An Evidence-Based Workshop
The Art of Managing Your Vietnamese Boss
Influencing upward is a learned skill,
not a favor someone grants you.
Phương · Thư · Ngọc · Bình · Hùng · Nhi
Managing your boss?
…good luck.
…good luck.
▶ Click to play the clip before revealing the topic
Minions · Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment · 2015
Total devotion, 
zero authority,
and it still 
goes wrong.
Because 
loyalty isn't the skill.
Reading and influencing a boss is.
This session exists to equip you,
not to lecture you.
01
INFORM
Understand
Why influencing upward works differently in the Vietnamese cultural context.
02
EQUIP
One playbook
Face · Ladder · Framing · Timing · Leverage · Monkey Management, integrated, not loose theory.
03
ACTIVATE
Rehearse & commit
Live practice + a commitment to ONE specific behavior you apply next week.
By the end of 30 minutes, you leave with ONE integrated playbook.
01
CONTENT DELIVERABLE
The 5-tool playbook
Face · Ladder · Framing · Timing · Leverage, plus the Monkey Management discipline.
02
EXPERIENTIAL DELIVERABLE
A rehearsed scenario
You will have personally rehearsed at least one real scenario before leaving the room.
Without this skill, your initiatives stay stuck at the bottom of the organization.
Without the skill
- You rarely hold formal authority over your boss, advancement depends on influencing without a title.
- Colleagues' priorities default to whoever holds power over them, your initiative stalls.
- Good proposals get rejected · bad news gets hidden · initiatives get shelved.
With the skill
- You move ideas upward even with no title to back them.
- You recruit priority and resources from peers and superiors alike.
- Proposals land · bad news surfaces early · initiatives ship.
Harvard Business School Online, n.d.
Synthesized from multiple leading academic sources, not one person's opinion.
Drawn from established academic and international consulting frameworks, then cross-checked against real case studies and field observation in Vietnamese companies.
Gabarro & KotterManaging Your Boss · 1980/2005The foundational HBR model of mutual dependence: read your boss's goals, pressures, and style, then manage the relationship both ways.
HofstedeCulture's Consequences · 2001Cross-country dimensions data: Vietnam's high power distance (~70) and low individualism (~20) that shape authority and the group.
MeyerThe Culture Map · 2014Eight scales for working across cultures: where Vietnam sits on trust, feedback, communication, and disagreement.
CialdiniInfluence · 2007The principles of persuasion behind the face-saving 4-step reframe: reciprocity, liking, authority, and social proof.
Oncken & WassWho's Got the Monkey? · 1974The classic delegation model: how responsibility "monkeys" jump upward, and the five levels of initiative that keep them in place.
Gabarro & Kotter, 1980/2005; Hofstede, 2001; Meyer, 2014; Cialdini, 2007; Oncken & Wass, 1974
Agenda · 5 parts
What we'll cover
01
Understanding the Context
Thư
5 min
02
Understanding the Players
Ngọc
6 min
03
Influence Framework & Strategy
Bình
7 min
04
Forum Theatre
Hùng & Nhi
6 min
05
Close & Key Takeaways
Phương
2 min
01
Part 01 · Thư
Understanding the Context
In Vietnam, influencing upward is not just about what you say, it's about how you say it, when you say it, and the relationship behind it.
The Cultural Operating System
Power in Vietnam runs on four invisible forces.
01
HIERARCHY
Hierarchy is relational
Power flows through respect and connection, not just the org chart.
02
FACE
Face governs
Protecting both parties' dignity is non-negotiable.
03
HARMONY
Harmony is strategic
Indirect navigation builds consensus; open confrontation creates friction.
04
TRUST
Trust precedes influence
Relational safety must be built BEFORE the ask, not during it.
Hofstede, 2001; Meyer, 2014
Evidence · Hofstede (2001)
A high-hierarchy, collectivist society, this is data, not a stereotype.
70/100
50/100
Power Distance
hierarchy widely accepted
20/100
50/100
Individualism
strongly collectivist
VietnamGlobal average (50)
Being right is not enough, effective upward influence requires navigating both hierarchy and collective interests.
