Building Power by Disarming the Blame-Heavy Leader
Working with a senior leader who is quick to blame…and is a jerk about it? See how a mid-level leader stopped the blame and became a respected sounding board.
If you’ve worked in the corporate world for a while, then you’ve probably run into different forms of workplace jerks. They come in all forms—boss, client, peer. Sometimes, their jerk nature is clear; they are untrustworthy, power-hungry, or simply mean-spirited. But more often than not, they are complicated: People are rarely flat-out jerks and even more rarely, few want to be jerks. Mostly, people feel like they are doing something important or hard, and feel justified in their behaviors. Sometimes, they are driven by something that seems rational to them (but not to the rest of us). Mostly, they don’t realize the impact they have. Unfortunately, whatever their intent, they have a lot of impact. They can make work suck.
We’ve been there. And our goal is to give you a play-by-play breakdown of real-life difficult work scenarios, help you bring these ideas into your work life, and make work (and your whole career) better.
Today’s deep-dive is about Valentia's* experience with a senior P&L leader. This leader believes he is the smartest person in the room, makes sweeping generalizations, and sometimes uses tantrums to make his points. His unit also has great financial numbers, which is why he’s risen so high in this multi-billion dollar business. Let’s take a look at how she turned around her relationship.
*names changed to protect privacy
Valentia’s Story
Valentia is a Senior HR Director at a large, multi-billion dollar medical device company. She’s an on-the-ground HR partner for senior P&L and Sales leaders. She has years of experience working with big personalities and big egos, people who often have a long track record of financial success for the company. Her clients are typically people who wield their power overtly in ways they intend… and ways they don’t; one such client was sales Team Lead “Edward”. Here is Valencia’s story, in her words:
Edward is not an unusual leader. With Edward, it’s all about him. He is driven and anything that gets in the way of growth (as he sees it) gets labeled as a “blocker.” He might say something like “Compliance is a blocker,” a big generalized, and negative, statement about a group.
Whenever I have a new assignment, I spend a lot of time listening, trying to understand the culture and the nature of the business. As I get more familiar and understand the environment better, I become more vocal and offer more guidance. Senior leaders often don’t want to hear HR’s perspective, so I know that I need to come in and build trust over time. And I did that with Edward. I had put in enough time listening and learning that I was able to build trust and credibility over time.
So, after working together over months, Edward had been pushing a people change that was big and needed to be closely managed. It was a sizable HR risk. I had enough credibility that I could push back, and it was uncomfortable, but he took my guidance.
Then, one day, as we were talking through some plans, Edward said “This is going to go slower than we need. HR is always a blocker.”
I was shocked. It was clearly directed at me — I was the face of HR to Edward. I understood, immediately, that when he said “HR is a blocker” he meant that I was a blocker. It felt immediate and personal.
Then, and I’m not sure how this happened, I responded by saying, “Edward, when you say HR, you are really talking about me.”
I paused, then continued speaking: “What am I not delivering for you? If there is a gap between what you need and what I’m delivering, we need to recalibrate. I’m here to help you but we need to establish guardrails, too: I have to ensure that we follow policy.”
I’m not typically an in-your-face person. I seriously have no idea where that courage came from. When I was younger, I would have just let the comment pass in the moment, and would have stressed about it afterwards. It would have damaged my confidence. So, I’m not sure where that response came from.
At work, people will treat you the way you allow them to treat you. He was a senior executive,his pay grade was way above mine. And the situation could have gone sideways, quickly. But, the surprise result was that he appreciated that I was direct. I earned his respect by articulating what I saw.
I’ve rolled off that team and am supporting different leaders now, but what’s really interesting is that Edward still calls me for my guidance! He says I’m his “sounding board when he needs advice.”
I didn’t step around the issue. I called it out, respectfully and frankly. Then I came out on the other side, stronger and more respected.
When I think back, I wonder what made me say that… I have no idea. But it’s given me more confidence that when I find myself in this situation again, I’ll have an idea of how I can respond.
We found this story incredibly illustrative. Let’s break down the experience and see how Valentia built more workplace power.
