Mike Hohnen

Last week I wrote about the hidden costs of cutting middle management. Today I want to explore something deeper – the psychological toll this takes on everyone involved.

This crisis has a Janus face. It looks both ways, affecting managers and team members simultaneously, eroding something fundamental to human wellbeing at work: meaning.

? The Meaning Drain

For employees: They derive enormous meaning from their relationship with their supervisor. It’s where they find recognition, growth, support, and belonging. When that relationship becomes distant or transactional due to impossible spans of control, a crucial source of workplace meaning evaporates.

For managers: They derive deep job satisfaction from being genuinely helpful, from developing their people, from being seen as a “good” manager. When they’re spread so thin they can barely remember everyone’s names, let alone support their growth, their own sense of purpose crumbles.

They go from meaningful to meaningless.

What does meaninglessness feel like? That hollow, energy-draining sensation where work becomes a grind rather than a contribution. Where you feel invisible, replaceable, disconnected.

Meaninglessness doesn’t just affect productivity – it literally sucks the life force from people. And if left unchecked, it’s a straight path to burnout or depression.

? The Early Warning Signs We Miss

Here’s what breaks my heart: the early indicators are subtle, and by the time leaders notice someone is “struggling,” the psychological damage is often already done.

Watch for:

• The shift in energy – Playfulness erodes first. That lightness people bring to their work simply vanishes, replaced by a heavy, laboured quality. You can feel it in the room.
• Body language changes – Shoulders that carry invisible weight. Eyes that have lost their spark. The subtle withdrawal that says “I’m here but I’m not really here.”
• Drama triangles – People unconsciously creating victim-persecutor-rescuer dynamics because they’re desperately trying to generate some sense of agency or connection, even if it’s dysfunctional.
• Pervasive powerlessness – A sense that settles over teams like fog.

These aren’t performance issues. They’re human beings responding to an environment where their fundamental psychological needs for connection and meaning aren’t being met.

? The Cost of Catching It Late

The tragedy is that leaders often pride themselves on spotting these problems, but what they’re actually seeing is the end stage of a long erosion process.

They notice the disengagement, the decreased output, the attitude problems – but these are symptoms of months of slowly declining psychological safety and meaning.

By then, rebuilding trust and re-establishing meaning becomes exponentially harder. People don’t bounce back from psychological disconnection as easily as we’d like to believe.

?? The Path Forward

Here’s the thing: larger spans of control aren’t inherently wrong. I understand the business rationale – the economics make sense, and in many cases, it’s necessary.

But these structures can only work if managers fundamentally shift how they operate.

The challenge is that most managers have been brought up to focus on:

• Task execution
• Oversight
• Operational delivery

Now they need to transition to a completely different way of working – one centred on:

• Relationship building
• Empowerment
• Creating conditions for others to thrive

This isn’t a skill they can develop overnight or figure out alone. Someone needs to actively help them make this transition.

Because when managers learn to work relationally rather than operationally, larger spans don’t just become manageable – they become transformational.

? The Bottom Line

If we’re going to make these new organisational structures work, we need to become exquisitely attuned to these early psychological warning signs and actively support managers in becoming the relationship builders their expanded teams desperately need.

What early warning signs have you noticed when teams start to lose psychological connection?

Next week: How trust erodes invisibly – and what repair actually looks like.

#Leadership #PsychologicalSafety #Management #WorkplaceMeaning #MentalHealthAtWork #SpanOfControl #HumanCentredLeadership

I keep reading about companies slashing middle management roles to cut costs and accommodate AI implementation. Fewer managers, larger spans of control, improved efficiency – it sounds logical on paper.

But there’s a relationship crisis hiding in these spreadsheets.

? When Trust Starts to Erode

When managers suddenly find themselves responsible for 15-20 people instead of 6-8, something critical gets lost.

Using David Maister’s trust equation as a lens, two elements immediately suffer:

• Intimacy drops – there’s simply less time for meaningful connection
• Perceived self-interest rises – managers appear more focused on keeping their heads above water than supporting their teams

Trust doesn’t collapse overnight – it seeps away slowly, often unnoticed until significant damage is done.

