Presentatie in Essen

Hitting, fielding and pitching at the same time: The role of middle managers in change management

Op 12 september 2014 presenteert adviseur Freek Hermkens, een aantal bevindingen uit zijn promotieonderzoek naar de rol van midden management bij het bereiken van continue verbetering tijdens 9TH COLLOQUIUM ON ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE & DEVELOPMENT in Essen.

Freek zal in een van de parallel sessies zijn eerste bevindingen presenteren. Een van de bevindingen is dat midden managers kunnen worden beschouwd als belangrijke agenten (leiders) bij het vergemakkelijken van verandering, en kunnen bijdragen aan een evenwicht tussen continuïteit en verandering. Wat midden managers echter tegenkomen is de driehoek van het leiden van verandering, het implementeren van de verandering  en het veranderen van hun eigen gedrag. Dit kan bij midden managers zorgen voor frustratie, weerstand en zelfs het actief tegenwerken van veranderingen. Om met deze spanning om te kunnen gaan dient het top management te zorgen voor goede ondersteuning van het midden management  en het vertonen van voorbeeld gedrag.

 

Meer informatie over zijn onderzoek kunt U vinden op www.middle-management.eu

Louis van Gaal over zijn visie en structuur van het Nederlandse elftal

Doen is de beste manier van denken

The Toyota Way to Lean Leadership Achieving and Sustaining Excellence By...

Midden management en de rol bij continue verbetering

Om de rol van midden management binnen continu verbeteren te toetsen en verder te onderzoeken ben ik op zoek naar midden managers en top management die binnen hun organisatie betrokken zijn geweest bij een continu verbeter traject (bijvoorbeeld een lean of six sigma implementatie) en die graag hun ervaringen willen delen en deelnemen aan dit onderzoek. less http://lnkd.in/dn9TQw9

Midden Management en de rol bij continue verbetering

managementsite.nl

Creëren van continue verbetering is een enorme uitdaging. Hoe beïnvloedt midden management continue verbetering in de financiële dienstensector? Dat wil ik onderzoeken.

Middle management in the driving seat of Customer Excellence

 

Middle management is an important spill when it comes to reaching Continuous Improvement and Customer Excellence. Focussing on the more hard factors like operational dashboard which facilitates result driven steering with the end result of  high customer value.  And the skills matrix which results in higher employee satisfaction and eventually higher productivity.  Combine this with soft skills like listening and observing and executing improvement (PDCA) on the end to end process for sustainable results.
Important is that the middle manager is in the driving seat and given the responsibility to act.

The demanding playing field of Middle Management

Introduction

The constant reengineering of many organizations appears to have diminished the number of middle managers in these organizations dramatically (Clarke 1998; Dopson & Stewart 1983; Floyd and Wooldridge 1994; Hayes, 2008). At the same time, Huy (2002) argued that middle managers play an important role in facilitating change in organizations. They may have value-adding ideas for making the organization better, tend to have a big informal network within the organization, and can help the organization to strike a balance between continuity and change.

 

Figure: Playing field of middle management

 

Without pretending to be complete the above figure shows the demanding playing field of middle management which we will look into in some more detail.

Middle management and continuous improvement

Implementing any Continuous Improvement (CI) method appears to demand big changes in the organization and mindset of the people involved (Drew et al. 2004). One key reason for the failure of CI methods has been said to be poor leadership (Lucey et al. 2005), and particularly the role of middle managers in facilitating sustaining change (Fine et al. 2008). Middle management can have a big role in this, through their creative and innovative skills, informal network and knowledge about what motivates employees (Huy 2001; Moss Kanter 1982). Although continuous improvement programs are often initiated by referring to ‘sustained improvement’ and similar terms, they often end up as a quick fix of problems without a deliberate effort to create and maintain the conditions needed (Bhuiyan, Baghel & Wilson 2006; Snee 2010). However, the function and position of middle managers is also a very difficult one, between operational and upper management and between operations and strategy.

             

Middle management and parallel hierarchy

Another important theme, is empowerment. Empowerment of employees may cause anxiety among middle managers when they can no longer control decisions made at lower levels and formal communication channels are changed. In this respect, by empowering people middle managers have to enable employees to take responsibility for their own actions and success and give up some control.  As such, middle managers (are expected to) move away from the role of supervisor to the role of coach. As a result, they experience insecurity, which is reinforced by what is perceived to be a parallel hierarchy (Denham et al. 1997; Fenton-O’Creevy 2001; Psychogios, Wilkinson & Szamosi 2009; Holden & Roberts 2004).

 

Middle management and top management

For the sustainability of a CI practice, the commitment, involvement and leadership of the entire management of the organization are critical (Snee 2010; Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard-Park 2006). As culture and values are to a large extent top management driven, the role of top management in the implementation of CI is critical here. Top management needs to actively support and lead by example when dealing with empowerment. In addition, top management is responsible for creating a change-oriented culture and adopting new organization-wide ways of working. Hence, top management should stimulate a cultural change to support the CI principles throughout the organization (Mann 2009; Snee 2010).

