Managing up

The resourceful use of higher authority

One of the hardest tasks a person can face is managing ‘up’ the chain of command. Few things are more revealing than how a person does this. In that sense, perhaps, this article is the most personal of the reflections set out in this series of articles.

The natural tendency of a chain of command is a downward flow. Yes, information goes up, but management comes down. Higher authority directs and uses its subordinate resources to execute its will. Subordinate levels have information and power, but it is often narrower in scope, more short-sighted in perspective, and more technical and siloed in content than that held by higher authority.

This asymmetry of information is self-reinforcing. Higher authority sits astride the individual information flows and is able to knit them together to create context and an overview – intelligence – that subordinate levels must, can only, secure from their senior leaders.

This intelligence – what the goal is, in which direction effort should go and at what pace, how to integrate and align with the actions of other business units – is essential for subordinate units intending to be productive and useful. Consequently, it is imperative that people manage up, make resourceful use of higher authority, to ensure the success of their own endeavours.

Managing up is not just about getting intelligence. It is also about ensuring higher leadership is able and active in focusing on its role as creators and providers of that intelligence. They cannot do this if they must constantly undertake or intervene in the work of their subordinates. Responsibilities multiply and extend as one moves up the chain of command. Time, even when able to be focused on role, is scarce. Consequently, it is imperative that subordinates master their own roles and responsibilities and be open to extending themselves further.

Thus, the first step in managing up is to show higher management you are in sufficient command of your own duties, such that you can make productive use of their insight and time, to their benefit.

The resourceful use of purpose

Everyone has someone above them. Not only does that mean that everyone has a ‘boss’, but that everyone’s boss has a boss.

When managing up, it helps a lot if you understand who and what is driving your boss. The old saying is, your job is to make your boss look good. However, this needs to be both in their eyes, and in the eyes of their boss. If you go into the effort of managing up with the intent of securing what you want, you have missed the point. When managing up, it is not about you, it is about them.

There are three issues that can emerge among senior leaders that are fatal to their subordinate’s success. One is a lack of vision. Another is a lack of competence. The third is a lack of alignment between your boss and their boss.

It is incredibly difficult to compensate for a profound lack of vision or competence amongst more senior leaders. Addressing this, which while rare is still known to occur, could be a topic in its own right. Suffice it to say that it takes a lot of skill in managing up, but sometimes might be better responded to by leaving.

Misalignment is no picnic either, and is quite a lot more common. The twin temptations are to try and play both ends against the middle and use the discord to earn some freedom of movement, or to ‘court the favour of the king’ by aligning to your boss’ boss. Both are easy paths, but ultimately destructive of coordination and trust.

Contrary to what is implied by the words ‘managing up’, often the best course of action is, not to do nothing, but to listen and to ask questions. In particular, to listen to both bosses, but direct your questions to your immediate boss. The idea is to present as someone seeking clarity – which you are – with the secondary motive of presenting alternative views to your boss, via questions, and prompting reflection that might help reveal and bridge any gap between your boss’ perspective and that of their boss. Unsolicited advice often falls on sterile ground, especially when one presumes to offer it from below. Questions – exposing your own vulnerability with the genuine intent of seeking your boss’ advice – creates the positive end result but in a sensitive and role appropriate way.

Thus the second step in managing up is looking beyond yourself and putting the needs of the mission and organisation first.

The resourceful use of courage  

Militaries have long recognised that the people you need to manage the institution in peacetime are different to ones you need to lead it in war. The processes of adapting to war and then back to peace are brutally Darwinian.

The civil service has no such conception, in large part because it is an institution that has evolved in a situation of constant ‘war’. The job is always there, there are always the demands of core business to attend to. But even without the concept, the civil service must deal with the reality that it needs both its leaders and its administrators, because it must fight the war and steward the institution at the same time. It does this through a filtering process that is no less Darwinian for all that it seems largely unconscious.

That being said, the administrators dominate. In consequence, technical ability will get you so far up the ranks. Beyond a certain point, political ability with ambition are what get you over the line and into the higher reaches of authority. Without that political ability, and without the support of a network of patrons, it is rare to progress solely on technical ability. With ability and support, you can move quickly, rarely dwelling too long among the technical ranks.

When it comes to managing up, the higher up your principal, the more you need to be aware that you are dealing with an expert at ‘the game’. Whether driven by insecurity or ego, they have climbed over others to get to where they are now. What they didn’t learn themselves on the way up, they don’t know the value of, and may not value at all. You are just one more piece on their board, and a disposable one at that. Thus, it is important to observe your principal and discern, so far as you can, their blind spots, what drove them up the ranks, and what motivates them now they are where they are. It may be that in managing up you will need them to temper or even act against their core motives: this is a big ask and not one to demand by accident or through ignorance. It may be you will need them to accept new knowledge and different choices: this is no small ask either.

When you can, it is best to work with their own knowledge, motives and personal energy. But if the mission is at risk, then standing up to and in the way of a bad decision, trying to get your principal to act differently to their instincts, is necessary. Have your facts straight, understand and present the risks of not changing tack, and be bold.

Thus the third step in managing up is being prepared to sacrifice.

Straight shooting  

Apparently, people from anywhere in the world outside New Zealand would expect a lot more advice about being direct. And being direct has its place, even in New Zealand. Information needs to be given when asked for or demanded by the situation.

Offering opinion and advice should not be too different, but it is. Everywhere in the world there is some expectation that you will have earned your right to straight shoot, and will use it with judgement, discretion and moderation.

Managing up requires your boss knowing you respect them, back them, and can be trusted to bring value to their table. The three steps outlined above are the tools for creating the conditions so that, when the time comes to go head-on, you go in with form.