MANAGING YOUR BOSS (John J Gabarro)

» MANAGING YOURSELF

1980

BEST OF HBR

A quarter-century ago, John Gabarro and John Kotter introduced a powerfulnew lens through which to view the manager-boss relationship: one thatrecognized the mutual dependence of the participants.

The fact is, bosses need cooperation, reliabiiity, and honesty from theirdirect reports. Managers, for their part, rely on bosses for making connec-tions with the rest ofthe company, for setting priorities, and for obtainingcritical resources. If the relationship between you and your boss is rocky, thenit is you who must begin to manage It. When you take the time to cultivatea productive working re!atlonship-by understanding your boss's strengthsand weaknesses, priorities, and work style-everyone wins.

In the 25 years since It was published, this article has truly improved thepractice of management. Its simple yet powerful advice has changed the waypeople work, enhanced countless manager-boss relationships, and improvedthe performance of corporations in ways that show up on the bottom line.Over the years, it has become a staple at business schools and corporatetraining programs worldwide.

Managing Your BossbyJohnJ.Gabarro and John P. Kotter

ifyou forge ties with

your boss based

on mutual respect

and understanding,

both of you will

be more effective.

| o many people, the phrase "man-a ^ g your boss" may sound unusual orsuspicious. Because of the traditionaltop-down emphasis in most organiza-tions, it is not obvious why you need tomanage relationships upward-unless,of course, you would do so for personalor political reasons. But we are not re-ferring to political maneuvering or toapple polishing. We are using the termto mean the process of consciously work-ing with your superior to obtain the bestpossible results for you, your boss, andthe company.

Recent studies suggest that effectivemanagers take time and effort to man-age not only relationships with theirsubordinates but also those with their

bosses. These studies also show that thisessential aspect of management is some-times ignored by otherwise talentedand aggressive managers. Indeed, somemanagers who actively and effectivelysupervise subordinates, products, mar-kets, and technoiogies assume an almostpassively reactive stance vis-i-vis theirbosses. Such a stance almost always hurtsthem and their companies.

If you doubt the importance of man-aging your relationship with your bossor how difficult it is to do so effectively,consider for a moment the followingsad but telling story:

Frank Gibbons was an acknowledgedmanufacturing genius in his industryand, by any profitability standard, a very

92 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW


effective executive. In 1973. his strengthspropelled him into the position of vicepresident of manufacturing for the sec-ond largest and most profitable com-pany in its industry. Gibbons was not,however, a good manager of people. Heknew this, as did others in his companyand his industry. Recognizing this weak-ness, the president made sure that thosewho reported to Gibbons were good atworking with people and could com-pensate for his limitations. The arrange-ment worked well.

In 1975, Philip Bonnevie was pro-moted into a position reporting to Gib-bons. In keeping with the previous pat-tern, the president selected Bonnevie

carefully-a whole series of misunder-standings and bad feelings developedbetween Gibbons and Bonnevie.

For example, Bonnevie claims Gib-bons was aware of and had acceptedBonnevie's decision to use a new typeof machinery to make the new prod-uct; Gibbons swears he did not. Fur-thermore, Gibbons claims he made itclear to Bonnevie that the introductionofthe product was too important to thecompany in the short run to take anymajor risks.

As a result of such misunderstand-ings, planning went awry: A new manu-facturing plant was built that could notproduce the new product designed by

At a minimum, you need to appreciate your boss'sgoals and pressures. Without this information,you are flying blind, and problems are inevitable.

because he had an excellent track recordand a reputation for being good withpeople. In making that selection, how-ever, the president neglected to noticethat, in his rapid rise through the orga-nization, Bonnevie had always had good-to-exce!lent bosses. He had never beenforced to manage a relationship with adifficult boss. In retrospect, Bonnevieadmits he had never thought that man-aging his boss was a part of his job.

Fourteen months after he startedworking for Gibbons, Bonnevie wasfired. During that same quarter, thecompany reported a net loss for the firsttime in seven years. Many of those whowere close to these events say that theydon't really understand what happened.This much is known, however: Whilethe company was bringing out a majornew product - a process that requiredsales, engineering, and manufacturinggroups to coordinate decisions very

John J. Gabarro is the UPS FoundationProfessor of Human Resource Manage-ment at Harvard Business School in Bos-ton. Now retired, John P. Kotter was theKonosuke Matsushita Professor of Lead-ership at Harvard Business School.

engineering, in the volume desired bysales, at a cost agreed on by the execu-tive committee. Gibbons blamed Bon-nevie for the mistake. Bonnevie blamedGibbons.

