Let’s be honest.
The people who most need this post probably won’t read it. And if they do, they’ll assume it’s about someone else. They’ll skim, nod, and keep on quietly dodging the accountability their position demands.
But this post isn’t meant to be polite.
Because across education—in K–12 districts and college campuses alike—weak middle leadership is doing quiet, lasting damage. Some of the most entrenched barriers to justice, student success, and institutional progress don’t come from presidents, superintendents, or board members. They come from deans, principals, assistant superintendents, associate provosts—the ones who sit at the center of the action but keep their heads down when it matters most.
You know the type. Maybe you’ve worked with one. The administrator who plays both sides, who never sends the tough email, who always says, “This came from above,” and then wonders why no one trusts them. The leader who says they believe in equity—but never funds it, never defends it, and never risks their political capital to protect the people doing the work.
I’ve been in those rooms. I’ve led those teams. I’ve seen what happens when people in the middle choose safety over integrity. And I’ve also seen what’s possible when they lead with courage, clarity, and consistency.
So this post is for the educators doing the work—and a critique for the ones getting in the way.
Let’s talk about what weak middle management really looks like.
1. They Pass the Buck
Whether it’s a principal dodging a hard conversation with a teacher or a dean hoping the provost’s office will enforce an unpopular grant policy, weak leaders outsource accountability. They quietly agree with necessary actions but won’t take the heat for them. Instead, they play good cop while sending in central office to be the bad cop. They hide behind emails from legal, policy documents, or HR reps—anything to avoid being the face of a tough decision.
This strategy may protect their job but erodes long-term credibility. Faculty and staff notice when leaders are unwilling to stand behind decisions or show moral courage. In these environments, decision-making becomes convoluted, and communication becomes secondhand.
Passing the buck creates organizational confusion. People don’t know who is responsible, who can be trusted, or whether leadership is aligned with institutional goals. That uncertainty leads to paralysis and slow decline.
It also poisons the culture of leadership development. When rising leaders see that political survival requires avoidance rather than vision, they learn to do the same. Weak leadership begets more weak leadership.
Ultimately, this pattern keeps students and communities waiting for bold decisions that never come—because no one in the middle wants their name attached to necessary but difficult change.
2. They Want to Be Liked More Than They Want to Lead
Some middle managers treat their role like a high school popularity contest. They never want to say no, never want to upset the room, and never want to risk pushback. Instead of offering a direct answer, they stall, deflect, or drown you in process. They try to dance around a no—dropping hints, redirecting your energy, or piling on “next steps”—hoping you’ll give up before they have to actually say the word. It’s not leadership. It’s avoidance dressed up as diplomacy. And it creates a toxic environment where policies are inconsistently applied and where the loudest or most connected voices always win.
But make no mistake—they do say no. Just not to power. They say no when it’s politically convenient, when a “yes” would cost them influence with someone above them, or when the optics are too risky. They’ll deny a request from a marginalized student group or equity-driven proposal and blame “the budget”—but the budget isn’t the real reason. It’s the cover story. These are unprincipled no’s—refusals that serve protection, not principle.
At their core, they’re not trying to lead—they’re trying to survive. Protect their title. Collect their paycheck (and maybe fund their lake house). Be seen as “reasonable” to the people who matter most to them: those above them. Their positional security matters more than their positional responsibility. They’re not leading—they’re calculating.
They often present this behavior as professionalism or neutrality. But in truth, it’s about preserving comfort. They hand out “yeses” when it’s easy and backpedal into silence or bureaucracy when it’s not. Their version of leadership is conflict-lite, consequence-free, and shaped by fear of being disliked rather than a drive to do what’s right.
True respect doesn’t come from appeasement or polite deflection. It comes from courage, clarity, and moral consistency. And when middle managers trade principle for popularity—when they dodge conflict and dress it up as prudence—students and staff lose the leadership they deserve.
3. They’re Reactive Instead of Strategic
Weak middle managers are constantly putting out fires—but never building anything. They stay buried in email, hyper-focused on daily logistics, and unable to lift their heads to chart long-term direction. Their calendars are full, but their leadership is empty.
