The Rise of the ‘Supermanager’ (And Why It’s Unsustainable)

I read an article on the Forbes website the other day that really stuck with me.

It talked about what some are calling the “era of the supermanager” - leaders who are being asked to carry more than ever before, often without the support to match. And the more I thought about it, the more it felt familiar.

There’s been a quiet shift in leadership over the past few years.

On the surface, expectations have increased. Leaders are expected to be more strategic, more available, and more resilient. But underneath that, the pressure has been building. Research shows that a large proportion of leaders are experiencing significantly higher stress levels, and many have even considered stepping back, not because they lack ambition, but because they are trying to protect their wellbeing. What’s changed is not just the workload, but how that workload is structured.

As organisations have flattened, layers of management have been removed. But the work has not disappeared. It has simply been redistributed. Leaders now find themselves responsible for larger teams, more direct reports, and ongoing transformation, often all at the same time. The term “supermanager” captures that shift well. It reflects a role that has expanded beyond what was originally expected, where performance, people management, and change are all sitting with the same individuals. And while it can look like capability on the surface, it often comes at a cost.

You can see that cost in how leaders are experiencing their work. Stress levels are rising, engagement is slipping and many are operating in a constant state of pressure, rather than in a position of control.

This is not a question of motivation, it is a question of capacity.