Managing Up: Charlie and the Oxygen Factory

I once worked with a guy I’ll call Charlie Copper.

Charlie was the best upward manager I’ve ever seen.

Not good.
Not competent.

Elite. Surgical.

The owner of the company we worked for was brilliant. Intimidating. The kind of person who didn’t seem influenceable. If he believed something, that was the direction.

Charlie could walk into that room and walk out having shifted the direction of an entire project.

Without raising his voice.
Without theatrics.

It was like watching someone play chess three moves ahead in real time.

Every word Charlie spoke had a purpose. Meetings were pre-wired. Decisions were framed in advance. By the time the discussion started, the outcome was already gently leaning in the direction Charlie wanted.

He understood timing.
Psychology.
Ego.
Power.

Now here’s the part that irritated people—including me.

Charlie was rarely optimizing for “the company.”

He was optimizing for Charlie.

He rode that line between brilliance and self-positioning so precisely that nothing ever stuck to him. He wasn’t unethical. He wasn’t reckless.

He was strategic.

And I’ve never met anyone I enjoyed hanging out with more—and despised working with more.

Dinner with Charlie? Fantastic. Funny. Magnetic.

Cross-functional meeting with Charlie?

Exhausting.

Because you knew there was an angle.

You just didn’t always know what it was.

And that uncertainty—that subtle imbalance—was part of his leverage.

Charlie understood something I didn’t at the time:

Managing up is leverage.
Managing down is gratification.

And the two are not the same.

A remarkably accurate AI depiction of Charlie Copper. 
The mustache made him extra annoying.

Managing down feels good.

You build teams. You mentor. You see people grow. You cultivate loyalty. You protect your group.

It’s emotionally rewarding.

I love managing down. I consider myself very good at it.

But managing up determines impact.

Up controls the oxygen.

Oxygen is budget.
Priority.
Political cover.
Air time in executive conversations.

When you influence upward effectively, you’re not just executing decisions.

You’re shaping them.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth I learned too late:

You can build the healthiest culture in the building and still be invisible to leadership.

I used to say:

“Blame me. I don’t care. I just want to win.”

It sounded noble.

In reality, loyalty without leverage becomes martyrdom.

If your name only surfaces when something goes wrong, you’re not building influence.

You’re building vulnerability.

Charlie never let himself be the pack mule.

He made sure the oxygen flowed through him.

1. Managing up is not kissing up

Bad upward managers rely on flattery.

Good upward managers provide clarity.

They translate complexity into decisions.

2. Executives want decisions, not essays

Early in my career I wrote long emails explaining problems in exhaustive detail.

It felt responsible.

It was a mistake.

Senior leaders want this:

“Here are three options.
I recommend option A.
Here’s why.”

That’s it.

3. Eliminate surprise

Nothing erodes upward trust faster than surprising your boss in public.

Pre-wire important conversations.

Good leaders never let major decisions appear out of nowhere.

4. Managing down builds loyalty

Managing down builds teams.

Mentorship.
Trust.
Execution.

It’s the emotional core of leadership.

And it matters enormously.

5. Real leaders manage in three directions

If you only manage up, you lose trust downward.

If you only manage down, you lose influence upward.

Both are slow deaths.

The elite leaders do all three directions:

• Upward for alignment
• Downward for execution
• Sideways for coalition

Charlie over-rotated upward.

I over-rotated downward.

He had leverage.

I had loyalty.

He controlled oxygen.

I built culture.

The best leaders build both.

They protect their teams and influence their bosses.

They reduce friction above and create clarity below.

They build leverage and loyalty at the same time.

Because eventually budgets tighten. Promotions are discussed. Priorities shift.

And if you’re not influencing upward…

you’re reacting to someone who is.

The real question isn’t whether you’re good at managing up or managing down.

It’s this:

Are you building leverage and loyalty at the same time?

Because influence upward determines how far you go.

Leadership downward determines who goes with you.

And the leaders who master both don’t just survive.

They shape the room.