Of course, one could argue that theproblem here was caused by Gibbons'sinability to manage his subordinates.But one can make just as strong a casethat the problem was related to Bon-nevie's inability to manage his boss.Remember, Gibbons was not havingdifficulty with any other subordinates.Moreover, given the personal price paidby Bonnevie (being fired and having hisreputation within the industry severelytarnished), there was little consolationin sayingthe problem was that Gibbonswas poor at managing subordinates.Everyone already knew that.

We believe that the situation couldhave turned out differently had Bon-nevie been more adept at understand-ing Gibbons and at managing his re-lationship with him. In this case, aninability to manage upward was unusu-ally costly. The company lost $2 millionto $5 million, and Bonnevie's career was,at least temporarily, disrupted. Manyless costly cases similar to this probably

occur regularly in all major corpora-tions, and the cumulative effect can bevery destructive.

Misreading theBoss-SubordinateRelationshipPeople often dismiss stories like the onewe just related as being merely cases ofpersonality conflict. Because two peo-ple can on occasion be psychologicallyor temperamentally incapable of work-ing together, this can be an apt descrip-tion. But more often, we have found, apersonality conflict is only a part oftheproblem - sometimes a very small part.

Bonnevie did not just have a differentpersonality from Gibbons, he also madeor had unrealistic assumptions and ex-pectations about the very nature ofboss-subordinate relationships. Specifi-cally, he did not recognize that his rela-tionship to Gibbons involved mutual de-pendence between two fallible humanbeings. Failing to recognize this, a man-ager typically either avoids trying tomanage his or her relationship with aboss or manages it ineffectively.

Some people behave as if their bosseswere not very dependent on them. Theyfail to see how much the boss needstheir help and cooperation to do his orher job effectively. These people refuseto acknowledge that the boss can be se-verely hurt by their actions and needscooperation, dependability, and honestyfrom them.

Some people see themselves as notvery dependent on their bosses. Theygloss over how much help and informa-tion they need from the boss in order toperform their own jobs well. This su-perficial view is particularly damagingwhen a manager's job and decisionsaffect other parts of the organization,as was the case in Bonnevie's situation.A manager's immediate boss can playa critical role in linking the managerto the rest ofthe organization, makingsure the manager's priorities are consis-tent with organizational needs, and insecuring the resources the managerneeds to perform well. Yet some man-agers need to see themselves as practi-cally self-sufficient, as not needing the


Managing Your Boss • BEST OF HBR

critical information and resources a bosscan supply.

Many managers, like Bonnevie, as-sume that the boss will magically knowwhat information or help their subordi-nates need and provide it to them. Cer-tainly, some bosses do an excellent jobof caring for their subordinates in thisway, but for a manager to expect thatfrom all bosses is dangerously unrealis-tic. A more reasonable expectation formanagers to have is that modest helpwill be forthcoming. After all, bosses areonly human. Most really effective man-agers accept this fact and assume pri-mary responsibility for their own ca-reers and deveiopment. They make apoint of seeking the information andhelp they need to do a job instead ofwaiting for their bosses to provide it.

In light ofthe foregoing, it seems tous that managing a situation of mutualdependence among fallible human be-ings requires the following:

1. You have a good understanding ofthe other person and yourself, especiallyregarding strengths, weaknesses, workstyles, and needs.

2. You use this infonnation to developand manage a healthy working rela-tionship-one that is compatible withboth people's work styles and assets, ischaracterized by mutual expectations,and meets the most critical needs oftheother person.

This combination is essentially whatwe have found highly effective manag-ers doing.

Understanding the BossManaging your boss requires that yougain an understanding ofthe boss and hisor her context, as well as your own situ-ation. All managers do this to some de-gree, but many are not thorough enough.

At a minimum, you need to appreci-ate your boss's goals and pressures, hisor her strengths and weaknesses. Whatare your boss's organizational and per-sonal objectives, and what are his or herpressures, especially those from his orher own boss and others at the samelevel? What are your boss's long suitsand blind spots? What is the preferredstyle of working? Does your boss like to

get infonnation through memos, fonnalmeetings, or phone calls? Does he or shethrive on conflict or try to minimize it?Without this information, a manager isflying blind when dealing with the boss,and unnecessary confiicts, misunder-standings, and problems are inevitable.

