Middle Management Is Killing Innovation, Here Is Why

By Author: Taylor Ryan
Total Articles: 1
Comment this article

Middle management has been a staple of the hierarchical structure of many companies for decades, but lately, it has received a lot of criticism as it stands in the way of something crucial to each organization’s long-term survival – the ability to innovate (https://valuer.ai/blog/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-chief-innovation-officer/).

Regardless of the fact that leaders want their organizations to be innovative, the desire alone is not enough to nurture this creative process. Often the sabotaging of innovation is done in a subconscious manner where the focus remains entirely on delivering results and reaching goals (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronashkenas/2013/06/03/ten-ways-that-organizations-kill-innovation/#77b041f5527d).

There can be numerous reasons why such an organizational structure does nothing but harm the innovative process, but several of them stand out from the rest.

The very first one has nothing to do with business, corporations or management, but simple human nature. Our brain has evolved for thousands of years and operates in a manner that would always prioritize a safe path in order ...
... to avoid any type of uncertainty and conflict. This way of thinking refers to Heuristics (https://www.boardofinnovation.com/blog/2017/08/02/16-cognitive-biases-that-kill-innovative-thinking/).

These are ‘mental shortcuts built into our consciousness to help us survive by making rational decisions. And while there is no place for comparison between the world we live in and what it used to be, it is natural for people to pick an optimal and familiar way of doing things rather than think of a new one that might prove better.

This phenomenon is also known as the ‘effect of knowing’ and it occurs when an individual relies on past experiences and prior knowledge when it comes to decision making, which makes them unlikely to accept potential out-of-the-box thinking.

This closely correlates to the next reason – managers need results (https://www.forbes.com/sites/innovatorsdna/2014/08/20/why-being-a-good-manager-can-make-you-a-bad-innovator/#1c45f91b6a11). Often pressured by their superiors (https://valuer.ai/blog/breaking-stigma-mental-illness-in-startups-guide/) to reach a certain number of goals, managers need to find quick and safe solutions to meet short-term requirements, which contradicts with the idea of innovation – a process that may require longer to produce returns.

Apart from that, managers take a methodical and structured approach to problem-solving (https://valuer.ai/blog/66-mistakes-every-startup-ceo-makes/), whereas innovation involves messy work full of experiments. As a result, the management team would rather stick to a safe step-by-step approach where everything is planned out just as they were taught in business school.

Which brings up yet another reason – education. According to Jeff Dyer, Coauthor of The Innovator’s Method, being a good manager makes you a bad innovator.
In an interview for Harvard Business School, Jeff says: “What you learn in business school, if you get an MBA(Masters of Business Administration), might teach you how to be a good manager, but it typically teaches you how to be a bad innovator, and I think that’s a surprise to many people. The fact of the matter is Scott Cook, the founder of Intuit, told us they had to retrain everybody who gets an MBA to learn how to innovate because nothing that they’ve learned in their program will prepare them to be an innovator. Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, is even a little stronger in his concerns about MBAs. He says we’ll hire somebody despite the fact they have an MBA, not because they have it.”

It appears that while a business education can prepare people to be good managers, its fundamentals do not go hand to hand with the idea of innovation. Subsequently, managers are tunnel-visioned with a business approach where all new ideas should be backed up with proof and precedents. While this could be a safe way to go, it definitely does not encourage people to share their thoughts in fear of rejection.

Last but not least, the communication factor is highly-limited in a vertical-structure company. When an organization has a lot of sectors and layers, fresh ideas from the lower ranks usually never reach the CEO of the company as they have to pass through a number of people before they reach the board. On top of that, isolated departments can develop tunnel vision within the employees. If people have no idea about the duties and troubles of their co-workers, they can become indifferent to everything that takes place outside their department, resulting in employees who put the needs of their own team ahead of company goals.
Not only does that interfere with the productivity in the working environment, but it also limits the reach of potentially innovative ideas.

Elon Musk also agrees that putting managers in the middle of communications is “incredibly dumb” as he even wrote an open email (https://www.inc.com/chuck-blakeman/an-email-from-elon-musk-reveals-why-managers-are-always-a-bad-idea.html) to all Tesla employees, explaining his reasoning behind upcoming organizational changes within the company. Elon believes that such managers add no value, but instead stand in the way of innovation, communication, and production.
According to his belief, anyone at Tesla should be able to talk to anyone else if they think this would be the fastest way to solve a problem for the benefit of the whole company.

“You can talk to your manager's manager without his permission, you can talk directly to a VP in another dept, you can talk to me, you can talk to anyone without anyone else's permission. Moreover, you should consider yourself obligated to do so until the right thing happens. The point here is to ensure that we execute ultra-fast and well. We obviously cannot compete with the big car companies in size, so we must do so with intelligence and agility.” – Elon Musk’s Open letter to Tesla Employees

In a world where innovation is considered crucial for the organization’s future survival, middle management appears to be a great obstacle that just stands in the way of creative flow.

The isolation factor followed by the lack of direct communication does not go along with creative and experimental thinking as they set up barriers for potential ideas. Innovation requires freedom and clarity within an organization where people are allowed to speak their mind without constant fear of rejection.
Whether middle managers are coming to an end remains uncertain, but the position itself has to revolutionize in order to welcome innovation.

Author: Taylor Ryan https://www.linkedin.com/in/taylorryan/ A mentor, startup junkie, technical marketer, presenter, and a growth hacker. Taylor grew up in Washington DC, but he has been living in Denmark, Copenhagen, for the last 2.5 years, where he is currently CMO of the venture-backed 70+ employee Ai company Valuer.ai - https://valuer.ai/ In the startup scene for 11+ years, he co-founded 5 startups. Taylor has also published a few marketing ebooks and consulted independently on startups and growth for 4+ years.