Especially the ones that don’t produce any results and ahe no clear function. Who benefits from them staying but themselves. Why so much protection?
7 replies (most recent on top)
@1zba+1hhouuAZ
is the perfect articulation.
Because we need protection in order to maintain the nice merit increases, eating cake 3 times daily, workouts in the gym, business trips, etc, etc. in my case, it’s my deserved right, and I get it, and like it!
Many were identified as future managers too early in their careers. “Eager to coordinate and present to leadership” is equated with “leadership potential” and it snowballs from there. And if you have 2 candidates for a leadership job, often the stronger technical performer will be “too valuable “ in their role to move into leadership. (Too valuable to promote!). It’s usually explained away with “I don’t know if he really wants to be a team lead—he’s really good in [his current role].”
And we don’t even get rid of the worst of them.
Haven't you noticed that upper mgmt even worse?
People are paid well to not rock the boat. Oil profits camouflage a lot of really bad decisions. Trying to switch out lousy middle management will be resisted by political alliances and HR. Everyone buys into the system that put them into their own well paid jobs. Many are so lacking in fundamental skills they couldn't even tell you what the right skills are. We hire badly to begin with. There are very few really bad people at the top calling the shots and ruining this company.
Have you ever watched the office
Thier managers don't know any better and can't discern from bad and good. It's a common problem with large organizations