CHAPTER 9

Recovering from Failed Talks with Your Boss

The previous chapter showed you that—even with the occasional difficult moment—it is possible to launch a new, more satisfying relationship with your boss. But what if these efforts don’t work? What if, when you tried to give your boss feedback, he or she hit you with one of these power-oriented shots:

• Look, I’m the boss and I don’t need you to tell me what to do.
• If you just did your job, we wouldn’t have any problems.
• Are you questioning my authority?
• This all sounds nice, but you really don’t understand the situation.
• If I wanted your opinion, I would have asked for it.

You might either argue back or worry that you’re on thin ice and get out of there as soon as possible—and maybe even start polishing your resume. But what about a third alternative: addressing the differing expectations directly to alter them? We’ll explain exactly how to do this here.

First, retreat from the heat of the interaction to quickly ask yourself whether you’ve possibly done something to create this resistance. After all, you have more influence over yourself than over your boss—so start where you can most easily control the outcome! Might you be doing any of the following?

Ways You Might Have Trapped Yourself

• Not fully sharing your intentions—causing your boss to suspect your motives.
• Not aligning with common goals.
• Talking about your desires in a way that implies you think your boss is inadequate, a failure, a jerk.
• Not speaking to your manager’s needs or concerns.
• Increasing your boss’s workload; shifting responsibility upward.

If you aren’t doing any of this, the next step is to monitor your mind-set. Instead of making negative attributions about the boss, consider that “my boss is acting reasonably from his/her point of view”—no matter how unreasonable the behavior appears to be. It helps to come up with at least two reasonable alternative explanations for your boss’s behavior. Here is a starter list:

• He is getting pressure from his boss.
• She is more worried about the long-term (or short-term) effect.
• There is an unannounced big strategic move about to happen.
• In a previous job, that action worked well.
• She wants to demonstrate her competence.
• He feels uncomfortable with uncertainty and is asserting his view to feel better.

You can think of the actual causes once you let go of the automatic assumption that the boss is “unreasonable.”

Is there any way for you to see these “attacks” as concerns your manager is conveying—and therefore potential opportunities? Can you find a way to “pay” your boss by giving him or her what they care about? Instead of defending against the attack, hear it as a painful manifestation of your boss’s concerns, what is valued—his or her currencies. Pay by addressing or meeting those concerns rather than trying to get your boss to see the world exactly as you do.

This isn’t an easy endeavor. You have taken the risk of raising an important topic that your boss is resisting—perhaps even making negative assertions about your intentions or performance. It is difficult in those circumstances to keep your defensiveness down, not start justifying yourself, and instead begin asking questions. But if it were easy, there would be no need for this book.

Can We Discuss the Way We Can Talk?

Partners should be able to bring major issues—both professional and personal—to the surface and directly deal with them. However, people have their own preferred way of dealing with issues. For example, does your boss expect you to:

• Always come with a solution and not just the problem?
• Offer your entire analysis before conclusions, or vice versa?
• Always bring a careful financial analysis, or can you start discussions with your hunches?

In terms of interpersonal style:

• How direct can you be with that particular boss?
• How do you both handle disagreements?
• How much leeway are you both comfortable with?
• How does he or she treat mistakes?

In previous eras, the boss’s style automatically determined the rules of the game, and subordinates conformed or suffered the consequences. However, partnership allows you to mutually work out the “rules” of interaction.

For example, here is how George Temke, a middle-level manufacturing executive in an international organization, handles shaping the relationship from below:

I make sure, before accepting a job, that my new boss understands my aspirations and the type of relationship that I hope we will have. I emphasize the fact that I would like to know if he isn’t pleased with my work or the way that I do my job. I don’t like surprises in this area. Once this has been established, I do not remember having to bring it up again. I find that there is a degree of mutual respect that exists and tends to carry over as the relationship develops.

