Middle management politics overshadow real work - Recensione dipendente - Dipendente anonimo presso World Economic Forum

There is a structural issue with the middle-management layer, where certain Level 3 managers take on visibility and travel opportunities without necessarily contributing proportionate value. These managers often position themselves as owning key relationships, even though much of the actual stakeholder engagement and operational delivery is handled by Level 2 and Level 1 staff. As a result, the work of Level 2 and Level 1 staff goes unnoticed, while those in mid-level roles receive disproportionate recognition and access to opportunities such as Davos staffing. The allocation of key event quotas and travel opportunities often favors Level 3 managers, even when they are not the ones driving the substantive work or operational knowledge. Level 1 and Level 2 colleagues do 70–80% of the substantive work, but their contributions are invisible because managers capture the credit. Many Level 3s at the Forum behave like senior managers externally but function operationally like junior staff, creating confusion and misalignment. There is a persistent structural issue in which long-tenured Level 3 managers operate with limited oversight, resulting in an environment where junior staff often face inconsistent expectations, restricted visibility, and limited career progression. In most cases, these managers exert disproportionate control over access to opportunities and information/resources, and that creates gatekeeping dynamics and discourages high-performing Level 1 and Level 2 employees. Instead of coaching and developing talent, those toxic managers rely on bureaucratic tactics, informal case-building, or selective information-sharing that undermine psychological safety and contribute to avoidable turnover. The result is a culture where political navigation often matters more than performance or collaboration.