Answer to: My superiors want me to pretend in front of my subordinates that I support a company policy I disagree with. How do I handle this instruction?

Many years ago, I had a teacher that was great at this. A conversation of this sort would go something like this: Teacher: OK everybody, I need to remind you all about a new rule. Starting next week, we need to make sure that ... [pauses briefly to pick up a memo from the desk] [reading from memo, in a slightly monotone voice] ... all vehicles are removed from the North Parking Lot before 5:00 PM on Fridays. [puts down memo and resumes speaking normally] The other lots will be open as usual so if you need to stay late, you'll have to to move your vehicle. Student: Which lot is that? The one on the north side of campus, or the one in front of the J. E. North building? Teacher: [picks up memo and reads from it] The North Parking Lot [slight shrug] [speaking normally] The faculty lot behind the library is technically open to anyone between 4PM on Friday and 6AM on Monday. That's probably the easiest place to move your car to. Administration might give you a dirty look but it's posted on all the signs so they can't do anything about it. Student: Why can't we use the north lot? Teacher: That's where the bus access to the football stadium is. [picks up memo and reads from it] It's important that the lot is clear so that team buses can safely access the stadium. Student: The football season ended three weeks ago. Nobody will be using that stadium for another six months. Teacher: That's a very good point, but don't forget that ... [picks up memo and reads from it] ... it's important that the lot is clear so that team buses can safely access the stadium. Student: This really doesn't make much sense. Teacher: [reading from memo] Students should direct any questions about this policy to their teachers [shakes head "no" while reading this line] The act of reading from the paper served the same purpose as quotation marks. It made it obvious when he was speaking for himself, and when he was simply repeating what he was instructed to say. Both the short (but slightly theatrical) pause to pick up the paper and put on his reading glasses and the slightly unnatural tone of voice used to read it further emphasized the code-switch. He also always read from the paper verbatim, and used that to draw attention to the bits that he thought were problematic. When he strongly disagreed with something, he'd link that quote into his sentence in a way that was grammatically incorrect or unnatural. Roughly shoehorning the quote into the sentence was a sort of analogy for how the policy was being imposed from on high without regard to whether it's a good fit. Similarly, when someone asks about one of the obvious problems that management ignored, he'd answer by quoting whatever line from the paper seemed the most relevant. This was never a meaningful answer (since that issue was ignored), and the non-answer emphasized that management had not addressed it. There was never any dishonesty because his meaning was perfectly clear. He never blamed his bosses or gave any direct opinions about management. He simply presented the information exactly as it was given to him and let the problems speak for themselves. Sometimes it felt like the literary equivalent of malicious compliance, but it let him comply with orders while making his own thoughts clear.