I blame a particularly macho form of management which takes "tough" decisions regardless of the impact on their employees. Every time I have encountered this style of management (most recently in my last role), it has led to an exodus of talent, both in the short term (expected) and the longer term.

Three years later, the few people I know who still work there say the culture is now irretrievably damaged. What was an attractive, fun place to work is now an unhappy place. They are struggling to recruit good people where before their reputation was an asset.

But the manager concerned remains, has no doubt hit her goals of cost reduction or efficiency or whatever. And has hired more of her kind.

I can relate. My previous role was at a company acquired by a large telecom, and like clockwork, two-three years after the whole thing is in disarray, only the terrible middle management remains, and most new people are juniors who have a hard time finding seniors that would mentor them.

It is not tough to save money or squeeze more out of your vendor. Macho would be increasing wages and benefits, as then management would have to answer to the board with commensurate results.

I agree it's tougher to argue things the board doesn't like to hear.

By "macho" I just meant that they seem to pride themselves on taking decisions which don't make them popular with people under them.

Good managers can make unpopular decisions and retain the support of staff under them. I've seen people take pay cuts temporarily, work longer hours, all kinds of extra that comes with good will.

Ultimately it's about respect. Good managers have it. Bad managers seem to revel in not having it.