The roles of middle managers: a paradoxical approach
(2013) HRM Workshop « Paradoxes and Tensions in HRM » — Location: Innsbruck, Austria (14.February.2013)
Files
GUILMOT_Therolesofmiddlemanagers_Aparadoxicalapproach.pdf
Closed Access - Adobe PDF
- 298.59 KB
Details
- Authors
- Abstract
- As organizational environments become more complex, it is now common for companies to simultaneously deal with competing demands (exploration-exploitation, stability-change, individual-collective, collaboration-control, etc.). Although choosing among competing tensions might seem convincing in the short term, Lewis (2000) argues that long-term sustainability requires organizations to consider these conflicting demands through a paradoxical lens. Despite the lack of conceptual clarity in this field, Smith and Lewis (2011) recently defined paradoxes as “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time”. As early theories were based on the notion that there is one best way, contemporary organizations must from now on deal with complexity, ambiguity and plurality. However, although a paradoxical approach may be beneficial on the long run, companies have to be aware that the juxtaposition of coexisting opposites intensifies experiences of tensions, challenging actors’ cognitive limits and demanding creative sensemaking. In particular, while middle managers are traditionally seen as mediators between the strategic sphere and the operating core (Balogun, 2003), it is not uncommon to see these actors faced with conflicting demands. The ambivalence of the place they occupy within the organization leads us to consider the paradoxical nature of their roles. Through an empirical study of 21 middle managers, this article seeks to identify the different roles of these actors and the potential tensions they induce. As middle managers’ roles are analyzed through an emergent perspective, we consider that these actors are capable of transcending and transfiguring their prescribed roles in order to adapt their behavior to the context in which they evolve. In line with Mantere (2008), our discussion of managers’ roles is not limited to roles expectations, but also accounts for roles enactment, which involves agency and context. Through the combination of documentary analysis, direct observation and 21 semi-structured interviews, this paper consists in identifying what are the paradoxes that middle managers face on a daily basis and how they manage to reconcile the extreme limits of these organizational paradoxes. More precisely, the paradoxes faced by middle managers are analyzed based on the four categories of paradoxes (performing, belonging, learning and organizing) proposed by Smith and Lewis (2011). To sum up, the aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, to examine how paradoxes present at the organizational level are reflected in middle managers’ roles. Secondly, to highlight how middle managers take advantage of their roles ambiguity to actively respond to these tensions.
- Affiliations
Louvain School of Management Strategy and Organisation Louvain School of Management Strategy and Organisation
Citations
Guilmot, N., & Vas, A. (2013). The roles of middle managers: a paradoxical approach. HRM Workshop « Paradoxes and Tensions in HRM », Innsbruck, Austria. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/201918