Middle management and the work floor

Middle managers thus find themselves in a struggle to survive (Spreitzer & Quinn 1996), particularly when they perceive the empowering of their subordinates as beneficial to the organization but not beneficial to themselves (Denham et al. 1997). Middle managers have also been observed to actively block empowerment in order to preserve the power and status they felt were being reduced or lost (Denham et al 1997). In this context potential resistance of middle management to employee involvement can be observed (Fenton-O’Creevy 2001).

 

Middle management and peer pressure

Moreover,  the workforce may demoralize because of the pressure from downsizing and potentially losing one’s job, which may result in stressed managers and lower productivity (Harrington & Williams 2004). Downsizing has also led to reduced job security for middle managers and increased work pressure and peer pressure, because the remaining middle managers need to work harder and longer and have a higher span of control (McCann et al. 2008; Robyn & Dunkerley 1999; Keys & Bell 1982).

 

Capstone

Continuous improvement (CI) can be seen as a state in an organization in which all members of the organization contribute to performance improvement by continuously implementing small changes in their work processes (Jørgensen et al. 2003). Where the initial focus was on cutting cost, CI methods have evolved towards a focus on changing the organizational culture (Bhasin & Burcher 2006). Some studies of the lean approach demonstrate that it requires a change in mindset and behavior among its leaders (Mann 2009). O’Rourke (2005) notes three important issues regarding leadership: the leadership’s responsibility to influence business strategy with CI, the leadership’s direct involvement in the deployment design process, and leadership’s active engagement in the implementation. Leadership is an important element when creating the urgency of change that is necessary for creating continuous improvement within an organization. Middle managers need to take a leading role. This is not an easy job because they have to change their own mindset and behavior and lead by example. Commitment and a change in behavior and attitude from the entire organization, middle management included, is a critical factor for achieving sustainability.

 

 

References

Bhasin, S. & Burcher, P. 2006, "Lean viewed as a philosophy", Journal of Manufacturing

Technology Management, vol. 17, no. 1/2, pp. 56-72.

 

Bhuiyan, N., Baghel, A. & Wilson, J. 2006  “A sustainable continuous improvement

methodology at an aerospace company”, International Journal of Productivity and

Performance Management, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 671-687.

 

Clarke, M. 1998, “Can specialists be general managers? Developing paradoxical thinking in

middle managers” The Journal of Management Development, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 191-206.

 

Dahlgaard, J. & Dahlgaard-Park, S. 2006, “Lean production, six sigma quality, TQM and

company culture”, The TQM Magazine, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 263-281.

 

Denham, N., Ackers, P. & Travers, C. 1997, “Doing yourself out of a job? How middle

managers cope with empowerment”, Employee Relations, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 147-159.

 

Dopson, S. & Stewart, R. 1993, “ Information technology, organizational restructuring and

the future of middle management”, New Technology, Work, and Employment, vol. 8, no. 1,

pp. 10-20.

 

Drew, J., McCallum, B. & Roggenhofer, S. 2004, Journey to Lean, Palgrave USA, New York

Fenton-O'Creevy, M. 2001, “Employee involvement and the middle manager: saboteur or

scapegoat?”, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 24-40.

 

Fine, D., Hansen, M. & Roggenhofer, S. 2008, "From lean to lasting: Making operational

improvements stick", The McKinsey quarterly, , no. 1, pp. 108-118.

 

Floyd, S. W. & Wooldridge, B. 1994,  “Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle

management's strategic role”, The Academy of Management Executive, vol. 8, no. 4,

pp. 47-57.

 

Harrington, D. & Williams, B. 2004, “Moving the quality effort forward - the emerging role

of the middle manager” Managing Service Quality, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 297-306.

 

Hayes, A. 2008,  “The Impact of Cuts to Middle Management on Control Environments-The

Importance of Effective Monitoring of Controls; Brainstorming for Management Override”,

The Journal of Government Financial Management, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 60-62.

 

Holden, L. & Roberts, I. 2004, “The depowerment of European middle managers: Challenges

and uncertainties” Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 269-287.

 

Huy, Q. 2001, "In Praise of Middle Managers", Harvard Business Review, vol. 79, no. 8, pp.

72-79.

 

Huy, Q. 2002, “Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The

contribution of middle managers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 31-69.

 

Jørgensen, F., Boer, H. & Frank Gertsen, 2003, "Jump-starting continuous improvement

through self-assessment", International Journal of Operations & Production Management,

vol. 23, no. 10, pp.1260-1278.

 

Keys, B. & Bell, R. 1982,  “Four Faces of the Fully Functioning Middle Manager” California

Management Review, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 59-76.

 

Lucey, J., Bateman, N. & Hines, P. 2005, "Why Major Lean Transitions have not been

Sustained", Management Services, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 9-13.

 

McCann, L., Morris, J. & Hassard, J. 2008, “Normalized Intensity: The New Labour Process

of Middle Management” The Journal of Management Studies, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 343-371.

