[lovich]

> That managers conflate the team's wins with their own 'succeeding'?

Is that actually conflated? I manage a few reports and try to succeed by setting them up to succeed but every management position I’ve had, I have had explicit OKRs/goals/metrics/etc stating that the success of the team as it’s own entity was something I was rated on.

If my team managed to succeed without me putting in any effort that was actually ideal as I got a free goal hit.

[ThalesX]

> Is that actually conflated?

It's literally in the post from GP I am responding to:

> Bobby Knight led the Hoosiers to three national championships and 11 Big Ten championships. I'm not sure the definition of "bad manager" would fit succeeding at the most important metrics in sports - championship wins.

This feels like it's conflated.

[lovich]

But even in that, presumably the owners have some compensation for him based on winning championships. I really can’t see how a good manager doesn’t believe that their team winning is a measure of their success