The Forgotten Weight Carried by Middle Leaders

Listen to this article (BETA)

Preparing the reader…

Your progress: Not started

The meeting ended at 10:15a.

Senior leadership had approved a significant organizational change. The objectives were clear, the timetable was ambitious, and the executive team was confident that the decision would strengthen the organization. By 10:30a, a department manager was explaining the change to employees who had not been part of the conversation.

Their questions came quickly. Would their schedules change? Would positions be eliminated? What would happen to projects already underway? How could the department meet the new expectations without additional resources?

The manager knew some of the answers, but others had not been discussed. Still others depended on decisions that could only be made several levels above.

By noon, employees were frustrated. By two o’clock, senior leadership wanted an update. By four, the manager was trying to revise the department’s operating plan while responding to the concerns of people whose lives would be affected by the change.

At 5:30p, an employee stopped by the manager’s office and asked, “Do you really think this is going to work?”

It was a fair question. The manager believed in the organization’s mission, and the proposed change had merit. But several practical problems remained unresolved, and the people who could resolve them had already moved on to other responsibilities. The manager answered carefully, explained what was known, acknowledged what remained uncertain, and promised to seek clarification.

Then came another question. “Are you going to tell them what we’re saying?”

“Yes,” the manager replied. “I am.”

Now the manager had another responsibility to fulfill.

The executive team had made one decision. The middle leader was managing its consequences.

This illustrative scene describes a reality familiar to middle leaders in businesses, churches, schools, ministries, and nonprofit organizations. They are expected to lead upward and downward, translating strategy into action while maintaining performance, developing people, communicating decisions, resolving conflict, and preserving trust. They do so with incomplete authority, incomplete information, and obligations that sometimes compete with one another.

Middle leaders often carry the consequences of decisions without possessing the authority that produced them.

That is the forgotten weight of middle leadership, and it is a weight that both senior leaders and middle leaders must learn to handle more faithfully.

The Work Between the Work

We generally understand what middle leaders are supposed to accomplish. They manage departments, supervise employees, oversee projects, implement strategy, and report results. Their job descriptions describe responsibilities, performance expectations, and the people who report to them. But a considerable portion of their actual work never appears in those descriptions.

It happens between meetings, after announcements, during unexpected conversations, and in the quiet moments when someone closes the office door and asks, “Can I talk with you?”

It is the supervisor who spends an hour helping an employee understand a decision that took senior leadership five minutes to announce. It is the ministry director who encourages volunteers discouraged by a new policy, even while privately wondering whether the policy will accomplish its intended purpose. It is the operations manager who must explain why a customer promise cannot be fulfilled because another department changed its priorities. It is the school administrator who must implement a district decision while helping teachers and parents navigate consequences that were never discussed at the district office.

These leaders are doing more than managing tasks. They are holding relationships together, maintaining trust across organizational levels, and translating decisions into workable human arrangements.

Henry Mintzberg’s observations of managerial work challenged the popular picture of managers spending their days in orderly planning and decision-making. He found managerial work characterized by interruptions, varied responsibilities, interpersonal demands, information exchange, and continual decisions.¹ Middle leaders experience these demands while occupying a distinctive position: they must understand the intentions of those above them and the realities of those below them, even when those perspectives do not agree.

Julia Balogun’s research on middle managers during organizational transformation describes them as change intermediaries. They interpret change, help others understand it, adapt their own work, maintain operations, and implement new expectations.² That is an enormous amount of work concealed within the apparently simple instruction, “Make it happen.”

Senior leaders may see the strategic importance of a decision. Middle leaders see the employees who must change their routines, the customers who must adjust their expectations, the systems that must be modified, and the relationships that must survive the disruption. A senior leader may see one decision while a middle leader sees twenty consequences. Neither perspective is inherently wrong, but an organization becomes weaker when it makes decisions from one perspective while disregarding the other.

There is another danger that senior leaders must recognize. Sometimes the middle leader is so capable at handling those consequences that senior leadership never sees them. The manager rearranges schedules, absorbs complaints, resolves conflicts, stays late, and finds a way to meet the deadline. The work gets done, the executive team concludes that the plan was sound, and the organization continues operating as though nothing needs to change.

But what appeared to be a successful organizational process may actually have been an organizational weakness concealed by an exceptionally dependable leader.

A middle leader’s ability to compensate for a broken system does not mean the system is working. Sometimes it means the organization has found someone willing to pay the price of keeping it functioning.

