Latest / The Difficult Boss Podcast with Fexingo: Managing Up, Toxic Managers, and Workplace Survival / How Managers Use Ambiguity to Control Teams
Transcript
- Lucas: There is a specific kind of exhaustion that comes from working for a manager who never quite tells you what success looks like. It is not the fatigue of long hours or high volume. It is the mental drag of guessing. You spend half your day trying to decode whether a vague email is a green light or a warning shot, and the other half worrying that you have misunderstood the priority. Luna: Right. And the worst part is that when you ask for clarification, you often get more fog. They might say something like, 'Just use your best judgment,' which sounds empowering until you realize that 'best judgment' is whatever makes them feel safest in that moment. Lucas: Exactly. And I want to be clear that we are not talking about the good-faith chaos of a startup where everything changes weekly. We are talking about established organizations, even Fortune companies, where strategy should be documented and roles should be defined. Yet, many mid-level managers actively cultivate ambiguity. It is a tool for control. When the rules are unwritten, the manager becomes the sole interpreter of reality. That gives them leverage over your career trajectory, your bonus, and your sense of competence. Luna: I have seen this happen when a manager is insecure about their own position. If they keep things vague, no one can really judge their output either, right? It creates a mutual shield against accountability. Lucas: That is a very sharp observation, Luna. Insecurity is definitely one driver. But there is also a more structural reason. In many corporate hierarchies, managers are incentivized to avoid making hard decisions themselves. By keeping directives ambiguous, they can shift the burden of decision-making onto their direct reports. If the project fails, they can say, 'Well, I left it open-ended because I trusted you to navigate it.' If it succeeds, they take credit for the strategic vision. It is a win-win for them, and a high-risk scenario for you. Luna: So essentially, they are outsourcing the risk while retaining the reward. That feels less like leadership and more like financial engineering applied to human resources. Lucas: That is a perfect way to put it. Let me give you a concrete example that illustrates this dynamic. Imagine a marketing director who needs to launch a campaign but hasn't defined the target audience. She sends an email saying, 'Let's make this resonate with our core demographic.' Now, you, as the campaign lead, spend three days researching data, narrowing the segment, and building a proposal based on solid analytics. You present it confidently. The director reviews it and says, 'It feels too narrow. Can we broaden it?' You go back, widen the scope, add generic messaging, and lose the edge of your original insight. Then, when engagement numbers are flat, she notes in your review that you lacked strategic focus. The ambiguity was the trap. You were set up to chase a moving target that only she could see. Luna: Ouch. That is brutal because it flips the script. You did the work, but the lack of definition becomes your failure. How do people usually react to that in the moment? Lucas: Most people do exactly what you expect. They try harder. They assume that if they just produce more output, or send more follow-up emails, the manager will eventually clarify. They escalate their effort rather than escalating their demand for structure. This reinforces the manager's behavior because they see compliance and assume the system is working. It is a classic negative feedback loop. The employee works twice as hard to compensate for the manager's lack of direction, and the manager remains passive. Luna: So the employee ends up burning out, and the manager stays comfortable. It is almost predatory in its efficiency for the bad actor. But surely there are times when ambiguity is necessary? Like in creative fields? Lucas: Creative fields absolutely need room for exploration. But even there, successful leaders define the boundaries of the experiment. They say, 'We are testing three different visual styles, and we will measure click-through rates on all of them by Friday.' That is structured ambiguity. It gives you freedom within a container. The toxic version removes the container entirely. It leaves you wandering in a field with no fences, no finish line, and no map. And then blames you for getting lost. Luna: I think the key distinction is between exploratory freedom and negligent oversight. One invites innovation, the other invites anxiety. Most listeners probably struggle to tell the difference when they are stressed. Lucas: They do. And that is why learning to spot the signs is crucial. Here are three red flags that signal strategic ambiguity rather than healthy flexibility. First, frequent last-minute changes to priorities without explanation. Second, feedback that is always subjective and never tied to specific behaviors or outcomes. Third, meetings where decisions are deferred repeatedly with phrases like 'let's circle back' or 'keep thinking about it,' but no actual next steps are assigned. If you hear these patterns consistently, you are likely dealing with a manager who uses ambiguity as a defense mechanism. Luna: And those are the exact moments where your confidence starts to erode. You start doubting your own competence instead of questioning the process. That internalization is what makes it so dangerous for long-term career health. Lucas: