By Avner Pariat
Max Weber – the progenitor of what we might call modern bureaucratic theory – envisioned it as the pinnacle of organizational efficiency. He argued that the ideal bureaucracy functioned like a flawless machine, achieving “precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity, discretion, unity, strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs.” This rational-legal system was designed to eliminate chaos and favouritism. Yet, in the modern organization, this theoretical machine rarely operates as intended. Its most notorious point of failure is not the executive vision nor the frontline execution, but the interstitial layer of middle management. It is here that the bureaucratic virtues extolled by Weber congeal into their most frustrating and counterproductive realities. Middle management represents the worst excesses of bureaucracy because it inherently exists to self-perpetuate, it become unhealthily obsessed with Process over Progress.
The most glaring failure of Middle Management is its fundamental propensity to prioritize internal processes over tangible outcomes. Adherence to the rules – originally conceived as a means to an end – becomes transformed into an end-in-itself. For the middle manager, performance is seldom measured by bottom-line results or innovative breakthroughs. Instead, success is gauged by adherence to budget cycles, compliance with reporting procedures, and the flawless navigation of internal protocols. In my experience, a front-line grassroots worker often seeks to solve problems creatively but the middle manager is generally obsessed with coverage, preparation of reports (with “correct and proper” English) and ensuring that the status quo is maintained. I have started calling such people either Man Fridays or Jane Thursday: people who know everything about a department and its smooth functioning but who completely miss the point regarding the reason for its existence in the first place: namely to positively change lives and society. These people want good PPTs but couldn’t be bothered about how many lives are raised out of poverty, they want a smooth tendering process but couldn’t care less about the crucial topic of Inequality and the re-distribution of Wealth, they are obsessed with data and numbers but don’t want to hear any grassroots criticism (which might actually lead to better outcomes overall), they want to ensure everything is under a proper budget head but not if it is for something that they did not conceptualise themselves.
All this creates a structure where managing the bureaucracy itself becomes the primary career skill. The manager who flawlessly executes a pointless procedure is rewarded, while the one who bypasses red tape to achieve a real-world breakthrough is chastised for breaking the chain of command. I have had one officer actually tell me off for talking to him in what he described as a “casual tone”. “Bah, I am Commissioner and Secretary …”, he reminded me, without even listening to my request. I was angry but I realised that he was as much a victim of the system as anyone else. This devotion to Process suffocates risk, punishes creativity, and ensures the primary organizational goal is not to move forward, but simply to avoid any blame or accountability.
Furthermore, middle management functions as a bad filter for organizational communication, systematically distorting the flow of information essential for systemic health and agility. In a healthy structure, strategy should flow down clearly, and feedback should flow up honestly. The middle manager, however, transforms this conduit into a valve that operates on self-interest and reinforces “toxic positivity”. No one wants to hear the truth and so upward communication is sanitized and spun; problems are minimized and successes amplified to project an image of total control and overwhelming success. Downward communication is diluted, or worse, delayed! And visionary directives are stripped of context and delivered as a series of sterile tasks. The result is a profound disconnect: leadership operates under the illusion that its strategy is being flawlessly executed, while frontline grassroots workers are demoralized by a stream of seemingly arbitrary directives which can change at the drop of a hat. I will discuss this demoralization – or as Marx put it “alienation” – in another essay because it is a persistent problem which all bureaucrats have to acknowledge and rectify.
Perhaps the most damning indictment of middle management is its inherent drive for preservation of the “rules of the game”. The “rules” within a large organization – the internal metrics, promotion structures, and budget cycles – often reward unproductive activities. The primary function of the layer thus becomes the creation and oversight of work that justifies its own continued employment. This manifests in the proliferation of meetings about meetings, the generation of reports that no one reads, and the invention of new initiatives that create the illusion of momentum without producing change. As I have mentioned before, many middle managers are not evil; they are simply individuals who were promoted based on past performance in a different role and have now reached a level where their talents are mismatched. They become defenders of the status quo – not because it is effective and efficient – but because it is the only ecosystem they know how to navigate.
Solution? Solving this structural crisis requires dismantling the very “rules of the game” mentioned above. A two-pronged approach would involve injecting new talent and creating new pathways for innovation that bypass the traditional bureaucratic hierarchy. First, organizations must implement robust programs for lateral entry, bringing in industry experts and outsiders directly into various roles. These individuals, unindoctrinated by the internal culture, must be allowed to reform the ossified processes, introduce best practices from other sectors, and break down the silos of self-justification. Second, the state leadership must create autonomous innovation funds with streamlined and transparent approval processes, allowing people and workers at all levels to pitch and lead projects. Creativity shows up in a number of fields and sectors. Not everything conceived by the government would succeed. Allowing young people to come up with solutions to problems or to apply for funding for sectors which have not been designed by the government should be encouraged. What if some young people from Mawkyrwat realise that they could make more money from setting up a cattle ranch rather than a goattery? What if young people from Dalu realise that they can become richer from selling pumpkin rather than jackfruit? Such funds would also empower frontline workers who have direct contact with problems to develop innovative solutions. A BDO in Garo Hills once told me that since people are always waiting in his office or the nearby PHC, he thought that having TVs or screens installed there might not be a bad thing because then the villagers could watch some Health-related videos while they waited. I think it is a great idea if implemented well.
In conclusion, to claim that all middle managers are incompetent or malicious is an oversimplification. Many are talented individuals trapped in a system that warps their role, serving as the organization’s shock absorbers for blame from above and frustration from below. However, this does not absolve the structural function this layer serves. The system itself is the culprit, and middle management is where its flaws become most operational and agonizingly visible. It is the layer where human potential goes to be processed and where innovative ideas are often the first casualty. As Peter Drucker noted, “there are few things that are as frustrating as an innovative idea that is not being acted on because it does not fit the company’s existing rules and patterns.” This is the ultimate cost of middle management bureaucracy. To dismantle this gatekeeping class is not to eliminate management, but to redefine it away from bureaucracy and towards empowerment -transforming managers from process overseers into coaches, obstacle-removers, and connectors of talent. Until the government confronts this truth, it will remain weighed down by a force that measures its worth in approved forms rather than genuine achievement, forever under the grip of the gatekeepers.
P.S. Some Middle Managers are just pure evil and rude to boot!
(The writer Avner Medon Pariat can be reached at 6033209058 for further discussions and/or fiery debates!)