Key Points
Middle managers do three things to effectively lead change: interpret, engage & explain, and coordinate & execute.
Interpretation is a pivotal, but often overlooked, aspect of middle manager change leadership. It is through the interpretation process that mid-level managers make sense of and form a perspective on the organizational change, which influences all other aspects of their involvement in it.
Middle managers who balance their commitment to the change and commitment to staff are more likely to enable sustained change while also maintaining business continuity.
Organizational change challenges middle managers to become masters of complexity. They balance demands from staff and leaders, maintain performance while instituting change, and adapt to shifts in their own roles, responsibilities, and influence due to the change. In sum, during workplace change, middle managers are called on to simultaneously synthesize, champion, support, and adapt. How do they do it?
Several researchers have conducted in-depth studies of middle manager actions and mindsets during periods of workplace change to identify those that are most likely to lead to lasting shifts in organizations.
From these studies, we can see that middle managers lead change through three types of actions. They interpret, engage & explain, and coordinate & execute. Further, those that are most effective actively balance conflicting demands that arise in each of these areas. We explore these ideas below, highlighting middle manager perspectives on each of them, as shared via a variety of case studies.
Interpret: How does the change impact me?
Although often overlooked, middle managers first engage with change by interpreting it for themselves. They need to make sense of how the change impacts them as individuals.
This is particularly important because middle managers often implement changes initiated by others. They need time to understand what the change is about and process how it might shift their priorities, power, and responsibilities before being asked to "make it happen" in the organization.
How middle managers interpret the change — positively or negatively — will influence their personal commitment to the change and how they undertake other aspects of their change leadership.
Interpretation often happens through a highly social process. Time and opportunity to dialog about the change and its impacts are essential for middle managers, particularly in the early phases of a change effort. Gossip, critical questions, and productive pushback are all expected as part of the interpretation process.
Case Study Snapshot — A committee interprets its role in a change
Chair: Our charge is to examine the alternative levels of analysis. We are conducting strategic planning. (pause) I don't understand what that means. (pause) I don't understand "alternative levels" either.
Second Member: We were hoping you would explain!
Third Member: I just don't understand. What are we supposed to do?¹
Such reactions from mid-level managers should not be automatically labeled as change resistance but rather understood for what they are — people trying to understand a new idea and its consequences for them. It's essential to recognize that those who initiate a change, often senior leaders, often go through interpretation as part of the decision-making process to create the change. Top-level leaders need to provide others the same opportunity to make sense of things before expecting them to act.
Beyond providing time and opportunities for questions, top-level leaders can also help middle managers by offering specific information about the change, such as the vision, rationale, and organizational commitment to it. Such information is also valuable to inform the second type of middle manager action — engage and explain.
Engage and Explain: How do I support staff through the change?
Middle managers are uniquely positioned to communicate the change in ways that resonate with staff. Their insights into what works for their team allow them to turn broad messages into tailored ideas that are more likely to motivate. Adapting how changes are framed to staff can include shifting language to be more familiar or aligning corporate-wide benefits and priorities with those most relevant in their function.
In addition to explaining the change, middle managers are also on the front line of engaging with staff about the change. This often involves supporting staff as they process emotional reactions to change. Opportunities for staff to share and discuss their perspectives and leaders who acknowledge and address concerns have been found essential for effective change by a variety of researchers.
Case Study Snapshot — On staff engagement
Often, it's like 'ta-dah' we've got this new thing '...versus saying, 'ok, we're going to implement this, we're all going to own it, what do you think about it?...before the system is in place... ²
Coordinate and Execute: How do I make this change happen?
Middle managers are often responsible to guide the day-to-day actions that bring the change to life in an organization. They mobilize and coordinate the resources necessary to adopt new practices, adjust new processes, or emphasize new ways of working, while also ensuring continuity of performance. This is often referred to as running the business while changing the business.
Case Study Snapshot — Coordinating resources for change
Originally, I was skeptical [about the new program] because I know asking people to come in on their days off is a real hit or miss proposition. Then I realized I have some power over when we schedule these things.
