> What do you do when you work for a company where you think managers are bad, and their managers are bad, but they all think they are great and they think you're the problem? How do you objectively (not subjectively) determine if a manager is bad? If 200 people in the organization are "happy enough", it's your word versus theirs on what a good manager vs a bad manager is.

If you notice you are the only one in 200 people have any issues, a reasonable question to ask yourself is if the problem is you. If you end up believing you aren't, you should at least be able to articulate why you're the only one.

> If you notice you are the only one in 200 people have any issues, a reasonable question to ask yourself is if the problem is you.

This is exactly the right attitude. If everyone else is happy and the only problem is you, all the more reason to be respectful! It's better to treat it as a cultural misfit rather than ask them risk making 200 other employees unhappy to appease you.

In the absence of larger issues, maybe. What if you're one of very few minorities or women working at the company, and the issues seems to stem from issues that shouldn't be issues? That seems more like a company problem and not a personal or cultural problem (given that the culture in question has laws to try to prevent it).

I agree it's probably best to start from a position that it's just a cultural mismatch. I imagine sometimes it gets entangled with a lot of other issues though, whether rightfully so or in perception only.

I think even in those situations, telling them that you never felt like you fit is still the right approach. I there is actual wrongdoing, report them. But if it's a boy's club, it's probably better to phrase it as such than point to each individual actor as sexist.

I think at least in American companies, it's hard to tell whether your co-workers are actually happy, or if they are putting on the expected corporate ExcitedToBeHere persona. You ask 200 co-workers "How's it going?" and you're going to get 200 variations of: "You know, really busy, but it is super-exciting to be meeting KPIs and synergizing the latest roadmap with our external stakeholders, blah, blah, blah." Ain't nobody saying "Well, you know, Bob, things are pretty shitty for me because I spent the last quarter working my butt off and Lumburgh gave the promotion to that idiot he's been banging in the conference room every evening."

Being honest opens you up to having that honesty used against you, so people just put on a cheerful saccharine smile and lie.

Also, answering the question can help you find what you are looking for.

This, plus most people are “bad” or “good” in some environments and not others. If it’s a bad fit, it’s a bad fit. Worrying about whether you’re the problem or other people are the problem is rarely productive, and sticking it out in an environment that’s bad for you is (often) going to set you back professionally.

If you find yourself on the opposite side of opinion with the entire management of a company you've found that you don't fit with the company. In this case it doesn't matter if one manager or all managers are objectively bad or not your communication on the way out should be why you feel you didn't have a good fit with the company not why the company should fire manager #14 specifically and expecting them immediately to do it on the word of the 1 guy leaving the company.

Sure, if leadership is universally terrible, say your piece and walk away. But there are plenty of situations were the company is okay enough, but leadership should know that there's a specific department or manager who is contributing to turnover.

If you refuse to speak up because you think no one will listen, you might equally be part of the problem.

Getting into individual criticisms is probably about the last thing I would do in an exit interview. It’s not my problem any longer because it’s an exit interview.

Generally speaking momentary catharsis associated with blowing up bridges isn’t worth it.

I’m weirded out by how this comment is exactly how to handle it imo but not many others seem to agree. I’m perplexed. I get more confused about other peoples opinions the older I get but maybe that’s the thing I’m older and wiser.

Or maybe I’m just an idiot.

Just think for a second about the overlap between “people who want to speak their mind in an exit interview” and “people who like arguing in online forums” and the comment disparity makes a lot of sense…

thank you for this reply it helps

> How do you objectively (not subjectively) determine if a manager is bad? If 200 people in the organization are "happy enough", it's your word versus theirs on what a good manager vs a bad manager is.

I really do you see where you were coming from here, but there are two things to consider here.

1) Subjective assessment is totally valid when discussing management. It’s a job about people at its core, so how people feel is relevant. If a company can’t see that then there is a larger company culture issue there. Unhappy people not working well with their manager(s) are not going to put out as much - or necessarily good - work

2) It’s not about “are most people happy or not complaining,” it’s more about patterns/repetition (e.g. “a pattern of behavior.”) If you oversee 200 people over 5 years and 10 of them left citing “inappropriate conduct/I was uncomfortable at work,” that’s going to get HR and upper management hopefully asking questions.

> How do you objectively (not subjectively) determine if a manager is bad? If 200 people in the organization are "happy enough", it's your word versus theirs on what a good manager vs a bad manager is.

HR should track the attrition rate for each manager. If twice as many of manager X's reports are quitting or transfer to other teams than manager Y's reports, then manager X or the projects they manage might be a problem (for employee morale and company success).

HR can also send out anonymous employee engagement surveys.

> HR can also send out anonymous employee engagement surveys.

If employees view management or the company as Bad™, they will assume such surveys are 1. not actually anonymous, and 2. never going to make a difference, and all claims to the contrary will be seen as empty platitudes. (Obviously this can be counteracted by actually showing that the company is willing to act on feedback, but even if you're in a position to do that you have to get over the bootstrapping hump.)

I was invited to answer one of these, at a company with truly the most hateful manager I've ever had. Oh, was I ever ready to offer my jaundiced, embittered opinion...until the survey required I log in with my company email address.

Yes, there was the usual verbiage about anonymizing, blah, blah, but I lost all confidence that my response wouldn't be tracked to me. I never returned the survey.

I still haven't determined whether this was by incompetent or malicious design.

There was a post on here years ago from somebody who sold software to corporations for "anonymous" employee surveys. He said that executives always wanted to deanonymise the results and, sadly, he was happy to oblige.

No way. My people leave because they gain skills and go to FAANG or fintech for way more money than we can offer.

I mean maybe you need to find a different job? What do you consider a "sexy" problem?

Something that makes tangiable improvement to the real world would be a good start

Then be a plumber!

(But then again, I guess plumbers work on the same boring stuff every day from age 21 to 65+)

I don't know, as a homeowner I've only seen plumbing in a couple of houses, but they seem to be constantly discovering innovative solutions to the same basic problems.