Leading from the Middle in Turbulent Systems

Paradox, Sensemaking, and the Work of Leadership

The idea that the “middle” holds untapped potential in organisations is an appealing one. It suggests that influence does not reside solely at the top, nor does it sit passively at the frontline, but that those in between have a distinctive capacity to connect, translate, and integrate.

In a recent piece, I drew parallels between Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s argument about the underutilised strength of middle powers in global politics, and what we see in organisational life. The middle, he suggested, has influence not through dominance, but through convening and working collectively.

Yet in practice, this potential seems to be rarely realised.

The reason, as often as not, is not a lack of capability or intent. It is that working effectively from the middle is inherently complex. It requires navigating competing demands with unclear expectations in the midst of shifting organisational conditions. It also requires making sense of ambiguity, often without the authority to resolve it.

Another way to frame this is that middle managers need the capacity to live, and work, with paradox.

The middle as a Structurally Paradoxical Role

Paradox theory scholars suggest organisational life is not simply complicated; it is fundamentally paradoxical.

A paradox is a statement, situation, or question that seems contradictory, impossible, or absurd, but upon closer investigation, reveals a deeper, underlying truth or logic

Middle managers sit at the centre of this.

They are required to:

• deliver performance while supporting people
  
• maintain authority while fostering inclusion
  
• provide stability while enabling change.
  

These are not problems to solve but rather ongoing tensions to be worked with.

Smith and Berg (1987) describe how such contradictions can generate anxiety and defensive responses when they are denied or oversimplified. At the same time, if these paradoxes can be named and engaged with directly, they become a source of insight and potential movement.

This reframes the common narrative about middle managers underperforming or being underutilised. What comes into view is that they are operating in roles defined by competing and often contradictory expectations.

Sensemaking Under Pressure

Research highlights the central role middle managers play in organisational change. While senior leaders design change initiatives, it is middle managers who must interpret, communicate, and implement them, often without having been involved in their design.

This creates a particular challenge.

Middle managers are expected to provide clarity to others while they themselves are still trying to make sense of what is happening. They must offer direction in conditions that feel anything but settled.

As Karl Weick has long argued, organisations are fundamentally sensemaking systems. When established frames break down, as they do during periods of restructuring, reform, or uncertainty, people must construct new meaning in order to act.

Sensemaking is not an individual cognitive task. It is social, relational, and ongoing. It happens through conversation, reflection, and shared interpretation.

Without this, confusion does not resolve itself. It deepens.

Paradox, Anxiety, and the Limits of Action

This pattern is consistent with the broader literature.

When paradox is not acknowledged or supported, individuals and groups tend to default to either/or thinking, avoidance, or over-reliance on hierarchy (Lewis, 2000). Under pressure, people simplify complexity in ways that reduce discomfort but also limit action.

From a systems psychodynamic perspective, this can be understood as a problem of containment.

Where there is insufficient organisational capacity to hold uncertainty, anxiety is pushed downwards or dispersed across the system. Middle managers often become the point at which this anxiety is felt most acutely.

The result is not inaction due to lack of motivation, but inaction shaped by the conditions of the system.

What We See in Practice: Organisational Dynamics in Motion

These dynamics are not theoretical. They are visible in organisational life.

In a recent project we worked with a large health services network undergoing merger and restructuring and we saw how these dynamics played out across the organisation. Participants in the project included executive, frontline staff and those in middle management roles, each bringing different perspectives on the change process.

Different parts of the organisation were at different stages of sensemaking. Some areas had begun to orient toward the future, while others remained focused on what had been lost in the merger process.

What became apparent was that the experience of paradox was particularly concentrated for those in the middle. Frontline staff often experienced the effects of change directly, while those in the middle were required to interpret and hold those effects within the system. Middle managers found themselves working across multiple realities at once, required to maintain service delivery, even as teams continued to process loss and uncertainty. They were expected to align with new leadership direction, while staying connected to the lived experience of staff. All of this was taking place within systems that were themselves still in flux.

Initially, structured reflective spaces — including facilitated dialogue and action learning sets — enabled participants across roles to surface and work with these tensions collectively. However, following a leadership transition and further restructuring, this reflective infrastructure was reduced.

What followed is instructive.

While dialogue remained rich, the capacity to act diminished. Managers in particular questioned their authority, deferred decisions upwards, and hesitated to test small-scale changes. Without space to work through the paradoxes inherent in their roles, uncertainty was not resolved but amplified, and the potential of the middle to integrate and coordinate was constrained.

Paradox on a Global Scale

Current global events also offer a vivid illustration of this dynamic. The conflict in the Middle East is producing simultaneous and competing pressures: escalation and negotiation, cooperation and fragmentation, with no clear resolution in sight. The requirement to act without stable frames of reference, navigating contested authority and rapidly shifting conditions creates paradoxical dilemmas.

In many ways, on a smaller scale, this mirrors what middle managers experience in organisations: the challenge is not simply decision-making, but collective sensemaking under pressure, working with tensions that cannot be resolved, but must be held and worked through over time.