Hofstede, 2001 · an orienting index, not to be applied mechanically to every person or firm.
Evidence · Meyer (2014) · The Culture Map
Communication in Vietnam says less than it means, learn to read between the lines.
Egalitarian
Hierarchical
Task-based trust
Relationship (affective) trust
Low-context
High-context
Direct negative feedback
Indirect negative feedback
Confrontational
Confrontation-avoidant
Meyer, 2014 · connects directly to Part 4's choice of "rung" on the Indirectness Ladder.
02
Part 02 · Ngọc
Understanding the Players
Influence starts with knowing who's really across the table, and yourself.
Reframe the Relationship
Your boss needs you as much as you need them, partnership, not servitude.
What your boss needs from you
- Reliability
- Cooperation
- Honest signal
⇄⇄
What you need from your boss
- Priorities
- Resources
- Institutional air cover
Gabarro & Kotter, 1980/2005
By Region & Sector
There's no single "Vietnamese boss", region and sector shape style.
Southern
Relationship-first, pragmatic, faster pace.
Northern
Protocol-conscious, formal, cautious.
Western-influenced
Task-first, direct, egalitarian.
01
PUBLIC SECTOR
Protocol & seniority
Consensus is settled offline before the meeting; the room ratifies rather than debates. Respect rank, bring endorsements, and never surprise the senior person in public.
02
PRIVATE SECTOR
Flatter & faster
Access is easier and channels are more direct, but priorities shift quickly. Move fast, propose something concrete, and be ready to iterate in the moment.
Synthesized field observation, an "observed tendency," not formal survey data.
Fast Diagnostic
One question, memo or present in person, decides most of your success.
01
MEMO-FIRST
Reader
Prefers to receive a memo or document before discussing.
02
LIVE-FIRST
Listener
Prefers to hear it presented live, then ask questions.
Gabarro & Kotter, 1980/2005 · quick show-of-hands with the audience.
The 5 Decision-Making Styles of a Boss
Proposals fail on the wrong persuasion structure,
not weak logic.
Follower≈36%
Cite case studies from similar organizations / industries.
Charismatic≈25%
Lead with the bottom line, use visuals, keep it simple.
Skeptic≈19%
Borrow credibility from someone they trust; tie to facts.
Thinker≈11%
Multi-angle data, options.
Controller≈9%
Linear facts.
Williams & Miller, 2002 · based on 1,600+ US business leaders (1999–2001). Percentages are a US reference, no style is "better."
Calibrating the 5 Styles for the Vietnamese Context
With Skeptics and Controllers, public debate is a near-certain path to failure.
01
FOLLOWER
Safety & precedent
More common where safety is prized, state-owned enterprises and long-standing family businesses.
02
SKEPTIC
Endorsers over data
Tied to quan hệ and deference to seniority, trusted endorsers matter more than raw data.
03
GO PRIVATE
Never in public
With Skeptics & Controllers, avoid debate that costs the boss face, discuss privately instead.
04
OBSERVE FIRST
Watch, then label
Observe the boss's actual behavior across 2–3 recent meetings before labeling a style.
Williams & Miller, 2002 · the Vietnam calibration is the research team's working hypothesis, not formal survey data.
Read Yourself
Before you read your boss, read your own reflex toward authority.
Overdependence
Defers automatically; withholds honest signal.
Counterdependence
Reflexively resists; treats every ask as a fight.
🍑
Peachsoft outside, opens quickly, but a hard pit of guarded trust at the core.
🥥
Coconuthard outer shell, slow to open, but soft and loyal once trust is earned.
Gabarro & Kotter, 1980/2005; Meyer, 2014
The Currencies You Can Trade
Influence is an exchange, knowing what you offer matters as much as what you want.
Inspiration
vision, meaning
Task
resources, help
Position
recognition, access
Relationship
support, loyalty
Personal
gratitude, autonomy
Cohen & Bradford, 2005 · an "influence bank" metaphor.
