Latest / The Difficult Boss Podcast with Fexingo: Managing Up, Toxic Managers, and Workplace Survival / How to Handle a Boss Who Undermines You in Front of Others
Transcript
- Lucas: You're in a meeting — could be a weekly status, could be a big presentation — and your boss cuts you off. Not to add something, but to correct you. Maybe they say your data is wrong, or your approach won't work, or they rephrase your idea as if you hadn't said it clearly enough. And they do it in front of your peers, maybe your peers' peers. Luna: That sinking feeling. You can feel your credibility drain out of the room. Lucas: Exactly. And it's a specific kind of undermining, because it's public. A private correction — even a harsh one — is one thing. But when it happens in front of others, the damage is twofold: you lose face in that moment, and over time, people start to discount what you say because they expect the boss to correct you. Luna: So how do you handle it without making the situation worse? Because if you push back in the meeting, you risk looking defensive or insubordinate. Lucas: Right. So let's talk about what works. And I want to start with a real example — a product manager I know at a large tech company. Let's call her Sarah. She had a boss who would regularly interrupt her in cross-functional meetings to clarify her points, but the clarifications were really corrections. He'd say things like, 'What Sarah means is...' and then give a different version of her own proposal. Never in private. Luna: That's such a classic move. It sounds like he's helping, but it actually signals that she can't be trusted to speak for herself. Lucas: Exactly. So Sarah did something smart. She didn't confront him in the meeting. She started keeping a simple log — date, meeting, what was said, how it affected the outcome. She did this for about three weeks. Then she requested a one-on-one with him, and she framed the conversation around curiosity, not accusation. Luna: I love that framing. 'Curiosity, not accusation' — that's the key for these conversations. Lucas: She said something like, 'I've noticed in our cross-functional meetings that you often rephrase my points. I want to make sure I'm communicating effectively. Is there something about my delivery or my data that's unclear? I'd love your feedback so I can improve.' Luna: That's a script I'm writing down. It's disarming because it puts the focus on her development, not his behaviour. Lucas: And it worked. He paused, and then he admitted that he sometimes feels pressure to make sure the team presents a unified front, and he worries that if she says something slightly off, it'll undermine the whole project. So his instinct was to jump in and 'standardize' the message. Luna: So it was about his anxiety, not her performance. Lucas: Exactly. Once she understood that, she could address it. She said, 'I appreciate that. How about this: before the meeting, we can quickly align on the key points I'll present, and then you can trust me to deliver them. If something comes up that needs correction, you can jot it down and we'll discuss it after.' And he agreed. Luna: That's a great outcome. But not every boss responds that way. Some are more deliberate about it. Lucas: True. There's a difference between a boss who does it out of anxiety or habit, and one who does it to maintain control or to signal hierarchy. With the latter, the curiosity script might not work as well. But it's still worth trying as a first step, because it gives you information either way. Luna: And it also puts you on record as having raised the issue. So if the behaviour continues, you have a stronger case for escalating. Lucas: Right. And that's where the documentation becomes important. Not just for your own sanity, but if you eventually need to go to HR or to your skip-level manager. But let's not jump to that yet. Let's talk about another tactic: the 'ask for clarification' move. Luna: You mean in the moment? Lucas: Yeah. If your boss corrects you publicly, and it's clearly a correction, you can say, 'I want to make sure I understand your concern. Are you saying the timeline I proposed is too aggressive, or is it something else?' That re-centers the conversation on the substance, and it subtly points out that they've interrupted your flow without being confrontational. Luna: That's good because it's a question, not a challenge. It invites them to elaborate, which often makes them realize they've overstepped. Lucas: Exactly. And if they realize it, they might back off. But if they double down, that's also information. You learn that this is a deliberate pattern, not a reflex. Luna: Let's talk about the scenario where the boss is genuinely malicious — like, they want to diminish you in front of others to protect their own position. What then? Lucas: That's harder, because the public correction is a feature of their strategy, not a bug. In that case, your goal shifts from improving the relationship to protecting your reputation. One tactic is to