The article goes out of its way to specifically say there are no exceptions. Like, it literally says "if you think some managers aren't like this, you're wrong and part of the problem".

This makes sense in the mind of the author because their core thesis is that middle management as a concept is broken. According to him, "middle managers are rewarded when they can take work from those who are good at their work but aren’t paid a manager’s salary".

Fundamentally, their view of middle management is the workplace equivalent of economic rent seeking; "In my profession, middle managers usually worked the longest hours but contributed the least, but were somehow graded based on _my_ performance". Rent seeking that requires being physically in the office to be visible: "so many people have gone so far in their careers through the nebulousness of 'management' that has basically no value in a remote setting". And so remote work breaks this model: "Remote work mostly destroys the ability to appear busy, other than having a full calendar."

There's no equivocation or qualification, here. No attempt at nuance. The second last sentence in the article goes so far as to claim "They [middle managers] don’t want to make the office a place where things actually get done, because that’s not the point to them - the point is that they own you."

Had they not gone out of their way to flat out state 'someone insufferable will read this and say “NOT ALL MIDDLE MANAGERS,” and let me tell you, if you’re thinking that, you are probably part of the problem' I suspect I would've found the article a bit narrow-minded and extreme, probably the byproduct of someone who'd been in too many toxic workplace cultures, but I might've understood.

As written? Sorry, but I see no reason to give this a charitable reading. The author is clear on their intent, and their intent is to impugn the work of people like me who are honestly just out here doing our best for the people we work with during some of the toughest circumstances imaginable.