In one situation we studied, a top-notch marketing manager with a su-perior performance record was hiredinto a company as a vice president "tostraighten out the marketing and salesproblems." The company, which washaving financial difficulties, had re-cently been acquired by a larger corpo-ration. The president was eager to turnit around and gave the new marketing

vice president free rein-at least initially.Based on his previous experience, thenew vice president correctly diagnosedthat greater market share was neededfor the company and that strong prod-uct management was required to bringthat about. Following that logic, he madea number of pricing decisions aimed atincreasing high-volume business.

When margins declined and the fi-nancial situation did not improve, how-ever, the president increased pressureon the new vice president. Believingthat the situation would eventually cor-rect itself as the company gained backmarket share, the vice president resistedthe pressure.

[ANLIARY 2005


When by the second quarter, marginsand profits had still failed to improve,the president took direct control over allpricing decisions and put all items ona set level of margin, regardless of vol-ume. The new vice president began tofind himself shut out by the president,and their relationship deteriorated. Infact, the vice president found the presi-dent's behavior bizarre. Unfortunately,the president's new pricing scheme alsofailed to increase margins, and by thefourth quarter, both the president andthe vice president were fired.

What the new vice president had notknown until it was too late was that im-proving marketing and sales had beenonly one ofthe president's goals. Hismost immediate goal had been to makethe company more profitable-quickly.

Nor had the new vice presidentknown that his boss was invested in thisshort-term priority for personal as wellas business reasons. The president hadbeen a strong advocate of the acquisi-tion within the parent company, and hispersonal credibility was at stake.

The vice president made three basicerrors. He took information supplied tohim at face value, he made assumptionsin areas where he had no information,and - what was most damaging - henever actively tried to clarify what hisboss's objectives were. As a result, heended up taking actions that were actu-ally at odds with the president's priori-ties and objectives.

Managers who work effectively withtheir bosses do not behave this way.They seek out information about theboss's goals and problems and pres-sures. They are alert for opportunitiesto question the boss and others aroundhim or her to test their assumptions.They pay attention to clues in the boss'sbehavior. Although it is imperative thatthey do this especially when they beginworking with a new boss, effective man-agers aiso do this on an ongoing basisbecause they recognize that prioritiesand concerns change.

Being sensitive to a boss's work stylecan be crucial, especially when the bossis new. For example, a new presidentwho was organized and formal in his

approach replaced a man who was in-formal and intuitive.The new presidentworked best when he had written re-ports. He also preferred formal meet-ings with set agendas.

One of his division managers realizedthis need and worked with the new pres-ident to identify the kinds and fre-quency of information and reports thatthe president wanted. This manageralso made a point of sending back-ground information and brief agendasahead of time for their discussions. Hefound that with this type of prepara-tion their meetings were very useful.Another interesting result was, he foundthat with adequate preparation his new

boss was even more effective at brain-storming problems than his more infor-mal and intuitive predecessor had been.

In contrast, another division managernever fully understood how the newboss's work style differed from that ofhis predecessor. To the degree that hedid sense it, he experienced it as toomuch control. As a result, he seldomsent the new president the backgroundinformation he needed, and the presi-dent never felt fully prepared for meet-ings with the manager. In fact, the pres-ident spent much ofthe time when theymet trying to get infonnation that hefelt he should have had earlier. Theboss experienced these meetings as frus-

trating and inefficient, and the subordi-nate often found himself thrown offguard by the questions that the presidentasked. Ultimately, this division managerresigned.

The difference between the two divi-sion managers just described was notso much one of ability or even adapt-ability. Rather, one ofthe men was moresensitive to his boss's work style and tothe implications of his boss's needs thanthe other was.

Understanding YourselfThe boss is only one-half of the rela-tionship. You are the other half, as wellas the part over which you have moredirect control. Developing an effectiveworking relationship requires, then, thatyou know your own needs, strengthsand weaknesses, and personal style.

You are not going to change eitheryour basic personality structure or thatof your boss. But you can become awareof what it is about you that impedes orfacilitates working with your boss and,with that awareness, take actions thatmake the relationship more effective.

For example, in one case we observed,a manager and his superior ran intoproblems whenever they disagreed. Theboss's typical response was to hardenhis position and overstate it. The man-ager's reaction was then to raise theante and intensify the forcefulness of hisargument. In doing this, he channeledhis anger into sharpening his attacks onthe logical fallacies he saw in his boss'sassumptions. His boss in tum would be-come even more adamant about holdinghis original position. Predictably, thisescalating cycle resulted in the subordi-nate avoiding whenever possible anytopic of potential conflict with his boss.

