When Mark Cuban bought the Dallas Mavericks, he refused an office or big desk—here’s why

Most newly appointed bosses get the big corner office when they take over companies.

But when Mark Cuban bought the Dallas Mavericks for $285 million in January 2000, he didn’t get his own floor-to-ceiling windows or a mahogany desk. Instead, he sat with nine other salesmen in an open plan office.

In a recent interview with GQ, Cuban explained he “didn’t give a s— about an office” because he was more focused on working alongside the sales team and earning their respect.

“I wanted everybody that worked with me to see that if I asked them to do it, I’ll do it,” Cuban told GQ. “If you’re running a company and if you can align your interest with those of the people you work with, things are gonna work for you.”

Cuban said he decided to buy the team after its home opener in 1999. At that point, he was just a season ticket holder, but he couldn’t believe the game wasn’t sold out. He bought the team because he thought he could make it better and sell more tickets, he said.

When he bought the team that January, Cuban said he put his desk in the center of the bullpen. In those days, he’d pull out phone books and old client lists and start cold calling.

Wanting to lead by example, he came up with compelling pitches to get old fans to come back to games. He’d say: “Do you realize now that it’s less expensive to come to a Mavericks game than to take your family to McDonald’s?” or “The first game’s free on me.”

Cuban’s method appears to have worked, as the Dallas Mavericks’ team value has steadily increased over the years. In 2014, the team was worth $765 million. Now, the 2011 NBA Champions are valued at $3.3 billion — $440,000 million more than the average NBA team — and is the eighth most valuable team in the NBA, according to Forbes.

This isn’t the first time Cuban has emphasized the importance of team cohesiveness. On a recent episode of the “Re:Thinking with Adam Grant” podcast, Cuban said he has fired business partners and traded basketball players because of their personalities — especially when the team has multiple self-centered or combative members.

“Culture and chemistry are critical to success,” Cuban said. “A team can have one knucklehead, you can’t have two. One knucklehead adapts, two hang out together.”

Want to earn more and work less? Register for the free CNBC Make It: Your Money virtual event on Dec. 13 at 12 p.m. ET to learn from money masters how you can increase your earning power.

Sign up now: Get smarter about your money and career with our weekly newsletter

Want to sound more confident? Ditch these 10 phrases that make you look ‘insecure’ and ‘arrogant’: Word experts

We’ve all been there: You want people to think that you’re confident and capable, but somehow, you wind up saying the wrong things that create a sense of arrogance, which is rooted in insecurity.

As word experts and hosts of NPR’s award-winning podcast “You’re Saying It Wrong,” we’ve found ways to help you tread that fine line between looking confident and looking like you’re arrogant and insecure.

Here are 10 phrases to ditch if you want to sound more self-assured and likable, according to behavioral experts and psychologists:

1. “I don’t mean to brag, but …”

You don’t mean to brag? Then don’t. People who set up a statement with this phrase automatically signal that they are about to, yes, brag, which turns listeners off.

Plus, since bragging is one of the hallmarks of narcissistic behavior, you’re not coming off as confident, but just full of yourself.

2. “I already knew that …” (or “Doesn’t everyone know that?”)

The scenario: A coworker explains something to you, and you reply: “Of course. I already knew that.”

You might think this response makes you sound knowledgeable, but it actually sounds dismissive and arrogant. A simple “thanks” or “yes” is a better way to respond to someone’s explanation.

3. “I’m pretty sure that …” 

4. “No offense, but ….”

This immediately sets up an adversarial conversation: You’re overtly indicating that you’re about to say something that could — and probably will — offend someone.

Sounding like you think you have the authority to critique others won’t win you any friends. To compound matters, it’s also textbook passive-aggressive behavior.

5. Overusing “I” (or “me)

6. “Oh, I’m just kidding!”

This is a passive-aggressive way of indicating that you think you know better. When you follow up a comment or criticism with a “just kidding” in an attempt to take the sting out of it, you’re not fooling anyone. You’re just insulting the other person.

It’s better to simply not say anything that has to be laughed off in the first place.

7. “You probably don’t know this, but …”

This phrase is practically guaranteed to irritate the listener. Again, you’re being dismissive of the other person’s knowledge or capabilities.

If you want to share information, share it without the obnoxious disclaimer.

8. “I’m surprised you’re having problems with this. It’s so easy!”

