An employee who is not a manager gets reviewed on the work they produce, where very little of it is dependant on other people. They might be part of a team but usually they will have tasks that only they have been assigned to. Failure to complete their part of a project or completing it poorly might cause the project to fail but generally their individual performance is visible.
Managers on the other hand have their own individual performance as well as the performance of the team they manage and the success of the projects they supervise. It appears that a manager's individual performance is less visible to their manager and that a bad manager can hide behind a successful team.
E.g. A highly performing team gets a new manager. After two years the manager is still making decisions, that if implemented, would cause the instant failure of the project but won't listen to any expert objections. Their team silently "compensates" and the project continues to be a success. The manager is rewarded for running the project even better than the last manager (who was actually competent).
There are two possibilities I can see:
- Upper management is only measuring the manager's performance based on the success of their projects
- Upper management is measuring the manager's individual performance as well, but genuinely believes they make good decisions
When it comes time to review a manager's performance, how much is based on their team and how much is based on them?