>Middle managers just have a higher probability of being ineffective due to lack of experience/resources, Actually, I think it's because they're more difficult

>Middle managers just have a higher probability of being ineffective due to lack of experience/resources, Actually, I think it's because they're more difficult to discover; Determining whether a middle manager's performance is good or not is a far less trivial task than determining whether a technical employee is producing value. Middle managers are adequate by default. Individual contributors are not. If a middle manager does not obviously cause damage or liability, they are generally assumed to be "working". If they do not appear to be exceptional or effective, it's assumed that their role has not presented any chances to excel. They are protected partially by the empathy that other managers have for their position. Managers are rarely fired simply for not producing results, which is very much not the case for individual contributors. The difficulty of weeding out ineffective middle managers means they will be present as a higher percentage of total manager head count than e.g. ineffective line managers.