Your Sources of Authority · No Title Required
Power doesn't come from a title, it comes from four sources you already have.
01
EXPERT
Competence
Deep, demonstrated expertise, and making sure others know you have it.
02
REFERENT
Relationships
Personal trust and rapport, the power that travels furthest in Vietnam.
03
INFORMATIONAL
Access
Access to what others need to know, and control of how it flows.
04
LEGITIMATE
Role
Authority granted by the position, useful but the weakest without the rest.
French & Raven, 1959 · open prompt: "Which power do you already hold?"
Applied Sources of Power + Vietnam Bridge
In Vietnam, referent and expert power travel the furthest.
01
REFERENT POWER
Relationships
In a high power-distance, collectivist setting, personal trust and rapport travel furthest, borrowed authority through a trusted intermediary amplifies it.
02
EXPERT POWER
Competence
Demonstrated expertise, and making sure the right people know you have it, is the other source that consistently carries weight.
Harvard Business School Online, n.d. · the hinge from understanding the players to applying tactics in Part 4.
03
Part 03 · Bình
Influence Framework & Strategy
Context and people aren't enough, this is the action toolkit.
A · Face + the Indirectness Ladder
How direct you're allowed to be is proportional to the trust you've earned.
RUNG 1
Silence
Say nothing; observe and signal.
RUNG 2
Story
Raise it indirectly through analogy.
RUNG 3
Question
Surface it as a curious question.
RUNG 4
Private word
Direct, but one-on-one, never public.
If the trust isn't there yet, your first skill is earning it, buying permission to be direct.
PrincipleProtect the boss's authority.
Goffman, 1967; Ting-Toomey, 1988; Brown & Levinson, 1987 · match the rung to Meyer's high-context placement.
B · Communication, the 4-Step Reframe Formula
Frame the idea as support, not correction, so no one has to lose face.
01
AFFIRM
Affirm first
Start by affirming their direction.
02
OFFER
Offer, don't judge
Offer an idea, don't deliver a verdict.
03
TIE
Tie to the group
Tie it to the collective benefit.
04
EXIT
Face-saving exit
e.g. praise that they'd clearly already thought of it, just hadn't said it aloud yet.
PrincipleProtect the boss's authority.
Cialdini, 2007 · use softened language; let the data be the neutral messenger.
C · Timing
A good idea said at the wrong moment fails just like a bad idea.
Green windows
- One-on-one
- Right after a small win
- Before a decision goes public
Red zones
- Public challenges
- Crowded group chats
- High-pressure windows like Tết
PrincipleProtect the boss's authority.
TacticSystematic informality, deliberately engineer the casual moments to raise things.
Practical guidance synthesized from consulting experience, not tied to a single academic source.
D · Leverage
Relationship capital doesn't appear on its own, it's built and traded deliberately.
Mobilize relationship capital, trade influence "currencies," and borrow credibility through trusted intermediaries.
PrincipleFollow the credibility paths.
Cohen & Bradford, 2005; Cialdini, 2007
E · Monkey Management + the 5 Levels of Initiative
A "monkey" you accept becomes yours, so act and report, don't hand it up.
LEVEL 1
Wait until told
Avoid.
LEVEL 2
Ask what to do
Avoid.
LEVEL 3
Recommend, then act on approval
Minimum for high-risk work.
LEVEL 4
Act, then report
Once trust is established.
LEVEL 5
Act, report on schedule
The target for experienced staff.
PrincipleSplit ownership: own the work, leave the decision.
Oncken & Wass, 1974
The Discipline of "Feeding Monkeys Properly" + Vietnam Intersection
Proposing a solution doesn't mean absorbing the risk, final approval still belongs to the boss.
Common mistake
- "Feeding the monkey in the hallway", an unscheduled drop.
- Bringing a problem with no proposed option (Level 1–2).
- In blame-averse settings (esp. public sector), pushing the monkey upward to protect yourself.
Correct discipline
- End every problem conversation naming WHO owns the next step and WHEN they report back.