In discussing this problem with hispeers, the manager discovered that hisreaction to the boss was typical of howhe generally reacted to counterargu-ments - but with a difference. His re-sponse would overwhelm his peers butnot his boss. Because his attempts to dis-cuss this problem with his boss were un-successful, he concluded that the onlyway to change the situation was to dealwith his own instinctive reactions. When-



ever the two reached an impasse, hewould check his own impatience and sug-gest that they break up and think aboutit before getting together again. Usual lywhen they renewed their discussion,they had digested their differences andwere more able to work them through.

Gaining this level of self-awarenessand acting on it are difficult but not im-possible. For example, by reflecting overhis past experiences, a young managerlearned that he was not very good atdealing with difficult and emotional is-sues where people were involved. Be-cause he disliked those issues and real-ized that his instinctive responses tothem were seldom very good, he devel-oped a habit of touching base with hisboss whenever such a problem arose.Their discussions always surfaced ideasand approaches the manager had notconsidered. In many cases, they alsoidentified specific actions the boss couldtake to heip.

Although a superior-subordinate re-lationship is one of mutual dependence,it is aiso one in which the subordinate istypically more dependent on the bossthan the other way around. This depen-dence inevitably results in the subordi-nate feeling a certain degree of frustra-tion, sometimes anger, when his actionsor options are constrained by his boss'sdecisions. This is a normal part of lifeand occurs in the best of relationships.The way in which a manager handlesthese frustrations largely depends on hisor her predisposition toward depen-dence on authority figures.

Some people's instinctive reactionunder these circumstances is to resentthe boss's authority and to rebel againstthe boss's decisions. Sometimes a per-son will escalate a conflict beyond whatis appropriate. Seeing the boss almostas an institutional enemy, this type ofmanager wiil often, without being con-scious of it, fight with the boss just forthe sake of fighting. The subordinate'sreactions to being constrained are usu-ally strong and sometimes impulsive.He or she sees the boss as someone who,by virtue of the role, is a hindrance toprogress, an obstacle to be circumventedor at best tolerated.

Psychologists call this pattern of re-actions counterdependent behavior. Al-though a counterdependent person isdifficult for most superiors to manageand usually has a history of strained re-lationships with superiors, this sort ofmanager is apt to have even more trou-ble with a boss who tends to be directiveor authoritarian. When the manageracts on his or her negative feelings,often in subtle and nonverbal ways, theboss sometimes does become the enemy.

views ignore that bosses, like everyoneelse, are imperfect and fallible. Theydon't have unlimited time, encyclope-dic knowledge, or extrasensory percep-tion; nor are they evil enemies. Theyhave their own pressures and concernsthat are sometimes at odds with thewishes of the subordinate - and oftenfor good reason.

Altering predispositions toward au-thority, especially at the extremes, isalmost impossible without intensive

Bosses, like everyone else, are imperfect andfallible.They don't have unlimited time,encyclopedic knowledge, or extrasensoryperception; nor are they evil enemies.

Sensing the subordinate's latent hostil-ity, the boss witl lose trust in the subor-dinate or his or her judgment and thenbehave even less openly.

Paradoxically, a manager with thistype of predisposition is often a goodmanager of his or her own people. He orshe will many times go out ofthe wayto get support for them and will nothesitate to go to bat for them.

At the other extreme are managerswho swallow their anger and behave ina very compliant fashion when the bossmakes what they know to be a poor de-cision. These managers will agree withthe boss even when a disagreementmight be welcome or when the bosswould easily alter a decision if givenmore information. Because they bear norelationship to the specific situation athand, their responses are as much anoverreaction as those of counterdepen-dent managers. Instead of seeing theboss as an enemy, these people denytheir anger-the other extreme - andtend to see the boss as if he or she werean all-wise parent who should knowbest, should take responsibility for theircareers, train them in all they need toknow, and protect them from overlyambitious peers.

Both counterdependence and over-dependence lead managers to hold un-realistic views of what a boss is. Both

psychotherapy (psychoanalytic theoryand research suggest that such predis-positions are deeply rooted in a person'spersonality and upbringing). However,an awareness of these extremes and therange between them can be very usefulin understanding where your own pre-dispositions fall and what the implica-tions are for how you tend to behave inrelation to your boss.

Ifyou believe, on the one hand, thatyou have some tendencies toward coun-terdependence, you can understand andeven predict what your reactions andoverreactions are likely to be. If, on theother hand, you believe you have sometendencies toward overdependence, youmight question the extent to which yourovercompliance or inability to confrontreal differences may be making bothyou and your boss less effective.