That is a distinction every senior leader needs to understand, particularly when the most dependable people are the least likely to complain.

The Burden of Responsibility Without Authority

A department manager is told that employee retention must improve. The manager understands the objective. Retaining capable people matters because turnover disrupts relationships, weakens performance, and creates unnecessary expense. But the manager cannot adjust compensation, approve promotions, change staffing levels, or modify the scheduling policies that employees identify as their greatest frustrations.

The manager can listen, encourage, recognize good work, and improve the environment within the department. Those are meaningful responsibilities, and the manager should exercise them well. Yet when another valued employee leaves, the manager is summoned to explain why retention has not improved.

The organization has assigned responsibility for an outcome without providing authority over several of its principal causes. This is where a legitimate leadership expectation can become an unfair leadership burden.

A person can be accountable for how faithfully they exercise their authority. They cannot reasonably be held solely accountable for conditions they have no authority to change.

That distinction is not an invitation to avoid responsibility. It is the foundation for assigning responsibility intelligently. A capable middle leader should be accountable for sound judgment, diligent effort, honest communication, and effective use of available resources. Senior leadership must remain accountable for the conditions and decisions that fall within its authority.

A study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology examined well-being among middle-level leaders, senior leaders, and nonleaders. Across three studies, the researchers found disadvantages for middle-level leaders on several measures of well-being. The largest study included 24,067 people and found poorer general health among middle-level leaders compared with the other groups. Additional findings connected their greater negative emotions with higher job demands and insufficient control. The research also identified particular concerns for women in middle leadership.³

These findings deserve more than a passing acknowledgment. When middle leaders struggle, senior leadership should not automatically assume that the problem is insufficient commitment, resilience, or competence. Sometimes the organization has created responsibilities that are unnecessarily difficult to fulfill, and the person carrying them has been too loyal, too cautious, or too discouraged to say so.

That is not merely a problem for the middle leader. It is a problem for the organization that depends upon that leader.

Three Different Burdens That Require Three Different Responses

When a middle leader appears overwhelmed, the most common response is to ask whether the workload can be reduced. Sometimes that is precisely what is needed, but not every leadership burden is caused by too much work. Three distinct problems deserve attention because each requires a different response.

Role overload occurs when the amount or difficulty of the work exceeds reasonable capacity. Role conflict occurs when competing expectations make it difficult or impossible to satisfy everyone involved. Role ambiguity occurs when responsibilities, priorities, decision rights, or expectations are unclear.

A manager has been asked to reduce overtime, improve customer response times, and maintain the same staffing levels. Those expectations may be compatible if processes can be improved sufficiently, but if available capacity cannot support all three, the manager faces conflicting demands. If the manager also does not know which objective takes priority or who has authority to approve an exception, the conflict is compounded by ambiguity. And if the manager continues working longer hours to compensate for both, overload follows.

A 2026 meta-analysis by Gargi Sawhney and colleagues brought together 515 studies, 588 samples, and 787,959 participants. The researchers found that role ambiguity, conflict, and overload are distinct sources of strain, with ambiguity emerging as the most damaging overall across many of the outcomes examined.⁴

This helps explain why telling people to work harder, manage their time better, or maintain a positive attitude can be such an inadequate response. A middle leader cannot organize their way out of contradictory expectations that senior leadership refuses to resolve, and no amount of personal discipline will supply authority the organization has withheld.

When the problem is structural, the solution must include the structure.

Senior leaders must clarify priorities, define authority, and resolve conflicting expectations. Middle leaders must identify those conflicts, communicate their consequences, and seek resolution rather than quietly absorbing them. Both have work to do, and neither can fulfill the other’s responsibility.

The Emotional Weight of Standing in the Middle

There is another burden that is harder to measure but no less significant. Middle leaders frequently become the emotional bridge between the people making decisions and the people experiencing their consequences.

Employees are rarely upset with an organizational chart. They are upset with someone they know: the supervisor who announces the new schedule, the manager who explains the reduced budget, or the ministry director who tells volunteers that a familiar program is changing. The person delivering the message often receives the emotional response, even when that person did not make the decision.

Sometimes the response is disappointment or anger. Sometimes it is fear about employment, income, relationships, or the future. Whatever form it takes, the middle leader must respond with enough honesty to preserve trust and enough steadiness to help people move forward.

