My boss lies. How do I handle it politically?

February 28, 2016 11:17 PM

My boss likes to be in control of everything, including chains of communication. Unexpectedly this week, I learned that one way she's been keeping control is by lying; she keeps the chains of communication to herself and then lies about what other people have said. I don't know how long she's been doing this and I don't know the most politically savvy way to handle it. Advice? Examples inside.

For the purposes of this example, I'll call my boss Adrian, and my boss's boss Rachel. Last week while Adrian was out of the office I met informally with Rachel, who told me very clearly and explicitly that I must do Thing A (Thing A being a several-months-long strategy).

This week Adrian was back in the office. She got me alone, said she'd had a talk with Rachel and Rachel thought it was VERY IMPORTANT that we avoid doing Thing A. Being politically inept, I blurted out, "But I talked to Rachel last week and she told me to do Thing A in no uncertain terms!" Adrian turned bright red and went on a weird and non-sensical "well, yes, Rachel may have said that, but she meant to do Thing A in a very non-Thing A way" stammering tangent.

If I had never had that conversation with Rachel, I would now be trying to do the exact opposite of what Rachel wants done. And I'm starting to wonder how many times Adrian has done this because she doesn't like Rachel's strategy and wants to implement her own instead. (Side note: I like Rachel's strategy and it comes naturally to me, so perhaps I'm biased.)

I have gone into conversations with our head office using the background that Adrian has given me. The conversations with head office went sideways. I thought the problem was me. Now I'm starting to wonder if those conversations went sideways because Adrian lied to me about conversations she'd had with folks in our head office, thus sending me in with incorrect information. Unfortunately the way these conversations went kablooie has damaged my relationships with some of the people in our head office.

Adrian has previously been the conduit of communication between Rachel and the rest of the office, because she said that she was trying to make Rachel's schedule easier. I noticed lately that Rachel is tapping me to come into meetings with herself and Adrian, which makes me think that Rachel may be concerned her message isn't getting through. I've also noticed Rachel is making an effort to talk to everyone in the office rather than just Adrian. Adrian doesn't seem comfortable with this; she has for example asked me to leave Rachel out of meetings in order to be "conscious of Rachel's busy schedule."

I've decided that one way I'm going to fix things is to ask questions of others to ensure the information Adrian has given me is correct before I go forward. However I worry that misinformation is also going the other way. Is there any politically correct way at all to say to the people I am close to in head office, "Hey, if Adrian tells you I said something, can you double-check it with me first before you act on it?" And how else can I handle this issue?

Side note: Now that I'm writing this out and having to vague up certain details, the whole situation seems a LOT more sketchy than it did when I set out to write the question.

posted by anonymous to Work & Money (17 answers total)

There is no proof that Adrian is consistently mis leading you. I would carefully double check about important details directly with people. I would not do it for everything. I would not under any circumstances say anything negative to office folks about your bosses communication. You have one weird incident. Saying your boss sucks is a good way to lose your co-worker's respect and possibly your job (unless you have a lot of actual proof and then it's a tough decision on what to do depending on the circumstances).
posted by Kalmya at 11:31 PM on February 28, 2016 [6 favorites]

I've been in your exact situation. There really isn't any win-win here for you except to try to stay out of the middle. In my case, both Rachel and Andrian ended up leaving fairly soon and together to a new job, and I did make use of the opportunity to get a jump in with the new boss. My guess is Adrian has her bluff in on Rachel somehow and you're unlikely to change that. Wish I had better advice.
posted by tamitang at 11:35 PM on February 28, 2016 [2 favorites]

1) Your example is a little bit garbled, are you referring to Adrian also as female?
2) I would be cautious using one example to extrapolate a range of scenarios, especially cautious about using it to ascribe motivations to other people's behaviours. We often have poor insight into why others do the things they do.

That all being said, the solution is to CC people when you send emails. You definitely can't tell people "check with me if Adrian says anything about me" - that's super nonconstructive workplace behaviour. You can for sure reach out to people to "touch base" if you know something you're working on intersects with them, and you should know this ideally in most jobs.

More broadly there are a range of reasons that could easily explain what happened in your one example, and most are not nefarious. They could be simple mix-ups, miscommunication, confusion etc. Embarrassment is natural, and I think Rachel is herself typifying the behaviours you should too: engaging in direct communications with colleagues to ensure everyone's on the same page.