? The Engagement Cascade

The first casualty? Engagement.

We know from decades of research that your relationship with your immediate manager is the single biggest predictor of workplace engagement. When that relationship weakens, everything else follows:

• Decision-making slows
• Innovation stagnates
• High performance gradually slides into mediocrity

Meanwhile, the remaining managers find themselves drowning. They’re expected to do more with less, but nobody’s fundamentally changed what “management” means in this new reality.

? What Needs to Shift

Here’s what I believe needs to happen:

? First, micromanagement becomes impossible – and that’s actually brilliant.

With larger teams, managers have no choice but to embrace real empowerment. Not the lip-service version where we say “you’re empowered” but still expect approval for every decision. True empowerment where people are genuinely trusted to own their work.

? Second, remaining managers must dramatically reduce their task work.

Everything that can be delegated must be delegated. Their primary job becomes relationship building – creating the conditions where trust can flourish even with limited time.

? The Transformation

This isn’t about working harder; it’s about working fundamentally differently.

The manager’s role transforms:

• From task coordinator ? to culture creator
• From decision maker ? to capacity builder

? The Remarkable Discovery

The companies that recognise this will discover something remarkable: they don’t just maintain performance despite fewer managers – they often exceed it.

Because when you’re forced to trust people more deeply, to empower them more completely, to focus purely on the human elements that drive performance, magic tends to happen.

The question isn’t whether we can afford to maintain these relationships with fewer managers. It’s whether we can afford not to.

What shifts have you observed in management roles as organisational structures evolve?

#Leadership #MiddleManagement #Trust #Engagement #OrganisationalChange #ManagementEvolution #WorkplaceRelationships

I stumbled upon an interview with Canadian designer Bruce Mau today

Mau speaks about intentional life design rather than accepting what comes. This got me thinking: what if we applied this same philosophy to workplace relationships? We have two choices: take a fatalistic approach and let relationships develop randomly like “weeds in a flower bed,” or intentionally design them.

In most organisations, relationship quality is left to chance.  An afterthought rather than a priority. Yet these connections form the very ecosystem in which work happens, influencing everything from productivity to innovation to well-being.

Several of Mau’s design principles seem particularly relevant:

Process over product – What if we valued the ongoing journey of relationship development rather than viewing connections as something to “achieve” and then move on from?

Embracing uncertainty – Relationships evolve in ways we cannot predict. Designing doesn’t mean controlling but creating conditions for organic growth.

One small intervention can ripple through the entire system.

“Don’t be cool” – Authenticity trumps appearance. Professional relationships flourish when we bring our genuine selves rather than polished personas.

“Allow events to change you” – Being open to transformation through relationship experiences creates opportunities for both personal and organisational growth.

But how do we begin this relationship design process without making it feel forced?

Start simple: Connection before content.

One practical first step I’ve seen transform teams is implementing brief check-ins at the beginning of meetings. This small change signals that relationships matter – that we see each other as humans first, not just functional roles.

These moments create space for authentic connection before diving into tasks and deliverables. They’re not “soft” nice-to-haves but foundational elements of a deliberately designed system where relationships can flourish.

As Mau’s systems thinking reminds us, everything influences everything else. When we upgrade the quality of workplace relationships, we’re not just improving individual connections – we’re redesigning the entire ecosystem.

What one small step could you take this week to begin intentionally designing the relationships in your workplace ecosystem rather than letting them grow like weeds?

#LeadershipDevelopment #WorkplaceCulture #RelationshipDesign #BruceMau #SystemsThinking

I’ve been having more challenging conversations with my students lately that have forced me to reflect deeply on what we teach about leadership.

For years, I’ve advocated for relationship-centred approaches like the Service Profit Chain and Conscious Capitalism. Companies like Whole Foods, Container Store, and Southwest Airlines were the shining examples we pointed to.

