Managing Up Without Sucking Up

Episode transcript

Transcript provided for accessibility and search. Minor transcription errors may remain.

SPEAKER_00 0:00

You're listening to How Work Really Works with Steve. Practical advice to help you communicate better, lead with confidence, and advance your career. There are certain phrases at work that make perfectly sensible ideas sound slightly sinister. Managing up is one of them. It can sound like manipulation, like learning your boss's favorite coffee order, laughing slightly too enthusiastically at their jokes, and describing every half-formed thought they have as visionary. That is not managing up. That is sucking up, and people are usually far less subtle about it than they imagine. Real managing up is much simpler. It means creating an effective working relationship with a person who sets your priorities, evaluates your performance, controls many of the resources you need, and has a surprisingly large influence over whether your working week feels manageable or resembles an escape room designed by people who dislike you. You are not trying to manage your manager as though they are an unruly pet. You are managing the relationship, and that means understanding what they need, helping them make good decisions, communicating in a way they can use, and being clearer about what you need from them. Good managers make this easier. They explain priorities, they give useful feedback, they remove obstacles, they tell you when something changes before you discover it during a presentation to senior leadership. But even good managers are busy, imperfect, and occasionally distracted by 17 urgent messages arriving at exactly the same time. They do not automatically know what you are working on, where you are stuck, which decision you need, or what you hope to do next in your career. They are managers, not clairvoyants. Although some performance review systems do appear to assume otherwise. Managing up begins when you stop treating your boss as either the all-knowing source of every answer or an obstacle to be worked around. They are a person with goals, pressures, preferences, blind spots, and a boss of their own. The better you understand that environment, the easier it becomes to work effectively within it. This does not mean agreeing with everything. It does not mean hiding bad news, it does not mean taking responsibility for your manager's behavior, and it certainly does not mean allowing someone to treat you badly because a career article told you to become more adaptable. Managing up is not submission. It is professional clarity. At its best, it creates fewer surprises, faster decisions, better priorities, and a working relationship in which both people know what the other needs. At its worst, people misunderstand it as a performance. They copy the boss's language. They praise every idea. They carefully position themselves near senior people and somehow develop a passionate interest in whichever sport the executive team discussed last week. That approach may attract attention for a while. It does not create trust. Trust comes from being useful, honest, and reliable. Useful means you help move the work forward. Honest means you say what is actually happening, including when the news is inconvenient. Reliable means your manager does not have to wonder whether you will do what you said you would do. Those three things are the foundation of managing up. The objective is not to become your boss's favorite person. The objective is to become someone whose judgment they trust. I'm Steve, and this is how work really works. The first step in managing up is understanding how your manager operates. And most people learn this through trial and error. They send a detailed email and discover the manager reads only the first two lines. They wait until the weekly meeting to raise a problem and discover the manager wanted to know immediately. They bring a question and discover the manager expected a recommendation. After several months, both sides conclude that the other is difficult. This is avoidable. Have a direct conversation about how the two of you should work together. Ask what outcomes matter most over the next few months. Ask how your manager prefers to receive updates. Ask which issues should be raised immediately, and which can wait for a regular conversation. Ask what they want when you bring them a problem. Do they want the background? A short summary? Several options? A recommendation? Or simply enough warning to prevent them being surprised in front of their own boss? That final one is particularly valuable. Managers can handle bad news, what they dislike, is meeting bad news for the first time, while somebody senior is looking directly at them. You should also understand what your manager is accountable for. Your work may be one small part of a much larger outcome. If you know the broader goal, you can frame your updates around what matters, rather than delivering a detailed account of your activity. For example, imagine a project is running late. You could say, we have completed 23 of the 30 tasks. The remaining seven are in progress, and we held four meetings this week. That contains information. It just does not contain much help. A stronger update would be the launch is likely to move by one week because the supplier