The Invisible Centre of the Organisation

The implicit model that structures most contemporary organisations continues to be surprisingly stable: the top defines, the base executes and the middle level coordinates. This representation has descriptive utility, but fails as a structural explanation. It reduces the role of the intermediate layer to a transmission mechanism, ignoring the role it actually plays in the functioning of the organisational system.

Literature has consistently demonstrated that middle managers are crucial to the execution, transformation and sustainability of organisations ^[1][9]. The persistence of its devaluation does not result from a lack of evidence, but from a reading error: confusing hierarchical position with systemic function. The center is not a “between”. It's a conversion point.

But the nature of this conversion is often misunderstood.

It’s not just about turning strategy into execution. It’s about transforming abstraction into operability. The strategy, in its initial formulation, is inevitably incomplete. As Herbert Simon argues, any organisational decision is made under conditions of bounded rationality, characterised by imperfect information, restricted time and finite cognitive capacity. ^[2]. In this context, the strategy cannot be understood as an exhaustive plan, but as an approach that needs to be continually interpreted, adjusted and contextualized.

The implication is structural.

The strategy does not fail due to a formulation error. Failure due to inability to become operable.

It is precisely at this point that the role of middle managers emerges. Not as executors of instructions, but as contextual translators. Their task is not to apply decisions, but to produce local decisions consistent with a global intention. This process requires integration of variables that are not present in the original formulation – operational constraints, team dynamics, resource limitations, organisational friction and incomplete information.

Without this translation layer, the strategy does not fail – it remains incomplete.

Execution is not a phase after strategy. It is an integral part of your definition ^[3]. The strategy only exists to the extent that it can survive the translation process.

This point introduces a critical distinction between two forms of organisation: those that treat execution as implementation and those that recognize it as interpretation. In the first case, the organisation seeks to reduce variability. In the second, he tries to absorb it. The difference is not operational. It's structural.

A similar dynamic occurs at the level of organisational culture. Although often defined as a set of values ​​or principles established by top leadership, culture does not manifest itself in formulation. It manifests itself in repetition. It is produced through recurring decisions, especially in contexts where ambiguity prevents the direct application of formal rules.

Huy demonstrated that middle managers play a central role in the emotional and behavioural stabilization of organisations, functioning as regulators of the implicit norms that guide collective action. ^[4]. Culture is not implemented. It is reinforced – or diverted – over time.

In this sense, the intermediate layer does not perform culture. Define it in practice.

But this definition is not deliberate. It is emergent. It results from the accumulation of micro-decisions that, over time, establish patterns of behaviour. Each local decision – what is tolerated, what is corrected, what is rewarded – contributes to the construction of an implicit normative system.

Culture does not reside in declared values. It lies in repeated decisions.

The distinction between intention and cultural reality becomes particularly evident in contexts of high uncertainty, where formal systems fail to offer sufficient guidance. During the pandemic, organisations like Netflix have depended on the ability of their middle managers to apply principles like “freedom with responsibility” to concrete decisions about performance and alignment. ^[12]. Culture was not preserved by definition, but by consistent interpretation.

Similarly, Pixar built the consistency of its creative culture not just through strategic vision, but through its systematic application throughout the middle structure, even under operational pressure. ^[11]. Coherence does not result from intention. It results from aligned repetition.

The same principle applies to organisational transformation.

Most transformation initiatives continue to be designed in a linear logic: central definition, downward communication and progressive implementation. This approach assumes that the organisation responds predictably to clear instructions. This assumption ignores the adaptive nature of organisational systems.

The change is not implemented. It spreads.

And propagation does not just depend on the clarity of the strategic vision. It depends on the capacity for local interpretation, relational legitimacy and contextual adaptation. Mankins and Litre argue that middle managers are often the key enablers of transformation, precisely because they operate at the intersection of strategic intent and operational reality. ^[8].

Their position gives them a unique function: absorbing the complexity of the system and translating it into coherent action.

When this layer is aligned, change gains speed and consistency. When it is not, a recurring phenomenon emerges: the organisation changes the narrative, but preserves the behaviours. The transformation becomes superficial.

The case of General Electric during its attempt at digital transformation illustrates this dynamic. Despite a clear strategic ambition, the lack of effective middle-tier integration resulted in a disconnect between intention and execution. The change was formulated, but it did not spread.

The problem was not in the strategy.

I was unable to convert it into practice.

This pattern helps explain the persistence of a recurring error in organisational decisions: the tendency to treat the middle layer as redundant in times of pressure. Field, Hancock and Schaninger demonstrate that the elimination of middle managers reduces the ability to execute and deteriorates organisational culture ^[1].

The effect is not immediate.

It's cumulative.

The organisation does not collapse. Loses coherence.

The strategy is no longer applied consistently. Culture fragments. Execution becomes irregular. Adaptation slows down. The system maintains its shape, but loses its functional integrity.

At this point, it becomes clear that the role of middle management cannot be analysed solely in terms of operational efficiency. This is a structural function related to the stability of the system.

There is also an additional dimension that reinforces this reading: middle management as a leadership development mechanism. It is at this level that fundamental skills are developed to operate in complex systems – ambiguity management, coordination between hierarchical levels, conflict resolution and influence without formal authority ^[10].

These skills are not acquired in total control environments. They develop precisely in contexts where authority is partial and information is incomplete.

Ignoring this layer doesn’t just compromise the present. It compromises the organisation's future ability to generate leadership capable of operating in complexity.

The dominant reading of organisations continues, however, to privilege the extremes: the top, where decision-making is concentrated, and the base, where execution is concentrated. The center remains conceptualized as transitional, a transition zone between two states.

This reading is incorrect.

The center is not transitory.

It's structural.

More than that, it is the point where the system becomes real.

Reassessing the role of middle managers involves abandoning a simplified hierarchical logic and adopting a systemic reading. It is not about reinforcing an organisational layer for balance or equity. It is about recognizing its function as a point of conversion between intention and reality, between abstract and operable, between definition and practice.

In this context, the role of the middle manager cannot be defined as executing instructions. It consists of interpreting context, producing alignment and stabilizing change.

The distinction is not semantic.

It is operational.

Organisations do not fail in the strategy they define. They fail in what happens between definition and execution.

This range is not abstract.

It corresponds to a concrete layer of the organisational system.

This is where the organisation stops being a plan and becomes a system.

It's in the center.

Golden Blue Notes
2BePro · Central Brain Trust · PIM Trifecta