Maybe you really are surprised that someone can’t do or understand something, and maybe you really do think it’s so easy. But saying it out loud only makes you sound like a know-it-all.

It’s the same with phrases like “You couldn’t figure it out? It’s just common sense!” It’s common sense to not say phrases like this.

9. “You just don’t get it.”

10. “If I were you, I’d ….”

This is another “I know best” phrase, which can make you come off as arrogant instead of helpful. If you want to give advice, rephrase it to be supportive — rather than judgmental — by asking questions like, “Have you tried …?” or “What about …?

Communication patterns that turn people off

These aren’t phrases, but they are common communication mistakes we’ve seen that can make you look like a conversational narcissist:

Constantly interrupting

It’s rude to cut people off while they’re speaking. Maybe you’re eager to prove you know what they’re talking about; perhaps you think your input is needed and you can’t wait. Well, wait. It’s that simple.

Talking too much in general

Dominating a conversation by talking (and talking and talking) doesn’t make you look like an expert. It makes you look like you’re overly fond of your own voice, views and ideas.

Making everything about you

A colleague mentions that they are feeling burned out, and you immediately start talking about how burned out you feel lately.

Remember: It’s not always about you. Even if you think your empathy or input will win you points, you’re actually undermining yourself.

Kathy and Ross Petras are the brother-and-sister co-authors of the NYT bestseller “You’re Saying it Wrong,” as well as “Awkword Moments″ and “That Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means.” They co-host NPR’s award-winning podcast “You’re Saying It Wrong.” Their newest book, “A History of the World Through Body Parts,” is a quirky history of things you didn’t learn through textbooks. Follow them on Twitter @kandrpetras.

Don’t miss:

Want to earn more and work less? Register for the free CNBC Make It: Your Money virtual event on Dec. 13 at 12 p.m. ET to learn from money masters like Kevin O’Leary how you can increase your earning power.

Smart people avoid these 6 common phrases at all costs

From Elon Musk to Sam Bankman-Fried, a bad week for market geniuses

Are founders good or bad for business?

From the FTX bankruptcy and downfall of crypto “rock star” Sam Bankman-Fried to the chaos at Twitter, it has not been a good week for the geniuses of capitalism. Elon Musk’s abrupt and in some cases already reversed decisions since taking over the social media company back up his contention that so far his tenure “isn’t boring,” but also expose the type of corporate governance issues that are too often repeated to the detriment of shareholders.

“Without a doubt, Sam Bankman-Fried is a genius,” said Yale School of Management leadership guru Jeffrey Sonnenfeld in an interview with CNBC’s “Fast Money” on Thursday. “But what’s hard is that somebody has to be able to put on the brakes on them and ask them questions. But when they develop one of these emperor-for-life models … then you really don’t have accountability,” Sonnenfeld said.

Few would doubt the genius of Elon Musk, or Mark Zuckerberg, for that matter, but few would put them in the same class with many companies that have failed spectacularly, though Sonnenfeld says they share the link of being allowed to operate without enough corporate oversight.

“It’s not crazy to talk about Theranos, or WeWork, Groupon, MySpace, WebMD, or Naptster – so many companies that fall off the cliff because they didn’t have proper governance, they didn’t figure out, how do you get the best of a genius?” Sonnenfeld said.

In the case of Bankman-Fried, who stepped down from his CEO role at FTX as the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday, Sonnenfeld pointed to the lack of a board that should have been asking tough questions.

Tom Williams | CQ-Roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images

But boards are often unable to manage genius, Sonnenfeld said. Zuckerberg is another example. When Meta, formerly Facebook, announced it would be shifting its focus to the metaverse last year, Sonnenfeld said his board members were essentially powerless. Meta laid off 11,000 of its employees this week and announced a hiring freeze as it has faced declining revenue and increased spending on a metaverse bet that Zuckerberg has said may not pay off for a decade.

Tesla shares have not been immune from Musk’s Twitter takeover, with the stock plummeting this week after Musk told Twitter employees on Thursday he sold Tesla stock to “save” the social network. One Wall Street analyst decided that Twitter is now a business risk to Tesla and yanked the stock from a best picks list.

Musk (though not Tesla’s founder) and Zuckerberg oversaw the creation of two trillion-dollar companies, though both have now lost that market-cap status in stock declines caused by a variety of factors — from macroeconomic conditions to sector-specific risks, a market valuation reset for high growth companies, and also leadership decisions.