has not completed testing. We can protect the original date by reducing the first release or keep the full scope and move the launch. I recommend protecting the scope because the missing functions affect customers. I need your decision by Thursday. Now your manager knows the impact, the choices, your recommendation, and when a decision is required. You have made the situation easier to manage. That is the heart of a useful update. What changed? Why does it matter? What happens next? What do you need from me? Not every update needs four pages, a dashboard, and an opening section titled Executive Summary. Sometimes four sentences will do. This becomes especially important when your manager is busy or works at a senior level. The further someone is from the detail, the more you need to translate the work into outcomes, risks, decisions, and consequences. Do not make them excavate the point from a pile of facts. You are not hiding detail, you are organizing it. Managing app also means creating a sensible communication rhythm. If your manager has to ask repeatedly for updates, they may start checking more often. Then you feel micromanaged. So you provide less information. They become more anxious and check even more. Before long, both of you are trapped in a small workplace tragedy that could have been prevented by a weekly note. Agree on a rhythm that fits the work. It might be a short update every Friday, a weekly one-to-one, a message when a risk crosses an agreed threshold. The method matters less than the predictability. You want your manager to know that important information will reach them without having to chase it. This does not mean copying them on every email. Copying someone on everything is not communication. It is administrative weather. Your job is to identify what matters. There is another part of understanding your manager that people sometimes resist, learning their preferences. Perhaps they think aloud and need conversation before making a decision. Perhaps they want time to read. Perhaps they care deeply about precision. Perhaps they want the recommendation first and the supporting detail available if needed. Adapting to those preferences is not fake. We adapt our communication to customers, colleagues, family members, and small children who have been awake too long. We can adapt it to a manager. The line is simple. Adapt the format, not the truth. You can change how you present the message without changing what the message says. Managing up becomes more important when you disagree with your manager. Some people avoid disagreement entirely. They nod, leave the room, and then explain to everyone else why the decision will fail. This is not loyalty. It is delayed dissent with an audience. Others challenge every point as though the meeting is a competitive debate, and the winner receives control of the department. Neither approach is especially useful. If you disagree, begin by understanding the decision your manager is trying to make. Ask questions before launching your counter argument. What outcome matters most here? What constraint am I missing? Is the decision driven by cost, timing, risk, or something else? You may discover that your manager has information you do not have. You may also discover that they have misunderstood the situation. Once the objective is clear, state your concern directly and connect it to the outcome. Try. I understand why speed matters here. My concern is that skipping this review creates a risk we will have to correct after launch. I recommend a shorter review this week rather than removing it completely. That is much stronger than I just do not think this is a good idea. The first version gives a reason and an alternative. The second gives everyone a feeling to admire. Disagree privately when possible. Do not surprise your manager in a large meeting unless the issue is serious enough that silence would be irresponsible. If you know a difficult discussion is coming, raise it beforehand. Give them a chance to consider the concern without feeling publicly challenged. And once a reasonable decision is made, support it. You do not have to pretend it was your preferred option. You do need to avoid quietly undermining it while preserving the ability to say, I knew this would happen, later. That is not strategic foresight. It is workplace insurance purchased with everybody else's patients. Managing competing priorities is another essential part of managing up. When your manager gives you something new, do not automatically say yes, and then attempt to create a 30-hour day. Clarify the trade-off. Say, I can take this on. To meet Friday's deadline, I will need to move the customer analysis to next week. Is that the right priority? This is not refusing the work, it is making the consequence visible. Managers sometimes assign conflicting priorities because nobody has shown them the conflict. Every item appears manageable when viewed separately. Your job is to bring the whole picture into the conversation. This is also useful when priorities keep changing. Do not say you change your mind every five minutes, even if your notes provide impressive supporting evidence. Try. The priorities have shifted several times this month, and the team is starting work that we then stop. Can we agree on the top three outcomes for the next two