# Middle Manager Level Jobs Should Become a Thing of the Past



## Laguna (Mar 21, 2012)

Louder for those in the back!
Its Time to Free the Middle Manager-HBR
In increasingly remote work settings, what has become the value of the middle manager over individual contributors? This Harvard Business Review article sums up a case nicely for transforming the middle manager. I am personally seeing a detriment of this role to the work I do which made me find this article in the first place- which only cemented my opinion about it.
Are you a middle manager? Is it because it was time for a promotion---and nothing else to do but become a manager? Are you a manager because you are passionate about developing and managing people?
Should the concept of this role be abolished? Re-written?

Will post the full text of this article in the first comment.


----------



## Laguna (Mar 21, 2012)

*Full text of article:*

The shift to remote work has taken its toll on us all, but middle managers have faced particular challenges over the last year. A global survey of over 3,000 remote knowledge workers found that middle managers (defined as those managing 1-6 people) are 46% less satisfied with their jobs than senior executives (those managing at least 15 people), they have struggled more than twice as much as executives when it comes to maintaining a sense of belonging, and they feel more stressed and less productive than their more senior colleagues.
While some of this is no doubt a temporary reaction to the myriad stresses associated with the pandemic, the data suggests that several factors driving middle managers’ increased stress levels and decreased job satisfaction are likely here to stay. Specifically, as organizations shift toward a more distributed workforce long-term, the traditional role of a middle manager — monitoring productivity, optimizing individual performance — is becoming increasingly redundant in three key ways:

*The conventional 9-to-5 model is growing obsolete. *In the past, the default 9-to-5 in-person working model meant that managers could monitor their teams by literally walking about the office and checking in with employees. But the pandemic has demonstrated that flexible, asynchronous work schedules can drive better work-life balance, lower stress levels, and higher productivity, and so many organizations are permanently shifting away from traditional, 9-to-5 models. In this new reality, managers must still play an essential role in nurturing talent and forging team connection, but the old-fashioned “management by walking around” approach will no longer be effective. Instead, managers are now tasked with intentionally designing operating norms and workflows for their teams that don’t depend on synchronous, in-person communication — and this is something that many organizations are underprepared to support.
*Digital infrastructure is replacing the physical office.* Much of the traditional role of a middle manager has been to support communication and collaboration for employees that might otherwise struggle to effectively share information. But when that communication moves from a meeting room to a digital channel, it becomes much easier to automate the documentation and sharing of key information and decisions. This dramatically increases transparency, but it also eliminates both the need and effectiveness of many information sharing mechanisms that would otherwise be the purview of middle management.
*Measuring output has gotten easier, while building shared purpose has gotten harder.* With a distributed workforce, holding a team together — that is, building and maintaining strong social ties, forging alignment around a singular mission and vision — is more challenging than ever. The ability to communicate clearly and rally teams remotely has become critical. At the same time, the shift to digital tools has dramatically simplified the process of tracking and measuring output. These tandem shifts mean that the traditional management approach of “command and control” is unnecessary, and in many cases, counterproductive.
*From Routers to Leaders*
The good news is, middle managers still have a key role to play — that role just needs to evolve. For decades, middle managers have been human routers: tracking project status, moving information across teams, and serving as intermediaries between junior employees and senior leaders. In a remote work context, this communication is harder than ever, but the tactics that will be most effective in managing it have changed.
Rather than manually routing information, managers should identify and implement digital tools that can automate and complement human efforts. One of the top stressors cited in our research was “time spent tracking others’ workloads.” Managers will be both more effective and less stressed if they leverage tools optimized for tracking remote and hybrid workforces, and then focus their own energy on building teams and developing talent.
This change requires middle managers and executives alike to loosen their grip on the flow of information, embracing a _default-to-open_ culture that doesn’t require the middle manager to decide what information should be shared across teams. Managers will need to become comfortable with greater scrutiny and day-to-day accountability from their employees, but in return, employees will be empowered with the context they need to stay aligned and make quicker and better decisions.
*Management Shouldn’t Be the Only Way to Advance*
Of course, middle managers don’t exist in a vacuum. To set managers up for success, organizations need to rethink who becomes a middle manager in the first place, and what career development overall will look like in a digital-first environment.
In many organizations, the only way for individual contributors to advance is by becoming managers. This results in a large cohort of middle managers, many of whom have no real desire to lead. It also means that limited training resources must be shared among this large group of all employees who wish to advance their careers, regardless of whether they are qualified or even interested in becoming the types of managers that their organizations really need.
To address this, organizations need to take a two-pronged approach: First, as “routing” tasks become largely automated, middle managers should be empowered to focus on the vital work of forging connections, building belonging among diverse employees, and developing talent. This means investing in training for communication skills, inclusion techniques, and coaching. This also means reducing the total number of middle managers, so that resources can be focused on supporting a smaller group of dedicated leaders.
Second, companies need to build career ladders that allow expert individual contributors to grow in title and compensation based on demonstrated expertise and outcomes, _without_ requiring them to become managers. Many people are ambitious, but not particularly interested in managing people. Providing these employees with a compelling development track will be essential both for their own growth and job satisfaction, and to ensure that those who do become middle managers actually want to do the work involved.
For example, Slack has defined two equally important leadership tracks: an expert track and a team development track. Through the expert track, individual contributors can be promoted up to the VP level based on their technical mastery alone. There is no expectation that they need to shift their focus to managing people, team development, or reporting on OKRs. On the other hand, the team development track is for people who both show a mastery of technical functions such as engineering, but also demonstrate an interest and competency in the essence of management: creating clarity in the mission and goals of the team, removing obstacles and aligning resources, and coaching and developing individuals.
Too often, middle managers are used to paper over broken business processes, with key tasks dependent on individuals’ institutional memory rather than sustainable procedures. Fixing these process gaps depends on embracing digital tools so that the humans in the loop can focus on what they do best — whether that’s technical expertise or people management.
***
There is an entire canon of research dedicated to solving the riddle of the middle manager. This publication alone has run everything from “In Praise of Middle Managers,” to “Why Being a Middle Manager Is So Exhausting,” to “The End of the Middle Manager.” The rapid shift to distributed work over the last year has only expanded the challenges facing the modern middle manager — but it has also created an unparalleled opportunity to rethink the role of management for a new, digital-first world.
As digital tools enable the freer, more democratic flow of information, there will no longer be any need for managers whose sole job is to route information between the top and bottom of the company. Instead of being stuck in the middle, managers will be free to focus on something that is infinitely more important: building and connecting the people that are the true lifeblood of any organization.


