Are you guys as mediocre and frankly unintelligent as you come across or are you feeling like your range of innovation is hampered by those above you.
I ask because I don't know if I should have more empathy for my manager and previous managers, or if they really are just painfully average in their approach to everything (which I would say won't cut it in this day in age).
Are you guys given directives to stonewall people as long as possible to get them to quit? In my time in operations, those who have overqualifying skills for the role are basically given the most menial tasks as opposed to taking advantage of the strong technical foundation they have to offer. Is this intentional? Are you guys really that insecure (I guarantee none of these people even want your F'in job)?
In most good companies, especially companies as large as AIG, with a lot of resources, it's common knowledge that managers would try to push the extremely efficient workers in a direction which best suits their skills. This makes the manager look really good and you've earned a favor from the subbotindate you helped to build up. What logical /quantitative reason would you have to stonewall talented people and potentially cause harm to your own repuation due to managing an actively disengaged staff?