by Marius Venter, Organisational Development Manager at VKB Group
Nobody had prepared them for the employee who shuts down during feedback, the team member who resists change, the conflict between two strong personalities, or the pressure of having to communicate a decision they did not make.
I have worked with managers who could solve almost any operational problem, yet felt completely lost when faced with a defensive employee, a fractured team or a difficult conversation. One manager I worked with recently had developed a highly controlling leadership style. When tasks were not completed, he quickly referred to corrective action. His reasoning was that the business unit had to perform and that he would ultimately be held accountable for the results. And I could not really fault him for this.
Too often, many middle managers enter leadership roles because they were excellent at the work. They were dependable, technically strong and willing to take responsibility. Then they were promoted, and the nature of the job changed completely. They were no longer only responsible for getting the work done. They were responsible for the people doing the work, and also for how that work gets done.
The manager understood that his behaviour needed to change. But behind the behaviour was a manager under constant pressure, using the only leadership tools he believed were available to him: instruction, control and consequence.
I have worked with other managers who genuinely wanted to support and develop their people. They understood the value of coaching, regular 1:1 conversations and driving employee engagement. But their days were filled with operational crises, reports, meetings, customer complaints and deadlines. The people side of leadership became something they planned to focus on once the pressure reduced.
But, the pressure rarely reduced.
This is the curse of the middle manager.
They are expected to translate strategy, deliver results, manage performance, implement change, maintain discipline and build a healthy culture. They carry the expectations of senior leaders and the frustrations of employees. They are often accountable for decisions they did not make, priorities they did not set and resources they cannot control.
One manager described the role to me as being squeezed from both sides. Leadership wanted faster execution. Employees wanted more explanation, support and involvement. He could understand both perspectives, but felt trusted by neither.
The impact is unintended, but unavoidable. Over time, some managers become more controlling. Some become defensive. Some stop coaching and start instructing. Others withdraw from people leadership almost completely and focus only on the operation – at least this is something they have done in the past, and know how to do.
When this happens, organisations often conclude that the manager needs more training. Sometimes they do. Leaders need practical skills in feedback, conflict, coaching, delegation and accountability. But training cannot solve everything. It cannot create time in an overloaded diary. It cannot give authority to a manager who is accountable for decisions they are not allowed to make. It cannot build trust when the manager is repeatedly asked to communicate decisions they do not understand (or support).
However, pressure does not excuse poor leadership. Managers must remain accountable for the way they treat people. But organisations must also examine the environment in which those managers are expected to lead.
Were they prepared for the human complexity of the role? Do they receive coaching, or only correction? Are priorities clear? Does their authority match their accountability? Are senior leaders modelling the behaviour expected from them?
Middle managers are sometimes described as the layer that slows organisations down. In my experience, they are more often the layer holding everything together. When they are supported, they translate strategy into action and culture into daily behaviour. When they are neglected, the pressure passes through them and lands directly on their teams.
The problem is not always the manager in the middle. Sometimes it is the context within which the manager in the middle exists. This is where internal coaching and support can make a real difference. Middle managers need a trusted space to think, test their perspective, receive honest advice and build better ways of responding before pressure turns into unintended harmful leadership behaviour. Sometimes the greatest value is not another programme, but having someone inside the organisation who they trust, who understands their context, and who can help them lead through it.
What support do middle managers in your organisation really need, more training, more authority, better coaching or simply someone who understands the pressure they carry?
About the author
Marius Venter is an Organisational Development Manager at VKB Group. Marius helps organisations achieve measurable results by aligning talent, leadership, culture, and employee experience with business goals. With a background in psychology and industrial psychology, Marius use’s evidence based frameworks and data driven insights to strengthen talent management, leadership capability, improve team performance, and boost engagement through strategic management of the entire employee lifecycle.
