The True Asset

All I wanna say is that they don't really care about us.

—Michael Jackson

Last week, I met up with an old friend who’s working for one of the tech giants that, well, isn’t quite the juggernaut it used to be. As we caught up over coffee, he recounted the daily struggles his team was facing—unclear directions, abrupt changes, and the relentless task of keeping the ship afloat despite the waves of corporate turbulence. Even the continuous reduction in extras and facilities.

It struck me: mid-managers like him are truly the most vulnerable asset in these organizations, bearing the weight of both executive ambitions and operational realities.

In many ways, these managers are the linchpin of a company, translating high-level strategies into tangible results. But when there’s a lack of strategic depth or vision at the top, they’re the ones left holding the bag, piecing together short-term fixes in the face of long-term uncertainty. It’s a challenge that has become especially visible in some of today’s most celebrated—and struggling—companies.

Meta and the Pivot to VR

Consider Meta (formerly Facebook). The grand pivot to VR and the metaverse promised an ambitious new era, but the strategic foundation was shaky. While top executives announced the vision with fervor, mid-managers were left in a whirlpool of confusion. They had to not only convince their teams of the move’s necessity but also scramble to fit their previous day-to-day tasks into this new paradigm. There was little guidance and few actionable steps on how this monumental shift would unfold.

In this frenzy, a lack of cohesive planning led to layoffs and restructuring, leaving mid-management to deal with the fallout. These managers were suddenly handed massive task lists to complete with even fewer resources and little room to question the feasibility of their objectives. It wasn’t just the vision that was lost on them— it was a clear path on how to kill it for sure.

Intel’s Bet on Manufacturing

Intel, too, provides a cautionary tale. For years, the company was renowned for its semiconductor dominance. But amid fierce competition from AMD and Nvidia, Intel began to lose ground. A strategy was introduced to shift focus on in-house manufacturing to regain control. The top brass pushed this as a future-proof strategy, but on the ground, mid-managers faced complex logistical and technical issues that had not been accounted for.

The quick shift to a new production model meant that managers had to deal with outdated equipment, a lack of skilled labor, and overly optimistic deadlines. Without sufficient resources or practical steps, these mid-level leaders were pressured to manage expectations on both ends—balancing ambitious executive demands with the frustrations of their teams on the ground. Intel’s production delays and setbacks were a result of strategic oversight, but the burden of dealing with the daily consequences fell squarely on mid-management.

Tesla’s Automation Ambitions

Tesla, renowned for pushing boundaries, encountered a similar scenario in its quest to automate production lines. CEO Elon Musk’s vision of a fully automated assembly process was revolutionary but impractical given the current technological limitations. Mid-management faced intense stress trying to meet these targets, working with machinery that wasn’t quite ready for prime time. As Musk himself admitted, “excessive automation at Tesla was a mistake.”

These managers bore the weight of bridging the gap between vision and feasibility. The delays and reworks, coupled with high turnover and a string of manual interventions, left mid-level leaders caught in a whirlwind of corporate expectations and technical challenges. The lack of realistic strategic groundwork strained mid-management, causing morale to drop and burnout to rise.

Lessons to Consider

The challenges above illustrate a common thread—when strategies are born from ambitious goals without a thorough plan to bring them into reality, mid-management absorbs the impact. Here are key takeaways that highlight the unique position of mid-level leaders:

1. The “Bridge Builders”: Mid-managers are the ones tasked with translating high-level ideas into tangible steps. When strategic thinking lacks clarity, these managers are left filling gaps with improvised solutions. They become bridge builders without the proper materials or blueprints.

2. The “People Whisperers”: Without a clear strategy, mid-management must keep teams motivated amid constant shifts in direction. If the purpose of a strategy isn’t fully understood, it falls on these managers to convince teams of its relevance, which can strain trust and morale when the vision is unclear or unrealistic.

3. The “Pressure Cookers”: While top management may view a strategy change as an exciting new challenge, mid-management often faces it as a gauntlet of sudden challenges, tight deadlines, and minimal resources. When there’s a lack of strategic depth, this pressure mounts and impacts performance, leading to burnout.

   
   

To Sum Up…

For companies to thrive, strategic thinking must be actionable at every level, not just inspirational at the top. Top management should involve mid-level leaders in the planning stages to ensure that goals are realistic and that resources are adequate. By grounding lofty ideas in practicalities, the pressure on mid-management can be alleviated, creating a smoother path to achieving company goals.

When the weight of strategy rests on solid, practical steps rather than inspiring but unreachable targets, mid-management will finally have what they need to make the vision a reality without losing sleep or team morale.

So, to the great strategists out there— don’t overlook your organization’s true asset if you’re aiming for lasting success.