably wouldn’t agree that they need managing. After all, isn’t it supposed to be them managing you?
Luckily, the very same communication, negotiation and motivation skills that help you to manage your staff and colleagues can be adapted to manage your boss. These tools just need to be adapted a little before you aim them upwards.
Here are 5 Top Tips to get you started...
1. Take Courage
Most people are understandably a little nervous about communicating assertively with someone higher in the organisation. After all, seeming to criticise, contradict or undermine your manager or supervisor can have bigger repercussions for you than giving robust feedback to a colleague or team member. These feelings are natural, so to some extent it’s a case of “feel the fear and do it anyway”. However, if you’re feeling really uptight about an issue, take some time out first to calm down, take a few breaths, and get what you want to say clear in your own mind. You might find it helpful to consider the worst thing she could say (possibly just “no”) and make some contingency plans for dealing with this scenario.
2. Remember: You Both Need Each Other
Just as you rely on your boss for clear goals, timely feedback, motivation and support; he relies on you for loyalty, productivity, co-operation, information from the front-line and ideas for improving things. If you do well, he looks good. Your manager or supervisor, therefore, has his own incentives for maintaining a good working relationship. One thing bosses often lack (for the reasons noted above) is regular, honest, good-quality feedback about their own impact. If you can deliver this in a respectful, positive way it will often be much appreciated and earn you some respect in return.
3. Manage Your Boss’s Time
Managers and supervisors are busy people, and anything you can do to show that you understand this will work in your favour. Your boss won’t have time to deal with every issue you’d like to bring to her attention, so be selective and prioritise your requests. Also, be prepared and have facts, figures and examples ready. Any vagueness on your part will lengthen the conversation and represents time wasted. If you think a longer conversation is justified, then book her time in advance by making an appointment. Finally, don’t ask for her comments about every point you raise; have confidence in your own opinions and be prepared to back them up if asked. Emphasise how your ideas will save her time!
4. Be Careful With Your Words
Every conversation you have with your boss is about two things. Firstly you are talking about the issue or problem at hand, and secondly you are having a dialogue about the relationship between a manager and his subordinate. So choose your words carefully, be diplomatic and avoid saying anything which might be taken as a challenge to his authority or his right to make decisions. Many bosses (perhaps especially the male ones) suffer from a degree of status anxiety, and anxious people tend to become defensive. Remember: you’re not pandering to his ego, you’re showing empathy, and doing what it takes to keep the relationship positive and beneficial for all concerned.
5. Know Your Boss
As all good negotiators know, reaching win-win outcomes requires understanding the interests of both (or more) sides. To fully engage with your boss you need to understand her. What is her reputation in the wider organisation? What is she is expected to deliver and to whom? What are her goals and ambitions? What (or who) stands in her way? Once you have answered these questions you can show you are an ally by framing your requests and proposals in ways that further or protect her interests. Also, pay attention to your manager’s communication style. Is she a details person or a bullet points person? Is she a listener or a reader? Does she prefer a formal or informal approach? The more completely you know your boss, the more effective communication between you will be.
© Will Moore, 2009
Are we stuck with our personalities?
This week, I was running a course for staff at one of the universities and included a short session on how our own personal "style" influences the way we communicate and the way we form relationships.
I chose to illustrate this by giving the group a short introduction to the DiSC model of behavioural styles and by having them informally profile themselves and each other.
DiSC belongs among the various profiling tools used by trainers to categorise delegates into types using personality traits. The purpose of using something like DiSC is to encourage people to reflect on and analyse their own communication habits and to develop flexibility in dealing with the diverse behaviours of their colleagues, customers and others.
Delegates on my courses generally seem to enjoy these tools and have great fun categorising themselves and their workmates. I almost always see some genuine insight in the training room which is why I continue to make use of these tools in my courses. However, there are always one or two people who express a certain unease about the idea of being "put in a box" in this way.
I'm often asked whether I believe that personalities are "fixed" or whether they are fluid between situations, times and places. Giving a quick answer to this has, for me, always seemed quite challenging. My own intuition, based on personal experience, has always been that people don't fundamentally change "who they are" except perhaps as a result of extremely traumatic events. However, I'm also aware that people are very adaptable and adopt different communication strategies for different contexts. Certainly, people who have been able to observe me in the training room and also in a social environment have sometimes commented on the contrast between my communication style in each case.