But today’s students push back:

“That’s nice in theory, Mike, but in the real world, it’s the ruthless leaders who rise to the top. Look at Elon Musk.”

It’s a fair challenge. When Musk suggests that “empathy is the downfall of Western civilisation,” it directly contradicts Hannah Arendt’s view that “there is no civilisation without empathy.”

I think we’re framing the conversation incorrectly.

This isn’t about being “nice” versus “ruthless” – it’s about understanding that strong relationships create effective organisations. Even motorcycle gangs, hardly “nice” organisations, succeed through powerful relationship bonds and aligned purpose.

Perhaps what we’re witnessing in the massive push for remote work isn’t just about flexibility or convenience. Could it be that people are fleeing toxic workplace cultures? That they’re voting with their feet against environments where human connections have been devalued?

The companies once venerated for their people-first approaches may be struggling in today’s market, but I wonder about the long-term sustainability of organisations built on authoritarian leadership. Economic success achieved through fear and burnout isn’t success at all – it’s merely borrowed time.

Real leadership isn’t about being ruthlessly efficient or impossibly kind. It’s about creating environments where relationships matter, where collaboration thrives not despite but because of our human complexities.

In a world increasingly dominated by AI, algorithms, and automation, our uniquely human capacity for empathy and relationship-building isn’t a weakness – it’s our competitive advantage.

The pendulum always swings. Our job as leaders isn’t to follow it blindly but to find the timeless principles that transcend trends. And I believe that understanding the fundamental importance of human connection is one of those principles.

What are you seeing in your organisation? Has the definition of “successful leadership” changed? And more importantly, should it?

#LeadershipPhilosophy #OrganisationalCulture #ConsciousLeadership #WorkplaceCulture

Are you more of a thinker or a doer? 

The reason I ask is because a recent Swedish podcast made me aware of this distinction in a way I have not thought about before.

This research identifies what may be the most significant chasm in modern organisations: the gap between “thinkers” and “doers.”

Here’s what happens:

Top executives (the thinkers) focus primarily on the future—next quarter’s targets, new product development, strategic pivots. Meanwhile, middle managers and frontline staff (the doers) are immersed in present challenges and reflecting on recent experiences.

The result? A profound disconnect where:

• Executives wonder why their managers lack enthusiasm for new initiatives
• Middle managers feel unheard and undervalued when sharing operational insights
• The organisation moves slower than it could, despite everyone working harder

The researcher offered a counterintuitive insight that resonates deeply with me: If leaders want to move faster toward the future, they must first focus more on the past and present.

The doers will never get enthusiastic about doing ‘more’ if they feel that what they are already doing is not appreciated.

This reminds me of Peter Senge’s observation that “the longest distance in an organisation is between what management measures and what the front line actually does.”

Top athletes understand this instinctively. They obsessively analyse yesterday’s performance—how their shoes felt, their breathing pattern, their recovery time—all to improve tomorrow’s results. They know progress requires this reflective loop.

The bridge across this gap isn’t complicated, but it requires something increasingly rare: presence. When executives are mentally preoccupied with future plans, their reports don’t feel truly “seen.” The connection breaks.

The solution lies in the quality of conversations. Great leaders engage in genuine dialogue with their teams—not to deliver instructions but to listen with curiosity and respect. When frontline workers feel genuinely heard about their current challenges and achievements, they become exponentially more engaged with future initiatives.

The paradox is beautiful: By slowing down to understand where we are, we ultimately move forward faster.

What’s your experience with this gap? Have you seen organisations where thinkers and doers are successfully aligned?

#Leadership #OrganisationalDevelopment #ExecutivePresence #ManagementInsights

The moment your mobile rings outside work hours, you know exactly who it is and why they’re calling. Another crisis only you can handle. Another fire only you can extinguish.

The pattern repeats with such regularity that it feels normal. You’ve become the organisational hero—the person everyone depends on when things go wrong.

The data tells a sobering story. According to Gallup, 76% of employees experience burnout at least sometimes, with the number significantly higher for those in the “always-on” hero position. This pattern creates a dual vulnerability: organisations become fragile, and leaders become exhausted.

