While my manager verbally claims that information is being shared with the entire team and presents themselves externally as someone who is actively coordinating and consolidating the team’s work, in reality, my manager only shares information with a select group of favored members within the team. As a result, these members are then required to pass on information to others on a need-to-know basis, which creates inefficiencies and unnecessary uncertainty.
This intentional imbalance in information sharing leads to various negative impacts, including wasted effort, operational inefficiency, reduced motivation, and increased anxiety among team members.
Furthermore, even when a team member who learned information secondhand raises the issue with my manager—stating that the information had not been shared with them—my manager tends to offer a temporary apology and appears to acknowledge the issue in that moment. However, the same pattern of selectively sharing information with preferred members resumes shortly thereafter, and this situation occurs frequently.
Despite the fact that regular team catch-ups are held, the continued selective sharing of information appears less like an oversight and more like a deliberate choice. While it is understood that not all information needs to be shared with the entire team, information that materially affects day-to-day work should, at a minimum, be communicated to relevant members.
Given that my manager promotes “transparency” both within and outside the team, the current imbalance in information sharing—particularly concerning work-relevant matters—has become a significant source of distrust among those who are not being kept informed.
In addition, AI initiatives are heavily promoted, but the associated workload is high and the tangible benefits are minimal, making it feel like more of a burden than a productivity gain.