Psychologists seem to be fairly settled around the idea that there is a significant genetic component to personality and that people can be systematically categorised in terms of particular "traits". The "Big Five" variables, which form the basis of many profiling tools are:
- Extroversion (the extent to which we are outgoing and enthusiastic)
- Agreeableness (the ease with which we empathise and build rapport with others)
- Neuroticism (how likely we are to become anxious or stressed out)
- Openness (the degree to which we use imagination and lateral thinking)
- Conscientiousness (how disciplined and focused we are with regard to longer term goals)
These traits have been well researched and some of them have even been linked to specific differences in brain process between individuals. There seems little doubt, among the experts at least, that to a large extent: show-offs will be show-offs and worriers will be worriers. However, the manner in which these traits are expressed will depend on many factors. How high or low you rate with regard to each of the five variables is assessed by how you respond to certain specific types of situation. For instance, people who score high on Agreeableness, show strong empathy in response to people in need or distress. Alternatively, low scorers on the Openness scale exhibit very concrete thinking in the face of problems and have a distrust of esoteric and imaginative concepts.
How your personality is expressed then, depends on the interplay between your brain (or genes) and the environment (including the social environment) you find yourself in from day-to-day. Hence, even though our personalities are, to some extent, "fixed"; we do not act in an automatic or consistent way in every sort of situation. In a particular type of situation, however, your behaviour will be influenced by your personality and therefore somewhat predictable.
One common objection I often encounter to the idea that people have fixed and consistent personalities comes from the observation that people seem to change as they get older. Hopefully some of us even get wiser! Interestingly, recent research seems to back up the idea that people's personalities change with age. What this research shows, however, is that people change in predictable ways as the years go by.
Sanjay Srivastava and colleagues of Stanford University, California, surveyed over 100,000 individuals with respect to the Big Five variables and discovered that after the age of 30, people do tend to become better at dealing with life's "ups and downs". The researchers also found that, on average, people become more conscientious in their 20s, more agreeable in their 30s and gradually less open to new ideas as they age. They also concluded that that older women, in contrast to their male contemporaries, are more carefree than their daughters and granddaughters.
Some psychologists have speculated that the existence of the diverse but stable personalities of human beings is one of the reasons we've been able to survive and thrive on the planet. For creatures who have to deal with changing and unpredictable conditions, having a range of different "instinctual" coping strategies makes a lot of sense. Certainly there isn't a "best" personality type. Each trait comes into its own and becomes an asset in particular situations. For instance, in high risk environments, a healthy dose of neuroticism has obvious survival value. Also, during periods of stressful change, having a few extroverts around helps to keep people positive and motivated, while highly agreeable individuals will make sure distressed and anxious people are looked after.
So, to the extent that profiling tools like DiSC are doing what they claim to do, they are, indeed, measuring something real about us. The sign above the door at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi in ancient Greece said, we are told, "Know thyself". If we accept that this is good advice, surely we are better off recognizing and owning our personality traits as a first step in understanding the influence that they have on the way we communicate and the impact we have on others. We can then play up to our strengths and take steps to mitigate any negative consequences our personal communication style might have. Also, a passing familiarity with the Big Five variables, and the personality types they lead to, might help us to appreciate why our colleagues, customers, friends and family often behave in such "weird" ways.
© Will Moore, 2008
Do individuals have learning styles?
- Visual learners - who prefer to learn by seeing
- Auditory learners - who prefer to learn by hearing
- Kinesthetic learners - who prefer to learn by feeling (or "getting to grips with" a problem)
Unfortunately,
research into learning styles has cast doubt
on the assertion that it's possible to reliably
and consistently categorise learners in this way,
or that tailoring teaching/training to an
individual's learning style leads to improved
learning outcomes. So despite the wide acceptance
of this idea, it's actually quite controversial.
For this reason I discourage trainees on my
Training for Trainers (T4T) courses from getting
over-enthusiastic about VAK styles (or
over-emphasising categories derived from
Myers-Briggs, DiSC, Kolb and other models
too).