Brian Elliott is the Executive Lead of the Future Forum, a consortium launched by Slack to help companies reimagine work in the new digital-first world. Founding partners include the Boston Consulting Group, Herman Miller, and MLT. Before launching the Future Forum, Brian was the VP & General Manager of Platform at Slack, where he oversaw Platform strategy and execution.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Being a middle manager is like being the baloney in a bullshit sammich. That is all.


----------



## Not Emily (Nov 9, 2021)

Then what would ISTJs do with their lives?


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

I don't understand this thread. 

Lower level jobs are less good than high level jobs? 

Who would have guessed that?


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

I am so confused I have to comment again.

It’s almost like saying “lets remove middle economic class” so people are only super rich or poor.

But maybe I am missing something?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> I am so confused I have to comment again.
> 
> It’s almost like saying “lets remove middle economic class” so people are only super rich or poor.
> 
> But maybe I am missing something?


Not really. There are plenty of jobs that pay reasonable wages that aren't management oriented. Also, considering how many small companies exist, there are plenty of brass jobs that don't pay 'super rich' salaries. 

There are more than enough tech monitoring tools to do away with middle management jobs. This creates a flat management style that can put the brass in touch with employees and can ensure that if something of import needs action beyond their pay scale, that action can be taken. Middle managers are hog tied in every direction, with insufficient power to make meaningful changes but tasked to make things happen, relative to environments conducive to high productivity. That level is the dumping ground for people's angst, from top and bottom.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

mia-me said:


> Not really. There are plenty of jobs that pay reasonable wages that aren't management oriented. Also, considering how many small companies exist, there are plenty of brass jobs that don't pay 'super rich' salaries.
> 
> There are more than enough tech monitoring tools to do away with middle management jobs. This creates a flat management style that can put the brass in touch with employees and can ensure that if something of import needs action beyond their pay scale, that action can be taken. Middle managers are hog tied in every direction, with insufficient power to make meaningful changes but tasked to make things happen, relative to environments conducive to high productivity. That level is the dumping ground for people's angst, from top and bottom.