The hero pattern emerges gradually. First, you solve a complex problem effectively. Then, you become the default solution for similar issues. Eventually, your expertise creates an unintentional dependency where team members stop developing their own problem-solving capabilities.

Modern organisational theory suggests this dependency cycle actively undermines the resilience needed in today’s complex business environment. When systems rely heavily on individual expertise rather than distributed knowledge, they become inherently vulnerable.

Consider Buurtzorg, the Dutch healthcare organisation that eliminated middle management entirely. Their self-managing team structure distributes decision-making authority across the organisation rather than concentrating it in heroic leaders. The result? Higher patient satisfaction, lower costs, and dramatically reduced burnout among staff.

The Architect’s Alternative

The architect-leader approaches organisational challenges differently. Rather than rushing to solve each problem personally, they ask:

1. “What system allowed this problem to emerge?”
2. “How can we redesign that system to prevent similar issues?”
3. “Who needs to develop capability to manage this independently?”

This approach requires patience and restraint. It means watching people struggle through problems you could solve in minutes. It means investing time in documentation and processes when the crisis feels urgent.

The transition from hero to architect involves several practical shifts:

From Expert to Coach

Heroes provide answers. Architects ask questions.

When team members bring problems, resist the urge to offer immediate solutions. Instead, ask “What approach have you considered?” or “What information would help you decide?” This simple shift begins transferring problem-solving responsibility back where it belongs.

A manager at Morning Star, the world’s largest tomato processor, described their transition: “I had to sit on my hands for six months. It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done professionally—and the most important.”

From Reactive to Preventative

Heroes respond to emergencies. Architects design systems that prevent them.

Dedicate time each week specifically for preventative work. Review recurring issues and trace them to their systemic roots. Create decision trees, checklists, or standard operating procedures that allow others to handle these situations independently.

The NHS experimented with this approach in several trusts, implementing standard protocols for common scenarios. Departments using these systems reported 32% fewer escalations to senior leadership and higher staff confidence.

From Individual to Institutional Knowledge

Heroes keep critical knowledge in their heads. Architects embed it in the organisation.

Document not just what to do but why certain approaches work. Create accessible knowledge bases that allow team members to solve problems independently. Recognise and reward contributions to these knowledge resources.

Spotify’s engineering culture demonstrates this principle well. Their squad model distributes authority while maintaining alignment through lightweight documentation of decisions and approaches.

The Transition Path

Moving from hero to architect doesn’t happen overnight. The journey typically follows these stages:

1. Awareness – Recognising the dependency pattern and its costs
2. Boundary-setting – Creating clear guidelines for escalation
3. Capability-building – Developing others’ problem-solving skills
4. System design – Creating frameworks that prevent issues
5. Culture change – Reinforcing new patterns until they become the norm

The most challenging aspect is managing the temporary performance dip that often accompanies this transition. Teams accustomed to escalating issues may initially struggle with their new autonomy. Systems may need refinement as edge cases emerge.

This dip tests the leader’s resolve. Many revert to hero mode at the first sign of trouble, undermining the very transformation they’re trying to create.

The Sustainable Result

Leaders who successfully navigate this transition describe a profound shift. One executive noted: “I used to measure my value by how many problems I solved. Now I measure it by how many problems never reach my desk.”

Organisations with architect-leaders demonstrate greater resilience during leadership transitions. They adapt more readily to changing conditions. They scale more effectively as they grow.

Perhaps most importantly, they create environments where people thrive rather than merely survive. Team members develop greater competence and confidence. They experience the satisfaction of solving meaningful problems rather than merely executing instructions.

The shift from firefighter to architect may be the most significant transformation a leader can make—not just for their own sustainability, but for the long-term health of the organisation they serve.

What one step could you take today to begin designing yourself out of the hero role?

“The cost to use AI falls about 10x every 12 months,” according to Sam Altman. Within a decade, we might all have capabilities exceeding today’s most impactful individuals.