Interestingly, enthusiasts for NLP, who were
largely responsible for pushing VAK ("representational systems"
in NLP-speak) into the limelight back in the
80s, subsequently backed off from (or perhaps
moved beyond) its more simplistic
interpretation in their "new code". But by
then the idea had stuck in the popular
consciousness.
Given my obvious scepticism, you might be
wondering whether I think VAK and other learning
style models have made any beneficial
contribution in the training room? The answer is
"yes" for the following reasons. Firstly, any set
of concepts which encourages trainers,
facilitators and on-the-job coaches to adopt a
"broadcast on all channels" approach is bound to
lead to greater effectiveness. Research really
does suggest that the human brain has evolved to
synthesise data from multiple inputs, and that
a multi-sensory approach to training leads to
improved learning outcomes. Secondly, a
trainer or coach who is curious about what
"type" of person they are training is likely
to pay more attention and show more
flexibility in their methods.
In my T4T courses I refer to the "Pokemon strategy": You may
not be able to tidily group people into
styles, but you can try to "catch 'em all" by
appealing to all the senses and using a
variety of methods. So I've got no problem
with the idea of learning style models like
VAK, as long as trainers don't get too
categorical with them.
© Will Moore, 2007
Learning styles
"Learning Styles" have become an indispensable concept in the contemporary training room. In fact, having some preferred learning styles model that you use and advocate has almost become a badge of membership to the club of "interactive" or "experiential" trainers. When I first arrived in New Zealand and started talking to local training companies, I was regularly asked questions like:
"What's your approach to learning styles?"
"Do you think learning styles are important?"
"Do you use learning styles?"
"What learning styles model do you use?"
Luckily I have standard and well-rehearsed answers to these questions.
But I'm actually far more sceptical than many of my trainer colleagues
about learning styles, or at least about their uncritical use.
© Will Moore, 2007
Saying "No" Assertively
- Your manager tries to delegate yet another
task to you when you're already overloaded.
- An employee asks for time off at very short
notice during a busy period.
- An important customer demands a huge discount
which would dig into your margin.
- A relative asks you to look after her four Dobermans while she takes a month's break in Vanuatu
As promised in my last post, I'm returning to the
topic of assertiveness here. The examples above are
the kind of situations trainees often bring up in
my courses. They are all wonderful opportunities
for delivering an assertive "no" to a request or
demand.
It should be simple enough shouldn't it? After all,
"no" is a nice, short, easy word. Well, it may be
short, but failing to say it or misusing it can
create headaches later on. This often makes saying
"no" a problem area for many of us.
Like other situations demanding a degree of
assertiveness, the above scenarios (and others like
them) present two contrasting risks:
1. That we'll avoid saying "no" in
order not to offend or disappoint the other person.
2. That we'll deliver an aggressive or
undermining "no".
Both of these tactics may superficially tempting at
times, but they can have unfortunate consequences.
Look back at the 4 examples and ask yourself what
the negative consequences might be of giving in to
the other person. What might you feel towards the
other person or about yourself? In what ways could
giving in make your situation worse?
Alternatively, what might be the negative impact,
in the same situarions, of using a blunt or
aggressive "no", or saying "no" in a way which
takes no account of the other person's feelings or
priorities? What contribution would you be making
to the other person's emotional state? How would it
affect the relationship? In what ways could the
disagreement escalate?
Luckily, assertiveness gives us a way of declining,
refusing or objecting which gives good odds of
avoiding these consequences.
The main issue here is that an assertive "no", like
all good feedback, should be constructive rather
than destructive. An assertive "no" is not a direct
dismissal of the other person's request or demand,
it's an articulation of your own feelings and/or
interests.
1. LISTEN
Stay calm and use you best active listening skills
to pay full attention to what the other person is
requesting or demanding. Question them about their
reasons for asking you and why it's important to
them. If you're not in a position to give them your
full attention, postpone the conversation until you
are.
Anita, I'm too distracted by this other issue at the moment, can we talk in ten minutes when I can give your request the attention it deserves?
2. THINK ABOUT IT
Demonstrate that you are actually considering the request or demand. You want to avoid the impression that you are simply reacting to the situation without thinking.
Again, you might want to delay your reply in order to analyse the situation and consider whether a "no" really is the appropriate response. If you decide that it is, ask yourself...
