Are mid managers less important than top managers?
In my work as organizational psychologist and adviser I get to discuss a number of interesting topics with business professionals such as HR officers, COO’s, CEO’s or line managers. Ever so often their concern is with one of the leadership teams handling blue-collar employees, typically addressing matters like the team’s inability to truly understand the purpose of the organization – or simply their own role as managers. And I find that what they are very often looking for is a quick fix, solutions that doesn’t take up more than maximum one day, and is practically free of charge. Why is that?
Passed over education wise
For some reason the low-end of the leaders in our organizations seem to be passed over when education budgets are made. There might be budgets for educating the production managers, finance managers, IT managers, sales managers and so on – but rarely ever for the team-leaders and the supervisors. It is almost as if these guys don’t even appear on the management radar. Typically they report to the next layer of leaders, i.e. production managers or maintenance managers who in turn are supposed to make them perform, regardless of their educational background and ability to comprehend the needs of their typically blue-collared team. Top executives like senior vice presidents and executive vice president are also rarely given any education. Probably because they are already top-managers and should have proven their worth and be in the know at this point. I don’t agree with these arguments but the problem is not nearly as evident as it is in the opposite end of the leadership ladder.
It doesn’t make any sense
My problem is that it just doesn’t make any sense. Any organization with uneducated blue-collar leaders is an amputated organization in more than one way.
- The number of direct reports is typically twice the size of that of higher ranking leaders which should also indicate that they have a lot of people management experience after a few years in the job. Should they not be in the leadership pipeline? Is that at all possible without any education?
- Their ability to understand the strategy and the mission of the organization they serve is no less important than that of their managers. Should they not push the same agenda as the rest of the leaders in the organization rather than focusing blindly on the manufacturing of units? Are they expected to succeed with that without any education?
- Imagine an organization in which everybody strives to succeed with one joint mission, naturally carrying out different parts of it but sharing the purpose and the understanding of the need for change. How is that possible without proper educational background?
Responsible for 70 % of the employees
In a typical industrial organization the layer of supervisors and team leaders are extensive and likely to handle up to 70 percent of the employees. Some of them know to some degree of detail what the purpose and the mission of the organization is about, but most managers at this level don’t – hence the amputated organization. At this level the leadership is typically directive and the flow of information limited to a need-to-know basis unfortunately leaving the main body of the organization in the dark.
Given the opportunity I’m certain that they would rise to the occasion, enjoy the attention to their needs just as much as the rest of us – and assume responsibility for using their education and new understanding of the organization and its purpose.
I’d like to encourage you to share your beliefs and experiences on the blog http://heintzelmann.wordpress.com
Please refer to http://www.pro-found.dk for further information about the education of mid managers.
