How coordination becomes its own workload
As an organization grows, leaders often divide work into teams and add managers to connect them. That can solve real problems: one person cannot supervise every employee, and specialists need someone to set priorities across departments. But each added layer also creates another handoff. A decision may need to be reviewed, summarized, approved, and then explained to the people doing the work.
The process can turn circular when managers are responsible for overseeing other managers rather than producing a distinct operational result. They need updates to report upward, while the people below them need guidance about what those updates mean. Meetings and documents then become both the subject of the work and proof that the work is happening.
Why the loop persists
No single person may have an incentive—or enough authority—to remove a step. A manager can reduce personal risk by asking for another review; a team can protect its priorities by requesting more consultation. If problems arise, the record of approvals can show that the proper process was followed. The cost is spread across many people, while the risk of skipping a step can fall on whoever skips it.
This does not make management inherently wasteful. Coordination is valuable when it resolves competing priorities, catches errors, or clarifies responsibility. The test is whether each layer changes a decision or helps someone act. If a meeting merely recaps a document that exists to prepare for another meeting, the organization is spending time moving information without moving the work. That time is paid for in delayed decisions and less attention for the task the layers were meant to support.
