The Hollow Middle

Manager engagement dropped by 9 points over 3 years. That’s the headline from Gallup’s 2026 State of the Global Workplace report—down from roughly 31% engaged in 2022 to 22% in 2025, across a trended dataset of roughly 5.7 million respondents. The “engagement premium” that managers historically held over the people they lead has effectively disappeared. The pattern underneath the headline is older than the headline, and the interventions most organizations will commission in response won’t touch it.

Organizations value managers verbally and disinvest in them operationally. Gallup finds that managers account for roughly 70% of the variance in team engagement, while its 2025 report found that the share of managers globally who have received formal management training is only 44%. The Chartered Management Institute’s 2023 study with YouGov (n = 4,542) found that the UK figure was 82%—”accidental managers” promoted into the role with no preparation, then held accountable for outcomes. Workers under those managers are more than twice as likely to be planning to leave: 50% versus 21%. We read this as a theory-in-use gap: promotion criteria, reward systems, and calendar allocation reveal the acting theory, while the verbal theory shows up mainly in hiring materials and leadership speeches. The gap is usually visible in specific places: who actually gets promoted, whose time gets protected, and what behavior gets recognized in all-hands. When we audit those three dimensions against the stated manager-development priority, the inconsistency is almost always severe and almost always unaddressed.

Behind that gap lies the pattern most organizations prefer not to see, because it resists the individual-coaching response they default to. Research spanning five decades shows that manager performance is shaped more by structural conditions than by personal capability. Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s Men and Women of the Corporation (Basic Books, 1977) argued that opportunity, power, and proportional numbers drive what managers actually do, not training or temperament. John Hassard, Leo McCann, and Jonathan Morris, in their comparative ethnographic study of US, UK, and Japanese firms (Managing in the Modern Corporation, Cambridge University Press, 2009), documented decades of managerial work intensification: longer hours, more direct reports, more parallel initiatives, thinner support, exactly as layers were being removed in the name of efficiency. Paul Osterman’s The Truth About Middle Managers (Harvard Business School Press, 2008) found managers surprisingly satisfied with the craft of managing while structurally insecure. Osterman called it the middle-manager paradox.

The contemporary data shows the squeeze sharpening.

McKinsey’s 2023 research (Power to the Middle, Harvard Business Review Press) documented that middle managers now spend less than 25% of their time actually managing people, with one bank in the study generating approximately 105 discrete manager tasks per direct report. Gartner surveyed more than 6,000 managers in December 2022 and found that 35% were managing more direct reports than before the pandemic, 49% were handling more complex tasks, and 75% of CHROs described their managers as overwhelmed. Microsoft’s 2022 Work Trend Index (n ≈ 31,000 across 31 countries) reported that 54% of managers felt leadership was out of touch with employee reality, and 74% said they lacked the influence or resources to change it. No amount of coaching skill will move the engagement needle while the task load stays this severe.

None of this is new. Fritz Roethlisberger’s 1945 Harvard Business Review article “The Foreman: Master and Victim of Double Talk” described the industrial-era foreman as caught between workers below and management above, held responsible for outcomes he no longer controlled, forced into “double talk” to survive. Eight decades later, almost every sentence reads like a contemporary diary study of middle management. The medieval guild system ran on a three-tier structure of apprentice, journeyman, and master for roughly five centuries because the middle tier was the mechanism through which craft knowledge got tested, contested, and codified (Epstein & Prak, Guilds, Innovation and the European Economy, 1400–1800, Cambridge University Press, 2008). When industrial transitions dismantled that middle, firms had to rebuild the knowledge-transmission function internally, at considerable cost. Military history supplies the same lesson. Prussian doctrine, inherited and expanded through Wehrmacht Auftragstaktik, elevated the senior non-commissioned officer because wars are won where strategic intent meets granular execution. In Martin van Creveld’s Fighting Power (Greenwood, 1982), comparing German and U.S. Army performance in WWII, the empowered NCO was identified as a decisive capability variable. Every era that devalues its middle layer eventually rediscovers, at cost, that it can’t be bypassed.

The response most organizations resist is the one the evidence actually supports.

A credible intervention takes at least eighteen to twenty-four months, attacks the structure before the individual, and rebuilds the relational substrate at the same time. The timeline isn’t an opinion. Morgan McCall, Michael Lombardo, and Ann Morrison’s foundational work at the Center for Creative Leadership (The Lessons of Experience, Lexington Books, 1988) established that managerial capability grows primarily through on-the-job stretch experiences calibrated for progressive challenge. That research served as the foundation for the 70-20-10 heuristic, which Lombardo and Eichinger formalized in 1996. Capability builds when managers practice under actual conditions of difficulty, with each assignment calibrated to force growth without triggering failure. Phillippa Lally’s research at University College London (European Journal of Social Psychology, 2010) documented that new behaviors take an average of 66 days to automate, with substantial variance across individuals. Research on how new practices are adopted at an organizational scale, including Dean Fixsen and colleagues’ 2005 synthesis and Laura Damschroder’s Consolidated Framework (2009, updated 2022), converges on a timeframe of roughly 2 to 4 years for full adoption. A two-day workshop compressed against these timelines produces enthusiasm that decays within weeks.

The structural piece comes first. Span-of-control redesign, administrative burden reduction, and process-hurdle removal must occur before any individual development investment. In practice, that means cutting the approval chains that generate 105 tasks per direct report, protecting manager calendars from meeting creep, and rebuilding span of control before issuing another coaching contract. The bank with 105 tasks per direct report doesn’t need better-trained managers; it needs an operational redesign that returns attention to the humans in the room. Organizations that do that work before they commission training programs consistently see development investment compound. Organizations that reverse the order see it decay. Gartner’s own research shows that process hurdles increase manager fatigue by up to 42%, and that job manageability predicts manager effectiveness roughly 5 times better than skills proficiency. The relational piece follows. Jody Hoffer Gittell’s research on relational coordination (Management Science, 2002) and Amy Edmondson’s work on team psychological safety (Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999) both show that shared goals, shared knowledge, mutual respect, and interpersonal safety predict performance independent of individual capability. We’ve seen this play out: individually skilled managers operating inside broken relationship infrastructure can’t produce the engagement lift the research promises.

Which brings us back to where we started. The manager engagement collapse Gallup is measuring is the visible surface of a structural pattern that the research has been warning about for 50 years and the historical record for 500. The gap between strategy and execution in organizations lives inside the manager layer, and the layer is being hollowed out while we watch. The organizations that respond seriously—patiently, structurally, relationally—will have managers capable of producing what the data already tells us managers produce. The organizations that commissioned another workshop will be back in three years, looking at the same chart, wondering why it has fallen further.

This work synthesizes research from Gallup (2025 & 2026 State of the Global Workplace); foundational scholarship by Kanter, Osterman, Hassard/McCann/Morris, McCall/Lombardo/Morrison, Roethlisberger, Lally, Gittell, and Edmondson; practitioner research from McKinsey’s Power to the Middle (Schaninger/Hancock/Field), Gartner, Microsoft, and CMI/YouGov; plus historical sources Epstein & Prak on craft guilds and Van Creveld on military NCO doctrine.

Contact us for a complete list of works cited.