360 Feedback Is Political: What to Do Next

You have read the signals. You have worked through them carefully. And now you cannot unsee what you see.

The previous guide in this series is a diagnostic. It covers the instruments through which feedback can be gathered and used politically, the signals that distinguish a development process from a political one, and why the verdict in these situations so often precedes the process rather than following from it. If you have worked through it, you have a clearer picture of what is actually driving your 360 feedback, and you may have arrived at an emotionally uncomfortable place.

The anger comes first, usually. Anger at a process that used the language of development to do something else entirely, at the people involved, at the system that made it possible. Alongside it, or close behind it, comes the fear about what this means for the role, for everything that sits downstream of this job. Both are entirely reasonable responses to what is a genuinely threatening situation.

And underneath those, if you look for it, something else has also happened. The veil has lifted, though not because the situation has improved. You can see what you are actually navigating. It is clarity, and clarity is what you can act from.

This guide will not justify your anger or mollify your fear. What it can do is give you something useful to do with them. Because knowing changes what you are responsible for. Engaging with the development plan is not the problem. Doing so blindly, as though you have no choice, is.

This guide is about what to do instead.

It is not a guide about fighting. It is not about going to war with HR, or turning the situation into a formal dispute before you have made an intentional choice to do so. It is a guide about staying in your own power by making active choices rather than reactive ones, protecting what needs protecting, and keeping your options genuinely open while the process runs its course.

Some of what follows could be uncomfortable. A few things may seem calculating, in a way that sits awkwardly with the beliefs that probably brought you into leadership in the first place. I want to address that directly. Political literacy does not ask you to become someone you are not. It asks you to act with intention rather than instinct in a situation that is itself not being run with good faith. That is not the same thing.

Before anything else, what is actually yours

The previous guide raised something important, which we will hone into now: the feedback is partially true, grounded in real events. Some of it you recognise.

Before you act on anything else in this guide, it is worth sitting with that seriously.

There is a particular temptation once you discover that a process is being used against you. The reasoning goes, 'the feedback is contaminated, and I do not have to take it seriously.' That is not a conclusion the evidence supports.

A process can be political and the feedback can still contain something real. These are not mutually exclusive.

The distinction that matters is this: is the feedback describing something that genuinely happened, or is it characterising who you are? Specific behaviours in specific contexts are data, whatever use is being made of them. Character conclusions, such as "she creates a difficult environment," "she's not a team player," "she struggles to bring people with her," are interpretations, and interpretations can be politically constructed even when the underlying events were real.

So the question worth sitting with is precise: what, in the specific behaviours described, do you recognise? Set aside the characterisation being built around it. Ask what you might want to understand better about your own leadership, regardless of this situation.

This matters for reasons that go beyond the current process. Owning what is genuinely yours, not in the way the process wants you to own it but in your own internal reckoning, is the thing that keeps you from either wholesale denial or wholesale capitulation. Denial is a move against the external process. Capitulation is a move against yourself. Both cost you something you will need.

The accountability that is worth carrying is the kind you choose to carry because it is accurate, not because a process has imposed it on you. Marshall Rosenberg's work on Nonviolent Communication is useful here at the level of internal practice before it is useful in conversation: when you can separate the observation (what specifically happened) from the interpretation (what it has been made to mean) and from the evaluation (whether it reflects your values as a leader), you can get to a clear assessment of what, if anything, you want to do differently. That assessment belongs to you. It does not belong to the process.

Carry what is yours. Set down what is not. Keep those two piles separate.

Get clear on where you are standing

This sounds obvious. And yet it is one of the first things that gets missed when the pressure builds.

Most people in this situation spend their energy responding to what is happening to them. The process has the momentum. You are reacting to its rhythms, its requests, its timelines.

Before you can interrupt that, you need to know where you are standing. Because there are really only three stances available to you, and they lead to very different places.

The first is to go along with the process as presented, to treat it as the development conversation it claims to be, and to respond accordingly. This is a choice some people make, and it may be the right one depending on your situation and what you are trying to protect.

The second is to challenge the process directly and formally, through a grievance, a legal route, or a direct confrontation. This is a legitimate stance in some situations. It has its own costs and its own logic, and this guide will return to it.

