Most people have seen this one in action and can recognise it instantly. However, just for the record, the technique at the kind of reasonably senior level that might be the case here usually involves the boss referring to meetings or projects in the recent past at which both Boss and Superior were present, and reminiscing over highlights of the superior’s performance. Phrases like “I think you got them over a barrel when you said…”, “that decision, which I thought was rather risky actually, turned out fantastically well didn’t it?” and so on, are characteristic. Especially with men, a kind of chummy deference sets the tone.
Understand the relationship between your Boss and his/her Superior
Superiors (see previous posts) are often quite different when acting as immediate bosses instead of visiting nobility. Remember that your own boss...
- ...will not see them as a remote figure in the way that most others do
- ...is concerned about them as a boss in the same way that you are concerned about the actions of your own boss
- ...has evolved a strategy for dealing with them, which may well involve quite different behaviour from the behaviour displayed to you in “boss-mode”
The last is the key point, and so it is worth a brief discussion of survival styles available to a boss when working for each kind of Superior. A little observation when the opportunity presents itself (i.e. while you are being silent in the Superior’s presence) should quickly reveal your boss’s choice. We begin by classifying these boss-survival styles, and then consider which of them work which each kind of Superior. They are:
The next posts will look briefly at each in turn. Don't make a fool of yourself
The instruction “do not make a fool of yourself” appears obvious. Clearly, don’t make yourself look stupid. However there is a more subtle side to this. Only with the Hitler and the Krushchev is there any mileage in trying to make yourself look good.
With all other types, they will ignore/forget if you say something intelligent, but notice and maybe even remember if you say something foolish. Because of the potential difference in grade/perspective/age between you and them, what appears intelligent to you may well appear foolish in their eyes. It is very easy to chip in a pert remark in a meeting, only to find all eyes focussed on you while the Superior in question expresses an alternative view which makes your remark look extremely naïve.
Be extra careful with the Thatcher, who will follow up the foolishness, and with the Saddam who may well simply order your execution afterwards (or in corporate speak, become a block to your chances of promotion within the next decade or two).
This leads on to a related point. Superiors are unlikely to be directly involved in any discussions about your pay, grade or general opportunities. They do, however, tend to have to sign any changes off. And if you make a fool of yourself, they won’t; at the very least they will obstruct or delay it, and may well have the power to block your chances permanently. On the other hand, even if they remember anything positive you might have done in their presence, it is not going to lead to a corresponding “seems good, I think we should even give her another couple of thousand over and above the recommended figure” type of response. They are not involved in the evaluation, only in the yes/no decision at the end.
So, when the Superior is around:
- speak when spoken to
- be brief, and stick to the party line
- do not try to stand out
- be seen and not heard
- and above all, don't end up looking a fool... unless you have a cunning plan
- and above all, don't end up looking a fool... unless you have a cunning plan
Goto: Next Section
Superiors: The Thatcher
Usually, but not always female. The Thatcher is focussed on an image of themselves as a “leader”. Their self-image varies, but often it will include needing to appear tough, decisive, in-charge. Points to note:
a) if you express an opinion, or agree to do something, the Thatcher will follow it up. He or she may well bypass the normal chain of command in doing so, so the protection which might normally be offered by your Boss is limited. Do not make the mistake, therefore, of saying or agreeing to do something which you know your boss would be unhappy about.
b) the Thatcher offers the best chance for you to employ the “getting rid of your boss” high-risk strategy described in another post. Thatchers do not tolerate fools. Of course this means if you get it wrong, the axe will fall even harder on your own head
c) appearing tough and decisive requires that you maintain a firm line and stick to it. This usually means delaying selecting this line until the last possible minute, so that it has the best chance of being correct and not being overtaken by events. A genuine Thatcher quote: “one thing I’ve learned [in politics]. Never take a decision until you have to.” Be very careful not to find yourself in the wrong camp when this happens. The besr way to do this is to avoid expressing any meaningful opinion if at all possible. Delegate expressing opinions up to your Boss.
a) if you express an opinion, or agree to do something, the Thatcher will follow it up. He or she may well bypass the normal chain of command in doing so, so the protection which might normally be offered by your Boss is limited. Do not make the mistake, therefore, of saying or agreeing to do something which you know your boss would be unhappy about.
b) the Thatcher offers the best chance for you to employ the “getting rid of your boss” high-risk strategy described in another post. Thatchers do not tolerate fools. Of course this means if you get it wrong, the axe will fall even harder on your own head
c) appearing tough and decisive requires that you maintain a firm line and stick to it. This usually means delaying selecting this line until the last possible minute, so that it has the best chance of being correct and not being overtaken by events. A genuine Thatcher quote: “one thing I’ve learned [in politics]. Never take a decision until you have to.” Be very careful not to find yourself in the wrong camp when this happens. The besr way to do this is to avoid expressing any meaningful opinion if at all possible. Delegate expressing opinions up to your Boss.
