[jmspring]

I had a boss like this. Talked with his bosses multiple times, no change. When I left a couple of weeks prior to my one year vest and another colleague did the same a couple of months later (both of us key/senior people), they noticed a little bit. Eventually said individuals behavior and reputation impacted his own goals when seeking funding. That said, upper management didn't do anything until after the fact.

[danek]

Yeah I've noticed that usually you need at least 4 people to quit before anything happens to the boss. Even if they know he sucks they're gonna try and keep him on. No idea why, but it has the appearance of "he's part of the mgmt club and you aren't"

[pmontra]

It's because that boss is part of his boss army in the company's game of throne. Don't turn lightheartedly a supporter into an enemy.

[arkh]

It is because people prefer a known bad employee than a wildcard.

With the first you can prepare for their fuck-up, with the unknown things could be a lot worse.

[amiller2571]

I've had a boss like that and his boss didn't want to remove him because he would have to admit that he made the wrong choice in promoting him.

[danek]

Excellent point. I'm pretty sure this is a thing, I vaguely remember reading something about how getting promoted gives you some "invisible leverage" (my words) because now the company has decided you are valuable and special and they don't wanna look like they made a mistake. Thanks, this actually helped me understand an instance of where several not very good managers got further promoted and it made no sense to me.

[gaius]

The people at level n+1 to you in an organisation are there because they have the support of people at level n+2. Your issue has to be serious enough to get the attention of someone at level n+3 or nothing will happen. And the problem of one employee not getting on with his or her line manager, isn't serious enough in reality.

The only power you have in this case is to go elsewhere.