The third is to engage with the process strategically, with your eyes open, making intentional choices at each step based on what you are trying to protect. You may stay in the role or you may leave. You may challenge certain things formally and let others go. But every move is made from a position, not from reaction.

This guide is written for the reader choosing the third stance. And before you can engage with any of what follows, there is one question worth sitting with first: what do you most need to protect?

It is not always the role. For some people it is the professional standing, the reputation that will carry them beyond this organisation regardless of how this ends. For others it is the record, the documented account of what they actually built and delivered. For others still it is something harder to name: their own account of their leadership, the internal version of events that the process is trying to replace with its own. And for some it is the most fundamental thing of all: their own sense of power in this process, the knowledge that they are making choices rather than having choices made for them.

These are not the same thing. And they may not all be equally available to you at the end of this process. Knowing which one you are most unwilling to lose is the question that gives everything else in this guide its direction. It is worth sitting with before you read further.

Walking away on your own terms

This choice is so often framed as a failure and so rarely understood as a conscious one. And that framing does a great deal of damage.

Many people see the option clearly and still do not take it, even when the moment is right. The reason is rarely logic. It is shame. The fear of being perceived as someone who could not handle it, who was not strong enough to fight through the process, who walked away instead of standing their ground. In organisations where reputation is everything, how you are seen leaving can look more consequential than what leaving would actually do for you.

There is also a harder layer underneath that. If the evidence being used against you has some truth in it, leaving can look like an admission. Like you are confirming the verdict rather than contesting it. That confusion, between making a strategic choice and accepting a characterisation, is one of the most effective ways a process keeps people inside it long after staying has stopped serving them.

It is worth separating those two things. Choosing to leave is a decision about where you want to spend your energy and your professional life. It is not a statement about whether the process was fair or whether the feedback was accurate. You can leave and still know what you know about what happened. You can leave and still hold your own account of your leadership. The process does not get to write that story unless you hand it the pen.

There is a version of leaving that happens to you: the process reaches its conclusion, you are managed out, the narrative is written by the organisation, and you depart from a position of diminished standing. That is one version.

There is another version. You reach your own conclusion about what you want, about what this organisation has demonstrated it is capable of, about whether the conditions for the kind of leadership you want to do exist here, and you decide to leave before the process finishes its work. You write the narrative. You control the timing. You go toward something rather than away from a process.

The second version is available earlier than most people realise. And it requires a specific kind of courage, not the courage to fight, but the courage to decide that your professional life, your energy, and your integrity are not owed to an organisation that is using its formal infrastructure against you.

Walking away is not giving up. In some situations it is the most politically literate thing you can do. It removes you from a game whose terms have already been set. It preserves the things that are most worth preserving, your reputation, your relationships, your sense of your own leadership, before the process has had time to erode them further. And it leaves you with something that no formal outcome can give you: the clarity of having made a choice rather than having had one made for you.

The practical dimensions of this matter. A negotiated exit, with agreed terms, a clean reference, and a mutual narrative, is often available and often preferable to either fighting a process or being at its end. Organisations running a political process are frequently willing to negotiate a departure before it reaches a formal conclusion, because a negotiated exit reduces their exposure as well as yours. Understanding what you have to negotiate with requires knowing your employment contract, your notice terms, and your legal position. Independent legal advice at this stage is not about escalation. It is about information. You cannot negotiate from a position of ignorance.

The narrative question matters almost as much as the practical one. How you describe your departure, to colleagues, to your professional network, to future employers, is something you can shape, and shaping it is part of taking the departure on your own terms. You do not owe anyone a complete account of what happened. You do owe yourself a version of the story that is accurate, that does not minimise what you built, and that does not give the process more authority over your professional identity than it has earned.

What to do while the process is underway

Document everything, now

This is the most important practical action in this guide, and the one most commonly delayed.

Most people, when they think about documentation, think about formality. Making something official. Sending it somewhere. Showing it to someone. That is not what this is.

This documentation is for you. It is private, uncensored, and done with the sole purpose of showing you what you are actually working with.

Write it yourself. As much as possible, resist the temptation to outsource this to an AI tool. The process of writing it is part of the work. It is how your memory gets jogged, how the story starts to take shape, how you begin to notice where the facts are solid and where they are missing. If you hand that process to a tool, you hand it the thinking too. And the thinking is what you need.

