I don’t think most managers are engaged in their work at all. I have more motivation for work than my manager who seems to sleepwalk through the work day. Someone remarked well: managers are only there to milk the company and to do their job without any energy. I believe most of them would like to work somewhere else while on the job. I don’t know if such a lack of engagement stems from the fact that they think they can’t fix anything or is something else the reason?
4 replies (most recent on top)
then they have a lot in common with more than a few of the regulars here.
Primary goal of Intel management is to protect their fiefdom and "ownership" from other managers at their level, kiss the a-s of their patron VP, and scheme with their masters to attack other VPs.
I’ve always wondered how managers are evaluated. I know that ICs must justify their existence by accomplishing “grade level tasks” but managers seem to be automatically presumed to be doing that simply because they supervise people. Do y’all still do those “boss evaluation” questionnaires? If yes, do they have any impact on how a manager is evaluated? How about a good manager that gets moved to a different position to manage a team of relatively-low-talent ICs? Or a lousy manager that’s lucky enough to “supervise“ employees that are good enough to be successful without him/her?
They are waiting for their greencard anyway.