I'm not saying your boss isn't weird, game player etc (sounds like maybe some performance issues or something, even), but the best way of dealing with it is non-confrontational, but direct. If she says not to invite Rachel, you just say "Rachel has asked to receive in invites in the past, I'll keep adding her as an Optional for now, and I'll tell her she's welcome to reject any invites she doesn't see as relevant, and confirm she still wants to receive."

Best of luck,
posted by smoke at 11:37 PM on February 28, 2016 [8 favorites]

Do your very best to keep all invested parties in the loop and try to avoid having Adrian be your only source of information. CC all relevant people on emails and provide regular status updates on your projects via email.

I agree, Adrian does sound shady and a bit gas-lighty. Keep all communications professional and proceed with caution. I believe you when you say you're getting a bit of a yuck feeling from this behaviour.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 11:50 PM on February 28, 2016 [18 favorites]

Document document document. If Adrian tells you to do something a certain way in person, write her a short note after recapping the conversation, something like, "thank you for the clarification, as per our earlier conversation, I will be doing Thing A from now on, is that correct?" which she will likely confirm. This way, if Rachel is saying something different, you have a record of what you are actually being asked to do by your direct supervisor. Do not cc or bcc anyone, especially Rachel, on these communications. This is just a way for you to get clarity about what your boss wants you to do.

If Rachel and Adrian do not see eye to eye on best practices, that is their issue to work out. Your job is to follow the instructions as Adrian presents them to you, even if Rachel has said other things. If Rachel comes to you asking why you are doing Thing A, you can show her the emails, not in a "see, Adrian is totally lying" way, but in a "these are the protocols Adrian has asked me to follow" way. If this happens repeatedly, Rachel will understand and hopefully take steps to resolve the problems, without you coming across as a whistle-blower or taking a side against your boss, which is not recommended unless what she is asking you to do is illegal.

This is annoying, I know, but it's not your battle to fight. Just make sure you CYA. Good luck.
posted by ananci at 11:52 PM on February 28, 2016 [56 favorites]

I used to work in an office where people one cube over would email communication instead of just, you know, talking around the cubes. I used to think is was so weird and lazy. Then I grew to understand that it was the result of a psychotic and manipulative boss who would say one thing and then do the other, or who would take credit for other people's ideas and successed, etc. People started emailing meeting minutes, notes from conversations, etc and cc-ing everyone so that there was a WRITTEN RECORD of every communication. You need to start doing this. Follow ananci's advice. Document everything.
posted by Brittanie at 2:53 AM on February 29, 2016 [16 favorites]

In addition to documenting with email, turn on the option that saves your IMs.
posted by TORunner at 3:06 AM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

I've been in this situation with a coworker, but not with a boss. Boss is way more tricky, obviously. I agree with documenting everything. Also, this is very hard to do, but try to keep track of information that comes from your boss versus other people, so you can mentally divide "things that I know" from "things that may or may not be true." Do your best to keep strong lines of communication open with Rachel and others in your organization who are lateral to and above your boss, and try to chat with them casually to verify the things your boss tells you. As for whether she's misrepresenting you to them... it sounds like Rachel already has an idea of what's happening, and in my experience everybody learns after a short time not to trust anything this person says, especially what they say about other people.
posted by chickenmagazine at 3:42 AM on February 29, 2016

Document. Document. Document. (That little voice in your head that says, Oh, I will just go ask her- send in email instead.

Follow up conversations with a recap "to make sure you have it right"

Whatever. Document and wait for the karma boss to arrive.
posted by fluffycreature at 6:33 AM on February 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

Ugh, I feel for you. I've been in this situation with a boss and the boss's boss. It sounds to me like boss's boss suspects there's miscommunication and is trying to directly observe it and/or nip it in the bud. (Which is what any good manager would do.) I would proceed as neutrally as possible, but still let boss's boss know of specific documented examples where communication is not reaching you as intended. But in an objective way.

In my situation my immediate boss was just insecure and inept, not malicious. But I did have to have a come to Jesus meeting with boss's boss to say, in effect, "Everything that goes through immediate boss doesn't reach me as you intend. Specific examples, X, Y, Z. How would you like me to proceed?" I didn't speculate on reasons why. I just gave example after example after example, all documented as they'd happened through the normal course of email conversations and meeting notes. My immediate boss ended up being let go after boss's boss directly observed the behavior and sent up several test balloons. It didn't solve all the problems, but it improved communication a ton.
posted by ImproviseOrDie at 6:53 AM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

In that particular instance, I'd do a quick confirmation email:

Dear Rachel and Adrian,

Just to confirm, per the conversation I had with Adrian this morning, I'm to change focus and not complete Thing A, and instead concentrate on Thing B.