Start with what you delivered. The projects, the relationships managed, the outcomes achieved. Pull the emails where your work was acknowledged or built upon. Note the stakeholders who were explicit about the value of your contribution. Write down the things you know you did but have no written record of. Flag them clearly as gaps.

Then look at what was expected of you but never formally stated. Goals shift. Scope expands. Work gets picked up and carried without anyone writing it down. Agreements get made in corridors and on calls and then exist only in memory. Note all of it: what was implicitly agreed, what you took on outside your stated remit, what you delivered against expectations that were never documented. These are the things that disappear from the formal record and are hardest to account for later.

Then look at the criticism. Go through every concern that has been raised, formally or informally, and map what you actually have against each one. Where is there a record that contradicts it? Where is there nothing? Where do you have evidence but it is incomplete?

What you are building is a map of three things: what you have and can act on, what you believe happened but cannot currently prove, and where the record is genuinely thin. That map is what determines your options. You cannot make good decisions about what to do next without knowing what you are standing on.

Write it somewhere the organisation cannot access. A personal device, a personal email account, a notebook. This is not a document you share. It is the honest account you do for yourself, because most people never make the time to do it, and that absence is one of the things that leaves them most exposed.

Do it now. Even if things seem muddled. Even if you cannot remember clearly, or the sequence feels uncertain, or you are not sure what counts. The act of retrieving is uncomfortable precisely because it is working. Memory does not arrive in order. It arrives in fragments, and the gaps are as important as what you can recall, because the gaps show you where you are most exposed.

Do not postpone this. The longer you wait, the more the process shapes what you remember, and the harder it becomes to separate what actually happened from the version that has been constructed around you.

Hold your composure

You may be angry. You may be frightened. You may be exhausted by the effort of navigating something that should not be happening while continuing to do a job that still needs doing. All of that is understandable.

The composure this situation requires is not the absence or suppression of those feelings. It is the decision not to let them run the room.

In every formal conversation, every interaction with your manager, every exchange with HR, every day with your team, the version of you that shows up matters. Over-explaining, seeking reassurance, letting frustration leak into your language or your body, these things are noticed and they become part of the picture being built. They are also the things most likely to happen when the pressure is highest, which is precisely when you most need to hold steady.

This is not about suppressing what you are going through. It is about choosing where it goes. If you do not already have a coach or a trusted confidant outside the organisation, this is the time to find one. Many organisations offer Employee Assistance Programmes with access to professional support. You may have access to an internal coach. What matters is that the person you lean on sits entirely outside this situation, has no stake in how it resolves, and has no connection to the people involved. Someone who can hold what you are carrying without it going anywhere it should not.

The private record you are building is one place for the unfiltered account. A trusted person outside the organisation is another. Inside the process, inside your team, inside any formal conversation, keep things professional. Do the work. Hold the standard. Your composure during this period is itself part of your record, and it is one of the few things that remains entirely in your hands.

This extends to social media. While the process is underway, be very careful about what you post publicly, on LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, anywhere. The temptation to send an indirect message, a pointed status, a vague post about resilience or staying true to yourself, is understandable. Do not act on it. What seems distant from the workplace is not. Posts get seen, shared, and fed back. This is not the time or the place to blow off steam, even indirectly.

Engage with the formal process professionally and precisely

The temptation, when you understand what is happening, is either to disengage, to stop putting effort into a process you have lost confidence in, or to over-perform in ways that ring increasingly hollow. Neither serves you.

Disengagement creates a record of non-cooperation. Over-performance, specifically the attempt to demonstrate improvement against criteria set for other purposes, gives the process authority over your self-assessment that it has not earned.

The alternative is precise, professional engagement. You respond to what is asked of you. You participate in debrief conversations. You take notes and ask for written summaries. Agree only to what is accurate. Dispute only what is false.

When feedback is given, ask specific questions: what is the specific behaviour being described? In which context? Over what time period? What would improvement look like, and how would it be assessed? These are reasonable questions in any development conversation. In a political one, they also surface the gaps in the evidentiary base.

Where possible, ask for a neutral person to be present in formal debrief conversations, an HR business partner, or someone outside your immediate reporting line. This is a reasonable request in any formal process. It changes the dynamic of the conversation and means you are not the only person in the room holding a record of what was said.