The Power Moves
1) Build political capital, then strategically pick the battle
What Valentia did: First, she spent time — but not too long — building trust through curiosity, listening, and learning her client’s business and the organization’s culture. Next, she used her learnings to analyze her client, noting the consistent patterns in how he tended to derail, where he placed blame and how he framed it, and what tended to trigger his behavior. She also examined what were his motivators; when he said “blocker,” his root issue was his impatience with not having the pace he wanted it, and his willingness to blame others, even though large companies must follow policies (that are often time consuming). Finally, when she did pick her battle and he snapped back at her, she countered without hesitation. She recognized his attack, knew it was unfair, and found a clear way to articulate it.
Why it worked: Trust = political capital and political capital = power. Valentia banked a lot, so that when she spent her political capital, she spent it forcefully from a position of credibility and power. If she had tried to intervene early on, every time Edward directed his impatient blaming toward other teams, she would have had a series of weaker interactions that would have eroded both her ability to build overall trust and her ability to understand the root cause of his behavior. As well, by avoiding the minor battles, she had the energy and mental stamina for this one.
Trust = political capital and political capital = power.
Pull it off yourself:
- Prep by overtly and intentionally learning about “your” Edward. Set aside time to write down or reflect on the patterns of behavior you see, the incentives & pressures, the culture, situations that trigger hot-button responses. Use those patterns to identify root causes of behavior, to predict reactions you might expect to to given situations or decisions. Intentionally plan your strategy and make if-then plans. Identify which behavior and battles are minor, and which are truly worth taking on.
- In the moment. First, check in with yourself — is this a battle one worth spending political capital? Don’t fight minor battles (file them away as evidence if you feel it’s a pattern). But if you give yourself the green light, keep cool, remind yourself of the underlying point (what are we really talking about here), stay above the fray and don’t sink to Edward’s level. Then, pull out some more of Valentia’s power moves.
keep cool, remind yourself of the underlying point and stay above the fray
2) Shed light on sweeping generalizations by making it specific
What Valentia did: She quickly forced Edward to recognize what his insult really meant: From “HR is a blocker” to “You mean me. I’m your face of HR so you mean I’m a blocker. What is it you’re not getting from me?” In this way she shed light on the generalization. She humanized his target and created a power imbalance: he now had to deal with the unexpected discomfort of sitting across from the person he was blaming.
With Edward surprised by her directness, Valentia continued to build her case: She named what Edward was doing in clear, unmistakable, plain language. She deflated his generalization (“HR blocks”) by moving it to the very specific “What [precisely] isn’t being delivered? What needs renegotiation?”
Why it worked: People use sweeping generalizations for all kinds of reasons — to manipulate, to hide, because they can’t analyze deeper. Sweeping generalizations are a passive-aggressive manipulation tool. The approach puts your counterpart into an anonymous, vague, “other” group rather than requiring you to see them as a real human individual. By making it abstract, it hides the specific individual intent, giving a person reprieve from confrontation.
Forcing Edward to get specific eliminated this vagueness and forced the tough conversation. Edward then needed to set clearer expectations, identify what he really wanted, and ask for what he needed. In turn, this allowed Valentia to clear her (and her department’s) names and ensure Edward understood that they could not possibly deliver something that was a) out of policy, b) unreasonable, or c) that he hadn’t clearly identified.
Pull it off yourself:
- Prep. First, remember that confrontation is not inherently negative or bad! It’s just a tool and a useful one at that. Without confrontation, problems often get ignored, or solved only at the surface level rather than at the root cause. Remember also that it’s important to clear your name, and you deserve to do so. If it helps, reframe “confrontation” into something you find more appealing — like “negotiation,” “discussion,” “curiosity,” or “problem-solving.” Use the analysis you’ve done as part of Power Move #1 to recognize the circumstances that are likely to trigger your Edward’s sweeping generalizations, and the words they’ll use when they do it. Write out a script for your response, and practice it, the way you would practice for an interview, so you’ll be ready to jump on it next time they generalize.
- In the moment. Immediately shift the dynamic from general to personal and humanize your Edward’s target. Borrow Valentia’s language. “When you’re talking about X, that’s me / my department / my team.” Ask for specifics. Ask in a straightforward, plain-language manner with neutral tone: What needs to change, or be renegotiated, or what’s been missed. Keep probing until your Edward gives specifics.