Market research shows that founders can be a financial risk to company value over time. Founder-led companies have been found to outperform those with non-founder leaders in early year, according to a study from the Harvard Business Review that examined the financial performance of more than 2,000 public businesses, but virtually no difference appears three years after the company’s IPO. After this time, the study found that founder-CEOs “actually start detracting from firm value.”

Major players in Elon Musk’s Twitter deal, including Fidelity Investments, Brookfield Asset Management and former Twitter CEO and co-founder Jack Dorsey, did not take a seat on the company’s board or have a voice throughout the transaction, Sonnenfeld said, which gave the deal no oversight. Musk is now splitting his time between six separate companies: Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity/Tesla Energy, Twitter, Neuralink and The Boring Company.

Companies led by lone geniuses need strong governance first and foremost. Sonnenfeld says having built-in checks and balances and a board that has field expertise as well as the ability to watch out for mission creep is critical to allowing these businesses to function with less risk of costly blunders.

Tesla and Meta governance scores within ESG rankings have long reflected this risk.

That doesn’t mean the market doesn’t need geniuses.

“Sure, we’re better off with Elon Musk in this world as we are better off with Mark Zuckerberg,” Sonnenfeld said. “But they can’t be alone.”

Through the recent issues, these under-fire leaders have been critical of themselves.

FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried tweeted Thursday morning that he is “sorry,” admitting that he “f—ed up” and “should have done better.”

Zuckerberg said of the mass layoffs at Meta in a statement equal parts apology and unintended restatement of the governance problem, “I take full responsibility for this decision. I’m the founder and CEO, I’m responsible for the health of our company, for our direction, and for deciding how we execute that, including things like this, and this was ultimately my call.”

Musk tweeted, “Please note that Twitter will do lots of dumb things in coming months.”

But whether an apology or an admission from genius that it too can be dumb on occasion, Sonnenfeld says these leaders would be better off letting others do the criticizing — much sooner, and much more often.

“They have to be managed, they have to be guided and they have to have a board that can help get the best out of themselves and not let them develop this imperial sense of invincibility,” he said.

Nancy Pelosi says attack on husband will affect leadership decision

U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) holds a press conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, September 22, 2022.

Kevin Lamarque | Reuters

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the brutal home invasion attack on her husband last month will affect her decision on whether to remain in the Democratic leadership in Congress.

But Pelosi, D-Calif., who police say was the actual intended target of the man charged in the attack, did not reveal in a new CNN interview whether that means she will leave her leadership post or stay in it.

Pelosi, 82, has been the top House Democrat for two decades.

Pelosi’s comment came as her party is battling to remain in control of both chambers of Congress in Tuesday’s midterm elections. Republicans are favored to win control of the House.

Capitol Police had a live feed of the Pelosi home invasion, but no one noticed it

Her 82-year-old husband, Paul Pelosi, had his skull fractured early Oct. 28 by an assailant wielding a hammer, after the other man broke into the Pelosi home in San Francisco, police have said.

David DePape, 42, has been charged with attempted murder and other state crimes in the attack.

Federal prosecutors have charged DePape with the federal crimes of attempted kidnapping of a federal official — Nancy Pelosi — and assaulting an immediate family member of a United States official with the intent to retaliate against the official.

Authorities have said DePape was prepared to kidnap and detain Nancy Pelosi and break her kneecaps when he went to her residence. The speaker was in Washington, D.C., at the time of the break-in.

During her interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Pelosi said her decision on whether to stay in leadership “will be affected about what happened the last week or two.”

Cooper then asked, “Will your decision be impacted by the attack in any way?”

“Yes,” Pelosi replied.

Female bosses don’t need low voices to be seen as good leaders: study

Elizabeth Holmes was infamously suspected of lowering her voice to be taken more seriously in a male-dominated Silicon Valley. Turns out, that was completely unnecessary, a recent study suggests.

The study, conducted by Kansas University School of Business lecturer Midam Kim, asked participants to compare short speech samples of 12 current and former CEOs including Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Mary Barra and Ginni Rometty.

The CEOs’ names and companies were not disclosed to the study’s nearly 200 male and female participants, which included individuals from both the U.S. and other countries.

Kim manipulated each CEO’s sample to create low-, middle- and high-pitched versions. Participants listened to all three pitch levels for each CEO and picked the most “trustworthy” sounding sample, she tells CNBC Make It. 

