Different from the all-hands credit-theft that gets talked about. I'm talking about the quieter version: your manager describes a project in their own upward review using language that erases your contribution, or talks about team wins in calibration as though they were the architect.
I discovered mine was doing this when a skip-level asked me about a project I'd led, and the way she framed her question made it clear my manager had described it as something they'd driven. The skip-level was surprised I'd been the actual lead.
A few things I've learned about preventing this going forward:
Create your own paper trail with senior stakeholders. Not in a political way. Just make sure relevant people know what you're working on by sending concise updates or presenting in the right meetings. When stakeholders have a mental model of your work that exists independently of your manager, it's much harder to overwrite.
Be specific in your self-review. "Contributed to X" is erasable. "Led the architecture decision for X, which resulted in Y, which I can demonstrate" is not. Give the documentation version, not the modest version.
Have the conversation directly. "I want to make sure my contributions on [project] are visible in the review process. Can you share how you're framing it?" Managers who are doing this accidentally will give you the right answer. Managers who are doing it on purpose will at least know you're watching.
The credit problem is partly structural. Managers control the narrative upward and most ICs don't have visibility into what's said about them. The fix is building your own visibility network so you're not entirely dependent on one person's account.
Is this something others are actively managing? Would love to hear what's worked.