So, we started adjusting schedules so that we always trained people during the hours that they were there to work anyway. And that really made a lot of sense. I kind of turned things around.³
To be successful, middle managers must be adept at navigating paradoxes — balancing the tension and tradeoffs required to hit ongoing performance targets, while also ushering staff through the learning curve of change. To support middle managers’ effectiveness in this regard, senior leaders can ensure the change is adequately resourced and near-term performance targets are adjusted to allow for learning.
The Key: Balancing commitments
In his studies of middle managers engaged in transformational change, Quy N. Huy found that mid-level leaders who balanced their commitment to the change and commitment to staff were the most successful at maintaining performance and achieving change outcomes.
Huy's work illustrates that middle managers who focus solely on getting the change done, without gaining buy-in or acknowledging impacts on staff, are more likely to fail. They may create surface change, such as putting in place a new structure or system, but lack the requisite staff support and learning required to be effective for the long-term. What's more, in such circumstances the change can become so disruptive to staff that performance in areas not affected by change also declines.
Case Study Snapshot: Chaos scenario
We had an open line for [staff] questions. Ninety percent of them were basically the same: how was it going to affect my work scheduling, my vacation. Not about the business structure or how customer segmentation works. In the future should we take these calls? No!
I feel angry: why can't they see the future? Why is everybody dragging their heels? I feel frustrated that things are not changing as fast as we want them to.⁴
Conversely, when middle managers largely focus on maintaining current models and performance, investing limited effort in executing the change, they generally retain the status quo, regardless of how much or little attention they pay to staff concerns.
Case Study Snapshot: Intertia scenario
…I could easily just do the ordinary run of the mill work which puts you under enough pressure as it is and doesn't take the job forward. I could easily say with these meetings and seminars that instead you spend three hours keeping your [inbox] down…but at the end of the day you don't take the job forward.⁵ _______________
The whole process is losing momentum. ... I am afraid that everything is going back to where it was before. We [have yet to complete] the administrative tools that were required to help the [professionals] do their jobs.... The development of these tools has been delayed or dropped. .... Nobody continues with the training. ⁴
However, adaptation happens when middle managers match their commitment to change with commitment to their staff. Practically, this looks like providing staff opportunities to express their thoughts, emotions, and concerns about the change and acknowledging those perspectives. When managers invest time and effort in supporting employees personally, day-to-day work is less likely to be interrupted and the goals of change are more likely to be achieved and sustained.
Case Study Snapshot: Adaptive scenario
Over time, I learned to avoid mass meetings. I used to meet a large group where everything seemed to go well and then I got all kinds of surprising feedback later. I realized that one could not deal effectively with emotions when one was with a crowd. So, I began to set up smaller meetings in groups of seven or eight, and I told them I would be available for private meetings after the group discussion. ... It was a winning formula.
We have to do more than giving employees technical training only. We have to prepare them to cope with psychological issues, to help them overcome the fear and change during this transition period.⁴
The recipe for success for middle managers during organizational change involves investing time to understand and process their own reaction to the change, and then balancing their commitment to staff and the organization to create the necessary conditions for change to come about. Throughout the process, middle managers must be provided the time and support necessary to navigate the conflicting demands of change to ward off burnout. Attending to difficult emotions and technical challenges can be draining. Senior leaders can support middle managers by providing clear information about and adequate resources for the change, recognizing small wins, and helping middle managers to process their own emotions and frustrations throughout the implementation of the change.
Related Articles
Sources
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 challenges of middle management change agents: How interactionism can provide a way forward. Journal of Change Management, 11(3), 353-373.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448.
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5(3), 363-383.
Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31-69.
Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 325-345.
Pagel, C., Bates, D. W., & Goldmann, D. (2020). How to Avoid Common Pitfalls of Health IT Implementation. NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery, 1(5).
Case Study Snapshots sourced from:
¹Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5(3), 363-383.
²Pagel, C., Bates, D. W., & Goldmann, D. (2020). How to Avoid Common Pitfalls of Health IT Implementation. NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery, 1(5).
³Bryant, M. & Stensaker, I. (2011), The challenges of middle management change agents: How interactionism can provide a way forward. Journal of Change Management. 11 (3), pp. 353-373.. Journal of Change Management. 11. 353-373.
⁴Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31-69.
⁵Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14(1), 69-83.
influence is key to developing support for organizational change — but how do you do it right? Learn six influence tactics that research says work — and one to avoid.