Sometimes a boss will overtly challenge you and ask whether you are questioning authority. More often, however, you pick up cues of displeasure—the furrowed brow or slightly sharper tone of voice. It is tempting either to push harder to convince your boss that you are only trying to help, or to mumble an apology and back off. But instead of taking either of these tactics, consider stopping the conversation on the work task level, and asking to talk about “how we are talking”:

“Let’s pause for a moment; I am concerned about the way we are interacting. First, I want to be clear that I certainly don’t mean to attack you or your right to make the decisions. You’re in charge. I just want to improve our interaction so we get great results. To do that, I want to feel free to put important and difficult stuff on the table, but it appears to me that you aren’t happy with my raising this hot potato. Is that right?”

Irrespective of how the boss responds, you could add:

“I don’t think it serves either of us well for me to be silent on potentially controversial or upsetting issues. However, do I bring them up in a way that bothers you? I want to figure that out together. How can I be honest with you without giving the impression that I am not on your side?”

The objective is to find a way of interacting that makes the issues clear and leads to joint problem solving. But it has to take both individuals’ styles into account.

This conversation doesn’t have to occur when there is an undercurrent of displeasure. It doesn’t hurt to check in to see how the boss is reacting to your approach—and it can be as easy as saying something like:

“I don’t know how this discussion we have just had struck you. Although it hasn’t been easy for me, I’m pleased because I feel free to directly raise everything and not beat around the bush. But I want to voice both of our concerns—so is there anything that you think I should do differently?”

This approach lets you discuss ways you are working together, and makes it clear that you are both on the same team. If you can talk about disagreements at this level, you become better able to resolve conflicts (and therefore, act like a partner). You’re not trying to outsmart your boss; you just want to join forces with him.

Note as well that the language we use in these conversations is business-like work process, not soft and squishy. If you work in a culture where everyone talks comfortably about feelings, then by all means—let your emotions fly. However, this approach is appropriate in a more buttoned-up culture. (For an example of dangers in this touchy territory, see the example of Andy and Gwen later in the chapter.)

Disagreeing with Your Boss . . . and Surviving or Thriving

We commonly hear the anxious question, “How can I disagree with my boss without endangering the relationship?” Junior partners worry that managers will see them as an obstacle, and not a team player. Although there are some bosses with whom you can’t disagree, those cases are rarer than most people think. The major problem is how the disagreement is handled.

However, no matter what the case, we insist on one absolute rule: No matter how strongly you disagree with your boss about an issue, you must never challenge your boss’s right to override you. Formal organizations grant all managers this right—whether or not their judgment is correct in each case. You can challenge the data, the reasoning, and the decision—but do not challenge formal authority.

When he or she agrees with the boss, the direct report usually makes declarative statements and moves closer (psychologically and even physically): “Jim, I think this memo is an excellent idea.” But when disagreeing, the direct report uses a cautious tone and gives an opinion as a question: “Do you really think presenting it that way will work?” The employee actually means, “I don’t agree that the memo as written will work, but I am too worried about your reaction to say that directly.”

Not only is this a low-power statement on the direct report’s part, but it actually can make the boss suspicious (“I wonder what he is really saying?”). At worst, the manager takes the statement at face value and answers by saying, “Yes, I think that presentation will knock them out.” The employee goes quiet, saying to himself, “Sure glad that I was indirect—look at how adamant the boss was,” without realizing that his pseudo-question actually caused that response.

Goals or Means?

The crucial distinction here is not between the safety of agreeing or the riskiness of disagreeing—but whether the disagreement is about basic goals or the best means to achieve commonly agreed upon goals. Most disagreements in organizations are about means or methods. For example—both you and your boss want to increase market share, but disagree on how to achieve it. If that is the case, you can directly (and powerfully) disagree by being on the boss’s side on goals, even though you disagree about means. “Mike, I also think it is imperative that we get people focused on market share, but I am afraid that the wording in this memo will be confusing to some. Can we take a look at this?” That way you aren’t moving away from the boss; you’re joining in what is really important.