 I was speaking conceptually, and drawing a parallel with economic classes, because I think it is equally impossible. In my view people are middle managers because they are not CEOs or in their starting roles, so it's impossible to "remove it". Not everyone can advance, it's not how competition works.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> I was speaking conceptually, and drawing a parallel with economic classes, because I think it is equally impossible. In my view people are middle managers because they are not CEOs or in their starting roles, so it's impossible to "remove it". Not everyone can advance, it's not how competition works.


The middle class isn't redundant. Middle management is becoming so. And unnecessary redundancies should be cut so the budget can be allocated towards more useful resources, including paying more employees living wages but not limited to such. Improving tech security is another area that's so desperately needed.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

mia-me said:


> The middle class isn't redundant. Middle management is becoming so. And unnecessary redundancies should be cut so the budget can be allocated towards more useful resources, including paying more employees living wages but not limited to such. Improving tech security is another area that's so desperately needed.


I understand (I think) the desired positive aspects, but I don't think it is only organisational factor. If there is only CEO position, everyone applies -> not everyone gets -> as a result we have lower level / middle roles because people will take it.


----------



## 17041704 (May 28, 2020)

mia-me said:


> Middle managers are hog tied in every direction, with insufficient power to make meaningful changes but tasked to make things happen, relative to environments conducive to high productivity. That level is the dumping ground for people's angst, from top and bottom.


Premium cannon fodders yep.

Learning to navigate and survive in that environment is sometimes more important than how good you think you are that's why I used to warn those who are about be promoted to management this is essentially a political job it's not just about how good they used to be in the past.

In my eyes managers are basically lubricant so the penis / vagina / staff / boss all feel better during sex / work / whatever.

Having said that, let the juniors or seniors to face by themselves the grueling demands, questions and rage of those on top are kinda unethical if you ask me. Both of them are not ready for that and that's why you need someone in the middle to sort them out.

There were ocassions the chairman thought it's ok to ask juniors "simple questions" by himself and I literally saw those guys shaking their hands and voices with minute long dead silence in between. It's both uncomfortable and hilarious at the same time when you saw him trying to control his impatience.

Middle management are here to stay imo and it's not gonna go away or stay just because we said so. They exist because reality demands it like any other jobs but my view is either (1) there won't be as many managers as before in a pyramid organisation or (2) everyone becomes a manager and pretty much handles every goddamn thing regardless your pay and title in a less rigid organisation.

Either way the workload stays the same it makes little difference. The buildings we are trying to build won't ask for less concrete just because we have less or more managers.

My view on this article is that it only applies to jobs where technology can easily substitute human interactions and certainly don't apply to my line of work.

_"This change requires middle managers and executives alike to loosen their grip on the flow of information, embracing a default-to-open culture that doesn’t require the middle manager to decide what information should be shared across teams. "_

Not sure what they trying to say, suppose the boss is yelling, tearing papers, slamming tables and naming names behind closed doors the managers and executives just go around and let everyone know about it?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> I understand (I think) the desired positive aspects, but I don't think it is only organisational factor. If there is only CEO position, everyone applies -> not everyone gets -> as a result we have lower level / middle roles because people will take it.


Upper management is comprised of the executive team, not just the CEO.


17041704 said:


> Premium cannon fodders yep.
> 
> Learning to navigate and survive in that environment is sometimes more important than how good you think you are that's why I used to warn those who are about be promoted to management this is essentially a political job it's not just about how good they used to be in the past.
> 
> ...


Agreed that the removal or reduction of middle management would be limited to white collar jobs. No comment about construction since I know nothing about it.


----------



## Coonsy (Dec 22, 2010)

There may be a shift in what "middle management" or those "middle" roles look like, and I don't think that's a bad thing, but I don't think you can do away with those roles all together. There are different skill sets, levels, knowledge areas, and while they may shift from "manager" to "level 2" or whatever, no one can develop the skills they need to be C-suite from the bottom without some guidence and experience with lower risk.