”What are my reasons for saying no?”
”How do I feel about the situation?”
It's important to be able to articulate these things if you want your "no" to appear constructive. It's also vitally important that you are convinced in your own mind that you have a perfect right, in this instance, to say no. If you have any doubts about this, your "no" will lack impact and you may find yourself on the defensive.
Finally, taking time to consider the other person's demand/request and analyse the situation will also give you an opportunity to calm down and regain your emotional equilibrium (should you need to).
3. MAKE YOUR "I" STATEMENT
”I'm concerned that if I take this on, I'll be putting my current targets at risk.”
”We're all flat out and a bit stressed at the moment and I've got to look after the whole team and consider what's fair.”
”Later on today I've got to go back to my management and present this as a good agreement, I'm worried that what you're proposing will make that very difficult.”
”I'm afraid I won't be around enough to look after them properly, and also we've just had new carpets laid...”
Notice that, like all good assertive language, the above examples contain lots of "I" statements and a minimum of "you" statements. They're all a description of "my" emotional state (concerned, stressed, worried, afraid, annoyed) and interests (my targets, my team's well being, fairness, my reputation with management, your dogs' well being, my carpet).
"You" statements can easily feel like an attack to the other person and, therefore, provoke a defensive reaction. "I" statements are about the speaker and feel much less confrontational to the listener. What I'm not suggesting here is that you engage in the verbal gymnastics necessary to avoid using the word "you" altogether. The recommendation is simply that you set up your assertive "no" with a clear statement of your reasons for it, referring to your own interests and feelings.
3. MAKE YOUR "SO" STATEMENT
”...so I don't think I can commit to this.”
”...so I'm going to have to say no.”
”...so I really can't agree to this.”
”...so I'm sorry, no.”
Your "so" statement is also your "no". This is where you actually refuse or decline the other persons demand or request. The word "so" links this back to your "I" statement in the other person's mind. Yours is not a reactive "no". It is a thoughtful "no" which protects or advances your legitimate interests.
Some trainers advise against using the word "sorry" here because it may undermine the impact of your "no" or indicate liability or responsibility for the other person's problem. Personally I think that "sorry" is fine as an expression of sincere regret when you really would like to say "yes", but can't.
Notice that the example "so" statements above don't all contain the word "no". "No" is a hot button word for many people and some whole cultures. Luckily English (and all the other languages I know anything about) gives us lots of ways of communicating "no" without actually using the word.
At this stage you will get a reaction.
5. EXPRESS EMPATHY
Often the other person will accept your refusal, having understood your interests. Perhaps they will ask your advice in solving their problem. In some cases, however, you will get an emotional reaction. Perhaps the other person will appear crestfallen. Perhaps they will react angrily.
Whatever the reaction, now is the time to demonstrate that you've been listening and to express empathy with the other person's emotions and interests. If you get a very negative emotional response, try the Emotional Judo approach I outlined in an earlier post. The key thing here is to demonstrate an awareness of what led the other person to make the request or demand in the first place.
”I realise you're busy yourself and that you need to get this done.”
”Of course your family is important to you and I know you'll be disappointed not to attend.”
”I'm sure your under as much pressure as I am to get the best deal possible here.”
”I know how much you love the dogs and it will be hard to relax and plan your holiday until you know they're going to be looked after.”
At this stage, ask yourself:
”Has the other person accepted my refusal?”
If not, go back to stage 3 and repeat yourself until they demonstrate that they have listened to and accepted your "no". This is a variation of Edmund J. Bourne's classic "Broken Record Technique"* which has been a staple of assertiveness training for years.
6. LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS
Even though you can't agree to the other person's request or demand, you can perhaps help them to think of alternative ways of looking after their interests. Once the person has accepted your "no", see if you can engage them in a quick brainstorming session to look for other solutions.
If you succeed in generating a compelling alternative solution, congratulations! You have guided a tricky interaction to a win/win conclusion. Even if, however, you don't manage to help the other person to fully solve their problem, they will still appreciate the effort. They will feel they have had a constructive conversation with an understanding person who values the ongoing relationship.
* NB. Broken Record Technique should not be used as a first resort, it's a bit of a blunt instrument and can be an irritant in close personal or business relationships.
© Will Moore, 2007