The other distinction is the way you respond if the manager still resists. Keep in mind that one of your tasks as a junior partner is to make sure the boss doesn’t make a big mistake. “Sorry, Mike, but I can’t let this drop. Increasing market share is one of our core metrics and I am also committed to achieving that.” Of course, a responsible junior partner doesn’t just increase the boss’s workload, so might add, “I might be wrong, but let me check with a couple of my contacts in the field and try my hand at redrafting this; you have enough on your plate.” Sometimes there comes a point where even the most committed junior partner gives way. In organizations like Intel that value disagreement, the norm is “dissent and then commit.” But with even frustrated partnership attempts, the point at which budding partners back down is later than has historically been the case in the traditional superior-subordinate relationship.

When You Can’t Accept the Goals

Of course, it only works if you do agree on the goals. But what if that is not the case; what if you can’t accept your boss’s goals? What if your manager, in meetings with people from other departments, cuts them down with bullying and scorn—and tells you afterward, “It’s important to show them that I am not to be fooled with.” She emphasizes how critical it is to make sure that the department’s goals are primary.

Before you completely give up, you need to look under the hood. Your boss has a sequence of three goals. You might not buy into the first two—helping her appear tough and immovable—but can’t you join with the third—achieving your department’s objectives—and say something like: “I agree that we need to make sure we achieve our departmental objectives—and we need others’ cooperation to do so. I am concerned that we might be building unnecessary resistance. Can we talk about how we can show our determination to others without making them feel antagonized?”

Keep in mind that many goals are simply means to more basic goals. The objective is to find a goal that you can accept and partner on with your boss. And if there are fundamental differences on core goals, you may need to consider whether this is the organization to which you can commit.

Standing Up to a Powerhouse

The discussion so far can sound as if you have to turn yourself in knots and watch every word in order to disagree with your boss. However, there’s a big difference between identifying true goals and playing amateur psychologist. We offer the following example to demonstrate that it is possible to push back. Although the person in the example is a consultant—and therefore not totally dependent on keeping this job—it was an extremely desirable one. You can judge for yourself.

The powerhouse boss involved was former General Electric chief executive officer (CEO) and well-known confrontational executive Jack Welch. Welch’s power and influence have been well documented by many, and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Welch is not an easy person to push back on—even for a nervy consultant.

But lead consultant Len Schlesinger did it. Len had been assigned to work with NBC on the GE Work Out program. Welch hated a video that NBC had made for Work Out about the cumbersome process of expense reimbursement. Though it had been staged like a Saturday Night Live sketch and was hilarious, Welch felt that Work Out should be about organizational transformation and a cultural revolution, and that the video trivialized a simple work process. Right after it was shown to all the Work Out consultants, Welch declared that it should be “collected and destroyed and never shown again.”

As Len tells it:

Jack was standing next to me at a break in the men’s room when I told him I loved the movie and will use it again. I let him know that we had to empower the GE work force by making sure their basic needs were met. As soon as I explained why and how I wanted to use the video, Welch completely reversed his position and suggested that we debate the issue with the other consultants. My colleagues thought I was crazy, but as I saw it, I had nothing to lose; he already said he didn’t like my work, so at worst, I was finished. What’s so terrible about fighting back? And the final decision was to use it.

It can be easier to take such a calculated risk if you think in advance about the worst thing that could happen as a result of your action. The premortem is a really useful device: assess the worst possible consequence and plan for it; if you are willing to pay that price, then risk recedes, because you have decided a priori that you are willing to pay. And keep in mind that things seldom turn out as badly as you imagine them in advance.

With luck, you may never have to deal with as powerful a boss as Jack Welch, although those who stand up to powerful bosses often earn considerable respect. Fit between boss and junior partner matters.

But What If Directness Does Not Work? Andy’s Vanishing Boss

What to do when the approaches we’ve already covered don’t work? Take the situation of Andy Warren, a middle-level manager in an international corporation. When Andy checked his e-mail on Sunday night, he was shocked to see that his boss, Gwen, had not responded to the e-mail he had sent her on Friday afternoon.

