What To Do With Managers?

“First, Let’s Fire All the Managers,” is what Gary Hamel recommends. Yes, let's get rid of all middle managers. I like Hamel’s work and have read almost everything he’s published. Hamel has a gift for identifying exceptions to the rule, understanding what makes those exceptions work (at least at the time), sharing the lessons from these lessons, and advocating that others go and do likewise! He consistently challenges the status quo to the benefit of us all. Because, as Bernard Shaw observed, progress is dependent on unreasonable people who are not satisfied with the current way of doing things.

But why fire managers? What makes people so passionate about eliminating middle management? Two (I’m sure there are more) of the popular arguments for eliminating middle management are (a) managers mistreat employees and (b) managers stifle creativity and innovation through their actions. In conclusion, these arguments posit that middle management, in the best case, prevents the firm from maximizing its potential and worst case, sets the firm back. 

There is a plethora of evidence backing these claims that some (many?) managers mistreat their employees. I have spoken to employees who told me that their managers make it harder for them to get work done. The data supporting these observations is not that hard to find. Sadly, many managers (and not just managers in all honesty), excel at skilled incompetence (cf. Chris Argyris). That is, these managers get in the way of organizational success with little to no effort. It’s quite amazing to watch.

More and more people have proposed the elimination of middle management as a way of addressing this challenge. Some people have even suggested that to operate as an Agile organization (whatever that means) requires having no middle management. Several well-known firms have gone ahead and eliminated middle management from their organizational structure. Interestingly enough, several (most?) of these firms brought back managers after a while. Google and Zappos are two prominent examples of organizations that decided to remove middle management only to return managers later. Those who speak the loudest about “no managers” do so with little to no theoretical underpinnings. It’s one thing to imagine what might be. It’s another to have a model that has a good shot of working.

We do have examples, albeit a few examples of organizations that seem to succeed without middle management. As such, I think it is important to determine their secret sauce. Amy Edmondson and Michael Lee studied Morning Star, Valve, and Zappos and captured their results in a paper titled “Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing”. Proponents of “no managers” often point to these firms as examples of manager-less organizations, aka self-managing organizations. Edmondson and Lee discovered that these organizations have a formal system for a radical decentralization of authorization that spans the entire organization. Unsurprisingly, these organizations approach the absence of middle management in different ways. In the time since Edmondson and Lee conducted their research, Zappos has brought back managers into the office. Valve, on the other hand, deals with internal challenges that having “no managers” was supposed to prevent. Only Morning Star still seems to live up to the ideals of “no middle management.” It would seem that all that glitters isn’t gold.

In fairness, there are other examples of “no middle management” organizations such as Buurtzog and W. L. Gore, but as I mentioned earlier, the successful examples are few and far between. The data (or lack of it) makes it obvious (at least to me) that eliminating middle management is not as simple as people would want us to believe. (I would go as far as to suggest that if you desire an organization with no middle management, you need to start the organization that way, just like Morning Star did.) I think it is fair to suggest that the larger the organization, the harder it is to operate without middle management. 

I often wonder why we would assume that everyone desires to work in a “no middle management” organization. Says who? It’s an intellectual jump to suggest that because I would thrive in such an environment, the person across the hall would as well. We need to show restraint in making such leaps and ask better questions such as “who would thrive in such an environment?” We also need to conduct more research to provide us with actionable evidence. Intelligent guesses and anecdotes are not enough to make grand proclamations about what we think might be the best way to structure our organizations. If anyone has empirical evidence that backs this assertion, please share.

Then again, what about context? I mean, does having “no managers” excel in all work situations? I work in technology, so I look for examples from my industry that I could potentially follow. “No managers” did not seem to work well for Google, Buffer, and GitHub—these firms all brought back managers after a while. Could there be something about the messiness (cf Russell Ackoff) of certain work environments that require managers? For those shouting “no managers” from the hilltops, what do you have to say about these tech darlings? A typical response to inquiries such as mine is “they don’t know what they are doing.” Another response is that the exceptions prove the rule. Let me remind us that when we choose particular examples to focus on and dismiss all other significant evidence, we are most likely dabbling in pseudoscience.

In my previous article on hierarchy, I made the case that our challenge is with people (and not with hierarchy). I want to revisit that novel (not) idea. Middle management is not the problem; ill-equipped and unqualified managers are. An alternative to “firing all managers” might be “hiring and developing competent managers.” What do executives need to do to make sure this happens? Here are some thoughts.

• Take an honest look at yourself in the mirror, dear executive. What behaviors are you rewarding? Are you the reason that middle management comes across as oppressive and restrictive? In my experience, it (most often) starts with executives. But if you’re not one of those executives, read on.
• Don’t simply place people in managerial positions because they excel technically. The job requirements are different.
• Provide managers with development and training opportunities that will help them become more proficient in their jobs.
• Evaluate managers based on their ability to facilitate productive working conditions and develop their teams.
• Fire managers who have no desire to improve. Do not look the other way when you see unethical behavior and a lack of morality.

I have had the privilege to work with managers who supported me and made it easier for me to do my job. They removed distractions and allowed me to focus on my role’s high-value activities. They coached and counseled me when I needed it. I know firsthand that middle managers do not have to mistreat employees and stifle innovation and creativity.

And yet someone will read the previous paragraph and declare that managers who support their teams are not managers; instead, they are leaders. The leader-manager distinction is a waste of time in the 21st century. Certain people would have us believe managers are inherently oppressive, and succeeding as a manager means making life miserable for others. Nonsense! The manager's job is a middle management position focused on immediate and near-term execution and delivery. It is a tough job—navigating the demands of team members and executives is easier said than done. Some research even suggests middle managers are the unhappiest employees in the organization! I was a former middle manager. I know how difficult that job is. And yet, how an individual in a middle management position performs their job depends on their values and their workplace’s values. You are not condemned to sucking the life out of your teams because you are a manager. You can choose what impact you want to have on those you work with.

The concept of “no middle management” organization intrigues me. I encourage everyone to stay abreast of the latest findings in this area. Maybe we are headed to a time when “no middle management” is the order of the day. Maybe. However, while we continue to learn on that front, there is a lot we can do to improve how middle managers lead right now. Firing managers is not the only option. In fact, it might be a wrong (and dangerous) option for your organization.