Quy Nguyen Huy’s three-year study of organizational change identified the importance of emotional balancing among middle managers. Successful change required them to remain committed to necessary organizational change while attending to the emotional experience of employees affected by it.⁵

Those responsibilities belong together. A middle leader who focuses exclusively on implementation may accomplish the immediate task while damaging trust. A middle leader who focuses exclusively on protecting employees from discomfort may preserve temporary harmony while preventing necessary change. Faithful leadership requires commitment and compassion, exercised together.

But we must recognize the personal cost. The middle leader may have concerns of their own. They may be uncertain about the timetable, disappointed by the decision, or worried about how their team will respond. Yet they are expected to provide stability to everyone else.

Who provides stability to them? Who listens when they are discouraged? Who helps them process difficult decisions? Who notices when the leader who is always encouraging others has quietly begun to lose hope?

Senior leaders should not assume that because someone continues to perform, that person is doing well. Competence can conceal exhaustion for a remarkably long time, and the most dependable middle leaders may be especially vulnerable because they have learned to solve problems without asking for help. That ability makes them valuable, but it can also make their difficulties invisible.

A senior leader who genuinely cares for those entrusted to their leadership will look beyond the performance report. They will cultivate relationships in which middle leaders can speak candidly about difficulties, receive counsel, and obtain help before discouragement becomes disengagement.

The Cost to the Organization

This is not simply a matter of making managers feel better. The way an organization treats its middle leaders affects its ability to accomplish its mission.

Middle leaders translate decisions into action, influence employee engagement, identify emerging problems, develop future leaders, and maintain relationships that senior leadership may rarely encounter directly. When they become discouraged, those responsibilities do not disappear. They become harder to fulfill, and the effects can spread through the organization.

Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace 2026 reports that global manager engagement declined from 31 percent in 2022 to 22 percent in 2025. Engagement among individual contributors changed much less during that period. These figures concern managers broadly rather than middle managers alone, but they should command the attention of anyone responsible for organizational leadership. Gallup also reports that manager engagement reached 79 percent among its best-practice organizations in 2025.⁶

The contrast is important because it shows that management responsibility does not make disengagement inevitable. Organizational practices and leadership conditions matter, and the consequences of neglecting them extend beyond the manager’s office.

When middle leaders stop believing their concerns will be heard, they may stop raising them. When they stop believing they can influence decisions, they may stop offering suggestions. When they no longer trust the people above them, they may become less effective at maintaining trust among the people below them.

The organization may continue functioning, but its ability to learn, adapt, and respond begins to deteriorate. Senior leadership may be among the last to recognize what is happening because the very people who once brought important information forward have learned that doing so accomplishes little.

An organization does not become healthy simply because its problems are no longer being reported. Sometimes that silence is evidence that the organization has become less healthy than ever.

Senior Leaders: You Cannot Delegate Away the Consequences

Now let us sit across the table from those entrusted with senior leadership.

You carry responsibilities that others may not fully understand. You must consider organizational sustainability, financial realities, strategic direction, competing demands, and information that cannot always be shared broadly. You sometimes have to make decisions that disappoint people, and you cannot lead effectively by avoiding every difficult decision.

But once a decision is made, your responsibility is not finished.

Delegation transfers responsibility for performing the work. It does not eliminate responsibility for the conditions under which the work must be performed.

You may delegate tasks, decisions within established boundaries, and responsibility for execution. But you retain responsibility for the quality of your leadership decisions and for the organizational systems you establish.

If you reduce staffing, you must understand what work can reasonably be accomplished afterward. If you increase expectations, you must determine whether the resources and authority available are sufficient. If you establish competing priorities, you must help determine which should prevail when they collide. And if you ask middle leaders to carry a difficult change, you must remain available when its consequences emerge.

Do not announce an initiative, assign implementation, and then interpret every difficulty as evidence that the middle leader is failing. Sometimes implementation is poor, sometimes the original decision was poorly informed, and sometimes the organization failed to provide adequate support. Wise leadership distinguishes among them rather than assigning blame according to organizational position.

When authority remains at the top but accountability travels downward, the organization has not fully delegated leadership. It has distributed blame.

The Danger of the Dependable Manager

There is a particular kind of middle leader senior executives should watch carefully. This leader rarely complains. Deadlines are met, employees are supported, problems are solved before they reach the executive office, and the department performs consistently. From above, everything looks healthy.