Send brief follow-up emails confirming your understanding of what was discussed in key conversations. This creates a record and makes it harder for verbal commitments to be walked back.

Be careful about what you say and to whom

A political process is, among other things, an information-gathering exercise. That gathering does not stop when the formal instrument produces its report. It continues in corridor conversations, in the sympathetic colleague who asks how you are doing.

Most of the people around you are not actively participating in anything. But some of them may be, and most of them will, consciously or not, repeat what you say. The practical discipline is to be careful about expressing conclusions or strong interpretations to anyone inside your current organisation. You can acknowledge that a process is underway. What you want to avoid is a comment made in frustration becoming part of the record.

One instinct worth watching is the urge to answer questions. When a sympathetic colleague asks how you are doing, or what you think about the process, the habit is to respond. Try turning it around instead. Ask what they have heard. Ask what people are saying. A simple "what's your sense of it?" or "what have you been picking up?" is not deflection. It is how you gather information about what is circulating, without contributing to it. The colleague who seems most sympathetic is often the one most likely to repeat what you say, not out of malice, but because they are processing it too.

The people you can speak to with genuine openness are people entirely outside your current employer: a coach, a mentor with no connection to this organisation, close personal relationships where confidentiality is not in question.

Know where HR actually sits

HR's primary obligation is to the organisation, not to you. A good HR professional will also care about individual fairness, and many do. But when those two interests conflict, the structural obligation tends to prevail.

In many organisations, the HR business partner is not a present or active figure in your situation. HR may be someone sitting elsewhere, with limited visibility of what is actually happening on the ground, engaged only when a formal step requires their involvement. Do not assume proximity or awareness that may not exist.

Engage professionally with HR. Ask questions, seek clarity on process, raise concerns about how the process is being run. Anything you share with HR is available to the organisation. What you want to avoid is treating an HR conversation as a safe space for candour about your conclusions.

What is worth pursuing actively is an understanding of the formal HR policies around escalation and due process. What are the documented steps the organisation is required to follow? What are your rights within the process? What constitutes a breach of due process? Get this in writing where you can. The policies exist, and knowing them is not adversarial. It is information, and information is what protects your options.

If you want to explore whether the process constitutes something that could be formally challenged, a grievance, a constructive dismissal risk, a discrimination concern, do that through an independent employment solicitor or legal advisor, not through your employer's HR function.

Managing your relationships through this

Your team

Your team is in a complicated position. Some of them may have been asked about you. Some of them may know more than they are letting on. All of them are watching, in the way that teams always watch when they sense something is happening above them.

The team is not a neutral body. Some teams are genuinely behind their manager and will say so clearly. Others are divided. There may be people in the team who have found the process an opportunity to surface tensions that have existed for a while, a difficult performance conversation you had, a conflict that was never fully resolved, someone who wanted your role or resented your authority. None of that makes the feedback fabricated, but it shapes the environment in which it was gathered. Understanding the temperature of your team, who is likely to have said what and from what position, is part of reading the situation clearly.

Resist the temptation to signal, to let your team know, however subtly, that you are aware of what is happening, that you are not the problem being described. It puts them in an impossible position.

Do not play favourites. The temptation to confide in one or two team members you trust is understandable, but it rarely stays contained. People share, obliquely or directly, that their manager has spoken to them in confidence. It travels. If there is something that needs to be said to the team, say it to all of them. Do not pass information privately to a few.

What your team needs from you is consistent, present leadership. Do your job. Be available. Hold the standards you have always held. Your leadership of them is part of your track record, and your track record is the most durable thing you have.

Your broader network

The people outside your current management chain, peers in other parts of the organisation, professional contacts, former colleagues, people who know your work and your character, are part of your professional infrastructure in a way that has nothing to do with this specific situation.

A situation like this tends to produce tunnel vision. All attention goes to the immediate threat. The professional relationships that operate outside it get neglected precisely when they most need to be maintained.

This does not mean briefing your network on what is happening. It means staying present in the professional relationships that matter, having the coffees and calls, staying visible in your field, being the person who reaches out and shows up. Your professional standing is not made or unmade by this process. It is made by the body of work and relationships you have built over time. Keep building.

