The Forgotten Middle: Why Many Alliance Programs Falter Between Strategy and Execution

In nearly every tech company I’ve worked with on alliances and ecosystem strategy, I see the same organizational pattern — and the same risk.

There’s a forgotten middle.

At the top, you have executives and strategists setting direction: “We need stronger alliances,” “We need co-sell revenue,” “We need to integrate AI.” They see the potential, fund the effort, and expect results.

At the bottom, you have hardworking individual contributors — alliance managers, partner marketers, and operations specialists — doing their best to execute.

But between those two layers sits the middle layer: the directors and senior managers who translate strategy into action. They are the connective tissue that turns intent into impact.

And right now, they are under tremendous pressure.

The Pressure Nobody Talks About

We’re in an environment where the “middle” is shrinking. Every few weeks, another tech layoff headline appears, and those cuts disproportionately affect this layer — the people with the experience, judgment, and context to make things work inside complex organizations.

Even when they’re not being laid off, they fear they could be. And that fear changes behavior.

It encourages risk aversion over initiative.
It prioritizes optics over outcomes.
It replaces collaboration with quiet self-preservation.

When you have a middle layer operating in survival mode, it’s almost impossible for an alliance program to perform at its best — no matter how compelling the strategy or how promising the partners.

Where Programs Break Down

Here’s what I often see during alliance program assessments:

• Leadership assumes strategy is clear, but the middle layer is left to interpret and improvise.

• Execution becomes reactive, not proactive.

• The best people in the middle — those with the history and partner context — burn out or move on.

This creates what I call organizational drift: strategy at the top moves one way, execution at the bottom another, and the middle — the translation engine — quietly frays.

Why It Happens

It’s not a failure of people. It’s a failure of design and support.

Most alliance organizations are built around executive intent, not operational reality. Org charts look good on PowerPoint, but rarely do they include the infrastructure — communication, role clarity, decision cadence — that empowers the middle to succeed.

Add a climate of uncertainty, and even the most capable leaders hesitate to push back or innovate. The very people who should be bridging the gap are just trying to stay on the bridge.

The Cascadia View: Rebuilding Confidence in the Middle

When I work with clients to restructure or reenergize their alliances organizations, I look closely at:

• How decisions and expectations flow between executives and operators.

• Whether the middle layer has the clarity and authority to act.

• How fear — explicit or unspoken — is shaping the way people show up at work.

Empowering this layer isn’t just an HR or morale issue. It’s a performance lever. When the middle is confident and trusted, alliances flourish. When they’re anxious or invisible, even the best strategies stall.

The Bottom Line

In today’s climate, tech companies don’t just need sharper alliance strategies — they need healthier alliance organizations.

If your program feels misaligned, don’t automatically look at your partners or your strategy deck.
Look to the middle.
That’s where the heartbeat of your alliance program truly lives.

At Cascadia Leadership Advisors, I help technology companies design and strengthen alliance programs that thrive even in uncertain times — by building clarity, confidence, and connection at every level.