- Always bring at least one proposed option, upgrades you to Level 3.
- Reframe: you own the quality of the proposal & its execution; the boss still decides. This is also a face move.
PrincipleSplit ownership: own the work, leave the decision.
Oncken & Wass, 1974 · hinge into Part 5, Forum Theatre rehearses exactly this discipline.
04
Part 04 · Hùng & Nhi
Forum Theatre
Theory only belongs to you once your body has rehearsed it.
Forum Theatre · How It Works
Theory only really belongs to you once your body has rehearsed it.
01
SAFETY
Critique the move
Never the person. The boss is a role, not a target.
02
CONSENT
Anyone can pass
Stepping in to try a scene is always voluntary.
03
ITERATE
Try it better
A botched attempt is paused, then re-run with a framework-driven move.
Boal, 1979; Kolb, 1984 · read the safety frame aloud before starting.
SCENARIO 1
Early Stage / Onboarding
Trust is built from the smallest signals in the earliest stage of a relationship.
★ Simulation Brief, hand to the actors / spect-actors on the spot
Characters
You (new hire, 2 weeks in) & "The Boss" (department head, reserved, rarely praises openly)
Context
The boss hands off a vague task and walks away, clarify expectations without seeming passive or high-maintenance.
Opening line
"Can you research this for me?" (walks away immediately, doesn't stop)
Rule for spect-actor
No Level 1–2 questions, proactively clarify scope and build trust signals.
Success condition
Deliver at least one Level-3 clarifying question, or confirm scope in writing.
Time
2 minutes per round, up to 3 rounds with different attempts.
Composite fictional case for discussion purposes, no direct academic citation.
SCENARIO 2
Growth Stage / Mid-Relationship
A good proposal can still die if you skip the protocol and use the wrong rung.
★ Simulation Brief, Indirectness Ladder · face-saving framing · "recommend then act" (Level 3)
Characters
You (mid-level manager) & "The Chairman" (family-business founder, Skeptic/Controller, very busy, interrupts)
Context
Catch the Chairman in the hallway before his next meeting to pitch a process-improvement idea.
Opening line
"OK, make it quick, you have exactly one minute." (keeps glancing at his watch)
Rule for spect-actor
Use Face + Ladder at a level that fits the time constraint (no long "private word"); a SHORTENED 4-step reframe.
Success condition
Chairman shifts from an immediate "no" to "let me take a look" or schedules a private follow-up.
Time
90 seconds per round, matching the real time constraint.
Composite fictional case for discussion purposes, no direct academic citation.
SCENARIO 3
Complex Stage / Friction
Bad news handled well strengthens trust, handled badly, it destroys it.
★ Simulation Brief, correct timing · the bad-news formula · protect face on both sides
Characters
You (lead engineer) & "The CEO" (proud of the product, publicly praised the tech team, sensitive about image)
Context
You've discovered a serious security flaw affecting customer data, must report immediately without making the CEO lose face.
Opening line
"So, is everything good? I just got praised in the press this morning!" (very upbeat)
Rule for spect-actor
Use the exact bad-news formula: Problem → Cause → Proposed solution → Ask for input, AND choose the right private timing.
Success condition
CEO doesn't get angry or deflect, instead asks "So what do we do now?"
Time
3 minutes per round.
Composite fictional case for discussion purposes, no direct academic citation.
Debrief After Scenarios 1–3
Learning from experience only happens when you stop and name exactly what worked.
01
FACE
Was face protected?
Why did the winning move work, was face given or protected on both sides?
02
LADDER & CURRENCY
Which rung, which trade?
Which rung of the Indirectness Ladder was used, and which influence currency was traded?
03
INITIATIVE & TIMING
Right level, right moment?
Which initiative level was shown, and was the timing right for the ask?
Kolb, 1984 · re-display this checklist after Scenarios 1, 2, and 3.