These leaders rely on others to define the agenda. They rarely initiate proactive strategies to improve teaching, learning, or campus climate. Instead, they wait for crises to force their hand. Without a plan, they are always reacting—and institutions led this way drift.
Strategic leadership requires a long view. It means setting measurable goals, making difficult trade-offs, and choosing intentional investment in people and programs. It also means thinking three years ahead, not just three weeks.
When middle managers are reactive, they rob teams of momentum and clarity. Everyone ends up working harder, not smarter—locked in a loop of putting out the same fires year after year.
To be clear: managing the day-to-day is important. But if that’s all a middle manager is doing, they aren’t leading—they’re treading water while the system sinks.
4. They Apply Rules Based on Politics, Not Principle
Nothing undermines organizational trust faster than inconsistency. When weak middle managers apply policies based on personalities instead of principles, equity collapses. Some rules become optional for the influential, while others are wielded punitively against those with less power.
This isn’t just a fairness issue—it’s a leadership crisis. Inconsistent enforcement tells everyone that who you are matters more than what’s right. It creates climates of fear, favoritism, and fatigue, where compliance is weaponized and dignity is expendable.
It’s especially dangerous for equity work. Leaders who cave to pressure or play favorites often undercut initiatives aimed at inclusion, justice, or representation. When staff or faculty see that speaking up about harm leads to retaliation—or silence leads to reward—they stop trusting the system. And when trust erodes, so does engagement, collaboration, and innovation.
5. They Avoid Conflict by Blaming “Higher-Ups”
Some middle managers master the art of deflection. When challenged, they blame “downtown” or “the president” or “district policy” for everything. They take credit for wins but pass off every hard decision as something they “have no control over.”
This kind of leadership is cowardly and corrosive. It creates resentment on all sides: subordinates feel manipulated, while senior leaders feel misrepresented. It turns middle management into a game of plausible deniability.
At its worst, this behavior becomes sabotage. Ideas are quietly killed with “I support you, but they won’t.” Policies are selectively enforced with a wink. And nothing ever moves because no one will say what’s really happening.
Yes, some decisions do come from above. But real leaders don’t just echo—they interpret. They guide their teams through tough calls with clarity and context. They carry water for the institution while still advocating for what’s right.
When middle leaders hide behind others to avoid pushback, they aren’t just ineffective. They’re untrustworthy. And over time, that unreliability breaks the very systems they’re supposed to support.
6. They Disappear from the Day-to-Day
Strong leadership is relational. But weak middle managers often remove themselves from the daily fabric of the school or college. They become administrative ghosts—visible only in official meetings, unreachable for hallway conversations, absent from student events and department-level dialogue.
This physical and emotional distance communicates disinterest. It tells staff and students alike: “I’m too busy to engage with you.” Over time, this lack of visibility breaks the relational trust that leadership depends on.
Being present doesn’t mean micromanaging. It means showing up—visiting classrooms, attending student showcases, participating in community meetings. These gestures aren’t symbolic; they’re foundational to trust, context, and culture.
Disengaged middle leaders also lose the pulse of the institution. They miss early warning signs of burnout, conflict, or innovation opportunities. And when they do finally act, they’re often out of step with what people actually need— this is how steady decline in an institution is overseen and ignored.
Leadership is about presence—especially when morale is low or change is high. When the middle is absent, the institution drifts into isolation, disconnection, and deep-seated dysfunction.
7. They Say Equity but Don’t Fund It
Equity is more than language—it’s logistics. Weak leaders often release inspiring statements and colorful DEI plans, but when it’s time to allocate real resources—staffing, programming, time, or dollars—they go silent.
This is one of the most common patterns in K–12 and higher education. Equity becomes a branding tool, not a budget priority. Leaders perform inclusion while failing to fund the work that makes it real and sustainable.
Unfunded equity plans die slow deaths. Initiatives languish without staff. Cultural celebrations get one-time grants. Hires from marginalized communities receive no mentorship or protection. And when backlash comes, these same leaders vanish from view.
Equity requires real investment—ongoing, public, and unapologetic. That means carving out money in tight budgets, creating roles even when it’s politically inconvenient, and defending the purpose of the work in every setting.
