The article is based on data that includes, among other points, that the individual manager accounts for 70% of the variance in employee engagement, and that 50% of Americans had left their job because of the individual manager. If you want to argue that the individual managers are not important and the bad effects come from higher up, you'd have to show some counter evidence to these points. (I am personally about to leave a job because of my individual manager, so I'm inclined to believe the article and study pretty easily).
Well, 30% that's not from the individual managers still leaves plenty of people who have never seen this even once in their careers. So there's plenty of, if not exactly counter evidence, then... counter experience?
I once had a manager who had a bunch of people leaving. They were not leaving him, the manager; they were leaving the situation the division was in that put the engineers in difficult working conditions. But the manager had HR interview several of his people, to see if he, the manager, was the problem. He said, "I had to know." (Of course, if he's that honest and that willing to look, you have a pretty good idea that he's not the problem, even before HR comes back with the results.)
> "If you want to argue that the individual managers are not important and the bad effects come from higher up, you'd have to show some counter evidence to these points."
I'm not here to dispute the figures that were shared in the article, I'm suggesting that the interpretation of those figures was off, as it overlooks the aspects of management that are out of the control of the line/middle manager.
Furthermore, I'm not disputing your own reasons for leaving, as I'm not suggesting the competency of line managers can't be the reason people leave their job.
If the individual manager is bad enough for long enough to make people leave, that in and of itself means there is a supervision problem that extends at least 2-3 levels above that manager.