I have some materials, to whom shall I transfer this information?

Regards...
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 10:09 AM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

So, what you have not provided, which is essential to getting better advice, is your context in all this.

How long have you been there? What is your seniority / perceived senority / authority?

What is this 'head office'? Are you just in some branch that isn't all that relevant? Or are you a branch on its own that has a fairly significant important to the mothership?

How long have Adrian and Rachel been there? What are their relative authority positions (politically - who seems more connected? )

What is your relative relationship with both? Do you feel you carry weight?

For a completely blind view, Rachel seems to see you as someone useful /reliable to get her agenda going. But, for what purpose? I can't opine on if it is self-serving or if she sees you as a good egg.

It could be Rachel is completely incompetent and Adrian is doing her damnedest to ensure the company doesn't go under due to the bumbling. Or it could be Adrian is orchestrating a self-interest promotion and going rogue.

Is Rachel in head office? That wasn't clear.

Don't go publicizing the issues, though - don't ask people to report to you on things. But, you can change your approach. Any time you have to go into a discussion with information you believe to be true, it's always good practice to first lay it out and say "This is what I've been told, and where I'm coming from. As a baseline, can you correct me if I've been misinformed." Don't tell people who told you the misinformation, just present it as a fact-finding, I want to work with you thing.

Until I have a better handle on where you sit, what the culture is like, and what the political winds are around the two bosses, I would caution using any advice other than document things.

Even copying Rachel on emails could be an issue since Adrian obviously has told you to the contrary. How you handle that kind of thing depends greatly on the actual situation on the ground and where you sit.
posted by rich at 10:11 AM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

And on preview - don't call out their obvious conflict via email or otherwise... there are only a few cultural and political situations where that is advisable. Otherwise, it can be bad for all involved.
posted by rich at 10:13 AM on February 29, 2016

I agree with all the advice above: definitely get everything in writing, and CC people you need to when communicating with Adrian. If she objects, BCC them instead, so she can't tell that you're doing it. There are definitely ways in which you can avoid making it seem like you're documenting, as mentioned above. There's a big thing in your favor, and that's that Rachel seems to understand that something fishy is going on with Adrian, and she's trying to get to the bottom of it. It sounds a bit to me as if Adrian is trying to sabotage either you or Rachel. It's really a good thing that you discovered this, so you can protect your job.
posted by serenity_now at 10:48 AM on February 29, 2016

I have not been in this specific situation, but I have used emails to (sometimes indirectly) set out what I have been told or asked to do. Perhaps ccing the source person into an email to my staff or colleagues, occasionally direct 'confirming our conversation' or a file note. Selectively used, I have found this to be very effective in dealing with difficult people or problematic instructions.
posted by GeeEmm at 1:30 PM on February 29, 2016

Yep, danger danger. If you say anything and you're wrong... yeah, don't say anything. For all you know Adrian did talk Rachel into changing the plan after she talked to you.

BUT, it's good info to keep under your hat. You're going to get super-perceptive to people's reactions to what you say at the main office. At the first sign of "wha...?" you need to immediately backtrack to "I'm basing this on what Adrian told me, which was _____." If what you suspect is true, it won't take too many of those before Rachel has an uncomfortable talk (out of your presence) with Adrian.
posted by ctmf at 9:14 PM on February 29, 2016

A comment on documenting: It is useful almost purely defensively, as in avoiding be fired or blatantly scapegoated. It's not at all a bad idea but for anything less critical than major finger pointing, very few third parties are going to wade through e-mails, even ones you consider cut and dry, to find "the truth." In my experience trotting them out usually just leads to general impression of "Wow, Anon and Adrian have issues and can't sort it out themselves" combined with a desire not to have to wade into that mess.

It's a challenging situation and I wish I had more constructive advice, but a lot is going to depend on the level of trust of people around you. Being extremely transparent about what you're doing at all times *may* help, especially if you can communicate it in short, easy to digest notes. (Long CYA type documents, again based only on personal experience, are not as helpful here, as people like uber-boss Rachel see them as trying to dodge accountability rather than provide useful information.)
posted by mark k at 10:41 PM on February 29, 2016