Now, IMO, one of the bigger issues here isn't the role of a "middle manager" but HOW those people get those roles. There is (very frequently) zero training, education, coaching, etc on how to manage within an organization. How to develop people over just products. Instead, someone gets promoted based on their technical expertise, when what they really need is a basic working knowledge and some people skills.

Overall, the corporate structure can be a problem in the modern world and our modern workforces, but there are still many roles and companies where "middle managers" are very much needed. I'm in the project management line of work (IT MSP specifically right now, but was real estate previously) and you need people in between the executives and the worker bees.

Perfect example, where I am at right now - rapidly growing company, and in my division, I am at the lowest PJM level, and report directly to the COO with no one in between. There are 3 of us at my level. What this leaves is that our plates are full just dealing with day to day stuff, and we are treated and viewed by others in the company as low level workers (and we are compensated accordingly as well). The COO is far too busy to help us with resolving or pushing forward some of the ideas and solutions we have presented (but don't have the authority to implement or get the ears of those who matter). They are looking for (and I'm aiming to take one of them) a level above us, and maybe even one more person above those as a division director. I think it's really needed in this case as someone who's not bogged down with day-to-day drudgery all the time could take time to push these other changes and improvements along - watch some of the stuff we don't have time for - etc. Without that level, we are left spinning our wheels, and more people at our level lightens the workload, but doesn't really help solve the problems. And anyone at this level (like me) who is capable of more, isn't going to be sticking around at this level for long or they are going to go someplace where they can get paid for what they are contributing.

So, it's a multi-layered problem and I don't think just cutting out middle management as a general rule is a good solution...redefine it, and redefine it on a more industry/company needs level - sure! But eliminate all mid-level career roles? Sounds like company suicide to me.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

This is my org chart, and I work for a company the generates many billions per year, operates in 16 states, and has many thousands of employees.

CEO : Gary
SVP : Curtis
VP : Erik
Director : Seth
Manager : Joel
Specialist : Chad (me)
Workers : my team

If you removed any one of those people, there is no way the system would continue to function, too much disconnect between skills, knowledge, and objectives. It barely functions as it is (we run lean compared to our peers). My manager barely comprehends what I do, he just makes sure my needs are met. It is a complex, technical, and highly regulated business, so the need to differentiate duties is crucial. All these members have different duties.

Now if this were a restaurant, you might be on to something. I owned one for 12 years, this was our Org chart:

Owners (3 of us)
shift lead
everyone else.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

chad86tsi said:


> This is my org chart, and I work for a company the generates many billions per year, operates in 16 states, and has many thousands of employees.
> 
> CEO : Gary
> SVP : Curtis
> ...


If you're generating billions in revenue, this firm is way too light on the brass level.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

mia-me said:


> If you're generating billions in revenue, this firm is way too light on the brass level.


I'm in a silo, there are many other silo's (thus other "brass" members). They too have similar dynamics.

Middle managers and lower managers tend to be a bit ineffective because they are overworked and have too many achievables, and not enough power to achieve them.

I don't believe getting rid of levels is the answer to management redundancy (economic/manpower waste) for a lot of companies. I've worked in my industry for a few decades, it's gotten more and more lean as time goes on. Remember "right-sizing"* of the great recession? that started a while ago and few companies have fattened up since then.

It has become popular lately to blame middle management that don't produce any output but are paid such a large stake of the total man power budget, because they don't appear to "work". It is driven by the belief that the lowest "mere worker" levels are the most valuable asset the company has, because their work looks and feels like "work". Those thoughts fail to envision how many organizations need those middle tiers, and that most middle management waste was already eliminated long ago.



_* Rightsizing is the process of restructuring a company so it can make a profit more efficiently and meet updated business objectives. Organizations will usually rightsize their business by reducing their workforce, reorganizing upper management, cutting costs, and changing job roles._


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

chad86tsi said:


> I'm in a silo, there are many other silo's (thus other "brass" members). They too have similar dynamics.
> 
> Middle managers and lower managers tend to be a bit ineffective because they are overworked and have too many achievables, and not enough power to achieve them.
> 
> ...