Developing and Managingthe Relationshipwith a clear understanding of both yourboss and yourself, you can usually es-tablish a way of working together thatfits both of you, that is characterizedby unambiguous mutual expectations,and that helps you both be more pro-ductive and effective. The "Checklist forManaging Your Boss"summarizes somethings such a relationship consists of.Following are a few more.

JANUARY 2005 97


Compatible Work Styles. Above allelse, a good working relationship witha boss accommodates differences inwork style. For example, in one situa-tion we studied, a manager (who had arelatively good relationship with hissuperior) realized that during meetingshis boss would often become inatten-tive and sometimes brusque. The sub-ordinate's own style tended to be dis-cursive and exploratory. He would oftendigress from the topic at hand to dealwith background factors, alternativeapproaches, and so forth. His boss pre-ferred to discuss problems with a mini-mum of background detail and becameimpatient and distracted whenever hissubordinate digressed from the imme-diate issue.

Recognizing this difference in style,the manager became terser and moredirect during meetings with his boss. Tohelp himself do this, before meetings,he would develop brief agendas that heused as a guide. Whenever he felt thata digression was needed, he explainedwhy. This small shift in his own stylemade these meetings more effectiveand far less frustrating for both of them.

Subordinates can adjust their stylesin response to their bosses' preferredmethod for receiving infonnation. PeterDrucker divides bosses into "listeners"and "readers." Some bosses like to get in-formation in report form so they canread and study it. Others work betterwith information and reports presentedin person so they can ask questions. AsDrucker points out, the implications areobvious. If your boss is a listener, youbrief him or her in person, then follow itup with a memo. If your boss is a reader,you cover important items or proposalsin a memo or report, then discuss them.

Other adjustments can be made ac-cordingto a boss's decision-making style.Some bosses prefer to be involved indecisions and problems as they arise.These are high-involvement managerswho like to keep their hands on thepulse of the operation. Usually theirneeds (and your own) are best satisfiedif you touch base with them on an adhoc basis. A boss who has a need to beinvolved wili become involved one way

or another, so there are advantages toincluding him or her at your initiative.Other bosses prefer to delegate - theydon't want to be involved. They expectyou to come to them with major prob-lems and inform them about any im-portant changes.

his boss would review with him any pro-posed changes in personnel or assign-ment policies before taking action. Theboss valued his advice and credited hissubordinate for improving both the per-formance ofthe division and the labor-management climate.

Mutual Expectations. The subordi-nate who passively assumes that he orshe knows what the boss expects is infor trouble. Of course, some superiorswill spell out their expectations veryexplicitly and in great detail. But mostdo not. And although many corpora-tions have systems that provide a basisfor communicating expectations (suchas formal planning processes, careerplanning reviews, and performance ap-praisal reviews), these systems neverwork perfectly. Also, between theseformal reviews, expectations invariablychange.

Ultimately, the burden falls on thesubordinate to find out what the boss'sexpectations are. They can be both broad(such as what kinds of problems the boss

Some superiors spell out their expectations veryexplicitly. But most do not. Ultimately, the burdenfalls on the subordinate to find out what the boss'sexpectations are.

Creating a compatible relationshipalso involves drawing on each other'sstrengths and making up for eachother's weaknesses. Because he knewthat the boss-the vice president of en-gineering- was not very good at moni-toring his employees' problems, onemanager we studied made a point ofdoing it himself. The stakes were high:The engineers and technicians were allunion members, the company workedon a customer-contract basis, and thecompany had recently experienced aserious strike.

The manager worked closely with hisboss, along with people in the schedul-ing department and the personnel of-fice, to make sure that potential prob-lems were avoided. He also developedan informal arrangement through which

wishes to be informed about and when)as well as very specific (such things aswhen a particular project should becompleted and what kinds of informa-tion the boss needs in the interim).

Getting a boss who tends to be vagueor not explicit to express expectationscan be difficult. But effective managersfind ways to get that information. Somewill draft a detailed memo covering keyaspects of their work and then send itto their boss for approval. They thenfollow this up with a face-to-face dis-cussion in which they go over each itemin the memo. A discussion like this willoften surface virtually all ofthe boss'sexpectations.

Other effective managers will dealwith an inexplicit boss by initiating anongoing series of informal discussions



about "good management" and "ourobiectives," Still others find useful in-formation more indirectly throughthose who used to work for the boss andthrough the formai planning systemsin which the boss makes commitmentsto his or her own superior. Which ap-proach you choose, of course, shoulddepend on your understanding of yourboss's style.