The result: Lower male voices were perceived as more trustworthy, but lower female voices saw no significant change. “For male leaders, the pattern was reconfirmed … but for female leaders, that pattern was much weaker,” Kim says. “People do not care too much about a female CEO having a lower voice.” 

The study, which has not yet been published in a journal, challenges a common finding across a plethora of older studies that people consistently perceive lower voices as more capable of leading. The reason that it’s not really true for women, she says, has to do with differing leadership expectations.

People tend to expect “dominant leadership” from men and “communal leadership” from women, Kim says. In other words, effective male leaders are often associated with characteristics like being assertive, controlling, aggressive and self-confident, while great women leaders are more associated with caring about others and being helpful, kind and sympathetic.

A low voice is an “auditory cue” for dominance, and people don’t tend to expect that trait in women since it’s not a sign of communal leadership, Kim says.

“If a lower voice, which is a dominant skill, is coming from a female figure, then that is violating people’s expectations of female leaders,” she adds.

Kim also asked the study’s participants to rate the CEO voice samples by competence and integrity. Female participants said a low voice helped female CEOs seem more competent, but didn’t do anything to make them seem like they had more integrity.

The findings don’t necessarily mean a low voice will hurt female leaders, especially if that’s your natural pitch, Kim says: You just “might not have to lower your voice intentionally” to sound like a better leader.

Sign up now: Get smarter about your money and career with our weekly newsletter

Don’t miss:

Harvard expert: The 5 types of bosses you never want to work for—or become

There are 7 types of bosses, says workplace culture expert—only 1 is worth working for, or trying to become

Why you should stop overthinking and start taking risks, according to this CEO

I raised 2 successful CEOs and a doctor. Here’s the ‘unpopular’ parenting rule I always used on my kids

Here’s a wake-up call for American parents: We are doing too much for our kids. This is the origin of “helicopter parenting,” in which we constantly remove obstacles so that our kids don’t have to deal with challenges.

There were many unpopular parenting rules I followed as a young, single mother. But my No. 1 was: Don’t do anything for your kids that they can do for themselves.

That worked out for my daughters. All three grew up to be highly successful: Susan is the CEO of YouTube, Janet is a doctor, and Anne is the co-founder and CEO of 23andMe. They rose to the top of competitive, male-dominated professions.

Parents need to stop coddling their kids

The more you trust your children to do things on their own, the more empowered they’ll be. The key is to begin with guided practice: It’s the “I do, we do, you do” method.

You can try this with all sorts of simple, everyday actions:

  • Waking up: Have them set their own alarm.
  • Getting dressed: Let them pick their own outfit.
  • Breakfast/lunch/dinner: Give them simple tasks like stirring the pancake batter, cleaning their lunchbox and setting the table.
  • Getting their backpack ready: Have them run through a list of what they need to bring that day.
  • Making plans: Let them come up with weekend or after school activities.
  • Checking homework: It’s okay if they don’t get 100% of the answers correct. Let them learn from the mistakes.

Chores are especially important. Washing dishes was a big one in our house. All my daughters stood on a little stool at the sink and washed the dishes after dinner.

And when we went grocery shopping, I’d ask them to get two pounds of apples. They had to pick out the good ones, which I’d taught them how to do, and measure pounds on the scale.

If we went over our grocery budget, they’d help me decide what to put back.

Don’t worry about perfection

I expected my daughters to make their own beds every morning. Ha! A bed made by a kid can look like she’s still asleep in it. But I didn’t fight them. As long as they did it, I was happy.

Mastery means doing something as many times as it takes to get it right. Being a writing teacher taught me this. In the 80s and 90s, one of the supposed characteristics of a good teacher was that your class was so hard that many students failed.

But the kids who got a D on their first paper found it impossible to recover and lost the motivation to improve, since they were starting out so far behind.

So I gave them the opportunity to revise their work as many times as they wanted. Their grade was based on the final product. And when it came time for testing, my students performed in the 90th percentile of state exams.

It was the learning and the hard work that I wanted to reward, not getting it right the first time.

Kids are smarter than you think

Here are the best foods to feed kids, according to a Harvard brain expert

What first Black woman to be a FedEx CEO has learned about leading

A FedEx truck makes deliveries on December 06, 2021 in New York City.

