The disappearance of middle management: why are managers left to their own devices?
In recent years, the role of middle manager has started to disappear almost unnoticed from organisations. Not overnight, not through declared decisions, but gradually, hidden behind arguments of „efficiency” and „agility”. But the consequence is now becoming clearer: managers are taking on more and more responsibility with less and less structured support.
This article examines why middle managers have become a „luxury” in the eyes of many organisations and how this process has contributed to the mass emergence of managerial isolation.
What has the middle management really given?
The role of the middle manager is often portrayed in simplistic terms: passing on information, reporting, controlling. This narrative fitted in well with the decisions that justified the downsizing of the layer. In reality, however, the middle manager was much more than an administrative link.
The middle managers:
- provided context for senior management decisions,
- have been translated from strategic language into operational language,
- and also filtered and interpreted the signals of the troops upwards.
This role is a kind of driver amortizer was. It eased the tension, gave time for interpretation and opportunity for correction. When this layer is removed, the organisation is not faster, but sharper. Mistakes are made sooner and dilemmas are concentrated on one person.
Why has middle management become „redundant” in the eyes of organisations?
The reduction of middle management is rarely overtly justified by a reduction in support for managers. The formal arguments are typically:
- flatter hierarchy,
- faster decision-making,
- self-organising teams.
These are not in themselves problematic targets. The problem starts when the structure changes, but the logic of responsibility does not. The weight of decisions remains, and often increases, as roles that previously processed and held the managerial load disappear.
The organisation assumes that the autonomous team and the autonomous leader will „work it out”. This is not autonomy, but unsubsidised transfer of liability.
A newly appointed managers are particularly vulnerable
The impact of the disappearance of middle management is most pronounced for newly appointed managers. They often step into the role by:
- there is no pattern for them to follow,
- no direct supervisor to monitor the learning process,
- and there is no room for uncertainty.
Previously, a new manager could „fit” the role. Today, he or she often has to make strategic decisions in the first few months, while his or her leadership identity is still in the process of being formed. This situation is an ideal breeding ground for leadership isolation.
You can read more about this in another article:
Managerial isolation: how do you lead when management disappears from under you and looms over you?
The myth of the „self-managing team”
The disappearance of middle managers is often justified by the fact that teams have become more independent. In practice, however, „self-managing” often means nothing more than that the team receive less guidance, while expectations remain high.
This situation paradoxically puts the burden back on the driver:
- it must be given space and a framework at the same time,
- promote autonomy and deliver results,
- while there is no actor above it to reflect its decisions.
This dynamic leads directly to what CoachLab calls in its professional language managerial isolation we call it.
Systemic consequences, not individual problems
It is important to stress: the consequences of the disappearance of middle management they do not prove the „incompetence” of the leaders. On the contrary. Most of the leaders involved are competent, committed and resilient. The problem is that they operate in a structure that does not give enough feedback and retention.
That is why individual „solutions” do not work either:
- tougher driving,
- the excessive role of coach,
- or the „I'll get used to it” strategy.
Managerial isolation not personal lack, but an organisational phenomenon that requires conscious management.
Why is it important to talk about this?
As long as the disappearance of middle management is treated solely as an efficiency issue, managers are left to deal with the consequences on their own. The real question is not „do we need middle management”, but who and how performs the functions previously performed by.
If these functions are not consciously rethought, the organisation will silently produce isolated leaders. In the long term, this weakens rather than accelerates function.
Related reading on the topic:
Managerial isolation: how do you lead when management disappears from under you and looms over you? - article on the full context of the phenomenon.