3) Establish your position as being good business (…especially if their position is weird)
What Valentia did: She established that Edward’s complaints are a cheap psychological trick and not part of typical business norms. Her insistence on his being specific about what wasn’t being delivered and what needed renegotiation plays double-duty as a power move here, as it’s what establishes his behavior as abnormal. Because he favored the same consistent accusation — “blocker” — every time for all teams he was frustrated with, when she called him out in this specific situation she also effectively indicated his whole pattern of behavior as abnormal.
Valentia also stayed calm, cool and professional. She said it felt like she was “in his face” but remember, when we’re nervous or it’s high-stakes, calm and firm can sometimes feel extreme to ourselves, just as for very quiet people, sometimes speaking up at the prevailing room volume can feel like shouting. In this case Edward made it personal (camouflaged as general) and got in her face, but Valentia made it business….and business always wins.
When we’re nervous or it’s high-stakes, calm and firm can sometimes feel extreme to ourselves.
Why it worked: The use of cheap psychological tricks is common, but, also, weird. Most of us put a premium on equilibrium, figuring out how to get along and work together. Drama and emotional outbursts are not considered a productive norm, nor are accusations, nor complaining without offering solutions. Furthermore, in business everything is negotiable, and there is never just one solution. From interpersonal conflicts to hallway-handshake deals to signed contracts, there is almost always a way to put an issue back on the table and broker a new outcome. Valentia’s insistence on renegotiation instead of knee-jerk reacting, made it firmly obvious who was being weird and who was being a savvy business person.
Pull it off yourself:
- Prep. Figure out what the positive behavioral norms in your workplace are, and how your Edward conforms to them or violates them. If your workplace has poor or toxic norms, then you’ll want to do a little research with colleagues at other companies (or your colleague, Google) about what good looks like. For each of your Edward’s norm-violations, what are the counters you can use that fit with and uphold your positive workplace norms? (For example, if Edward raises his voice, my counter will be to say, “Please lower your voice.”) In addition, define the business bottom-line for the situation — the clear, objective business goal. What are you here to do? Then lay out the specific ways that your approach protects or increases it.
- In the moment. For every way your Edward’s behavior and typical positions violate the healthy norms, respond in ways that uphold the healthy norms. Keep linking your position to the bottom line. Remember, you’re about business even if your Edward is about personal.
4) Don’t take it personally
What Valentia did: She forced Edward to see his behavior as personal instead of abstract, but Valentia herself didn’t take it personally. She didn’t take his words as an attack on her character or reputation, nor as an attack on her as a person, and she definitely didn’t let them shock or shame her in the moment. While the human fight/flight/freeze reaction is normal under stress, Valentia didn’t let flight or freeze prevail and derail her. Because she had taken the time to analyze and understand Edward’s patterns of behavior and his point of view, it helped her read and interpret his behavior as all about his interpersonal skills, rather than about her professional skills.
Why it worked: The not-personal framing allowed Valentia to stay neutral and objective. It kept her focused and on-track, and kept her own inner critic or second-guessing at bay.
Pull it off yourself:
- Prep. Consciously or unconsciously Valentia knew Edward would eventually discount HR as a “blocker,” because she’d seen him do this to countless other departments and teams. (There’s an old adage that if someone is gossiping to you about others they’ll eventually be gossiping about you to others. The same applies here.) To prep for this power move, assess your Edward: how have they typically reacted to others? If they react this way to you, what will it look and sound like? Does that reaction hit any of your hot buttons? If you don’t care about the reaction, so much the better. If the reaction hits a hot button, how will you counter it? Consider the external counters you might use (verbal, body language, prepared materials, allies in the room) and internal counters (counter-message to your inner critic, box breathing, other tactics). Plan just one or two counters to keep it simple. Rehearse them if you need to.
- In the moment. Stay cool, use your self-calming tactics, and always remember this is just this moment.
For this power move, assess your Edward: how have they typically reacted to others? If they react this way to you, what will it look and sound like?
In the end, Valentia’s power moves combine thoughtfully establishing credibility, objectively calling out Edward’s behavior in the moment, and personalizing his behavior, without taking it personally. This is what disarmed his blame-heavy behavior. Building power this way takes prep work, and requires you to show up credibly, consistently over time. The investment in prep is worth it, providing a wellspring of trust and political capital to draw from and fuel your objectives.
by Maggie Knoke & Sarita Parikh, June 2021