Ten months before, Andy had just started the job and worked for a manager named Cathy. Cathy was an empowering and collaborative boss who encouraged the partnership that Andy wanted. However, Cathy moved to another division and was replaced by Gwen, a British accountant and former controller.

Andy was disappointed with how things were going from the very start of their relationship. Despite his best attempts to give her the benefit of the doubt, Gwen seemed to be micromanaging, manipulative, and dishonest. She left Andy out of meetings that he and others assumed he would be a part of. She waited until five minutes before the end of a meeting to surface significant issues or change an important decision. And she scheduled meetings with Andy’s direct reports without telling him. Though he requested that Gwen not do this anymore—and Gwen agreed—she met with two of his people several hours after he made this request.

Just this week, Gwen had pulled one of her usual moves. The group made a decision, and Gwen announced at the meeting’s end that she was going to reverse it—despite the fact that it was one of the most thoughtful, time-consuming decisions Andy’s team had ever made. He had had enough. His team was exasperated and looking to him to do something.

The easiest thing to do would have been to tell Gwen’s boss, the chief financial officer, about the problems. However, Andy avoided doing this because he worried it would create a permanent rift between him and Gwen. When he went to Gwen’s office to talk with her, he found that she had left for the weekend—so Andy wrote an e-mail titled “Reflections.” He wrote: “I have spent some time reflecting on the meeting and see that it is not the decision you made that is troubling but the context of our working relationship. Over the past months I have felt distrusted and disempowered.”

He went on to provide three specific incidents that led him to feel this way. He ended the e-mail with, “I am sorry to have sent this over e-mail rather than talking in person. I would love to meet first thing on Monday and wanted to let you know where I am so that we can have a productive meeting.”

Despite the fact that Gwen answered just about every e-mail within 20 to 30 minutes, she still hadn’t answered by Sunday night. All Andy could think about was the conversation he would have with Gwen the next day.

Andy had decided not to prejudge Gwen on Monday morning. Maybe she wanted to talk in person and did not want to put anything in writing over e-mail. However, that day Gwen ignored him despite his attempts to reach her via phone, e-mail, and stopping by her office. He kept trying to ping her on their internal system and would get no response. Finally, at 7:30 p.m. she called him on his cell phone.

All Gwen would address was the decision she’d made at the meeting; she would not talk about their relationship. Andy did not want her to think she was fixing the problem, so he decided to push a little harder. Even after using countless “I” statements and talking about her actions as not being aligned with her goals, Gwen would not hear anything. She kept saying, “This is clearly a miscommunication.” Andy mentioned specifics and asked that she respect his style of managing. But he was getting nowhere. She made the same hollow promises that she had made before, but Andy was convinced that nothing was going to change. Frustrated and seriously thinking of quitting, Andy hung up the phone.

His assumptions were right. Nothing changed. Gwen kept meeting with his reports, not including him in meetings, and reversing key decisions at the last moment.

What is going on here? Is the conclusion that Gwen is impossible and/or that the approaches that we have discussed don’t work? On the surface, it looks as if Andy has done everything that we suggested. He didn’t start off by demonizing her, but kept seeing her as a potential partner; he directly raised the issue in a nonaccusatory way; and he pointed to specific examples rather than talking in generalities. When that didn’t work, he wanted to talk about what might be problematic in how they were communicating. Aren’t these all things that we have suggested?

Even though it contains aspects of our influence model, Andy violates three critical components. Let’s review the steps in the model so we can link them with Andy’s actions:

• Seeing the other as a potential partner
• Assessing the boss’s power and the power gap
• Understanding the boss’s world and identifying possible currencies
• Clarifying your priorities
• Relating to your boss as he or she prefers
• Negotiating win-win exchanges

Andy completed the first and second steps well. However, he dropped the ball during the third step, as he made little effort to understand Gwen’s world. It wouldn’t have taken much detective work on his part to discover that this was a rotation assignment on her part. He was aware that she followed a very popular leader, which had to be challenging for her. Therefore, she probably wanted a lot of information and did not feel comfortable trusting others’ decisions.