Superiors: The Kennedy
Almost always male, charismatic and charming, the Kennedy has climbed the career ladder motivated primarily by the hope that power really is an aphrodisiac. Concerned always to appear caring and interested, but actually cares and is interested only in himself. Points to note:
a) do not be taken in. Coming into contact with a Kennedy will tend to be a positive experience. They are skilled at making you feel valued, and many are charismatic enough so that simply having their attention is in some way a fulfilling experience, and when their attention moves on it leaves a kind of void. Remember that this is entirely transient and their interest ceases the moment they move on to smile at someone else.
b) The Kennedy will have its own circle of people to whom it actually listens. You are not in it. Your opinion will not count. So don't express it. See "not making a fool of yourself".
a) do not be taken in. Coming into contact with a Kennedy will tend to be a positive experience. They are skilled at making you feel valued, and many are charismatic enough so that simply having their attention is in some way a fulfilling experience, and when their attention moves on it leaves a kind of void. Remember that this is entirely transient and their interest ceases the moment they move on to smile at someone else.
b) The Kennedy will have its own circle of people to whom it actually listens. You are not in it. Your opinion will not count. So don't express it. See "not making a fool of yourself".
Superiors: The Saddam
An outstanding organiser, the Saddam has a clear agenda. This agenda consists of two items at all times: “Point 1: the Saddam; Point 2: Any Other Business”. You are either for the Saddam or against. If you are against, you should leave now. If you are for, your role will be clearly defined and you should not try to step outside it. Points to note:
a) the Saddam frequently checks loyalty. Make sure you are. Consider if your Boss is. Can you influence this? Remember that if your boss is not, you may be guilty by association. Or you might get their job. A dilemma.
b) do not step outside your allotted place. If you are privately against the Saddam, keep this well hidden, and bide your time. Toe the party line, spout the party policy in public
c) a standard Saddam practice is to ensure that his/her immediate reports are completely bound into the Saddam’s agenda (in the historical case in Iraq, by getting each of them to shoot a “traitor” or two). Find out how the Saddam has bound in your own boss. It will normally involve some sort of rule or convention breaking (e.g. a “local” expenses policy). The information is useless now, but if the Saddam is replaced later, it will certainly come in handy.
a) the Saddam frequently checks loyalty. Make sure you are. Consider if your Boss is. Can you influence this? Remember that if your boss is not, you may be guilty by association. Or you might get their job. A dilemma.
b) do not step outside your allotted place. If you are privately against the Saddam, keep this well hidden, and bide your time. Toe the party line, spout the party policy in public
c) a standard Saddam practice is to ensure that his/her immediate reports are completely bound into the Saddam’s agenda (in the historical case in Iraq, by getting each of them to shoot a “traitor” or two). Find out how the Saddam has bound in your own boss. It will normally involve some sort of rule or convention breaking (e.g. a “local” expenses policy). The information is useless now, but if the Saddam is replaced later, it will certainly come in handy.
Superiors: The Kruschev
The Krushchev is a victim of the Peter Principle. He/she has indeed risen to his/her level of incompetence. Over-promoted and therefore probably personally insecure. Capricious in the extreme. Points to note:
a) the Krushchev will have pet areas of interest. If your specialism is one of these, you may have the opportunity to shine, but equally you may have the opportunity to inadvertently contradict this superior’s (usually outdated, because the knowledge was acquired twenty years earlier in their career) specialist knowledge. If this happens, you will be marked down as a fool, and this will probably not be forgotten.
b) the Krushchev is often bad at delegating responsibility. Your own Boss may therefore be in a position of almost total freedom to pursue their own agenda. This might or might not be a bad thing: you need to evaluate how far this might take you out of the mainstream of the company. If the agenda is particularly independent or bizarre, you could find yourself allocated to a kind of internal Siberia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)