[Aurornis]

On one hand, all of these conversations and issues are things I've dealt with as a manager at multiple companies.

On the other hand, the way the author normalizes all of these issues and, worse yet, perpetuates them is unsettling.

This manager had a few meetings and touch points to influence the company in the article, such as the planning and budgeting asides. While the budgeting process wasn't directly the author's fault, their careless approach immediately had real-world consequences across other projects and managers. Rather than try to correct the record, they shrug it off and make a snide remark about being glad that they don't have to deal with it any more.

The author even volunteered to be a "bar raiser" in someone's interview without reading any details, then discovered that they were unqualified to do it right before the interview. Can you imagine getting a shot to interview at a Big Tech company only to discover that they sent someone to interview you who doesn't really know what the role is? It's depressing that the author presents this as an "Oh well, oopsie" rather than feeling sorry for their mistake and looking for ways to avoid it in the future. Certainly if one of their employees made such a mistake they would have no shortage of criticism for them, as we saw in the rest of the article.

This is the type of manager I dislike reporting to, and dislike working with. They are dealing with chaos, yes, but they also gain their power from the chaos. They contribute to the chaos by firing from the hip and shrugging off the consequences. They justify it as being more important to move fast than to do the right thing, which ultimately turns into project churn and wasted effort down the road.