But here’s the paradox that keeps me awake at night: What good are superpowers if we can’t use them together?

As AI amplifies our individual capabilities, our need for genuine human connection doesn’t diminish – it intensifies. We’re creating a world where everyone could be extraordinary, yet our success will hinge not on individual brilliance, but on our ability to build trust and collaborate authentically.

Two critical elements will determine whether we use our AI-enhanced capabilities to create or compete:

Transparency: In a world of amplified capabilities, being open about our intentions, limitations, and aspirations becomes non-negotiable. Trust can’t exist in shadows.

Interdependence: We must challenge the myth of the independent star performer. Tomorrow’s breakthroughs won’t come from lone geniuses, but from networks of trust where enhanced individual capabilities combine to create something greater than the sum of their parts.

The real question isn’t whether AI will make us more capable – it will. The question is whether we’ll develop the relationship skills to harness these capabilities collectively. Will we use our newfound powers to compete, or will we learn to trust enough to create something extraordinary together?

The future of leadership isn’t about managing AI; it’s about fostering the human connections that make enhanced capabilities meaningful.

What are you doing to build trust in your organisation as our individual capabilities grow?

#Leadership #AI #Trust #Collaboration #FutureOfWork

Five words that often precede some of the most poorly prepared conversations in business. As leaders, we claim we don’t have time for proper relationship-building with our team members. Yet we find ourselves in endless cycles of quick catch-ups and impromptu meetings that leave both parties feeling unfulfilled.

Here’s the paradox: In our rush to ‘save time’, we’re actually creating a relationship deficit that requires even more time to fix.

Recently, I’ve been exploring two frameworks that, when combined, offer a powerful lens for workplace relationships. The first is Alison Wood Brooks’ TALK framework (Topics, Asking, Levity, Kindness), and the second examines the intersection of sincerity and longevity in relationships.

Consider this: Workplace relationships typically fall into one of four categories:

• Rooted: Long-lasting and sincere – these are the trusted colleagues who make work meaningful
• Wilted: Long-lasting but insincere – the obligatory interactions that drain energy
• Blooming: Brief but sincere – meaningful moments of connection that serve their purpose
• Popped: Brief and insincere – purely transactional exchanges that leave no trace

As leaders, we often unconsciously push our team relationships into the ‘wilted’ category. We maintain regular contact through status updates and check-ins, but without genuine sincerity or preparation, these interactions become routine exercises in going through the motions.

But what if we could transform these wilted relationships into rooted ones? This is where the TALK framework becomes transformative:

• Topics, prepare your topics thoughtfully – showing you value the interaction enough to plan for it
• Ask questions that demonstrate genuine curiosity and deep listening
• Levity , keep it light and fun to create psychological safety and human connection
• Kindness and an authentic interest in the other person’s perspective

The magic happens when we combine intentional preparation with genuine sincerity. It’s not about having more conversations—it’s about making each conversation count. A single sincere, well-prepared interaction can do more to build relationships than dozens of impromptu, shallow check-ins.

Our team members aren’t longing for more time with us – they’re longing for more presence, more sincerity, more genuine connection. They can tell the difference between a leader who’s going through the motions and one who’s truly invested in the relationship.

The next time you need to “have a talk” with someone on your team, pause. Take ten minutes to think through your TALK framework. Those ten minutes might be the difference between a conversation that wilts and one that helps your relationship root and flourish.

After all, leadership isn’t measured by the frequency of our interactions or even their duration. It’s measured by the sincerity we bring to each moment of connection, whether that moment lasts five minutes or five years.

What’s your experience? Have you found that preparing for conversations actually makes them feel more authentic rather than less? How do you ensure your workplace relationships stay rooted rather than wilted?

#Leadership #Management #PersonalDevelopment #Relationships #WorkplaceCulture

Sources: Flux Sonverly Yours on Relationships- https://substack.com/home/post/p-156638811?source=queue&autoPlay=false

Talk: The Science of Conversation and the Art of Being Ourselves by Alison Wood Brooks |