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).
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.
