Rehabilitating the image of middle management
No other leadership layer is associated with so many negative labels as middle managers.
The language used to describe middle managers shows a need for more respect for their contribution to business continuity and organisational performance.
First published in The Mandarin
A sticky narrative accompanies years of ‘downsizing’ and ‘rightsizing’ activities. Middle managers are frequently positioned as bureaucrats, go-betweens, corporate drones, gatekeepers, and obstructionists. They are sometimes described as the ‘permafrost’.
No other management layer is associated with so many negative labels.
The language used to describe middle managers shows a need for more respect for their contribution to business continuity and organisational performance. Senior leaders might spend their time more productively discussing what it means to lead from the middle.
A tugboat analogy
The analogy of comparing middle managers to permafrost is widespread, implying that middle managers of government organisations actively resist change. Structurally, they are seen as a permanent, impervious organisational layer through which the aspirations of senior managers cannot descend, and any innovations from those below cannot ascend.
The intent and language of the permafrost analogy are deeply disrespectful to a cohort responsible for translating strategic vision into operational reality without compromising the social and cultural fabric of the teams they lead. For example, the research has been clear that:
Middle managers are the shock absorbers of change, sitting between senior leaders and employees, ensuring effective communication and implementation of strategies.
Middle managers are responsible for maintaining organisational business stability and continuity.
Middle managers are responsible for operational efficiency and innovation and are uniquely positioned to identify and implement practical solutions.
Middle managers are crucial in fostering team confidence and trust, critical to team cohesion and cross-functional collaboration.
A more accurate and productive comparison could be to compare middle managers to tugboats. Tugboats are specifically designed to aid much larger vessels navigate; they pull and push them into place with precision and skill.
Tugboats and middle managers have the greatest impact when measured force is applied at the right leverage points in the system. Organisations are clusters of interrelated and interdependent systems that capitalise on accumulated experience and capabilities; over time, like large vessels, they gain momentum. Theoretically, if left alone, organisations could follow the path dictated by that momentum until they decayed and then stopped.
Middle managers are often the leaders closest to the operation of those systems and, like tugboats, have the capacity and capability to apply force to bring about change, arrest unwanted momentum, or hold the organisation in position.
Just as tug boats use their skill to manoeuvre larger vessels into place, middle managers implement practical solutions to preserve organisational continuity while implementing organisational change. Adaptability is a core skill of middle management as they deftly navigate the complexities of change and foster a collaborative work environment.
A single middle manager working alone can have a system-wide effect if they influence a critical organisational leverage point. However, sustained change is more likely to come from middle managers working together in what John Kotter described as a ‘guiding coalition’. Kotter’s original understanding of a guiding coalition is often interpreted as a formalised ‘senior leadership group’.
In practice, it is more likely that change is brought about by middle managers forming and dissolving informal ‘coalitions’ as a natural function of management. They work together, like tugboats, to manoeuvre the organisational systems into place to bring about the desired change.
This unique positioning allows middle managers to spot operational opportunities and challenges that might be overlooked by those not directly engaged with delivering day-to-day operations.
Middle managers made hybrid and remote working work
In the COVID-19 pandemic, middle managers adapted quickly to the transition to new ways of working. Long-standing assumptions about the barriers to flexible working melted away. Middle managers stepped up engagement, connection, and experimentation.
The initial experience was intense and whole of life. The relationships between leaders, managers, and colleagues became concentrated and personal while being more structured and formal. Working had new distractions but also offered opportunities for focus that needed to be improved in the office. Middle managers kept government and industry functioning.
Middle managers were essential to facilitating a smooth transition to remote and hybrid working, managing adjustments on when and where to work, and bridging the imperatives of top management as well as the preferences of team members (managing upward and downward). Middle managers adapted to use strategies that balanced deliverables and employee needs while demonstrating compassionate leadership in uncertain and unpredictable circumstances.
Middle managers work at the leverage points
Like tugboats, middle managers work with the organisational system’s leverage points. Their interventions use the required force at the necessary points to achieve the desired effect. Middle managers are best placed to see where to intervene and apply effort to bring about change. They can stabilise and translate the shock of change, guide, speed, and slow the change process, and are often responsible for balancing the feedback loops that regulate workplace behaviour.
Middle managers cannot change or control the system but can help shape, guide, and lead it. Their need to balance continuity and change ensures that force is applied through the soft skills of persuasion and communication.
Middle managers deeply understand the operational and day-to-day challenges their teams face. This knowledge allows them to identify potential obstacles and opportunities for improvement that may need to be visible to senior leaders. Also, middle managers have their hands on the behavioural levers that directly influence performance — expectation setting, work evaluation, and feedback.
The APS Employee Census results show that employee satisfaction with their immediate supervisor is traditionally close to or above 80%, whereas satisfaction with Senior Executive Service leaders is more often around 65%. In times of change, employees are more likely to turn to middle managers for confidence.
Change the analogy, change the language
The typical narrative of middle managers as the expendable management layer in corporate downsizing, resistant obstacles to change, and willing corporate drones blindly implementing the direction of senior leaders needs to change.
While not perfect, the tug boat analogy offers a more positive and comprehensive understanding of the role middle managers play in sustaining organisational performance, implementing change, and, as intermediaries, facilitating communication and alignment between different levels of the organisation.
This analogy may also lead to a more explicit focus on middle management’s craft. It could help middle managers see their role as levers who need to work out where to apply effort and sometimes seek other tug boats to help get things moving in the right direction.
Practical skills in communication, emotional intelligence, partnership, collaboration, and adaptive leadership would be central. However, solid foundations in team management, persuasion and negotiation, time management, and perhaps most importantly, systems thinking are also required.
