When you respond with “I see” or “Could you explain?”, your manager speaks calmly. But ask “What are we trying to achieve this time?” or “Who will make the decision?”, and suddenly the conversation turns to your attitude.
After enough exchanges like this, it can become hard to tell whether you are discussing work or managing someone else’s mood.
“Why does the same person respond so differently to different people?” Alongside questions about the manager’s personality, it is worth looking at which questions get addressed and which are left unanswered.
A difference in reactions does not, however, tell us that someone “enjoys giving shallow advice” or “feels their competence is threatened.” Rather than trying to uncover their true motives, the useful questions are whether you can get the answers needed to do the job, and who carries the burden when those answers are missing.
1. Warm responses to nodding do not tell you whether questions are welcome
Nodding and other signs of listening do more than flatter the speaker. They can convey “I’m listening,” help organize a conversation, or give someone time to think. They play an important part in keeping a conversation going.
Nor do you need to assume that colleagues who say “Mm-hmm,” “That makes sense,” or “That’s impressive” are not thinking. Reassuring someone and making a task more concrete can both be necessary.
The difficulty arises when you have to keep providing reassurance just to be able to ask necessary questions.
- The conversation continues when you agree, but ends before your concern is considered when you raise one.
- You hear stories about past experience, but no deadline or person responsible is agreed for the current task.
- Saying “I don’t understand” gets you an explanation, but checking an inconsistency in that explanation gets you blamed.
If these differences recur, “kind” or “strict” alone does not adequately describe what it is like to work with that person.
Edmondson’s 1999 study examined the relationship between a team’s shared belief that interpersonal risks can be taken and learning behavior across 51 teams in one manufacturing company. It was a cross-sectional study and did not establish causation. Study of psychological safety and team learning behavior
Psychological safety does not mean that everything you say produces the outcome you want, or that you are no longer accountable for your work. It offers a way to look beyond friendly conversations and examine how questions, disagreement, and reports of mistakes are handled.
It may be tempting to describe the role of reassuring someone with a label such as a “mother index.” But this is not a validated measure, nor does it describe a trait of mothers or women. Instead of scoring people, returning to observable behavior makes the workload easier to discuss: who is taking on which kinds of responses and consideration for others?
2. Asking about purpose is not a test of someone’s competence
Simply asking “What should I do?” may leave important conditions for the task unresolved. Here are seven examples.
- What is the purpose?
- Who makes the decision?
- When is it needed?
- What counts as complete?
- How does it rank against other work?
- What effect will it have on the people and work involved?
- If the same problem keeps recurring, what can be reconsidered?
These are not questions designed to win an argument with technical language. If you are asked to “prepare a document,” the checks and amount of work needed will differ depending on whether it is a starting point for a meeting or a document explaining an approved policy to an external audience.
Asking everything at once can sometimes obscure the immediate issue. You can start with one or two things that need to be decided before you can begin, and include your current understanding or a proposal. If your manager does not have the authority to decide, you can ask who does and when a decision can be checked.
Even so, if each necessary question ends with “You should know that” or “You’re being disrespectful,” leaving the conditions unresolved, you do not have to keep carrying the problem solely by practicing how you phrase things.
An unanswered question does not prove that you are exceptionally capable or that the other person is incompetent. First establish what remains undecided and what difficulties proceeding without it would create.
3. Separate “I have a qualification” from an answer about the current task
You may ask about a task’s purpose or scope, only to repeatedly hear “I have this qualification” or “I’ve done this kind of work before.”
Qualifications and experience can contribute useful knowledge and understanding of the work. But describing them does not, by itself, settle the current deadline, what the task covers, who decides, or its priority.
Rather than starting an argument about whether qualifications matter, you can acknowledge that background and return to the outstanding question.
“I understand your experience. For this task, should I prepare the document for internal use only? If it will be used to explain things externally, please also let me know who needs to review it.”
This response does not guarantee that you will get the answer you need. If you do not, record the work-related situation, “Intended use and reviewer are still undecided,” rather than an inferred motive, “They hid behind their qualification.”
You can accept guidance while also checking whether you have specific instructions.
4. The limits of seeing employee input as a threat
Some research has considered the possibility that an employee’s suggestion may be received as “My judgment is being questioned,” rather than as material for improvement.