The conversations that matter

With your manager

Your relationship with your manager is the central political relationship in this situation. The temptation is avoidance, to minimise contact, to keep interactions transactional. This is understandable, but avoidance has costs. It creates distance that can be characterised as non-engagement, and it leaves you without information about how the situation is developing.

The alternative is measured engagement. Continue your regular one-to-ones. Continue to brief your manager on your work. Keep a professional surface that signals neither submission nor resistance.

Any conversation you have with your manager about the feedback process itself needs to be documented. Note what was said, what was claimed, what was committed to, and when. Do this after the conversation, while it is fresh, in the same private record you are building for yourself.

Keep these conversations separate from your day-to-day conversations about the work. Mixing them together makes it easier for the process conversation to disappear into the background noise of ordinary management. If your manager is actively avoiding the subject, that itself is information worth noting. Do not collude in that avoidance. The conversation about what is happening needs to happen, even if it is uncomfortable to initiate, and even if the other person would prefer it did not.

Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is useful here as a discipline for what not to do as much as what to do. Rosenberg's model asks us to separate observation from interpretation, and to speak from needs rather than judgments. In the context of a conversation with a manager you no longer fully trust, this discipline, staying close to the observable, the specific, the factual, has a double function. It keeps the conversation on ground that is harder to distort, and it prevents you from saying things in the heat of a difficult dynamic that become part of a record you did not intend to create.

You are engaging professionally while holding your own assessment of what is actually happening.

Pay attention to how your manager is showing up in these conversations. Are they hedging, being careful with their words in a way that suggests they know more than they are saying? Are they avoiding the conversation altogether, or sticking so strictly to process that there is no human presence in it? Are they taking your perspective into account when a development plan is being discussed, or is it arriving as a fait accompli? Are they signalling, however subtly, that they believe the feedback, or that they are simply administering it?

None of this is definitive. But it tells you something about where your manager sits in what is happening, whether they are driving it, caught in it, or simply executing it. That distinction matters for how you engage with them.

If there is a conversation to be had with your manager about what you know and what you think is happening, it has to be a considered one. Think through what you want from it before you have it. What are you hoping it will change? What is the best realistic outcome? Once you have shown your hand, you cannot unshow it, and that conversation changes the dynamic in ways that are difficult to predict and harder to reverse. Timing and intention matter here more than almost anything else.

When the formal process requires a response

At some point you will be asked to respond formally: to a performance review, a set of documented concerns, a proposed improvement plan. This is the conversation where NVC has the most direct application, not as a communication framework but as a structural discipline for written and spoken response, and a way of being during this process.

Rosenberg's four components, Observation, Feeling, Need, Request, translate into professional correspondence as: what specifically happened (stripped of interpretation), what the impact was on your work and the team (stated factually rather than emotively), what you need in order to address the stated concerns constructively (clarity on criteria, access to specific evidence, a timeline that is realistic), and what you are specifically requesting (a written summary of the criteria, a documented process for review).

The framing matters. A response that says "I feel this process has been unfair" is easy to dismiss and easy to use. A response that says "The concerns raised in the report refer to behaviours that have not previously been raised in any documented one-to-one or performance conversation. I would like to understand the specific evidence base for each concern and the criteria against which my response will be assessed" is precise, professional, and significantly harder to fold into the existing narrative.

You are holding your position without attacking theirs. You are making space for a conversation on terms that are fairer than the ones currently on offer.

With HR, in writing

When you engage with HR about the process, requesting clarity on how raters were selected, asking for the documented criteria, raising a concern about the design of the process, do it in writing. Written communication forces precision on both sides and creates a record of what was and was not responded to. A legal case may follow; that is an additional reason, not the primary one.

Keep the language factual and specific. "I would like to understand the process by which raters were identified for this 360" is a different kind of statement from "I believe this process is biased." Both may be true. The first is the one that opens a door rather than closing one.

Staying in your own power

This phrase gets used loosely. It is worth being specific about what it means here.

Staying in your own power means remaining affected and remaining clear. This is affecting you. It would affect anyone. The question is whether what is happening to you is also determining your relationship with your own judgement, your own record, and your own sense of what you know.