A Broader Pattern: Change Without Containment

Similar dynamics are playing out in so many spaces. We are hearing about many occurrences across the Victorian Public Service, where ongoing reform following the Silver VPS review has created significant movement in structures, roles, and expectations.

Middle managers are being asked to:

• interpret evolving strategic direction
  
• manage shifting reporting lines
  
• maintain service delivery
  
• support teams experiencing uncertainty.
  

Often this is occurring without sufficient opportunity to make sense of what is happening. In such contexts, paradox intensifies. Expectations become less clear. Authority becomes more ambiguous. Identity becomes more fragile.

Without structured opportunities for collective reflection and sensemaking:

• confusion becomes individualised
  
• frustration turns into ‘going through the motions’ compliance or withdrawal
  
• collaboration becomes harder to sustain
  

and the potential of the middle remains unrealised.

Reflective Sensemaking as Organisational Work

If the challenge is inherent to the role, the question becomes: what enables middle managers to function effectively in these conditions?

Across both research and practice, one answer stands out:

the creation of structured opportunities for reflective sensemaking.

An action research project conducted with production managers in the Danish Lego Company (Lüscher & Lewis 2008) demonstrated that managers can work with paradox by engaging in cycles of reflection and action, moving from confusion toward what they describe as “workable certainty.”

Similarly, Weick’s work (1995) suggests that action and understanding evolve together. People do not wait for clarity before acting; they act their way into clearer understanding, but only when there is enough shared meaning to support that action.

In our work at NIODA, reflective spaces — whether through action learning, coaching, facilitated group dialogue, or teaching — enable:

• the naming of what is actually happening, including what is difficult to say
  
• the recognition of shared patterns rather than individualised problems
  
• the capacity to hold competing demands without losing sight of different perspectives
  
• the development of relational connection across roles and functions
  

These spaces do not remove complexity, but they change how it is held.

Releasing the Potential of the Middle

The idea of the middle as a source of untapped potential is not wrong. But it is incomplete.

The middle holds a distinctive position in organisational systems. It has the capacity to integrate information, coordinate action, and shape how strategy is enacted in practice.

However, this potential is not automatically realised.

It depends on whether middle managers are supported to:

• make sense of complexity collectively
  
• work with, rather than against, paradox
  
• act with sufficient authority within uncertain conditions.
  

Without this, the middle becomes a site of pressure rather than possibility.

An example: a middle manager in a large service organisation described being asked to implement a new structure designed to improve coordination across teams. The intent was clear at a strategic level, but in practice, reporting lines remained ambiguous and expectations seemed to shift week to week.

In team meetings, staff looked to the manager for clarity she did not yet have, while senior leaders expected visible progress and early results. She worked hard to provide direction, while privately questioning how decisions were being made and where authority now sat.

It seemed logical to increase communication, clarify tasks where she could, and seek guidance upwards. Yet the more she tried to resolve the uncertainty, the more it became apparent that the issue was not a lack of information, but a lack of shared understanding.

It was only when she had the opportunity to reflect with peers in a facilitated setting that a workable understanding emerged. Others were experiencing similar tensions. The challenge was not individual management capability, but how to work together to make sense of a system in transition.

From that point, the work shifted. Rather than trying to resolve the ambiguity alone, she and her peers worked to make sense of it together. They didn’t just blame the higher-ups, they created a regular space for reflection, supported by an external facilitator, which led to shared interpretation of how the new structure could work, small experiments, and more deliberate coordination across teams. What shifted was not the structure itself, but the way it was being worked with.

A Different Kind of Leadership Work

If we take seriously the idea that organisational life is complex, relational, and often paradoxical, then leadership cannot be reduced to clarity, decisiveness, and execution.

It must also include the capacity to:

• stay with uncertainty and work across difference
  
• hold competing demands without premature resolution
  
• and create conditions in which others can do the same
  

This is not an optional or “soft” dimension of leadership. It is the work that enables everything else.

The promise of the middle lies not in its position in the hierarchy, but in its capacity to connect, integrate, and make sense of organisational life as it is actually experienced.

Realising the promise requires attention to what is happening beneath the surface that shows up as organisational paradox, the emotional, relational, and systemic dynamics that shape how people take up their roles.

In conditions of change and uncertainty, supporting middle managers to engage in reflective sensemaking is not a luxury. It is essential.

If this resonates, we would welcome a conversation about how NIODA can support reflective sensemaking in your organisation. We offer individual and group coaching, and can work with you to introduce regular reflective practices tailored to your context and needs.

References and Further Reading

If you are interested in exploring the ideas in this piece further:

• Smith, K. K. & Berg, D. N. (1987), Paradoxes of Group Life — a foundational exploration of how contradiction, tension, and anxiety shape group and organisational dynamics.
• Weick, K. E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations — a seminal text on how people construct meaning and act in conditions of uncertainty.
• Smith, W. K. & Lewis, M. W. (2011), “Toward a Theory of Paradox” — a widely cited framework for understanding paradox in organisational life.
• Lüscher, L. S. & Lewis, M. W. (2008), “Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking” — an influential study showing how middle managers define and work through paradox in practice.