Wu and colleagues’ 2023 study analyzed responses from 93 supervisors and 533 subordinates at one company in China. It reported associations among employee voice, supervisors’ perceived threat to their identity as a leader, and abusive supervision. Those associations were stronger among supervisors who placed greater importance on traditional hierarchical relationships. Original paper on employee voice and threats to leader identity
However, the subordinates’ responses were aggregated at team level. Although the study collected data at two time points, threat and supervisory behavior were both measured at the second time point, so this does not prove causation. It was neither an experiment comparing nodding with questions about purpose nor a study of Japanese managers in general.
The study therefore cannot identify the person in front of you as “someone who fears capable employees.” Nor does it provide grounds for holding the person who spoke up responsible for any mistreatment they experienced.
What it offers is a way to observe not only the content of a question but also how it was received and whether it led to an answer or a decision. Instead of repeatedly asking “Why do they enjoy lecturing me?”, look at whether the conversation gave you more of the information you needed.
5. You do not have to become the spokesperson for private complaints
After a meeting, a colleague says, “What’s the point of doing this now?” Yet at the next meeting, that same colleague nods along with the manager.
If you are the only person asking questions, you may feel left on your own. But there may be more than one reason for a nod: agreement with a particular point, simply listening, thoughts that are not yet fully formed, or a wish to avoid the burden of speaking up. Some things cannot be known without asking the person.
Morrison and Milliken’s 2000 paper offers a theoretical account of how shared beliefs that speaking up is pointless or dangerous can lead people to withhold concerns about problems. It was not a new empirical study establishing what silent colleagues really think. Original paper on organizational silence
Hearing a private complaint is neither proof that your interpretation of the problem must be right nor a promise that the person will speak alongside you in public.
If you want to pass on someone else’s concerns, ask, “Who may I share this with, and how much of it may I share?” Do not use their name or comments without permission, or speak for them by saying “Everyone thinks so.” You can also seek advice using only the facts you have verified and the impact on your own work.
You can work with others. But you do not have to take on all their private complaints and become the sole person negotiating on everyone’s behalf.
6. Do not let the work you did behind the scenes disappear
You were told “Please get this moving” and replied “Understood,” but in practice you could not simply start. You had to clarify the purpose, contact the people involved, find someone who could make decisions, and reconcile conflicting explanations before the work could finally proceed.
If none of that additional work appears in the report, an outside observer may think the task went smoothly on the strength of the original instructions alone. That still does not tell you what the manager actually understood or whose contribution they thought produced the result.
You can define the problem without guessing at anyone’s thoughts. When necessary coordination is invisible, it is harder to factor it into estimates for the next task, allocation of responsibilities, or assessment of the results.
A report does not have to be written as an accusation.
“In addition to preparing the document, I clarified its intended use and who needed to review it. That coordination was not part of the original estimate, and it has affected the planned start of another task. Agreeing the intended use and reviewer when the request is made would help us estimate future work.”
Rather than scoring who was at fault, record what you had to fill in, the time and coordination it required, and what happened to other work. Distinguish your own verifiable contribution from the contributions of the team and other people.
You do not need to quietly stop necessary communication or deliberately let work fail to make invisible effort visible. Sharing the limits of what you can handle, the questions still open, and whose decision is needed before the burden grows makes the state of the work easier to establish.
7. Improving procedures and reconsidering the assumptions behind the work
Suppose phone inquiries keep interrupting your work. You could organize a duty rota, prepare guidance on frequently asked questions, or transfer calls to the person responsible. These are ways to reduce difficulties while maintaining the current arrangement.
You could also reconsider the purpose and division of responsibilities: “Why does this department receive every inquiry?” or “What falls within our remit, and who decides on exceptions?”
In a 1976 paper, Argyris distinguished learning that corrects errors within existing assumptions from learning that also questions those assumptions and the criteria used to make decisions. These are the ideas known as single-loop and double-loop learning. Original paper on decision-making and learning models
The telephone scenario is an illustration to help explain the distinction. Changing call guidance or transfers does not automatically constitute double-loop learning, and improving procedures alone is not without value.
You can reduce an immediate problem by trying to answer calls more promptly while also investigating why the inquiries are concentrated in one place. Both can be addressed.
Even if your manager has no immediate answer, the discussion can move forward if you can consult the relevant people and arrange a time to review the issue. If, instead, every question about the underlying assumptions turns into a discussion of the speaker’s attitude and never returns to the problem, it is worth considering channels for advice beyond trying to persuade that person alone.
8. Five ways to bring the conversation back to the work
The following wording will not necessarily change the other person. These examples are starting points for briefly checking the information you need, adapted to the situation and your workplace’s communication procedures.
