There may be some truth in to that. I do contribute to her annual review and am responsible for making sure she's completing work effectively, but I don't deci

There may be some truth in to that. I do contribute to her annual review and am responsible for making sure she's completing work effectively, but I don't decide raises or determine firing, which are probably the most powerful capabilities one can have. That being said, perhaps this is a way to work around the normal pitfalls, where if there is a potential conflict, the person in question can be a "practical" manager, but perhaps not a "supervisory" manager. Those are horrible words for it, but I mean in that one manager would be actively overseeing the work, and the other would be a lower level of involvement check/balance against the former. It may be more manpower to do this, but it's generally how the engineering teams here work out anyway; that there are the engineers who have been here longer overseeing the new hires in the work, with a more uninvolved formal supervisory structure as well. (This has other problems, I'll openly add, but has allowed for a situation like mine to exist, so it does make me look twice.) Sorry for the essay, this ended up being a lot longer than I had originally intended.