Additional, Andy ran into some trouble clarifying his priorities (step four). It makes sense that he wants to be involved in decisions and not have them reversed at the last minute. But why was he so bothered that Gwen talked to his direct reports? She didn’t seem to be turning them against Andy in any way.

The main problem is the way Andy chose to relate to Gwen (step five). He approached her in ways with which he was comfortable—talking about their relationship. Though it is important not to engage in stereotypes, it isn’t wild speculation to say that neither the English nor accountants are known for feeling comfortable in these emotional domains. Andy should have quickly sensed this reluctance from her initial reactions.

Given these problems, it is little wonder that Andy was not successful in working out win-win exchanges.

Though this analysis might seem a bit harsh on Andy, the task is not to allocate responsibility on one or the other of them. Initiative remains with junior partners, and in spite of the obstacles that Andy faced, he could have significantly increased the probability of building a more effective relationship—even some semblance of a partnership.

One way that Andy failed to embrace a partnership mind-set was by defining his role as performing in his area only. He didn’t think that it was his responsibility to integrate Gwen in this job or to turn her into a better manager. Instead, his goal was only to find ways to get her to do what he wanted. He complained that Gwen wasn’t like Cathy—the perfect boss for him.

Second, Andy didn’t try to understand the pressures Gwen might have been under. This was a new job probably requiring different competencies than she had developed as a controller (and in a different country). That alone would be challenging, but to follow a great leader like Cathy could be daunting. It appears that Andy did nothing but negatively judge her—which did nothing to make her feel confident about how she was doing.

What could Andy have done differently? One would have to be somewhat insensitive not to recognize that Gwen probably felt highly vulnerable in her new position. He wouldn’t overtly have to say that—that might be too “touchy-feely” for somebody who lived by the “stiff upper lip” rule—but he could have realized her concern—and then shown it. He might have then seen her “micromanaging” not as compulsive, but as a result of feeling pressure to perform.

It also would have helped Andy to understand that numbers and facts were a key currency for Gwen. They made her feel surer of herself and were probably why she talked to his direct reports. When a boss wants data, you don’t want to withhold it out of a need for autonomy; rather, you should flood the boss as a way to trade for more freedom.

And why was the fact that Andy was excluded from meetings Gwen’s fault in his eyes? People change when it is in their best interest; did he talk to Gwen about how keeping him out might prevent her from gaining what she wanted? A partner orientation forces you to move beyond “what is best for me” to “what is best for us.”

Andy also could have been aware of Gwen’s problem-solving style, which appears to be silently collecting information, and not sharing her concerns. One approach would be to initiate preliminary meetings where he explicitly asks what concerns she has and what information she needs. Partners take the responsibility of working out alternative approaches rather than expecting the boss always to do things “right.”

Once Gwen knows that Andy is on her side, she might be willing to open up a bit. This would be especially likely if he could legitimize that discussion about gathering information by showing understanding. “It must have been tough taking on this assignment.” If Gwen were willing to specify her concerns, they could establish a more collegial relationship. The lack of personal connection won’t be so tough to swallow once Andy understands that the lack probably has nothing to do with him or with Gwen’s personality. Understanding the boss’s context unhooks you from making personal attributions too readily.

But What If I Have a Truly Toxic Boss?

Sometimes nothing works. There are some truly impossible bosses who cannot admit their own deficiencies, so mean that they do not care about the learning or satisfaction of their direct reports, so insecure that they try to take claim for what you do, or so incompetent that even if they are willing to be influenced, they are hopeless. If you are dealing with one of those, your best option may be to do what you have to in order to protect yourself as soon as possible. However, it’s always a good idea to do everything you can to discern whether that person is genuinely rotten, or just someone whose behavior appears that way—and who you can move with the proper approach. Toxicity was the assumption that Mary Quinn (Chapter 1) made until she screwed up her courage and confronted her boss directly and found that they could build a workable (although not close) relationship. Similarly, Matt Larson (Chapter 4) viewed his boss as “Dr. Death,” but ultimately discovered that he could work with and actually learn from her. This book has given you various options for discerning whether your boss is merely difficult or truly impossible. Whereas understanding their world can provide useful information, having open dialogue provides crucial firsthand evidence about whether a relationship is possible. It can be hard to engage in such a direct conversation; you don’t want to jeopardize any relationships if you depend completely on this job.

