I came up with what I considered to be a brilliant approach to a festering internal knowledge management problem using a third-party SaaS. I rolled it out and it was very popular. Weeks later, after my profile had become the "linchpin" by which hundreds of other employees had joined the service, I was told that a female employee (yes, gender is important to this story) had produced a proposal for a more in-house solution that used a different company's software and that I would be on the team to roll it out. I thought it was a great idea and I deferred to her on pretty much everything.

Months after that I was accused, by several other female managers, of trying to take over the whole leadership of the project just because of one minor suggestion I had proposed. One day, after a lengthy interrogation about their take on my emails on the matter (lacking only the bright, hot spotlight in my eyes) I was booted off the project and the woman who had proposed the project was promoted. She then proceeded to lord it over on me and treat me like crap.

This type of thing was a general pattern within the company that amounted to a form of a reverse discrimination "policy" (unwritten). The effect was that the ratio of men to women in upper management was not equal but completely flipped. Way more women than men had upper management positions and higher pay.

In their eyes, the ends (women broke through the glass ceiling) justified the means (discrimination and bullying) which I guess is good and "equal", again in their eyes, in terms of the overall perception modern feminism has about men needing a comeuppance.

But in the context of HR's stated policy on equality, meaning 1:1 men and women in position of power and pay and a non-threatening work environment for all, which we all (men and women) were forced to sign every year, it was an utter fail as far as the math and intimidation went.

Why is tech management so f-ing distant? Very often NOT in meetings which they created and very not interested in anything the team/teams do. It is really a large offset between the work actually being done, the day-to-day operations that we do and the competence of management to acknowledge the fact that we actually do those things.

A lot of times they just stay silent in meetings and in the end they say something to try and make some conclusion and perhaps something ”funny” to try and lighten up the atmosphere. They fail on both of their tasks. They have no clue and are not interested in learning.

I feel like many of them don’t actually do anything. They are often ”away” but it is really unclear what that means.

I think it is symptom of a truly dysfunctional tech process. Bad leaders tend to hire more bad leaders and it is a toxic circle ending in good competent people leaving wanting more in the leadership.

Me: Why do we do this this time consuming, low value thing?
My tech lead: Because if we don't, a box becomes red on some executive report.
Me: Why is this deadline so important? It's not customer facing or any kind of critical bug/vulnerability?
My tech lead: Because it was a company wide mandate, and we'll show up on some executive report if we're late.
Me: *angry dev noises*

They must dole out lashings to the tech leads and the directors any time we fail to meet some completely arbitrary demand. The act like the world is going to end any time we get too close to a deadline 🤦‍♂️

Makes no sense that they then turn around and worship the ground senior leadership walks on. I wonder if it's some weird form of stockholm syndrome.

🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