But perhaps the manager is working excessive hours. Perhaps staffing shortages are being covered through personal sacrifice. Perhaps the manager is absorbing employee frustrations that should be addressed by senior leadership. Because the manager continues delivering results, the organization continues making the same demands.

This is how competence can become a trap. The better the middle leader becomes at compensating for organizational deficiencies, the less pressure senior leadership feels to correct them. The arrangement may produce impressive short-term results, but it is not sustainable leadership.

Senior leaders must learn to ask questions that go beyond whether the work was accomplished. What did it require? What had to be postponed? What did employees experience? What problems were solved through extraordinary effort rather than sound processes? What would happen if the manager stopped compensating for the weaknesses of the system?

Do not mistake the extraordinary efforts of a faithful leader for evidence that your organizational expectations are reasonable.

This is where responsible leadership requires more than appreciation. Thanking a middle leader for exceptional effort is appropriate, but if the same exceptional effort is required every week, gratitude is not enough. The organization must examine why ordinary success depends upon extraordinary sacrifice.

Invite the People Who Know What You Do Not

One of the most important responsibilities of senior leadership is to create ways for operational truth to reach the people making strategic decisions.

Middle leaders often know things that cannot be seen from the executive office. They know which processes are failing, which employees are carrying unreasonable workloads, which policies are creating unnecessary conflict, and which initiatives are producing unintended consequences. They may also know that an apparently unpopular decision is working better than employees initially expected.

Their perspective is valuable precisely because it is different. Invite it before decisions are finalized when possible, and continue seeking it afterward.

Proverbs 15:22 teaches the value of counsel in establishing plans. Seeking counsel is not a sign that a senior leader lacks confidence; it is evidence that the leader understands the limitations of personal perspective.

A leader who hears only agreement has not necessarily built a unified organization. That leader may simply have taught everyone that disagreement is unwelcome.

Middle Leaders: Your Position Does Not Eliminate Your Responsibility

Now the conversation turns to the middle leader.

You may have legitimate concerns about the expectations placed upon you. You may be asked to implement decisions you would not have made, and you may lack authority over some of the conditions affecting your performance. But you still have a responsibility to lead, and that responsibility deserves your full commitment.

Do not become the manager who explains every disappointment by blaming senior leadership. Do not strengthen your relationship with employees by weakening their confidence in the organization. Do not privately ridicule decisions you are publicly responsible for implementing, and do not allow resentment to replace judgment.

Your employees deserve better, and so does the organization.

There is a difference between acknowledging that a decision is difficult and suggesting that the people who made it are foolish. There is a difference between advocating for your team and promising outcomes you cannot deliver. There is a difference between offering candid counsel and organizing resistance. Mature leadership requires the discernment to recognize those differences.

At the same time, faithful leadership does not require unquestioning agreement. If a decision creates serious problems, you have a responsibility to communicate them. If expectations are contradictory, seek clarification. If resources are inadequate, make the consequences visible. If employees are being harmed by an avoidable organizational practice, bring that concern to the appropriate authority.

Your position may limit what you can decide, but it does not eliminate what you can influence.

The middle leader’s calling is not to keep everyone happy. It is to preserve truth, trust, and responsible action in both directions.

That is demanding leadership, and it is worthy of the name.

Leading Up: The Courage to Make the Invisible Visible

Some middle leaders have never been taught how to lead upward. They know how to supervise employees, conduct meetings, manage projects, and report results. But when a decision from senior leadership creates a serious problem, they are uncertain how to respond.

Should they object? Will they be seen as disloyal? Should they wait until the consequences become obvious? Would speaking up jeopardize their future?

These concerns are real, and avoiding them does not make the underlying problem disappear.

Leading up is the disciplined practice of helping those with greater authority make better decisions by contributing information, judgment, and perspective they may otherwise lack. It is not flattery, manipulation, or building a political alliance. Leading up is an act of organizational stewardship, and it requires discernment because not every disagreement with senior leadership is the same.

When Senior Leadership Does Not Know

Senior leaders sometimes make decisions without understanding an important operational consequence. They may not know that a department is already understaffed, that a proposed deadline conflicts with another major commitment, or that a policy will create an unintended hardship.

The middle leader’s responsibility is to make that information visible.

A manager whose department has been assigned an ambitious new target reviews staffing, current commitments, and available resources. The numbers do not support the proposed timetable.