You can lessen this dependency, however, when you have options. It’s always wise to accumulate “walkaway money” so that you will not be afraid to act when you are stuck in a terrible situation. Do you have a strong network within the company where you could go for support or transfer—or any other kind of backup plan?

Keep in mind as well that bullies tend to bully when they know that they can get away with it. Knowing that your world will not end if this job does could actually provide the impetus you need to confront that individual. This was the situation that upper-middle manager Ned faced. He was hired by a major construction company to develop their market and was sent to Atlanta to grow their southeast area. As it turned out, the major challenge was not with the market, but with Bill, southeast regional director and Ned’s boss:

Bill doesn’t listen to our input, changes our decisions, and even gives orders to our direct reports. He flies down regularly from DC and gets deep into the details, but makes decisions without really knowing what we have planned. It takes days to straighten out the messes he causes.

When we raise our concerns, Bill goes ballistic and yells. He sees himself as the major dealmaker, when we are actually closer to the customer and see the opportunities. He thinks that he knows more than we do, and interferes with negotiations.

I am not sure what to do. I could leave; it wouldn’t be that hard for me to find another job. But I want to see if I can work this out.

Ned first collected some data. He made some informal inquiries with the internal contacts that he had made and discovered that Bill had a mixed performance record in this company. He had already alienated two of the other regional directors, who said that they would never work with him again. He was a good solo deal-maker, but he hadn’t been so successful in developing other areas.

Ned knew that he could develop the greater Atlanta region if Bill would only stop interfering. They were aligned around the same goals, even though they differed on means—which meant that the potential for partnership did exist. Furthermore, Ned was good at building horizontal (and diagonal) relationships, so perhaps he would be better at reaching out to other regions than Bill could. This analysis indicated that Bill needed Ned as much (if not more) than Ned needed Bill. Ned decided to send Bill the following memo:

Bill,

I want to follow up on our conversation from last week. I will schedule a few hours for us to have uninterrupted conversation during your visit next week. As you can probably tell, I am neither comfortable nor satisfied with how we are working together. I am sure that there are things that frustrate you about me, and I want to know what they are. We must explore this so that we can avoid counterproductive actions and results, and instead work to build momentum toward having a successful and collaborative operation. I will cite specific examples, because I know these are more helpful to you. While I hope that this e-mail doesn’t feel too solemn, I do hope it clearly conveys its serious nature. Thank you, ahead of time.

—Ned

The meeting was difficult and did not produce the turnaround that Ned had hoped. However, he was pleased with how he responded.

In hindsight, I am happy with how I was able to be direct, honest, and dispassionate. We kept it professional and focused on his behavior’s negative impact. Moreover, I took the feedback I asked for and received from Bill without becoming defensive. I let him know that I agreed with his assessment and wanted to work on it more. (He seemed to be a bit taken aback by my reactions.)

Bill responded defensively, denied that problems existed, or said that he was not inclined to change. Over the course of the two hours, I actually felt more and more comfortable as his actions provided perfect examples of his traits which are so counterproductive. The conversation confirmed that I simply do not think he has the ability, nor desire, to operate the division and establish a productive culture. I left with an odd feeling that I’m comfortable with the notion of leaving the company.

But before I do, I think it is my responsibility to take my concerns to his boss, the CEO. I do not know where that would lead, but I would be negligent in my role’s duties if I didn’t raise the red flag.

Ned then sent an e-mail to Mark, the company president, laying out his concerns about “the company’s ability to find success in the Southeast.” He said that he had discussed this with Bill, but felt that it went nowhere and was now asking for a face-to-face meeting with Mark.