 

Moss Kanter, R. 1982, "The Middle Manager as Innovator", Harvard Business Review, vol.

60, no. 4, pp. 95-106.

 

Mann, D. 2009, “The Missing Link: Lean Leadership”, Frontiers of Health Services

Management, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 15-26.

 

O'Rourke, P. 2005, “A Multiple-case comparison of Lean six sigma deployment and

implementation strategies”, ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement

Proceedings, vol.59,  pp. 581-591.

 

Psychogios, A., Wilkinson, A., & Szamosi, L. 2009,  “Getting to the heart of the debate: TQM

and middle manager autonomy”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 20,

no. 4, pp. 445-466.

 

Robyn, T. & Dunkerley, D. 1999, “Careering downwards? Middle managers' experiences in

the downsized organization” British Journal of Management, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 157-169.

 

Snee, R. 2010,  “Lean Six Sigma - getting better all the time”, International Journal of Lean

Six Sigma, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9-29.

 

Middle managers stuck in the Bermuda triangle?

Organizational change is complex and highly context dependent. Therefore, there is a strong need for studies that provide insight into the complexity of organizational change, and particularly the management and leadership of change (Higgs & Rowland 2005; Pettigrew et al. 2001) In this respect, many studies of middle management’s role in strategic and organizational change have been performed. At the same time, much research has been done on lean management and continuous improvement practices. However, the role and influence of middle management in the latter practices is under-researched. This is the reason that I have started a PhD research on:


How and to what extent does middle management influence continuous improvement of organizations in the financial service industry?

Some first results are:

The function and position of middle managers is a very difficult one, between operational and upper management and between operations and strategy.

A major challenge for middle managers is dealing with the two different roles that senior management typically expects them to play: change leaders and loyal implementers, which some middle managers may perceive as unfair and unrealistic (Bryant & Stensaker 2011). These dual roles and contributions expected from middle management are particularly problematic when (part of) the middle management echelon is also subject to change.

 

 

Figure: The Bermuda triangle of middle management

Drawing on an analogy with baseball, middle managers are typically expected to be able to hit, field and pitch at the same time (Uyterhoeven 1989).

Creating a sustainable practice of continuous improvement (CI) has been an enormous challenge within many organizations. Creating a sustainable CI practice requires creating a new way of working (i.e. continuously improving operational processes) and embedding it as a durable activity in the daily routines of the organization. Middle managers can be considered to be key agents in facilitating this kind of change and help striking a balance between continuity and change. However middle managers encounter the (Bermuda) triangle of leading change, implementing change and changing their own behavior, which gives rise to tension and possibly the tendency to actively block change and create resistance. To deal with this triangle of roles and challenges, top management has to actively support middle management and lead by example, which is a major challenge in many corporations, in view of the volatility at top management positions, shareholder pressure, and so forth.

Literature

Bryant, M & Stensaker, I. 2011, “The Competing Roles of Middle Management: Negotiated Order in the Context of Change”, Journal of Change Management, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 353-373.

Higgs, M. & Rowland, D. 2005, “All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership”, Journal of Change Management, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 121-151.

Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W. & Cameron, K.S. 2001, “Studying Organizational Change and Development: Challenges for Future Research”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 697-713.

Uyterhoeven, H. 1989, "General Managers in the Middle", Harvard Business Review, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 136-145.

 

 

The role of Middle Management a first examination



Creating sustainability in the contiouous impovement pratice has been an enormuos challenge within organisations. Different factors contribute to the sustainability as there are the level of process management, the adequate use of continuous improvement tools, middle management and the attitude and behavior of the organizations towards imbedding continuous improvement. The sustainability of the continuous improvement practice can be defined as: “the extent to which continuous improvement (a) is sustained over time and (b) sustained by the efforts of employees and managers and (C) has become part of the way of working within the organization.

 

Organizations have to take the continuous improvement practice out of the project atmosphere, don’t see continuous improvement as something that is temporarily and is used for a quick fix. Creating the sustainability means creating a new way of working and imbedding this in your daily routines. If an organization does not succeed in this the sustainability will be poor an eventualy an organisation will fall back in old ways of working. The entire organization has to have clear what the long term perspective is and what the contribution is of continuous improvement. Also the organization needs to fill in the constrains for achieving continuous improvement. Such as clear overview of managers responsibilities and accountabilities; reward structure, adjustment of function profile.

 

This framework exposes the pitfall that is often the cause of not being able to realize process improvements and adopting a culture of Continuous improvement. Optimized Processes do not automatically lead to a change in attitude and behavior although this is often assumed. But focus on continuous improvement and the role of middle management is a requirement to realize the necessary changes in attitude and behavior that provide sustainability 

Paper Middle management voor EGOS congres 2014

Hitting, fielding and pitching at the same time: The role of middle managers in lean management and continuous improvement

Paper for EGOS colloquium - subtheme 30

 

Meer informatie: http://www.egosnet.org/home