I loved this quote: "This is why people join companies and quit managers."
You'd think that directors or VPs would carefully look into why someone is quitting, if it's because of their manager, but I have never seen that happen. I've only ever heard of managers getting in trouble if at least 3 people under them leave.
>You'd think that directors or VPs would carefully look into why someone is quitting, if it's because of their manager, but I have never seen that happen.
I've had this happen once. We got acquired and 2 years pass and they start implementing "efficiencies," which involved firing everyone but me and this other guy.
The other guy had had it and didn't do squat, so I was working his workload and the 2 people they fired. I dealt with the 12+ hour days for a few months then quit. They then fired my manager and his boss.
> I've only ever heard of managers getting in trouble if at least 3 people under them leave.
That seems reasonable to me? One is a fluke, two is a coincidence, and three is maybe a pattern, as the saying goes.
This is exactly correct. Toxic management (i won't call them leaders). I left because of my last manager, but I miss the company.
If they did care, some good engagement studies/surveys would show where the problems exist from the perspective of the managed. Many ICs are aware their manager is doing good for them, as good as they can and the problem exists up the chain. Some managers are just terrible. But without some kind of upward feedback process, there is no real way to make this work for the managed. Management can always spin the story they want to make up for the issues and with no data, there is not much that is going to be done. Ultimately it is the senior management that is responsible for the toxic environment created by not having a 2 way feedback process.