During Citi’s reorganization, Peer 1 told me he thought I should align with Peer 2’s body of work. I discussed it with Peer 2, who was unaware of this suggestion and did not share that view.
When the MD was informed, my age and level of experience were raised as reasons I could not work in that area. The MD agreed and told Peer 2 I would be aligned to Peer 1.
This contradicted a decision made six months prior, when it was established unambiguously that I was senior to Peer 1 and that being subordinated wouldn’t be appropriate.
At the time, I was handling part of the MD’s own responsibilities and resolving issues his direct reports weren’t able to deliver on. He wanted me as the resident problem-solver, a role I was reluctant to play, knowing full well it would earn me the jealousy of my peers as well as not make me the recipient of the recognition.
At what point did the MD decide he could get away with layering me under an underperformer? My seniority and qualifications were conveniently erased in that decision.
The MD was facing a latent mutiny from his directs. I was going to be subordinated to bolster their weaknesses while the favorites were being elevated.
I feel certain that his decisions were driven both by a desire to avoid further HR complaints, and by his manager’s discriminatory and retaliatory strategy, which he executed without question.
Exhaustion begins when one’s competence becomes the solution to the incompetence of others.
“Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles.” Fyodor Dostoevsky (unconfirmed)
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: ERM Tech & Data.