If you can fund a new plaza, you can fund ethnic studies. If you can expand STEM programs, you can expand social justice education. Weak leaders don’t make those choices. Strong ones do.
8. They Don’t Build a Leadership Pipeline
Middle management isn’t a throne—it’s a ladder. Strong leaders use their role to build others up. Weak ones hoard control and withhold opportunity, creating fragile institutions that collapse when they leave. They are reoccurring interims because they have not allowed a leadership pipeline to grow.
Without a leadership pipeline, burnout spreads. Deans retire or look elsewhere. Department chairs carry workloads meant for three people. Teachers with potential are overlooked. Staff of color remain stuck at entry levels in the district. And when someone finally does leave or retire, there’s no one prepared to step in—because no one was ever invited up— on purpose.
Succession planning isn’t just about naming replacements. It’s about mentoring, capacity building, and opening doors. It’s giving people the tools, exposure, and support they need to lead well and lead early.
But weak leaders fear being outshined and because they are plotting they fear being plotted against. Their standing feels threatened if a protégé appears more capable, confident, or well-liked. So they selfishly withhold growth opportunities—not to protect the institution, but to protect themselves. And in some cases, they go further: they actively undermine, isolate, or diminish those with leadership promise, especially when those individuals come from historically underrepresented backgrounds.
Strong systems don’t rely on a single personality. They invest in distributed leadership—so that values endure, innovation scales, and progress doesn’t die when one person leaves. If no one is being prepared to lead, then leadership isn’t just weak—it’s actively obstructing the future.
9. They Communicate in Vague Bureaucratese
When conflict arises or change is needed, weak middle managers default to ambiguity. They send dense memos full of jargon. They overuse phrases like “lots of people have told me “based on guidance,” or “stakeholder input,” but rarely say what they actually mean.
This vagueness is not accidental—it’s protective. It allows them to appear responsive without committing to action. It minimizes transparency, discourages critique, and gives them cover if things go sideways.
But absent or unclear communication slows down progress. It breeds rumor, resentment, and resistance. People can’t follow what they don’t understand. And when leaders consistently fail to say the hard thing plainly or say it at all, they lose credibility.
Strong leaders name decisions, explain trade-offs, and invite questions. They don’t hide behind language—they use it to build clarity, confidence, and alignment.
If your emails leave people more confused than informed, you’re not managing communication. You’re managing anxiety—yours, not theirs.
By obscuring language and decision-making processes, they discourage critique. And by limiting who gets invited to the table—or deliberately shrinking access or cancelling meetings—they quietly and effectively dismantle collaboration, transparency, and the democratization of leadership.
10. They Stay Neutral in the Face of Injustice
This is perhaps the most dangerous trait. When racism, transphobia, censorship, or political repression show up on campus or in classrooms, weak middle leaders retreat into silence or neutrality. They don’t want to choose sides. But make no mistake: not choosing is a choice. And it almost always benefits the oppressor.
“Neutrality” is not objectivity. It’s complicity. And when marginalized students or staff are harmed, silence from their leaders becomes another form of violence. It signals that comfort is more important than justice.
True leadership requires moral clarity. It means calling things what they are: racial supremacy, censorship, political intimidation. It means showing up publicly, even when it’s unpopular, especially when it counts.
Middle managers have a unique opportunity—and obligation—to resist injustice in real time. When they choose neutrality, they don’t preserve harmony. They prolong harm.
Final Thought
I could name names.
I could tell you the exact stories—of the leaders who play politics instead of leading. The vice- something who eloquently and regularly defends inequity practice. The principal who inflated student success metrics to pad her résumé. The associate vice-something who performed all the right talking points in public—then vanished on the equity team the moment the budget got tight.
And maybe one day I will. Maybe when you see me next time—at the conference, on the campus visit, over lunch—I’ll tell you. Because this isn’t theory. It’s real. It’s personal. And if you’ve been in education long enough, you’ve got your own list too.
To echo and adapt Dr. King: “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our colleagues.”
Middle leadership is never neutral—it never has been. So if you find yourself in one of those roles, ask yourself this: When it truly mattered, where did your commitment lie? With clarity or convenience? With your colleagues, your community—or just comfort?
Cloaking Inequity 
Leave a comment