©Freek Hermkens (2014) 1

The demanding playing field of Middle Management

Freek Hermkens

Molenaar en Lok Consultancy

Principal Consultant

Stokstraat 17A, 3833 LB Leusden, The Netherlands

Freek.hermkens@m-lc.nl

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.

©Freek Hermkens (2014) 2

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).

©Freek Hermkens (2014) 3

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.

©Freek Hermkens (2014) 4

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.

©Freek Hermkens (2014) 5

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.