Spencer Platt | Getty Images

When FedEx Custom Critical CEO Ramona Hood started her career at the transportation provider, her initial goal was not to become the first African American woman to lead a FedEx operating company.

“I was a 19-year-old single mom, so my focus at that time really was around having a job with constant hours,” Hood told CNBC’s Frank Holland at the CNBC Work Summit on Tuesday.

“It was many years later that I started to focus on a career and recognized the world of FedEx and how big it was,” she said. “I decided to really be intentional with my career, and that focus has driven me to the place I’m in today.”

That focus over a 31-year career with FedEx led to Hood’s February 2020 appointment as CEO and president of the operating company, which oversees transportation capabilities for expedited ground, temperature control shipments, and other industry-specific solutions.

Hood shared some of the lessons and learnings that helped her climb the corporate ladder, as well as how she navigated the Covid-19 pandemic in the early stage of her CEO tenure.

Moving up the ranks

Hood said that when her focus shifted to moving up the ranks to leadership roles at FedEx, one of the first things that helped her was thinking about “how I can bring value to an organization and then beginning to share that with people.”

That later evolved to having her own board of directors, filled with people supporting her career.

As her roles and responsibilities changed, Hood said her “intentionality” changed as well.

Now, she says, her focus is “on bringing the business forward to ensure that our people are able to demonstrate the best in their skills and their ability.”

Ramona Hood attends New York Moves 2021 Power Women Gala at Second Events Space on November 19, 2021 in New York City.

John Lamparski | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

Leading with grace

In the early days of the pandemic, which came alongside the start of Hood’s tenure as CEO, she said the expectation from many was that it would be short-lived and “we’d be back to the normal that we all knew within 60 to 90 days.”

But as it became clearer that it would not, Hood said that an important thing she took away from that period was “the grace that we gave everyone.”

“You think about people starting to work from home, and the interruptions that would happen because they weren’t necessarily set up for that environment … there was just a lot of grace that we all had for one another,” Hood said.

Maintaining an agile approach and focusing on communication were keys to her leadership during this period.

“Our focus was really to get people home fairly quickly with the infrastructure that had not been tested in that way, and our goal was to continue to work to see if we’re going to break it and then fix it,” she said. “So that ability to take such a complex problem and breaking it down into simpler terms and doing it at the speed that we did was something that we continue to utilize in our work today – how are we solving problems and how can we do it faster than we have historically.”

Working in a hybrid environment

With the multi-generational workforce at FedEx that is now working at both home and the office, Hood said that it’s been important to embrace both “physical and digital meeting together.”

While some of that has been focused on the tools that are used to bridge that gap, it’s also making sure that “when we do come to the office, doing it with intentionality,” she said.

That also impacts leadership, with Hood noting that you need to have visibility across your team so that you can mentor and sponsor them. “It’s important to look at how you do that both in the physical environment as well as a digital environment,” she added.

There are 8 types of ‘difficult’ people—and the ‘passive-aggressive’ is the worst of all: Harvard expert

Having to work with frustrating people is simply part of life. You can’t escape them. But you also don’t have to grin and bear the stress as if you have no choice.

While researching for my new book, “Getting Along,” I identified eight types of difficult people. The first step to effectively handling these frustrating colleagues is to know exactly what kind of person you’re dealing with.

The 8 types of difficult people

The Passive-Aggressive

Illustration: Ash Lamb for CNBC Make It

2. The Insecure Boss might be a micromanager who drives you up a wall with incessant nitpicking. Or they might be a paranoid meddler who makes you question your every move. They may even intentionally hurt your career if they perceive you as a threat.

The Insecure Boss

Illustration: Ash Lamb for CNBC Make It

3. The Pessimist constantly points out all the ways something can fail. It sometimes seems like they can never find anything positive to say.

The Pessimist

Illustration: Ash Lamb for CNBC Make It

4. The Victim is a type of pessimist who feels like everyone is out to get them. They don’t take accountability for their actions, and they’ll quickly point their fingers at other people when things go wrong. 

The Victim

Illustration: Ash Lamb for CNBC Make It

5. The Know-It-All is convinced that they’re the smartest person in the room, hogs airtime, and has no qualms about interrupting others. They gleefully inform you of what’s right, even if they’re clearly wrong. 