pre-brief key stakeholders before meetings. Send an email to your peers or to your boss's boss summarizing your points ahead of time, so when your boss tries to correct you, people already have the context. Luna: You're basically creating a paper trail and neutralizing the surprise factor. Lucas: Right. And if your boss says something inaccurate about your work, you can follow up with a group email after the meeting that gently corrects the record. Something like, 'Thanks for the discussion earlier. Just to clarify, the data I presented was from Q1, and the revised numbers will be ready next week. Happy to share when they're available.' No drama, just facts. Luna: That's a good way to reclaim your expertise without directly calling out your boss. And it gets the correct information to the people who matter. Lucas: Exactly. Now, I want to acknowledge something: this kind of dynamic is especially tough if you're in a more junior role, or if you're from a culture where direct confrontation with authority is frowned upon. Luna, you've worked internationally — what have you seen? Luna: In some Asian business cultures, for example, public disagreement with a superior is seen as a loss of face for both parties. So the curiosity script might still work, but you'd deliver it more indirectly, maybe through a third party or by writing it down rather than saying it aloud. The core idea — 'help me understand how I can communicate better' — translates, but the delivery needs to be softer. Lucas: That's a great point. The tactics have to be adapted to your context. But I think the underlying principle holds: you want to move the dynamic from a public one to a private one. Because the public stage is where the damage is done. Luna: And if you can't do that — if your boss refuses to discuss it privately, or continues the behaviour — then you have to start thinking about whether this is a situation you can stay in long-term. Lucas: Right. And that's a hard question, because leaving a job is a big deal. But constant public undermining erodes your confidence and your reputation. It's not just an annoyance; it's a career risk. So if you've tried the curiosity script, the pre-briefing, the follow-up emails, and nothing changes, it might be time to start looking elsewhere. Luna: Before we wrap, I want to ask about one more scenario: what if the boss undermines you not by correcting you, but by ignoring your contributions? Like, you say something, and then five minutes later someone else says the same thing and the boss praises them. Lucas: That's a variant of the same dynamic, and it's actually more common than overt correction. The tactic there is to verbally re-anchor your idea. You can say, 'Thanks, Jen, that's exactly the point I was making earlier — I'm glad it resonated.' It's a bit more direct, but it's still about claiming your contribution without sounding bitter. Luna: And if the boss has a habit of doing that, you might also consider sending a meeting summary afterward that explicitly attributes ideas to their originators. Just a simple, 'As discussed, the proposal from to streamline onboarding was well received.' That creates a written record. Lucas: Good. Look, I think the biggest mistake people make in this situation is staying silent and hoping it will stop. It rarely does. The second biggest mistake is confronting the boss publicly in the meeting — that almost never ends well. The sweet spot is the private, curious conversation, backed by documentation. And if that fails, you have your answer about the viability of the relationship. Luna: And we should note that sometimes the boss doesn't even realize they're doing it. The curiosity script can genuinely be an eye-opener for them. Lucas: Exactly. So before you assume malice, assume ignorance. Give them a chance to adjust. And if they don't, you have your answer. Alright, I think that's a solid game plan for anyone dealing with this. Luna: Yeah, I feel like I could actually use that script tomorrow. Lucas: Good. And hey, if this conversation has helped you think through a tough workplace situation, we want you to know that this show is listener-supported. We keep it ad-free so we can focus on practical, honest advice — and that's possible because of listeners who choose to support us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a small way to keep the podcast independent and useful. Luna: Totally. And every bit of support genuinely helps us keep making episodes like this. Lucas: So back to the topic: one last thought on handling public undermining. If you try the curiosity script and it doesn't work, don't beat yourself up. It's not a failure of your communication skills — it's a failure of leadership on their part. And that's important to remember. Luna: Absolutely. The boss's behaviour is a reflection of them, not you. Keep your documentation, keep your network strong, and know when it's time to move on. Lucas: Exactly. That's the takeaway. Thanks for listening, and we'll talk next time.