I agree with you up to the point that at some point everyone in the organization — middle management whatever that really means included — must have their performance measured against corporate objectives that have been agreed and adopted by all and not just against those elements of personal performance that may or may not be enhanced by the worker themselves being ‘empowered’ for the sole purpose of keeping them around.

I hope that makes sense, does it? Or perhaps I’m missing your point. Is your real issue with who has the power? If a controlling middle management is your metaphor for political and/or bureaucratic power not serving the interests of self-direction and creativity then I can see how that could be a problem in retaining anyone, maybe Gen Xer’s and Millennials more so than Boomers who may “need the job” because of their economic situation does not afford them the luxury of being “so principled.”

The idea of defining the outcome, aligning jobs with workers’ skills, aptitudes and interests, and letting those workers perform (and accepting their inevitable mistakes) is not new. Popularized in such books as Collins’ “Good to Great,” and “First Break All the Rules” from the Gallup Organization, this approach shrinks the companies’ management, motivation and training needs and, along with that, many of the supervisory jobs that too often are chartered with checking off boxes about workers’ compliance with process requirements.

For a real-world illustration of this in action, read Joe Phelps’ book, “Pyramids Are Tombs,” about how his L.A.-based marketing/adv shop is 100% operated by self-governing, self-directed teams.