You know when you have a meeting on Friday where the senior (level) employee decides to derail your meeting, then precede to dictate changes (removing metrics that are part of product management - themes) and basically saying the CEO sees it without X or Y (ie no new product development), Friday my actual boss seems happy that people have agreed, then on the Monday in a public teams chat basically plays verbal chess to make you look bad finishing up by saying that (a) his dictation was "a suggestion" and (b) it was my meeting. 1:1 with my boss seems to use language of "this was agreed by X date" and "not done" really sounds like this is a game of 2D chess between them both (one sets the rules, one causes as much dissension and noise). Read into that what you will.. I would also state that they're friends out of the office (supposedly) and one is doing the lighting for my boss's stage show as a favour..
The issue I have is simply I'm expected to be own and be accountable, however said individual cannot step away and leave the team to function or make their own mistakes. I've already highlighted to the boss months ago. The individual is recognised to be ambitious and manages up to make himself the centre point of it all (with no time to communicate - just bark orders), our boss wants him to move and do something else, yet funding and politics puts the individual's carefully cultivated image at risk. To add - the individual was put at risk during the reorg and the the reorg saw my boss absorbed some of my role to save his position, the result is I'm being pushed into far more technical detail without being privy to the individual's discussions with internal customers or and politics hence I struggle and there's only 3rd party to provide that lower level skillset.
I suspect that the original idea was the boss to have the individual as a product manager, but I don't believe there's any product managers in the target operational model following the reorg (to my point the only slides have show a decentralisation strategic goal - I'm in that centre hence seeing the sheer effect). So this means nothing has changed and I don't believe the organisation wants to change unless there's some executive replacements.
It should be noted that two of 4 perm product managers/owners have been fired (scapegoats) and the remaining two seem to be having a similar experience, and those roles have not been backfilled. The danger is if they make my role redundant it breaks the option to have that role for 6 months. So the only options they have are to remove me by building a performance case - probably as party of the jun mid year review cycle.
Logically - I have a role, I don't have funding and the 3rd party teams are working at risk (not my responsibility or my authorisation) hence I can't predict when I have resources or not and if I will in future. It's a bit hard to point fingers when you don't have the team to deliver the product.. so the only option they have is go for me on specific tasks not related to the delivery.
It's funny - the boss is playing a game, where he has options but can tailor what he does based his need - down size, replace me, replace the other guy (to a separate project) or scale up. Without the financial certainty he's playing all sides.
So it makes sense to look around, do the day job to get people moving and then leave. I have to say the observation about the culture and individuals by a previous associate technical director of the previous role was correct. Quite surprised how long they can continue to function at this level of burning fires of their own making. I'm used to organisations where people are vying for budget but fundamentally aligned (unless a pivot is put on the table). This is mobster/convict rule.