A responsible conversation might sound like this:

“I understand why we want to accomplish this, and I agree that the objective matters. I’ve reviewed our current capacity, and I need to bring a concern to your attention. We cannot meet the proposed timetable while maintaining our existing commitments and quality standards. I see three possible approaches. We can adjust the deadline, temporarily redirect resources, or reduce other commitments. I’d like your guidance on which tradeoff best serves the organization.”

That is not insubordination. It is leadership.

The manager has affirmed the objective, supplied relevant information, explained the consequences, identified choices, and requested a decision. The conversation has moved from frustration to responsible action.

When Senior Leadership Knows but Disagrees

Sometimes the senior leader understands the concern and still chooses a different course. That does not automatically mean the senior leader is wrong. There may be financial constraints, contractual obligations, strategic considerations, or other information the middle leader does not possess.

In this situation, the middle leader should make sure the concern has been accurately understood. Ask what considerations are driving the decision, clarify the priorities, and identify what authority is available for implementation. Then determine whether the decision can be carried out responsibly.

If it can, lead the implementation faithfully. You do not need to pretend that the decision was your preferred choice, but neither should you undermine it simply because your recommendation was not accepted.

There is maturity in being able to say, “I offered my best counsel, the decision has been made, and now I will do my part to implement it well.”

That is not surrender. It is an appropriate recognition of authority and responsibility.

When Senior Leadership Knows and Refuses to Act

This is the most difficult situation. The concern has been explained, the evidence has been provided, and the consequences are becoming visible. Yet nothing changes.

Perhaps the senior leader is unwilling to reconsider. Perhaps acknowledging the problem would require admitting a mistake. Perhaps the issue is simply being ignored. Whatever the reason, the middle leader must now exercise a different kind of judgment.

Begin by distinguishing an ordinary disagreement about effectiveness from a concern involving significant harm, serious misconduct, safety, or legal obligations. For ordinary organizational disagreements, seek a specific conversation, clarify what decision has been made, identify what remains unresolved, and establish what is expected of you.

Document significant facts and decisions professionally, especially when the consequences may later be disputed. Use legitimate escalation channels when warranted, and continue leading your team within the authority you possess.

But do not become the organization’s permanent substitute for decisions senior leadership refuses to make.

If a staffing shortage makes an assignment impossible, say so. If competing priorities cannot both be met, ask which takes precedence. If the organization declines to provide necessary resources, communicate what can realistically be accomplished with those available.

Do not promise results you know cannot be delivered, and do not silently accept responsibility for decisions that properly belong elsewhere.

When serious wrongdoing or danger is involved, appropriate reporting and protective action must take precedence over ordinary supervisory etiquette. There may also come a point when a middle leader must decide whether continued service in a particular environment remains sustainable or faithful. That decision deserves careful judgment, wise counsel, and attention to personal responsibilities.

Remaining silent indefinitely is not always loyalty. Sometimes it is simply surrender.

Three Responsibilities That Must Remain Distinct

Leading up becomes clearer when middle leaders distinguish three responsibilities.

The responsibility to advise means bringing relevant facts, concerns, alternatives, and recommendations to those who possess decision-making authority.

The responsibility to implement means carrying out legitimate decisions faithfully within your authority while continuing to exercise sound judgment.

The responsibility to escalate means bringing unresolved or serious concerns to the appropriate level when circumstances require further action.

These responsibilities work together, but they are not interchangeable. A middle leader who only advises may become a critic who never acts. A middle leader who only implements may become a messenger who never exercises judgment. A middle leader who escalates every disagreement may weaken trust and make ordinary leadership unnecessarily difficult.

The goal is to know which responsibility the situation requires and then fulfill it faithfully.

Senior Leaders Must Make This Possible

There is an uncomfortable truth here. We cannot tell middle leaders to speak courageously while ignoring senior leaders who punish people for doing so.

Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety helps explain why employees and teams need an environment in which questions, concerns, and mistakes can be discussed without unnecessary interpersonal fear. Psychological safety does not mean every suggestion is accepted or that disruptive behavior is excused. It means people can raise legitimate concerns without being punished merely for raising them.⁷

If you want people to tell you the truth, you must become someone to whom the truth can be told.

Senior leaders should examine how they respond when someone challenges a decision. Do you become defensive? Do you interrupt before the concern has been explained? Do you interpret disagreement as a personal challenge? Do you thank people for their honesty and then quietly exclude them from future conversations?