The particular danger in this kind of situation is that the process gradually acquires authority over your self-assessment. You begin to take the characterisations at face value. You begin to wonder whether the instinct that something is wrong is itself the problem. You begin to calibrate your view of your own leadership by the picture the process is presenting.

This is the most significant way power gets given away, gradually, in the effortful, well-intentioned process of treating a political situation as though it were a developmental one.

The RAIN practice, Recognise what is happening, Allow it to be present without fighting it, Investigate with care and curiosity rather than judgment, Nurture yourself through it with the honesty and kindness you would offer someone else in the same situation, is useful at the level of internal experience. Not as a solution to the external situation, but as a practice for staying in contact with your own experience without being overwhelmed by it or defended against it. It keeps the channel open between you and what you actually know.

The external equivalent is simpler: keep your own counsel on what you know. Engage with the formal process professionally. Make your choices with as much information and as little panic as you can. And do not let anyone else's account of your leadership be the only account in the room.

Your record is what you know it is. The year you lived through is the year you lived. The projects that came in, the relationships you managed, the team you steadied, these are not erased by a process that chose not to include them.

A note on timing

One of the things this kind of situation does is compress your sense of time. The process seems urgent. Each step appears to close off another option. The pressure to respond, to act, to decide, builds steadily.

Some of that urgency is real. There are timelines with legal implications. There are windows for negotiation that close.

But much of the urgency is constructed. A process that wants you to act quickly, to sign without reading, to decide before you have had time to seek advice, is a process that benefits from your haste. Slowing down, taking the time you are entitled to, seeking the advice you need, making decisions rather than having them made for you, is itself a form of political literacy.

There is also a less obvious dimension to timing. The process creates formal moments, points at which something is put in front of you for a signature or a response. Most people treat these as formalities and comply without thinking. They are not formalities. They are moments of leverage.

Not signing a performance review document, or signing it with a written caveat attached, sends a signal inside the system. It triggers a process. It creates a record that you did not accept the document as an accurate account. That is information the organisation has to sit with, and it changes what they can do next. Knowing this is available to you is not the same as using it. But it is worth knowing. If you choose to stay, these formal moments are also the places where you can surface and document your concerns in a way that enters the official record.

You have more time than the process wants you to think you do. Use it.

The question underneath

There is a question underneath all of this that is harder than it first sounds.

Every organisation has its politics. There is no meritocracy, not in the pure sense the word implies. Power moves through systems in ways that are rarely written down and rarely fair. That is not a revelation. Most people who have worked for long enough know this, at some level.

The harder question is: what were you blind to, and for how long?

Look around at what has happened to others in this organisation before you. Were there patterns you noticed but did not examine? People who left quietly, or were moved sideways, or lost influence in ways that were never fully explained? Was there a point at which you saw something and told yourself it was different, that it would not happen to you, that you were protected by your performance or your relationships or your reputation?

That blindness may have served you. It allowed you to do your work without carrying the full weight of the system you were inside. There is no judgment in that. It is how most people function. But it is worth being clear about it now, because the clarity you have arrived at is not only about this process. It is about the environment you have been operating in, possibly for years, with only partial visibility.

The question is not whether this was the right organisation for you. The question is what you now know about it that you did not know before, or did not let yourself fully know, and what you want to do with that knowledge.

Some leaders who go through this kind of process stay and rebuild, with clearer eyes than before. Some leave and find organisations that are genuinely better environments for the way they lead. Some leave and build something independently. Some go through the formal challenge and win, and the winning changes something in the organisation, and the change matters.

There is no correct answer. There is only your answer, made with as much clarity and as much information as you can bring to it.

This guide has tried to give you some of the tools for that. The rest is yours.

Frequently asked questions

The questions most people bring after reading this guide.

Explore Other Guides

More from the Political Literacy series

Stay in the Loop

If this guide was useful, the newsletter goes deeper. Practical thinking on leadership, political literacy, and the realities of working life, for senior and mid-career professionals.

References

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1--25.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C. and Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31(1), 126--152.

French, J. R. P. and Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power. University of Michigan Press.

McDonald, M. and Brach, T. (2019). The RAIN practice. In T. Brach, Radical Compassion. Viking.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organisations. Pitman Publishing.

Rosenberg, M. B. (1999). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. PuddleDancer Press.

Williams, J. C. (2014). What Works for Women at Work. NYU Press.