weeks and identify what would justify changing them? You have described the pattern, explained the impact, and proposed a way forward. Now, what if the manager is genuinely difficult? Perhaps they provide no direction. Perhaps they micromanage. Perhaps they avoid decisions, take credit, shift blame, or communicate mainly through urgent messages sent at 1047 at night. Managing up can reduce friction, but it cannot transform every bad manager into a good one. Start with the behavior you can address. If direction is vague, confirm your understanding in writing. My understanding is that the first priority is the customer issue, followed by the budget review. I will proceed on that basis unless you want me to adjust it. If decisions are delayed, explain the consequence and give a deadline. To keep the launch date, we need a decision by Wednesday. If we do not have one, I will plan for the later date. If they micromanage, increase predictable visibility and ask to agree on checkpoints. I will send you a short update Tuesday and Friday. Unless something changes materially, can I continue working between those points without additional reviews? If they take credit, make your contribution visible through normal project communication, shared documents, and clear ownership. Do not begin a campaign of dramatic correction in every meeting. That usually makes you look territorial even when you are right. If the behavior is abusive, discriminatory, dishonest, or damaging to your health, this is no longer a communication puzzle for you to solve alone. Document what is happening. Use the appropriate formal channels. Seek advice. Decide what boundaries you need and whether remaining in the environment is realistic. Managing up does not require tolerating misconduct. There is also an ethical line on the other side. Do not withhold information to control the decision. Do not tell your manager only what they want to hear. Do not make colleagues look bad so you appear more capable. Do not become a different person every time someone more senior enters the room. You can make your manager more effective without turning your own judgment over to them. The strongest working relationships allow respectful disagreement, honest updates, and clear expectations. That is not sucking up. It is what professional trust looks like. So, let us put this to work. This week, create a simple working agreement with your manager. You do not need to call it a working agreement. That may cause everyone to expect a workshop and coloured sticky notes. Just have a conversation covering five questions. First, what are the three most important outcomes you need from me right now? Second, how would you like me to keep you informed? Third, which problems should I raise immediately? Fourth, when I need a decision, what information is most useful to you? Fifth, what is one thing I could do that would make working with me easier? Then share what you need as well. Perhaps you need clearer priorities, faster decisions, more context, regular feedback, or permission to handle routine matters without arranging a small summit. Be specific. Instead of saying I need better communication, try. Could we use the final ten minutes of our weekly meeting to confirm priorities and decisions? Instead of saying you are micromanaging me, try. Could we agree on the result? And two checkpoints. Then let me manage the work between them. Next, improve one update you send regularly. Use four short headings. What changed? Why does it matter? What happens next? What do I need from you? Keep it brief enough that somebody can understand it without setting aside the afternoon. Finally, identify one conversation you have been avoiding. Perhaps priorities conflict. A decision is late, you disagree with the approach, or you need feedback about your performance and career. Prepare the conversation using three parts. Describe the situation without exaggeration. Explain the impact. Make a clear request or recommendation. For example, I'm currently working on the customer proposal and the budget review. Both due Friday. Completing both to the expected standard is not realistic. I recommend finishing the customer proposal first, and moving the budget review to Tuesday. Does that match your priorities? Clear, calm, useful, no flattery required. Managing up is not about agreeing with your boss, becoming their friend, or making them feel brilliant at regular intervals. It is about helping the relationship work. Understand what matters. Communicate before they have to chase you. Bring options, not just problems. Make trade-offs visible. Disagree with respect. Keep your commitments. Ask clearly for what you need. Do those things consistently, and something important happens. Your manager begins to trust that you understand the work, that you will tell them the truth, and that you will not create an avoidable surprise five minutes before an important meeting. That trust gives you more room to operate. And more room to operate is usually far more valuable than being the person who laughs loudest at the boss's jokes. That is it for this episode of How Work Really Works with Steve. If you know someone who is trying to manage up without losing their dignity, send this episode their way. Until next time, be useful, be honest, and never confuse agreement with trust.