Your response teaches people what is safe to say next time, and what they stop saying may be precisely what you most need to hear.

Moses, Jethro, and the Burden of Leadership

Exodus 18 offers an instructive picture of leadership responsibility. Moses was judging disputes among the people of Israel. The work mattered, and the people depended upon him. But Jethro observed something troubling: the arrangement was exhausting Moses and creating unnecessary burdens for the people.

In Exodus 18:18, Jethro warned that the task was too heavy for Moses to accomplish alone. Notice that Jethro did not merely encourage Moses to rest more. He addressed the way the work was organized.

He proposed appointing capable, trustworthy leaders who could handle appropriate matters while bringing difficult cases to Moses. The solution involved distributing responsibility, providing decision-making authority, and establishing a clear path for escalation. Moses would continue carrying the responsibilities appropriate to his position, other leaders would carry responsibilities appropriate to theirs, and the people would receive better care.

This was not merely a more efficient arrangement. It was a more responsible one.

But there is another lesson in this passage. Jethro saw something Moses had not adequately addressed, and he spoke. Jethro was not a subordinate within Moses’ leadership structure, so we should not turn this into a literal example of middle management. Nevertheless, he offers a valuable picture of courageous counsel directed toward someone holding significant authority.

He did not simply criticize Moses for working too hard. He identified the problem, explained the consequences, proposed a better arrangement, and left Moses with a practical path forward.

Moses listened. He did not treat the observation as an insult to his authority. He recognized the wisdom of the counsel and acted upon it.

A leader’s authority is not diminished by receiving good counsel. It is strengthened by using it.

Senior leaders should welcome the perspective of people who see what they do not. Middle leaders should bring that perspective with humility and courage, and both should be willing to change practices that are unnecessarily burdening others.

The Leadership Burden Alignment System

Understanding the problem is important, but understanding without action will leave middle leaders carrying the same burdens tomorrow. Organizations need a dependable way to align responsibility, authority, information, and support.

The Leadership Burden Alignment System provides six recurring practices that senior and middle leaders can use together. It is not intended to create another complicated administrative process. Its purpose is to make essential leadership conversations routine rather than waiting until difficulties become crises.

1. Clarify Responsibility and Authority

Before assigning significant responsibility, identify the desired outcome, the person accountable for it, the decisions that person may make, and the boundaries requiring approval. Do not assume these things are understood simply because the assignment has been discussed.

The senior leader should explain the expectations and authority being delegated. The middle leader should restate the assignment, identify uncertainties, and ask for clarification where needed. If the two parties describe different expectations, resolve the difference before implementation begins.

2. Equip the Leader

Provide the resources, information, access, training, and organizational support necessary for the assignment. Ask whether the leader has what is needed to succeed, and if not, determine what must change.

The senior leader must be willing to examine the adequacy of organizational support. The middle leader must communicate resource limitations honestly and early, including the likely consequences if those limitations remain unresolved.

A capable leader cannot indefinitely compensate for an impossible assignment.

3. Consult Before Consequential Decisions

Before making decisions that will substantially affect a department or team, seek the perspective of those responsible for implementation. Ask what the decision will require, what obstacles are likely, and what consequences may not yet be visible.

The senior leader must be willing to hear information that challenges the original proposal. The middle leader must respond with candid analysis rather than automatic agreement or habitual resistance.

Consultation does not require consensus. It requires taking relevant knowledge seriously.

4. Communicate in Both Directions

Establish dependable communication between senior leadership, middle leaders, and employees. Senior leaders should explain objectives, priorities, and reasoning as fully as circumstances permit. Middle leaders should communicate decisions accurately, listen to employee concerns, and report significant developments without distortion.

Neither level should manipulate information to protect its image. Honest communication may not eliminate disagreement, but it prevents unnecessary confusion and preserves the possibility of trust.

5. Escalate Unresolved Conflicts

Create a clear process for problems that cannot be resolved within the middle leader’s authority. Middle leaders should know where to bring concerns, what information to provide, and when they can expect a response.

Senior leaders must ensure that concerns receive decisions rather than disappearing into endless discussion. When the requested solution cannot be provided, explain what decision has been made, what alternatives remain available, and who is responsible for the consequences.

An escalation process without meaningful follow-through is little more than an invitation to frustration.