When the conversation stays on qualifications and experience
“I understand the background. Could we clarify the purpose and scope of this task? Am I right that the first version is for internal review only?”
Return to how far the current task needs to go without dismissing the person’s background.
When general criticism leaves the next step unclear
“I’d like to clarify the specific changes needed. Which parts of this document should I revise, and by when?”
Ask for something you can translate into action rather than accepting the task while pretending to understand. If the criticism includes a valid point, acknowledge that separately.
When another task is added
“If I do this task today, I expect the document I’m currently working on will move to tomorrow or later. Please decide which should come first.”
Show the consequences and the options rather than unilaterally deciding to postpone existing work. If waiting for a decision is likely to affect a deadline, also clarify when you need an answer and the established escalation route.
When you want everyone involved to have the same understanding
“I’d like the people involved to receive the same information about responsibilities and priorities. Could we confirm who should receive it? I’ll clearly mark anything that has not yet been decided as unresolved.”
Add people to CC only as needed for the work and in line with workplace procedures, rather than to put pressure on someone. Do not treat a lack of response as approval or circulate a proposal still under discussion as an agreed decision.
When someone vaguely asks, “Why do you think that is?”
“Are you sharing the current situation, or asking me to investigate the cause? If you want an investigation, I’d like to clarify its scope, who is responsible, and its priority.”
Distinguish a conversational response from a request for new work. This is not about withholding necessary information. It is about avoiding making every undecided investigation or improvement discussed in conversation your responsibility alone.
9. There are limits to how you can record and share your experience
If you keep a record, note the date and time, the request, what you checked, the reply, unresolved issues, and the effect on the work, using a location and method approved by your workplace. If you include your impressions, separating them from what was actually said or happened makes later review easier.
Reviewing your achievements can also help you consider an internal move or a new job. But experience you can describe in a work history is not the same as material you may take outside the organization. Do not move customer information, colleagues’ private comments, or confidential documents into personal storage or external services without permission.
Likewise, removing names from an article about your work does not guarantee anonymity. Timing, unusual tasks, job titles, and quotations may combine to identify a person or company. Check whether you have permission to use other people’s comments or circumstances and whether doing so would breach confidentiality obligations. If necessary, replace the real example with a general scenario.
Even an unpublished draft requires attention to where it is stored and its sharing settings. Rather than assuming a draft is safe, separate what you learned from the experience from information you cannot disclose.
10. Weigh staying or leaving against your role, workload, and options
You keep raising possible improvements, yet all that grows is the amount of unresolved work and the effort spent keeping others comfortable. Time spent coordinating is not reflected in your evaluation either. If that continues, it is reasonable to consider different responsibilities, an internal transfer, or a new job.
You can gather information for that decision without rushing to conclude “I don’t fit because I’m too capable” or “There’s no value in staying here.”
- Are necessary questions now getting answers?
- Does the scope of the work you take on match your decision-making authority?
- Are coordination and improvement work included in your responsibilities and evaluation?
- Are there people you can consult or changes in assignment that could reduce the current burden?
- Can you weigh income, daily life, health, and the conditions of a possible next job together?
When considering a new workplace, look beyond a promise of autonomy. Where possible, ask specifically who decides when priorities conflict, how additional work is accommodated, and how improvements are evaluated. There is no guarantee that changing workplaces will make things easier.
If your sleep or physical health continues to be affected, you can seek medical care or other support before you have finished preparing an explanation for your workplace. In Japan, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare’s “Kokoro no Mimi” website offers guidance on finding support for working people. Guide to support services
If you are having difficulties with treatment at work, job assignments, or related matters, Japan’s General Labour Consultation Corners are another option. Check the guidance on the issues they handle and where to contact them. If you are outside Japan, look for local support services. Guide to General Labour Consultation Corners
11. Check what the work needs instead of trying to uncover someone’s true feelings
The conversation is calm when you nod, yet stalls when you ask about the purpose or who will decide. If you notice that difference, you do not have to respond only by adding “I need to become better at reassuring them” to your responsibilities.
What did you ask, what answer came back, and which conditions remain unresolved? What did you fill in behind the scenes, and is that burden visible? How far can you work with others?
You can check these things without deciding what the other person is thinking.
You do not have to keep trying indefinitely to win someone’s approval. Continue the necessary work and communication while clarifying what you will take on, where you can seek advice, and what your next options are. The point is to avoid spending all your capacity to think on continually reading someone else’s mood.
