Also, you see individuals bring these attitudes to an org. All it takes is one manager, or a couple, to shift the balance. I was getting this bullshit in an industry much less known for it. My boss quits, and things go much better.
That makes me think to some extent the problem is we have had little continuous feedback from these leaders or even much concentration on goals/expectations. That makes it really tough because you just have to keep outputting and believing it's enough until the end-of-cycle feedback comes in. I've managed to succeed in this environment anyways but it's certainly stressful.
I've spent some time this cycle trying to mention this to our new manager, so we will see how/if things change.
Can you please share here - rather what else you prefer?
> I've spent some time this cycle trying to mention this to our new manager, so we will see how/if things change.
I got your distaste from the above first paragraph. Earlier, I was asking: what else would have instead of that? I hope I was clear this time.
If the manager doesn't understand the business and technical needs enough to be able to set those items with an engineer, I'm not sure what that they are really enabling team members to have a good bar for what they will be evaluated on, and I think that is a sub-optimal environment for people (not just engineers) to work in.
My ultimate sentiment here is: would you want to take a test where you didn't have a good idea about how it was graded?
Sometimes even when there are multiple managers and your line manager is ok, one nearby person in the org chart with enough influence over who is kept is enough to make everyone in their sphere more fearful and paranoid - and perversely, perform less helpfully to the organisation, in order to protect their jobs.