Discussing the Role of Middle Management
Discussing the Role of Middle Management
During the 1980s and 1990s, in our increasingly global marketplace, downsizing and re-engineering became a common practice in business, eliminating much of the need for middle managers, cutting costs, speeding up decisions, and flattening organizational hierarchies worldwide. Middle managers began to be seen as unnecessary costs, easily replaced by displacing responsibility downward to their subordinates, and uncooperative, even having a negative impact on change.
While middle managers still exist today, they must still deal with the general notion that their responsibilities could be displaced – even though they are often among the more experienced and knowledgeable employees in a department or company. This paper compares three articles on the topic of middle management, and applies these scenarios and opinions to real-life situations that I have experienced.
Creating Change Intermediaries
Recent studies have started to reveal the importance of the middle manager’s role when an organization is experiencing change. In Balogun’s article “From Blaming the Middle to Harnessing its Potential: Creating Change Intermediaries” the author states that middle managers make a strategic contribution as a “change intermediary,” referring to their role during implementing strategy, or change implementation.
Two opposing points of view observe the middle manager – one views the middle manager as adding little value and resisting change, and the other views the middle manager as a pivotal part of implementing change in an organization.
Balogun discusses a study that was done on middle managers during a transitional year in an organization, including structural, operational, and cultural changes. From this study, it was found that as “change intermediaries,” middle managers fulfill four roles: undertaking personal change, helping others through change, implementing necessary changes in their department, and keeping the
During the 1980s and 1990s, in our increasingly global marketplace, downsizing and re-engineering became a common practice in business, eliminating much of the need for middle managers, cutting costs, speeding up decisions, and flattening organizational hierarchies worldwide. Middle managers began to be seen as unnecessary costs, easily replaced by displacing responsibility downward to their subordinates, and uncooperative, even having a negative impact on change.
While middle managers still exist today, they must still deal with the general notion that their responsibilities could be displaced – even though they are often among the more experienced and knowledgeable employees in a department or company. This paper compares three articles on the topic of middle management, and applies these scenarios and opinions to real-life situations that I have experienced.
Creating Change Intermediaries
Recent studies have started to reveal the importance of the middle manager’s role when an organization is experiencing change. In Balogun’s article “From Blaming the Middle to Harnessing its Potential: Creating Change Intermediaries” the author states that middle managers make a strategic contribution as a “change intermediary,” referring to their role during implementing strategy, or change implementation.
Two opposing points of view observe the middle manager – one views the middle manager as adding little value and resisting change, and the other views the middle manager as a pivotal part of implementing change in an organization.
Balogun discusses a study that was done on middle managers during a transitional year in an organization, including structural, operational, and cultural changes. From this study, it was found that as “change intermediaries,” middle managers fulfill four roles: undertaking personal change, helping others through change, implementing necessary changes in their department, and keeping the