How To Loosen The Squeeze On Middle Managers

It is, of course, the CEOs who receive all the attention. They can be lauded when they deliver spectacular shareholder returns while winning just as impressive employee approval ratings, as in the case of chipmaker Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, for example, and attacked when they slip up over all manner of things, from failed mergers, being on the “wrong” side in the culture wars or just making errors of judgement. Even though countless management tomes, not to mention common sense, tell us that it takes more than one individual to run the complex organization that is the modern enterprise, we still tend to see a business as personified by a single person.

It is probably too much to expect this to change to any significant extent in 2024. But there are a few indications that recognition for those who arguably do the “real work” could be on the way. The first is the aforementioned complexity. With some suggesting that large corporations in particular are just too far-ranging to be capable of being run by one person, there appears to be growing interest in the idea of co-CEOs or at least more sharing of responsibilities among the members of the C-suite.

Another is the pressure being put on middle and junior managers by new ways of working and a continuing flattening of hierarchies. As recent research from Gallup put it, “Clearly, we’ve entered a new era. Organizations are trying to to find their way in a post-pandemic world. From new business strategies to changes in the marketplace to remote work, both what businesses are trying to achieve and how they’re operating are considerably different from before.

“Managers form the bridge between leadership and the rest of the organization, which means they are often caught between employees’ and leaders’ expectations. During times of change, that’s a recipe for burnout.” Indeed, there is evidence that managers are even more likely than non-managers to be disengaged at work.

Pointing out that most managers have more work to do on a tighter budget with new teams, the Gallup report calls for four areas of focus in order to loosen what it calls the “manager squeeze.” They are:

1. Better leadership communication. In order to effectively implement decisions made by the leadership, managers need consistent and clear communication. Yet, according to the report, only three in 10 managers agree that their supervisors keep them informed about what is going on within the organization.
2. More training and development. With fewer than half of managers strongly agreeing that they have the right skills to be exceptional at their jobs, it is clear that — for all the money spent on learning and development — the right training is not receiving the attention it needs. Middle managers are increasingly taking on the roles with their teams that were formerly conducted by HR departments but feel increasingly exposed. The move towards more hybrid working is only intensifying the problem since, according to Gallup, “having a great manager is nearly four times more important than an individual’s work location when it comes to their engagement and wellbeing.”
3. Coaching support to prevent burnout. Just as managers should have regular conversations with each member of their teams, so leaders need to spend time with their managers. Managers can find it difficult to ask for help. But by “taking the time to connect with them, checking on their wellbeing and showing genuine concern” leaders can improve trust and increase their chances of spotting the early signs of burnout before the situation escalates and the manager resigns.
4. A community of shared accountability. Frequent contact with fellow managers can help enhance collaboration, co-ordination, the sharing of best practice, advice and emotional support. It is the responsibility of leaders to build such communities.

Another way in which matters can be improved for managers involves a little self-help, though. It is learning to delegate well. Earlier this month, an article in The Economist rounded up studies indicating that managers often got others to make decisions for cynical reasons, such as when the decisions were hard, when they would affect others or when they wanted to avoid blame. The article also conceded that many managers inhabited a “greyer area” of having good intentions to leave decisions to others but finding it hard to do so. However, it does not mention what is possibly the key factor in poor delegation: a lack of training in how to delegate effectively and therefore a lack of confidence in the ability to carry it out. Given that promotion, even to the most senior executive positions, is often based on individuals’ previous performance, it is only natural that they continue to do what they believe got them to where they are now. And so they meddle and create confusion. It is up to those at the very top, and the coaches and advisers they employ, to tell them that managing is different from doing. And that leading is different from managing.