The Know-It-All

Illustration: Ash Lamb for CNBC Make It

6. The Tormentor is someone who has earned their way to the top, typically making sacrifices along the path — only to mistreat others below them. They might be a senior colleague who you expect to be a mentor, but who ends up making your life miserable instead.

The Tormentor

Illustration: Ash Lamb for CNBC Make It

7. The Biased knowingly or unknowingly commits microaggressions. No matter what they think their intention is with these comments, their behavior is inappropriate and harmful.

The Biased

Illustration: Ash Lamb for CNBC Make It

8. The Political Operator is laser focused on advancing their own career — but at your expense. Of course, engaging in office politics is often unavoidable, but this person is fixated on getting ahead and has a take-no-prisoners approach to doing so.

The Political Operator

Illustration: Ash Lamb for CNBC Make It

How to handle passive-aggressive behavior at work

Passive aggression is one of the most frustrating behaviors I see in offices because it can be so hard to pin down and ultimately fix.

But there are some tips you can use to nudge your colleague to interact with you in a more productive, straightforward way.

1. Don’t label them as “passive-aggressive.”

Don’t label them as “passive-aggressive.”

Illustration: Ash Lamb for CNBC Make It

“Stop being so passive aggressive!” is a loaded phrase that will only make things worse. I’d be shocked if your colleague said, “Yeah, you’re right. I’ll stop.”

It’s more likely that this request would make them even more angry and defensive, which will stop any sort of positive communication in its tracks.

2. Focus on the content, not the delivery.

Focus on the real concern or question hidden behind the snarky comments.

Illustration: Ash Lamb for CNBC Make It

Before reacting to a passive aggressive comment, ask yourself: What is the underlying idea they’re attempting to convey? Do they think that the way you’re running a project isn’t working? Or do they disagree with the team’s goals?

If you can focus on the real concern or question hidden beneath that snarky comment, you can find a way address the actual problem in a way that works for everyone.

3. Figure out what the other person cares about.

Do some “hypothesis testing.”

Illustration: Ash Lamb for CNBC Make It

Call attention to what’s happening.

Illustration: Ash Lamb for CNBC Make It

Harvard nutritionist: This is the No. 1 vitamin to keep your brain sharp

How to deal with bad bosses

Imagine this: Your boss is terrible enough to make you consider quitting your job, but you still need that paycheck. What do you do?

Three-fourths of U.S. workers stay with that bad boss because they need the salary, according to a 2020 survey by resume advice site ResumeLab. In the same survey, about 62% of respondents said they stayed despite a bad boss because they liked their jobs and colleagues, 59% said they didn’t want to lose benefits and 53% said they couldn’t find a better job elsewhere.

For those in such a situation, Tom Gimbel, a workplace culture expert and CEO of Chicago-based employment agency LaSalle Network, has a few tips for you. He says there are seven types of bosses out there — and while five of them can make your life a nightmare at work, you can still find ways to manage your relationships with them.

Here are those five types of bad bosses, from most to least common — and how to deal with them, according to Gimbel.

Grinder boss

A grinder boss works extremely hard and expects you to perform at their level, even if that’s an unrealistic request.

The key to working with them is openly discussing what they want you to achieve — whether on a daily, weekly or monthly basis — and creating a defined list of tasks that you can cross off as you go, Gimbel says.

Even if you can’t complete every task in the amount of time they expect, showing them that you’re working through your list “is usually enough to pacify them,” Gimbel explains.

They never think anyone’s doing enough anyway, so demonstrating that you’re making progress is a useful course of action, he adds. 

Ghost boss

A ghost boss takes an extreme “hands-off” approach, failing to keep track of their team’s work and not being available when their team needs help, Gimbel says.

His recommendation: Regularly update your boss about your work and ask questions whenever you need help. If they don’t respond, turn to another manager or a senior-level employee on your team. Then, keep a paper trail showing that you’ve been asking for their help and updating them.

If your work gets criticized down the road, you can use that as proof that you were doing everything you could.

Narcissist boss 

Narcissist bosses make decisions according to their own wants and needs, and fail to consider the people around them at work, Gimbel says. They also love flattery, he adds — which is the key to working with them.

Try complimenting one of their ideas to help you get on their good side. If you don’t think their idea is a good one, then follow your compliment with a request for clarity.

That conversation could look like: “That sounds like a good idea. Can you explain how that would work if this issue comes up?” or “I like the idea. How can we get enough resources to execute it?”