6. Review Decisions and Consequences

After significant initiatives, examine both the results and the conditions under which they were achieved. Were expectations realistic? Was authority sufficient? Were resources adequate? Did the middle leader exercise sound judgment? Were concerns communicated promptly? Did senior leadership respond appropriately?

Distinguish failures of planning from failures of execution. Identify lessons that should change future decisions, and make those changes.

The objective is not to determine who deserves the most credit or blame. It is to strengthen the organization’s ability to lead responsibly.

Putting the System to Work: Before, During, and After

The six practices become more useful when incorporated into a regular leadership rhythm.

Before the assignment, conduct a Responsibility and Authority Review. The senior leader and middle leader should agree on the desired outcome, decision-making authority, available resources, competing priorities, and the process for addressing problems that exceed the middle leader’s authority. This conversation may require only fifteen minutes, but it can prevent weeks of confusion. The senior leader must establish clear expectations; the middle leader must identify uncertainties before accepting the assignment.

During implementation, conduct a Burden and Progress Check. At appropriate intervals, discuss more than whether the project is on schedule. Examine what is working, what has changed, what difficulties have emerged, and what decisions are needed. Senior leaders should pay particular attention to work being accomplished through extraordinary personal effort. Middle leaders should bring evidence and recommendations rather than waiting until circumstances become unmanageable.

After the assignment, conduct a Results and Stewardship Review. Examine the results, but do not stop there. Ask how those results were achieved. Were expectations realistic? Was authority sufficient? Were resources adequate? Were concerns raised and addressed? What did the assignment cost the people involved, and what should be changed before the next initiative?

A successful result achieved through unsustainable personal sacrifice should not be treated as an entirely successful leadership process.

What Healthy Leadership Looks Like

Return to our opening illustration.

The senior leader receives the manager’s concerns and responds:

“Thank you for bringing this to me. I hadn’t understood how the new timetable would affect the department’s existing commitments. Let’s review the priorities together. I’ll take responsibility for resolving the conflict with the other department, and I want you to tell me what support your team needs. We’ll meet again Friday to see whether the adjustments are working.”

The senior leader has not abandoned the original objective, and the middle leader has not avoided responsibility. Instead, they have identified a problem, clarified authority, and established a way forward.

The middle leader then returns to the team:

“I brought your concerns to senior leadership. We reviewed the timetable and identified two commitments that can be adjusted. Some parts of the change will still be difficult, but we have clearer priorities and a way to address problems as they arise. I’ll keep you informed, and I need you to keep telling me what you’re seeing.”

The employees may not love the change, but they have been heard. The manager has been supported, and senior leadership has gained information that can improve the decision.

That is what healthy leadership looks like in practice. It is not the absence of difficulty, but the responsible handling of it.

Bearing One Another’s Burdens Without Abandoning Our Own

Galatians 6 contains two instructions that belong together. Verse 2 calls believers to bear one another’s burdens, while verse 5 reminds each person to carry their own load.

These are not contradictory commands. In their original context, Paul is teaching believers how to live responsibly and care for one another. The distinction also offers a useful principle for leadership: faithful relationships involve both mutual care and personal responsibility. We are not called to abandon people under burdens they cannot reasonably carry, and neither are we called to relieve people of responsibilities that properly belong to them.

Senior leaders must not transfer their own responsibilities downward and call it delegation. Middle leaders must not transfer their responsibilities upward and call it a lack of authority. Each must carry what is properly theirs, and both must recognize when a burden needs to be shared.

This is where leadership becomes more than management technique. It becomes a question of character.

Will we listen when someone tells us that our decisions are creating unnecessary hardship? Will we speak when silence would be easier? Will we acknowledge mistakes rather than search for someone to blame? Will we treat the people entrusted to our care as human beings rather than merely as instruments for accomplishing organizational objectives?

These questions reveal the kind of leaders we are becoming, because the stewardship of responsibility is inseparable from the stewardship of people.

The Weight We Were Never Meant to Carry Alone

An organization can achieve its objectives while quietly exhausting the people responsible for making those objectives possible.

The initiative launches, the numbers improve, the deadline is met, and the annual report celebrates the accomplishment. Somewhere in the organization, however, a capable middle leader goes home wondering how much longer this can continue.

That leader may never say anything. They may continue performing, encouraging others, solving problems, and absorbing consequences until one day they stop. Perhaps they disengage, become cynical, or leave. And senior leadership is surprised.

“We had no idea.”

But whose responsibility was it to know?