Brass level is the executive level, not middle managers and below. I can't imagine any firm that size with so few brass to handle the demands without harsh bottlenecking and major dysfunction.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

mia-me said:


> Brass level is the executive level, not middle managers and below. I can't imagine any firm that size with so few brass to handle the demands without *harsh bottlenecking and major dysfunction*.


well we do have that


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

chad86tsi said:


> well we do have that


Not surprising. Lemme guess. This firm experienced explosive growth and scrambles to keep up, rather than being proactive about mitigating the negative effects of such. Your current brass are control freaks who don't want to share power or profits so they're hoarding.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

mia-me said:


> Not surprising. Lemme guess. This firm experienced explosive growth and scrambles to keep up, rather than being proactive about mitigating the negative effects of such. Your current brass are control freaks who don't want to share power or profits so they're hoarding.


the company was bought by an investment firm that wanted to extract "maximum profits", indifferent to the negative effects of such. took about 12-15 years, but many changes later we run very lean. It's trading one type of "value" for another. "profit" for the owner vs. "strength" of the business (reliability/flexibility/loyalty/etc).


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

chad86tsi said:


> the company was bought by an investment firm that wanted to extract "maximum profits", indifferent to the negative effects of such. took about 12-15 years, but many changes later we run very lean. It's trading one type of "value" for another. "profit" for the owner vs" strength" of the business (reliability/flexibility/loyalty/etc).


That's even worse than uncontrolled growth and control freaks. It's not uncommon for investment firms to run companies into the ground.


----------



## UpClosePersonal (Apr 18, 2014)

*IMO:*

There is a lot of discussion about bullshit jobs these days. BS jobs exist because there aren't enough necessary jobs so that everyone can make an honest living.

It has always been an issue that certain jobs were not necessary to exist, but people who lived through the great depression saw a benefit to everyone having a job.

As computer and communications technology does away with jobs, it becomes necessary to move from a society of contributors to a society of the disengaged. The result is a government that has to provide for the majority. Or just accept crime as a natural alternative to working a legal job. Which is where we are at this point in time.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

One simple but substantial way of ensuring that there's sufficient jobs for everyone is to enforce a retirement age of 65 or better yet, 60. This would ensure that fresh ideas and energy continue cycling through corporate america.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Depends on the industry.

I absolutely think middle management is already going to extinct in human services. It’s ridiculous. Middle management is essential in such a fucked up industry and system. A 101 directors listed for every dept on the planet but no one actually steering the ship at the wheel. Not ok in human services. They can’t expect supervisors to be at the knowledge level to just handle what used to be half middle management.

I’m saying that as someone who has been a director, a manager, and a supervisor. As a supervisor it’s exhausting and when they extinct management it leaves supervisors without enough resources and a strung out manager, or a manager who can pretend to be one place but isn’t at work at all because how would anyone even know when there aren’t enough managers. So the options is shitty management not checked on by 101 directors or a manager spun.

As a manager perspective & coordinator, I speak with the most experience. When there are not enough other managers it forces a manager in human services to decide if they are going to be decent and do their job or be taken by the job and subpar. Either option is not great. So if you choose health and sanity you’re letting down clients who need you and supervisors who need you. If you choose work you will be a slave to the fucked up system.

As a director role if you’re in a company that doesn’t have much management you’re life may be easier than the manager because there’s a manager the weight falls on. But it’s not easier on your conscience knowing how fucked up the system is. And without sufficient amount of management to lead your programs they can’t be the best.

I also speak haven worked at various companies and seeing different formats. The ma & pa ones who stick closer to pyramid platforms have much better run programs, from care, to less turnover etc. These programs have fundamental coverage. 

The ideal layout for human services
-Staff
-Lead
-Supervisor 
-Specialized Staff, Float, Emergency, or Appointment/Activities 
-Program Manager 
-Program Director 
-Executive Director
Etc etc etc

A shitty layout for human services:
Staff
Supervisor 
Director of several programs with no manager
Etc etc etc 

And no I don’t have any desire to be a manager anymore. But I’ll argue to the death on their purpose and need.

Even an industry I know nothing about like service industry. Like target. Ok so we have all these punk ass kids serving us and maybe at most you could find a shift lead if you actually had to speak to someone who knew what was going on (kinda).


----------

