From the employee standpoint, that means they've never tried to achieve the goals layed out by the company and their managers?

And from the manager standpoint, that means that they've never tried to assign work that matches up with the interests of people they manage?

Seems asymmetrical the way it’s phrased.

Did you simply mean to say both fucked up?

The parent theorized there was no way for a 1:1 to be effective because there are no overlapping common goals and incentives between managers and employees. So then I've presented two common examples of how such goals might exist.

I would be surprised to find that neither of these have ever applied. That would seem to indicate that their entire professional working experience has been only ever adversarial and toxic. Just not a great look, especially if you've also been responsible from the manager side.

Does a situation like this actually exist? Managers succeed when their teams perform well, which is more easily accomplished when the people reporting to them who compose those teams perform well.

Many people who (until recently) perused Reddit's /r/antiwork will tell you that all managers are out to get you and all business hate all of their employees. They will do this with a straight face and accuse you of every kind of evil under the sun if you cite counterexamples.

It is irrelevant to them that there are managers and even Corporations (ew! boo hiss!) that do not, in fact, act that way. They really hate it when anyone points out that treating employees well can result in greater profits, not fewer.

Is that how it's like out there? Managers having responsibility and not just the workers? Maybe I just never experienced that..

I’ve experienced both types of organizations. In my current workplace, managerial performance evaluation is very much tied to team deliverables. I highly encourage you to keep looking, if this is something you care about.