Managing up is really just a good professional partnership. It’s understanding what your executive needs to perform at their best and proactively creating the conditions for that, rather than waiting to be directed at every turn.
In practice, that looks like anticipating what they’ll need before they ask, flagging a problem before it becomes their problem and organising their world around their actual priorities rather than just their calendar.
The distinction between managing up and playing politics comes down to intent. Politics is about positioning yourself. Managing up is about making the person you support more effective.
Raising a concern without overstepping
The framing is everything. Your job isn’t to tell an executive they’re wrong but to make sure they have what they need to make the best decision. A phrase that works well: “I want to make sure you have everything you need going into this. Can I share something I noticed?” That opener makes clear you’re not challenging them – and gives them control over whether to engage.
From there, be specific and brief. “The brief for this meeting has changed since the deck was prepared and the client is now focused on cost rather than capability” is useful. “I think this meeting could go badly” is not. Name the specific risk, name the specific fix, and let them decide.
Building influence, with or without a title
With an executive who doesn’t naturally consult you, start by being indispensable in the spaces they do let you into. If they share their calendar but nothing else, manage it with such precision that they start to notice.
When they see you’ve moved a meeting because you spotted a conflict they hadn’t, the relationship shifts – because you demonstrated what more access would produce. Trust builds through consistency over time, not a single impressive moment.
Cross-functionally, where you have no formal authority, your most effective currency is information and relationships. Lead with what you can offer before you ask for anything: “I know your team is under pressure with end of quarter, so here’s what I need and here’s what I can do from my side to make it quick.”
That positions you as a peer solving a shared problem, not an EA making a request on someone else’s behalf. It also means investing in relationships before you need them, so there’s already a foundation to draw on when you need to move fast.
The strategic briefing note
An administrative briefing note tells you what’s happening. A strategic one tells you what to do with it. The administrative version covers logistics, like attendees, agenda, what was discussed last time.
The strategic version answers what the room actually needs: what does this person or group want from the meeting, what do we want from it, and what’s the one thing that needs to land for it to succeed?
An administrative brief for a client meeting might read: “Q2 review with [client]. Attendees: CFO, Head of Operations.” A strategic brief for the same meeting reads: “The CFO flagged cost concerns last time that weren’t fully addressed. The priority is to resolve that with specifics, not reassurances, and lead with the savings data on slide four.” One tells you what the meeting is. The other tells you how to win it.
Staying composed under pressure
Absorbing pressure is part of the role – and it takes a toll. EAs who manage it well have built some conscious separation between receiving pressure and deciding what to do with it. In the moment, the most effective technique is slowing your physical response down.
When an executive comes to you stressed, your nervous system wants to match their energy. The practice is to do the opposite: slow your breath, lower your voice, reduce your pace. You’re modelling a different state – and executives often unconsciously regulate themselves against the composure of the people around them.
Beyond the moment itself, the most important protection is having somewhere to put the pressure that isn’t your team or colleagues – a trusted peer outside the organisation, a mentor, or a regular personal debrief. EAs without that outlet eventually either burn out or start leaking the pressure in ways that damage the culture around them.
Reading the room without playing politics
The informal network maps itself if you pay attention – who the executive defers to even when they don’t have to, whose calls get returned first. Over time a clear picture emerges of where the real influence sits, often quite different from what the org chart suggests.
The difference between using that knowledge well and playing politics comes down to intent: flagging a stakeholder’s informal influence so your executive can engage them early is strategic support. Using the same knowledge to position yourself is politics.
The most common mistake I see is EAs confusing visibility with value. Wanting to be seen as more strategic, they start contributing more (more opinions, more presence in conversations they weren’t previously part of) and the executive doesn’t experience it as added value. They experience it as “my EA has become harder to manage.”
EAs who build genuine influence are the ones ruthlessly focused on making the executive more effective, not on making themselves more visible. They ask better questions rather than offer more answers – and solve problems quietly rather than narrate the solving of them.
When they do step into a more strategic space, it’s because they’ve been invited there by demonstrated reliability at every level below it. Influence with senior leaders is pulled, not pushed. It takes longer to build but it’s the only version that lasts.