I write to ask for time to confidentially speak with you. I need to convey the concerns I have regarding Bill as they have significant implications on our company’s ability to find success in the Southeast. I have brought my concerns to Bill’s attention numerous times. In doing so, I have worked to be direct, honest, and dispassionate; however, I have only seen defensiveness, inability to acknowledge the problems, and continued counterproductive behavior. After 5-plus months of this, I am disappointed to have no option left but to elevate this to your attention.

I suspect that Bill will not react well to my contacting you. As a result, I would suggest we have our discussion prior to your outreach to him. I do think it would be helpful for you to hear the impressions of others within this division, as I believe my concerns are shared and the problems are widespread.

I am willing to take a day off and fly myself up to New York to visit, as I suspect this may be best explored in person. I look forward to hearing from you.

—Ned

Five hours later, Ned’s phone rang; it was the CEO. “We had a 25-minute conversation where he asked me a series of concerned questions. I suggested that he also check with other managers so he didn’t have to rely only on my word. We agreed that I would fly up on Monday.”

The Monday meeting lasted more than an hour. I laid out all the issues and concluded by saying that I didn’t think we could scale our business in the way we all wanted. I actually said that I would not approve the pending business plan because I didn’t think we would be able to efficiently mitigate risk to warrant the seven-figure investment he would be making into my new territory. That honesty and willingness to speak against my own short-term interests seem to really have struck him.

Mark did a great job of listening, and asking questions that I felt were genuine and valid. When I went home, I e-mailed Bill: “In the interest of being totally transparent, I want to tell you that I met with the CEO and laid out my concerns.”

I don’t know what will happen—what Bill will do and what Mark will do—but I feel good about what I did. It was clean and aboveboard. I also think any of the outcomes will be good. Even if Bill fires me, I did my best and can get another job.

As we go to press, we still don’t know the eventual outcome, but Ned says he can live with any of the outcomes. He might have gotten through to Bill to make him more receptive to looking at his leadership style. Mark might transfer Bill, or Ned might leave. Ned concluded, “I can leave with my head high knowing that I did what I thought was best for the company and for the people in my department.”

Your Fallback Position

Sometimes, of course, you can’t take the steps that Ned did. Your only option might be to stick it out until your toxic boss leaves or external conditions change. However, there are still ways to protect yourself:

• Give your manager what he or she wants. Even though your desire to cooperate is at an all-time low, you’re more likely to survive if you do what your boss wants. Frame all conversations in terms of how what you are doing, not doing, or want to do will help the boss.
• Document. If you have a boss who “forgets” agreements or rewrites history, you should document agreements after a meeting. A follow-up e-mail saying, “I think this is what we agreed to” can clear up immediate confusion and be a useful reference on future disagreements.
• Be careful about being vulnerable. We have seen a few narcissistic but charismatic leaders who can turn it on and quite seductively charm disaffected subordinates—until the next time they revert back to their own self-centered behavior. Being seduced into openness and then getting slapped down causes a great deal of pain. You must always be on guard.
• Establish maximum distance from your boss. Another possibility is to work hard to find ways to get assigned to an area or project that requires little interaction with the boss. Negotiate the desired end product in terms of specific measurable objectives and a reporting timetable. Working this out ahead of time both protects you and decreases interactions.
• Depersonalize. Keep reminding yourself that in this case, it isn’t about you; a truly toxic person spreads poison indiscriminately, and in the long run, ends up swallowing it too. Be patient.
• Compensate or offset. Find a way to compensate for specific things that drive you crazy. Anticipate and work around, preemptively doing what is needed to create sufficient space.

None of this is pleasant, but remember—the only certainties in life are death and taxes. As bad as a situation may be, “this too shall pass.”

In the next section of the book, we extend the basic ideas about dealing with powerful people to influencing those more distant and inaccessible than your boss, such as senior executives in or out of your organization.