SCENARIO 4
The crisis, acted twice
★ Simulation Brief
Backstory
A failure surfaced 3 weeks ago; the employee "reported it," but the monkey got dropped in the hallway. Now it's a crisis: line down, a major client threatening to cancel, the boss grilled by HQ.
Characters
An operations team lead & the Regional Director (under enormous HQ pressure, surprise audit in 48 hours).
Opening line
"I trusted you with this. Now tell me EXACTLY what's going on, and don't dance around it!"
Format
Same crisis, acted twice: Round 1 without the framework · Round 2 with it.
Time
1 min brief + 2 rounds × 3 min.
Composite fictional case for discussion purposes, no direct academic citation.
01
Same Situation, Different Method
Without the Framework
HùngThe Director
NhiThe Team Lead
02
Same Situation, Different Method
With the Framework
HùngThe Director
NhiThe Team Lead
Same crisis, acted twice
The framework doesn't prevent the crisis, it decides whether you come out with the relationship intact.
Round 1 · Without the framework
- Natural reflex: panic, blame, silence.
- Crisis spirals out of control.
- Trust collapses; face damaged on both sides, recovery may take months.
Round 2 · With the framework
- Face + bad-news formula + a Level 3 recovery plan, raised privately.
- Crisis still serious, but contained.
- Trust preserved; the relationship has an immediate chance to recover.
Every tool from the last 30 minutes, Face · Ladder · Timing · Leverage · Monkey Management, converges into these 3 minutes.
Kolb, 1984 · bridges into the close.
05
Part 05 · Phương
Close & Key Takeaways
Respect and preserved dignity move ideas faster than pressure.
You came here for ONE integrated playbook, and now you have it, even under real pressure.
01
CONTENT DELIVERABLE
The 5-tool playbook
Face · Ladder · Framing · Timing · Leverage, plus the Monkey Management discipline.
02
EXPERIENTIAL DELIVERABLE
A rehearsed scenario
You just watched this exact playbook work in a live crisis.
Influence is 
patience, relational capital, and framing.
Respect moves ideas faster than pressure.
Knowledge changes nothing until it becomes ONE specific action next week.
Action Commitment Card
1 · One specific behavior I'll apply next week
2 · The decision-making style I've identified in my boss
Choose ONE behavior only, not the whole list. The narrower the commitment, the more likely it survives contact with Monday.
Hand out the physical card as soon as this slide is shown.
Your questions are the next step in turning theory into reflex.
01
YOUR BOSS
A real situation
Bring a specific case with your own boss, where would you start on the Indirectness Ladder?
02
READING STYLE
Skeptic or Controller?
Struggling to read a boss's decision style? Tell us the behaviour and we'll place it.
03
BOUNDARIES
How far is too far?
Where are the limits around Face and Leverage before influence becomes manipulation?
Unlike 
the Minions, you now leave with 
the skill, not just the loyalty.
Cảm ơn
Thank you
Q&A time
Appendix · Full Reference List (APA)
Not counted in the 30-minute runtime, for facilitator documentation.
Boal, A. (1979). Theatre of the Oppressed. Urizen Books.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Rev. ed.). Harper Business. (Original 1984)
Cohen, A. R., & Bradford, D. L. (2005). Influence Without Authority (2nd ed.). Wiley.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan.
Gabarro, J. J., & Kotter, J. P. (2005). Managing your boss. Harvard Business Review, 83(1), 92–99. (Original 1980)
Goffman, E. (1967). On face-work. In Interaction Ritual. Anchor Books. (Original 1955)
Harvard Business School Online. (n.d.). Sources of authority for influencing without a formal title [Blog post]. online.hbs.edu.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences (2nd ed.). Sage.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Prentice Hall.
Meyer, E. (2014). The Culture Map. PublicAffairs.
Minions [Film]. (2015). Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment.
Oncken, W., Jr., & Wass, D. L. (1999). Management time: Who's got the monkey? Harvard Business Review, 77(6), 178–186. (Original 1974)
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Theories in Intercultural Communication. Sage.
Williams, G. A., & Miller, R. B. (2002). Change the way you persuade. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 64–73.