𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁-𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅

Why do so many people want to become managers when managing is essentially a paradoxical activity?

Imagine: you’re the owner of a growing SME manufacturing company. Your first reaction: invest in managers to guide the growth. Makes sense, right?

𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝘀

As middle management grows, so does complexity. You ask people to follow guidelines and meeting structures. In doing so, you unintentionally limit the creativity of the people who made your company successful. Worse still: you create learned helplessness.

Where employees used to solve problems themselves, they now ask permission first. The engine that ran on ownership and craftsmanship starts to sputter.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝘅 𝗻𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗲

It gets really bad with a matrix structure. An organizational monstrosity that expertly kills every initiative. “Think global, act local” becomes “Think global, wait for approval”. This eliminates the greatest strength of SME companies: speed and craftsmanship close to the customer.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀?

Mandate gets stripped — decisions shift to opaque responsibilities. Micromanagement returns, employees check first whether something is allowed. Individual initiative dies a quiet death. And sick leave rises due to demotivation and stress.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅

We introduce management to gain control, but often create the opposite. We want structure, but get rigid. We want control, but lose speed. We want to professionalize, but drive away craftsmanship.

Managers themselves are also trapped: they’re supposed to lead, but mostly coordinate, report and align.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝘂𝘁

Scale and standardize where profitable, but protect local autonomy where speed and craftsmanship make the difference.

This means: dare to choose fewer managers. Give mandate and hold people accountable for results, not processes. Invest in craftsmanship instead of coordination layers.

Management is a paradox. But it doesn’t have to be a trap — if you have the courage to choose differently.