The Prussian military reformers who invented what we now call middle management were explicit about its purpose: to compensate for incompetent generals. They designed a class of staff officers whose job was to fill gaps in the leadership above them - to supply the analysis, coordination, and judgment that the actual commanders couldn't be trusted to provide reliably.
This is the origin of middle management. Not efficiency. Not coordination. Compensation for anticipated failure at the top.
Two hundred years later, most large organizations still work exactly this way. The chief of staff role, the director of operations, the senior program manager - these positions exist largely to translate unclear executive direction into something actionable. To absorb ambiguity before it reaches the people doing the work. To protect execution from leadership dysfunction.
This isn't a criticism of the people in those roles. They're often the most capable people in the building. It's a criticism of the design logic that made those roles necessary in the first place.
If your coordination layer exists to compensate for weak information at the top, the solution isn't better middle managers. It's better information at every level simultaneously. That's what AI can actually provide, and it's structurally different from adding more staff.
Thoughts? Find me on Bluesky.