What does "managed out" mean?
https://www.ft.com/content/356ea48c-e6cf-11e6-967b-c88452263...
You will see it mentioned in context of poorly performing staff, but it can also be used when you have someone who is perfectly capable at their role but has no desire to climb the ladder. In many corporate environments that is viewed very negatively.
I wonder how common this is in tech companies where IC is a valid career path and terminal levels exist?
That whole situation made me feel like shit. It still does. I never wanted to be a part of management after that.
Folks, this is the purpose of performance reviews. It doesn't have much to do with your work or ability to do work. It's a bunch of paperwork to justify how management feels about everybody on a personal, not professional level.
No big deal, the meeting was boring, as usual, until a director from another group jokingly commented to our director, my boss, something like, "Gosh, your staff looks like hell. You must be working them to death." It was just a light-hearted, lame joke; got a chuckle in the room. After the meeting, I was pulled into my boss' office where he told me he was sooo embarrassed by the other director's comment. He was really mad. My boss was new to being a director and he felt as the other director was throwing shade on him, implying he doesn't know how to manage a staff, therefore he doesn't deserve to be a director. And everyone in the meeting was laughing, so they all must've agreed. So my boss told me to get rid of the rock-band guy. I rebutted, saying the fact that rock-band guy stayed up all night, and drove straight to work, showed that he was dedicated, and that he (my boss) was such a great director, cultivating a culture of hard work and dedication. My boss wasn't buying, and told me exactly how to manage him out: stop giving him work.
So yeah, it had absolutely nothing to do with his work. It was all because some dude got butt-hurt by a lame comment in a meeting.
> looking like shit in the office is a big no-no
Both of these can be true, for better or worse, but the director is probably also over-reacting. It doesn't seem appropriate to fire somebody over that. Such a director probably has an unhealthy focus on image.