Want-to-be-your-BFF boss

A “want-to-be-your-BFF” boss is exactly what it sounds like: They want to become friends with everyone around them, even if it means leading a team poorly. They’ll socialize more than doing actual work, distracting you in the process, Gimbel says.

Your solution here might be uncomfortable, he acknowledges: You need to “draw the line” with them and set boundaries with someone above you on the corporate hierarchy.

If you find yourself trapped in a conversation that’s lengthier than you expected, find a way to respectfully convey that you need to get some work done instead. That could sound like: “It was great chatting. I have to finish up some work before the end of the day, so I’ll catch you later.”

Volcano boss

A volcano boss starts out like a ghost boss, providing no direction for their team because they’re simply not there to assess the work being done. But then, they erupt at their employees when an assignment isn’t up to their standards — even when their lack of leadership is to blame.

Gimbel recommends using a similar strategy to working for a ghost boss: Update them about your work, reach out with questions and most importantly, document everything that shows you made the effort to ask for help.

How to recognize if you’re one of them

Why you should stop overthinking and start taking risks, according to this CEO

Former UK PM Boris Johnson pulls out of leadership race

Johnson previously enjoyed high levels of popularity until losing credibility in the final months of his premiership.

Gleb Garanich | Reuters

LONDON — Former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson will not stand in the leadership contest to replace outgoing leader Liz Truss.

Despite being ousted from office just three months ago, some Conservative MPs had backed Johnson for the top job, and he reportedly told allies over the last couple of days that he would formally join the contest.

But in a statement late Sunday, Johnson said it was “simply not the right time.” He added he had “cleared the very high hurdle of 102 nominations” to take part in the latter stages of the contest. Around 60 lawmakers had publicly backed the ex-PM but there had been question marks over exactly how many nominations he had received.

Johnson mentioned his two rivals in his statement, Rishi Sunak and Penny Mordaunt, who have both officially entered the contest.

“And though I have reached out to both Rishi and Penny — because I hoped that we could come together in the national interest — we have sadly not been able to work out a way of doing this,” Johnson said.

Sunak the favorite

Former Finance Minister Sunak is now the red hot favorite to be the next British leader with around 140 nominations so far.

On Saturday, Johnson flew back from a vacation in the Caribbean amid a media frenzy he would throw his hat into into the ring. Johnson is believed to still be popular in the grassroots of the wider Conservative Party despite many Tory MPs being firmly against a return.

If you want to be a successful UK prime minister, now may not be the best time, professor says

Former culture secretary and close Johnson ally Nadine Dorries tweeted Thursday that he was the only MP with “a mandate from party members and the British public,” having won the 2019 General Election.

“There is a very good chance that I would be successful in the election with Conservative Party members — and that I could indeed be back in Downing Street on Friday. But in the course of the last days I have sadly come to the conclusion that this would simply not be the right thing to do. You can’t govern effectively unless you have a united party in parliament,” Johnson said in the statement.

Johnson previously enjoyed high levels of popularity until losing credibility in the final months of his premiership amid political scandal around Covid-19 rule-breaking and his links to disgraced MP Chris Pincher.

In his parting speech he alluded to a future return to office with the words: “Hasta la vista, baby” or “see you later.”

British Prime Minister Liz Truss resigned Thursday, bringing to a close a brief 44-day tenure mired by “mini-budget” chaos, economic turmoil and weeks of political infighting.

How the contest works

Truss’ successor will once again be decided by a Conservative Party leadership contest drawn from a short-list of candidates. This time, however, the process has been fast-tracked into the space of a week, as the party seeks to salvage its credibility and reassure markets.

Candidates have until 2 p.m. London time on Monday to gain the backing of 100 MPs and therefore enter the ballot for party leader.

The threshold is particularly high given that the party is comprised of 357 MPs, and each is allowed to vote for only one candidate. That thus limits the number of possible contenders to three.

UK Prime Minister Liz Truss failed to meet already low expectations, says professor

If just one candidate receives the 100 votes required, they will automatically win the race and become Britain’s next prime minister. If two or more candidates reach 100 nominations, the contest will proceed to indicative ballots on Monday afternoon and evening.

Should the process extend beyond Monday, Conservative Party members — which number around 200,000 people representing 0.3% of the British population — will have until Friday 11 a.m. to vote for their preferred candidate in an online ballot.