In our department, there’s this section head no one knows what he actually does. He hasn’t done technical work for years and spends most of his time walking around the kitchen area on the fifth floor(S2), chatting with people, flirting with women from different departments. I’ve heard they are never ranked lower than “average/good” by default, regardless of how useless they are.
6 replies (most recent on top)
@b8 The trurth hurts. We have lost all technical depth in all managerial roles. We are such a weak technical organization.
Our section head has a completely different background from the rest of the team, so in each 1:1 he picks up something and then uses it in another one, and sometimes the quotes are irrelevant.
They participate in the ranking session with their own boss, which gives them significant influence over the entire process. Because they help manage all the rankings as well as their own rating group, they can leave the desirable spots open for themselves. Then, once they step out of the meeting, their boss still has certain slots that must be filled, so the structure naturally protects them. In practice, they can shape where they end up by adjusting other people’s rankings.
Anyone remember the days when everyone had to prove themselves in technical roles before moving up to management? Seems like forever ago. Oh well. I guess that’s what happens in a moribund organization that doesn’t have enough growth projects.
Managers always get ranked higher than individual contributors. The standing assumption is that they are great, because otherwise they wouldn't have a manager role. They also take credit for their entire group's accomplishments, as if they had anything to do with the results.
Haters gonna hate 😂