Middle managers play an essential but often under-recognized role in leading organizational change. They may initiate change, and therefore be called to demonstrate leadership similar to that of top-level leaders. More often, middle managers are tasked with implementing changes that have been developed and sponsored by others. As such, middle managers play a ‘bridging role’ that poses unique challenges and demands a different type of expertise than other change leadership roles.

How do I know if I’m a middle manager?

Academics provide no consistent definition of a middle manager. Some differentiate middle managers as those who manage other managers but are not top-level managers. Others identify middle managers more broadly, including anyone who is not a top-level manager who also supervises staff. For the purposes of this article, the broader definition works well.

How are the change leadership competencies of middle managers different?

The general change leadership competency framework, including activities and behaviors (see graphics below for detail), is as relevant to middle managers as it is to management at other levels. What’s different is how effective middle managers enact these actions and behaviors during times of change.

Middle managers, more so than leaders at other levels, are called on to balance demands from above (executives) and below (team) as well as managing the impacts a change may have for them personally. Success for the middle manager during change often involves finding the right balance, or balancing, rather than choose to focus on one side or another of an issue.

For instance, in terms of communication, middle managers must first make sense of the change for themselves — what does this mean for my job? My responsibilities? My goals?

However, they are also called to “give sense” by translating the broader vision and rationale for change communicated by upper-level management, into terms that are locally relevant. For instance: How will this impact our team? How might it benefit us? What are the challenges we may face and how will we overcome them?

For this reason, it’s wise to provide middle managers with time upfront to process information about the change and ask questions in order to ensure they understand the change themselves, prior to asking them to translate it for their teams.

Middle managers with strong person-oriented leadership behaviors may be particularly skillful in striking this balance. This includes managers who are attuned to how individual staff and teams may feel and react emotionally to the change. In addition, middle managers often have a more direct and stronger relationship with those impacted by the change. They can leverage this to build trust and attend to the emotions of staff, while also demonstrating their commitment to the change.

When mobilizing their team to implement the change, middle managers often need to adapt plans, tools, or other supports provided by the central change team. You may think of it as a last-mile challenge. Centralized supports, such as a PowerPoint developed by a change implementation team, are generally useful, but are most effective when tailored to meet the unique context of the team or department. It’s usually the middle manager who makes those adaptations, including ensuring the required resources to implement are secured. Unfunded mandates fall particularly hard on middle managers, who are called on to make things happen but are not provided any additional resources to do so. Middle managers that are strong in task-oriented leadership behaviors may be better equipped to undertake such activities.

Finally, while executives and the change implementation teams may evaluate progress on the change overall, middle managers play a critical role in monitoring progress within their span of control. Also, they often have to help their teams balance between running the business, while also changing the business.

Top-level leaders can assist middle managers by clearly outlining priorities and ensuring that performance management systems are adjusted accordingly. For instance, adjusting quality benchmarks or sales goals to accommodate the learning curve that often accompanies adapting to a new process or system.

How can executives support middle managers during times of change?

Paramount to supporting middle managers during change is to acknowledge the unique challenges of their role. Executives can set middle managers up for success by clearly outlining the rationale and vision for the change, and what, specifically, you are asking of them. Make time for middle managers to interact with you — to ask questions or just hear directly about your thoughts on the change — can help them process the change for themselves before you ask them to help their teams do the same.

Additionally, executives can lean into their mobilization skills to make the structural changes necessary to enable the change across the organization. This may include adjusting goals or performance standards to ensure they are aligned with the new behaviors and allow for learning and the temporary lower performance levels that often come with it. Recognizing the additional resources that may be required to enable the change and making them available can also lessen the stress on middle managers.

Finally, walk the talk. As a top-level manager, you need to show how you are adjusting your behaviors and your expectations to align with the change. It’s difficult if not impossible, for middle managers to convince their teams that the organization is serious about a change if executives are acting otherwise. Furthermore, if the organization has a recent history of failed changes, own it. People have long memories. Executives are in a more influential position to explain what and how this time is different than middle managers.

How can middle managers support each other?

Regardless of the level of support provided by the organization and its top-level leadership, middle managers can organize to support one another to successfully implement organizational changes.

Some research indicates that middle managers that regularly gather in conversation to make sense, trouble-shoot, and share good practices are more successful than those that go it alone. In addition, middle managers that are able to reframe the change as an opportunity for their teams are often more effective. This may involve linking the change to a long-standing challenge faced by the team. Alternatively, highly skilled middle managers often leverage a current change to enable them to make related changes that are a high priority for them or their team. Finally, identifying and celebrating small wins is a productive middle manager strategy for keeping momentum and spirits high, particularly during large-scale, long-term change efforts.

Middle managers play a pivotal but often underestimated role in the success of any organizational change. Investments in preparing them to undertake this task, whether it be more conversations and interactions with middle managers, or additional training, are well worth the effort and investment.

References

Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14(1), 69-83.

Bryant, M., & Stensaker, I. (2011). The competing roles of middle management: Negotiated order in the context of change. Journal of Change Management, 11(3), 353-373.

Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31-69.

Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., & Germann, K. (2006). Legitimizing a new role: Small wins and micro-processes of change. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 977-998

Simons, T., Leroy, H., Collewaert, V., & Masschelein, S. (2015). How leader alignment of words and deeds affects followers: A meta-analysis of behavioral integrity research. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 831-844.