Precisely. It damages your self-trust. So, what can you actually do? You cannot force your manager to change overnight. But you can change how you interact with the ambiguity. The most effective tactic I recommend is proactive documentation. Every time you receive a vague directive, follow up with a summary email. Say, 'To make sure I am aligned, here is my understanding of the goal, the deadline, and the success metrics. Please let me know if I missed anything.' This does two things. It forces the manager to either confirm the clarity or reveal the vagueness. And it creates a paper trail that protects you later. Luna: That is smart because it shifts the burden of correction back to them. If they don't reply, you have proof of your attempt to align. If they correct you, you get the clarity you needed. It turns a passive situation into an active negotiation. Lucas: Exactly. It is also a way to test their responsiveness. Some managers will lean into the clarity once they realize you are serious about it. Others will push back, calling you micromanaging or rigid. Pay attention to that reaction. A good manager will appreciate the structure. A bad manager will resent the constraint because it limits their ability to play favorites or change the narrative later. Luna: That is a really useful diagnostic tool. Their reaction tells you everything about their integrity. It separates the genuinely disorganized leader from the intentionally opaque one. Lucas: Right. And while you are doing that, you should also be managing up by offering options rather than open questions. Instead of asking, 'What should I do?', try, 'I see two paths here. Path A prioritizes speed, Path B prioritizes quality. Given our current timeline, I recommend Path A. Does that work for you?' This forces a choice. It reduces their cognitive load while ensuring you get a decision. It is collaborative, but it is decisive. Luna: I love that. It frames you as a problem solver, not a question asker. And it makes it much harder for them to hide behind indecision because you have already done the heavy lifting of analysis. Lucas: Yes. You are essentially providing the scaffolding for their leadership. If they refuse to build on it, that is data about them, not you. Now, before we go deeper into the psychology of why some bosses prefer this chaos, I want to pause for a quick word about how this show operates. Luna: Sure, go ahead. Lucas: This podcast is ad-free and listener funded. A small group of supporters contributes monthly through buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo — that's F. E. X. I. N. G. O. Their support covers the production costs and allows us to keep digging into these complex workplace dynamics without corporate interference. If this conversation has helped you navigate a tough situation, consider joining that community. Luna: It really makes a difference. Knowing we have that stability lets us take the time to research these topics thoroughly instead of rushing to fill airtime with noise. Lucas: Thank you to everyone who supports us. It means the world. Let's get back to the topic. Why do some managers actively prefer this state of ambiguity? Is it just incompetence, or is there something deeper going on? Luna: I think it ties back to fear. Fear of being wrong, fear of losing authority, fear of being replaced by someone more decisive. Ambiguity is a shield. If nothing is decided, nothing can be blamed. Lucas: That is a strong point. Insecure leaders often view clarity as a threat. If the rules are clear, they can be measured against those rules. If the rules are fluid, they can only be measured by their relationship with the boss. It creates dependency. Employees become loyal not because they believe in the mission, but because they need the manager to survive the confusion. That is a fragile kind of loyalty, but it is powerful in the short term. Luna: It creates a cult of personality around the manager. The team stops looking at the work and starts looking at the leader. That is why so many dysfunctional teams persist. The people inside are too entangled to leave, and the people outside don't see the rot. Lucas: Exactly. And this brings us to the final piece of advice for listeners stuck in this environment. You need to protect your professional narrative. Do not let their ambiguity rewrite your achievements. Keep your own records. Track your outputs, your impact, and your adherence to agreed-upon standards. When performance review time comes, you need to anchor the conversation in facts, not feelings. Bring the data. Bring the emails. Bring the timeline. Force the evaluation to happen on objective ground, even if the manager tries to pull it back into subjective territory. Luna: That is empowering. It reminds you that your value is not defined by their confusion. You have an external reality to fall back on. Data doesn't lie, even if managers do. Lucas: Correct. And remember, navigating this is not about winning a power struggle. It is about preserving your sanity and your career momentum. Sometimes the best move is to document everything, protect your reputation, and quietly look for a team where clarity is the norm, not the exception. You deserve a workplace where success is visible, not hidden. Luna: Absolutely. Clarity is kindness. And if your manager cannot offer that, it might be time to find one who can. Lucas: That is a great place to end. For next week, we will be discussing how to handle the sudden promotion that sets you up for failure. Until then, stay sharp, stay clear, and keep documenting.