Not every private difficulty can be discovered, not every burden can be removed, and not every organizational decision can satisfy everyone affected by it. Nevertheless, senior leaders have a responsibility to establish relationships and systems through which important concerns can become known.

It is the leader’s job to know what can reasonably be known—and to create the conditions in which people can safely tell them what they do not know.

Middle leaders have a corresponding responsibility to speak, to lead faithfully within their authority, and to refuse the temptation to substitute resentment for responsible action.

This is not about eliminating the difficulty of leadership. Leadership will always involve difficult decisions, competing obligations, and burdens that must be carried. It is about ensuring that those burdens are assigned wisely, supported adequately, communicated honestly, and shared when necessary.

The objective is not to make leadership comfortable. It is to make leadership faithful.

And perhaps the most important question senior leaders should ask is not simply whether their organization is accomplishing its objectives. It is whether they are accomplishing those objectives while faithfully caring for the people entrusted with carrying them.

Because those people are not incidental to the mission.

They are part of the mission.

Five Coaching Questions

For senior leaders: Where have I assigned responsibility without providing the authority, information, resources, or support necessary to fulfill it? What specific change will I make?
For middle leaders: What unresolved concern have I continued to absorb rather than bringing it upward with clear facts, consequences, and a responsible request?
For both: When an initiative struggles, do we distinguish poor decisions, inadequate support, and weak execution—or simply hold the nearest leader responsible?
For middle leaders: Am I building trust in both directions through truthful, constructive leadership, or have frustration, fear, and the desire for approval begun to compromise my judgment?
For senior leaders: Have I made it easier for the people who report to me to tell me what I need to know—or merely what I prefer to hear?

Endnotes

Henry Mintzberg, “Managerial Work: Analysis from Observation,” Management Science 18, no. 2 (1971): B97–B110. Mintzberg’s observational research challenged simplified descriptions of managerial work, emphasizing its interpersonal, informational, and decision-making demands. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.18.2.B97
Julia Balogun, “From Blaming the Middle to Harnessing Its Potential: Creating Change Intermediaries,” British Journal of Management 14, no. 1 (2003): 69–83. Balogun describes middle managers’ complex responsibilities in interpreting organizational change, helping others adapt, maintaining operations, and implementing new expectations. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00266
“The Effects of Leadership Levels and Gender on Leader Well-Being,” Journal of Applied Psychology (2023). The research compared middle-level leaders with senior leaders and nonleaders across three studies. Its largest sample included 24,067 participants. The findings connected disadvantages in middle-leader well-being with job demands and control and identified gender differences. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000361
Gargi Sawhney, Mallory A. McCord, Austin Cunningham, Peter Cook, Kwesi Adjei, and Taylor Flinn, “A Meta-Analytic Review of 60 Years of Role Stressor Research,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 167 (2026): 104234. The authors synthesized 515 studies, 588 samples, and 787,959 participants, distinguishing role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload and finding particularly harmful associations for ambiguity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2026.104234
Quy Nguyen Huy, “Emotional Balancing of Organizational Continuity and Radical Change: The Contribution of Middle Managers,” Administrative Science Quarterly 47, no. 1 (2002): 31–69. Based on a three-year field study, Huy identified the importance of combining commitment to change with attention to employees’ emotional experiences. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094890
Gallup, State of the Global Workplace: 2026 Report (2026). Gallup reports global manager engagement declining from 31% in 2022 to 22% in 2025, compared with a much smaller change among individual contributors. Manager engagement in Gallup’s best-practice organizations reached 79% in 2025. These data concern managers broadly and should not be interpreted as middle-manager-only statistics. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/leadership.aspx
Amy Edmondson, “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly 44, no. 2 (1999): 350–383. Edmondson examined the relationship between team psychological safety and learning behavior, including willingness to ask questions, acknowledge mistakes, and raise concerns. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Biblical foundations: Exodus 18:13–26 (Moses, Jethro, delegated authority, and escalation); Proverbs 15:22 (the value of counsel); Galatians 6:2–5 (mutual burden-bearing and personal responsibility); 1 Peter 5:2–3 (faithful care for those entrusted to leadership); Ephesians 4:15–16 (truthful, mutually supportive growth). Scripture is applied as theological and ethical guidance, not presented as empirical organizational research.

LMAMD

You are welcome to share links to our articles. Please obtain written permission before reproducing or republishing any content.