One way to address this is to have an explicit commitment as an organization that managers at all levels will regularly explain to their teams the context in which their piece of the organization is operating, and a process to make that happen.
[This is a concept I first heard about in Elliot Jaques' thinking around what he calls Requisite Organizations... I don't agree with all of his thinking, but this context-setting piece has always seemed crucial to high-performing larger organizations]
This has two big benefits: first, it should make it easier to assimilate higher-level managers' decisions and understand the motivations behind them and second, it puts everyone in a position to make better-informed decisions on their own.
As a simplistic (and not particularly realistic) example, if I am a dev manager trying to decide whether to devote time to new feature development or a refactoring effort, making the 'right' decision is dependent on knowing whether we have things in place to put a marketing push behind new features and generate new sales, whether we are at risk of losing existing customers due to latency issues that the refactoring would resolve, etc.
If the right context-communication process is in place, I know that answer and can easily both make my decision and communicate to the team why it is the 'right' one.
The best-liked and most effective managers that I have worked with did not always show support for the company's decisions. Instead, they would say "we have to do this, but:
(1) here is how I can make it as painless as possible for you
(2) here is how we can make sure that you still achieve your personal objectives"
Sometimes (depending on the sensitivity of the issue) they would also tell the team what they were doing to try and get the decision changed.
I have been fortunate to work places where the higher levels of management welcomed dissenting opinions - maybe that is one of the key bits to look for when determining if a (traditionally-structured) company is a good place to be a mid-level manager.
Agreed - I don't think that all honesty has to go out the window just because you are in a management position. Communicating decisions is one aspect, but effectively implementing them in your team is a whole other thing. Honest discussion of concerns and what can be improved is important, and as much as management likes to think their poker face is awesome, employees are smart and see straight through bullshit.
Secondly, what I heard in your comment (and agree with) but don't see in the original post is anything about engaging to be an advocate for your employees up the chain, giving them an opportunity to tell you what they need, the questions they have, the things you can do. To a certain extent this might make you lonelier on the "who do I talk to?" side, but helps a great deal as a reminder of the purpose of the job.