Developing a workable set of mutualexpectations also requires that youcommunicate your own expectations tothe boss, find out if they are realistic,and infiuence the boss to accept theones that are important to you. Beingable to infiuence the boss to value yourexpectations can be particularly im-portant if the boss is an overachiever.Such a boss will often set unrealisticallyhigh standards that need to be broughtinto line with reality.

A Flov« of Information. How muchinformation a boss needs about what asubordinate is doing will vary signifi-cantly depending on the boss's style, thesituation he or she is in, and the confi-dence the boss has in the subordinate.But it is not uncommon for a boss toneed more information than the subor-dinate would naturally supply or for thesubordinate to think the boss knowsmore than he or she really does. Effec-tive managers recognize that they prob-ably underestimate what their bossesneed to know and make sure they findways to keep them informed throughprocesses that fit their styles.

Managingthe fiow of infonnation up-ward is particularly difficult if the bossdoes not like to hear about problems.Although many people would deny it,bosses often give off signals that theywant to hear only good news. They showgreat displeasure-usually nonverbally-when someone tells them about a prob-lem. Ignoring individual achievement,they may even evaluate more favorablysubordinates who do not bring prob-lems to them.

Nevertheless, for the good of the or-ganization, the boss, and the subordi-nate, a superior needs to hear aboutfailures as well as successes. Some sub-ordinates deai with a good-news-oniy

boss by finding indirect ways to get thenecessary information to him or her,such as a management information sys-tem. Others see to it that potential prob-lems, whether in the form of good sur-prises or bad news, are communicatedimmediately.

Dependability and Honesty. Fewthings are more disabling to a boss thana subordinate on whom he cannot de-pend, whose work he cannot trust. Al-most no one is intentionally unde-pendable, but many managers areinadvertently so because of oversight oruncertainty about the boss's priorities.A commitment to an optimistic deliv-ery date may please a superior in theshort term but become a source of dis-pleasure if not honored. It's difficult fora boss to rely on a subordinate who re-peatedly slips deadlines. As one presi-dent (describing a subordinate) put it:"I'd rather he be more consistent even ifhe delivered fewer peak successes - atleast I could rely on him."

Checklist for ManagingYour BossMake sure you understand your bossand hisor her context, including:

• Coals and objectives

• Pressures

• Strengths, weaknesses, blind spots

Q Preferred work style

Assess yourself and your needs,including:

Q Strengths and weaknesses

Q Personal style

• Predisposition toward dependenceon authority figures

Develop and maintaina relationship that

• Fits both your needs and styles

• Is characterized by mutualexpectations

Q Keeps your boss informed

• Is based on dependabilityand honesty

• Selectively uses your boss's timeand resources

Nor are many managers intentionallydishonest with their bosses. But it is easyto shade the truth and play down issues.Current concems often become futuresurprise problems. It's almost impossiblefor bosses to work effectively if they can-not rely on a fairly accurate readingfrom their subordinates. Because it un-dermines credibility, dishonesty is per-haps the most troubling trait a subordi-nate can have. Without a basic level oftrust, a boss feels compelled to checkall of a subordinate's decisions, whichmakes it difficult to delegate.

Good Use of Time and Resources.Your boss is probably as limited in hisor her store of time, energy, and influ-ence as you are. Every request you makeof your boss uses up some of these re-sources, so it's wise to draw on these re-sources selectively. This may sound ob-vious, but many managers use up theirboss's time (and some of their own cred-ibility) over relatively trivial issues.

One vice president went to greatlengths to get his boss to fire a meddle-some secretary in another department.His boss had to use considerable infiu-ence to do it. Understandably, the headofthe other department was not pleased.Later, when the vice president wantedto tackle more important problems, heran into trouble. By using up blue chipson a relatively trivial issue, he had madeit difficult for him and his boss to meetmore important goals.

No doubt, some subordinates will re-sent that on top of all their other duties,they also need to take time and energyto manage their relationships with theirbosses. Such managers fail to realize theimportance of this activity and how itcan simplify their jobs by eliminatingpotentially severe problems. Effectivemanagers recognize that this part oftheir work is legitimate. Seeing them-selves as ultimately responsible for whatthey achieve in an organization, theyknow they need to establish and man-age relationships with everyone onwhom they depend - and that includesthe boss. ^

Reprint RO5OIJTo order, see page

JANUARY 2005 99

Automotive

MANAGING YOUR BOSS (John J Gabarro)