Leadership in a world that has already changed (Part 3)

Why Middle Management Is Carrying the Weight Of Change

An HR leader said to me recently, “We’ve invested heavily in our senior teams. There’s clarity, alignment, and engagement around our strategy and values, our operating model works, and yet everything still feels stuck and slow, even though everyone is running at full pace.”

What they were describing wasn’t failure, it was one of the many paradoxes we now see in organisations: a system trying to keep going in a reality it hasn’t yet been redesigned for. Stuck and moving fast. The issue wasn’t strategy. It wasn’t intent. And it certainly wasn’t effort.

It was the middle.

That layer of 'middle manager' leaders who are carrying more than ever, with less space, clarity, and support than the role now demands.

The most pressured role in the system

Mid-level leaders are the connective tissue of organisations. They translate strategy into action. They absorb pressure from above and below. They hold performance, people, and process simultaneously.

And in recent years, that role has expanded quietly but significantly.

They are now expected to:

• deliver results at pace

• lead teams through constant change

• manage emotional fallout and wellbeing

• role-model resilience and engagement

• make sense of ambiguity they didn’t create

All while still being measured primarily on output.

It’s no wonder this layer feels stretched.

What data is telling us

This pressure on mid-level leaders isn’t just something we’re sensing anecdotally the most recent data reinforces it.

Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace 2025 report shows that manager engagement has fallen to 27%, down from 30% the previous year - the largest engagement drop of any employee group. Younger managers and female managers saw the steepest declines.

At the same time, broader 2025 workplace research suggests that:

• only around one-third of managers describe themselves as engaged,

• over 70% of leaders report stress directly linked to their leadership role, and

• nearly three-quarters say they feel “used up” by the end of the working day.

  
  

These figures point to something important.

This isn’t about a few struggling individuals. It’s a systemic strain in the middle of organisations.

When engagement drops at this level, it doesn’t stay contained. It affects:

• how strategy is translated,

• how pressure is absorbed or passed on,

• how safe teams feel to speak up,

• and how sustainable performance really is.

The middle doesn’t just experience the system - it amplifies it.

The invisible load no one names

What makes middle managers particularly vulnerable isn’t just workload it’s emotional and relational load.

Mid-level leaders are often:

• mediating tension they can’t fully resolve

• calming uncertainty without any clear answers

• implementing decisions they had little influence over

• holding loyalty to the organisation while advocating for their teams

• navigating increasingly large and complex networks and stakeholders in the their business

  
  

This “in-between” position creates a constant state of compression.

And compression, over time, reduces capacity.

Why this matters more than most organisations realise

When mid-level leaders are under-supported:

• strategy slows or distorts on the way down

• pressure gets passed on instead of properly held

• psychological safety erodes quietly

• disengagement spreads horizontally, not vertically

Most transformation efforts stall here - not because of resistance, but because the system is overloaded.

Yet this layer can often be labelled as “resistant to change” or “lacking capability”.

In reality, they are overextended.

What 'confronting the reality' makes possible

When these pressures are named rather than normalised, minimised, or simply pushed through something important shifts.

Leaders stop personalising what is actually systemic strain. Conversations become more honest and less performative. Leaders and teams can begin redesigning the conditions leaders are working within, not just asking for more effort from the same people.

Naming the reality doesn’t weaken or 'blame' leadership. It creates the space for it to evolve.

Capability isn’t the issue - capacity is

As I discussed in the last article, this isn’t about leaders lacking capability. It’s about capacity being stretched by systems that haven’t been redesigned and leadership that hasn't evolved.

Most mid-level leaders know how to manage and lead.

What’s missing is the capacity to do it well, consistently, under pressure.

They need:

• space to think, not just deliver

• clarity about what really matters now

• permission to prioritise and deprioritise

• clear decision making processes and fewer decision makers, and arguably more of the decision making remit themselves

• support to process complexity, not just execute it

Without this, even the most committed leaders default to survival mode.

What organisations need to redesign

If organisations are serious about change, culture, and performance, the middle cannot be an afterthought.

This requires a shift from:

• adding more expectations

• top down decision making

• too many people involved in 'sign off'

• layering on more initiatives

• assuming or expecting resilience will “kick in”

  
  

To intentionally designing:

• realistic spans of control

• fewer, clearer priorities and decision makers

• clear decision making processes and roles, well communicated and understood

• decision making pushed down the line as much as possible

• development that builds capacity, not just skills

• spaces where mid-level leaders can think together, not just be briefed

Supporting the middle isn’t indulgent.

It’s strategic.

A few questions worth asking

For leaders of mid-level leaders :

• What pressure is this layer holding on our behalf that we rarely see or acknowledge?

• Where have we added expectations without removing anything in return?

• How clear are we - really - about priorities, strategic trade-offs, and what can wait?

• Are we developing this layer for delivery… or for the emotional and relational reality of the role?

  
  

For organisations and people leaders:

• Where are we relying on goodwill rather than intentional design?

• How well do our spans of control, meeting load, and decision rights match the reality of the role?

• Are we building capacity in the middle - or simply asking for more resilience?

  
  

For leaders in the middle:

• Where are you carrying things that were never meant to sit with you alone?

• What support would genuinely help right now - not theoretically, but practically?

• What conversations are you postponing because you’re too busy holding everything together?

Naming these questions doesn’t solve everything but it often creates the first release of pressure

Final thought

When the middle is stretched, everything slows, quietly.

When the middle is supported, everything moves.

If the world and its systems have already changed, then how we support the people holding it together must change too.

The middle isn’t the problem.

It’s the keystone.

---

If this or anything else from my series around human capacity resonates for you personally or what you see in your organisation, let's get some time and space to think it through. I’m always happy to have a conversation, so get in touch.

Coming next in the series

In Article 4, I’ll explore why psychological safety is no longer a “culture nice-to-have”, the latest leadership 'thing'- but critical infrastructure for performance, learning, and trust.