The environment created by formal organization, imperative leadership, and managerial control may not be suitable for employees. Behaviors that employees display in order to adapt to the environment are often at odds with management's wishes. In order to solve the problems that arise, management must respond in a certain way, and these reactions will intensify the antagonistic emotions of employees and reflect the needs of management to those employees who understand management needs and focus on management needs. Communication opposition creates barriers, and the result is the perception that two different worlds exist at the same time, the management world and the employee world. The invisible barrier between these two worlds makes a lot of sense for employees, preventing people from being aware of their informal activities, thereby reducing unnecessary embarrassment and conflict with management. As long as both parties are restrained in their own world, each other will not be harmed (psychological harm).
linker
The above logic may apply to employees and senior managers, but it does not apply to lower-level managers, because lower-level managers are the middle bridge. They need both the respect of their employees and the support of management. But can they do a good job if they hold different values?
The response of the grassroots managers is:
I can tell you one thing, and I hope you will remember that grassroots managers are a kind of "buffer column." The reason why grassroots managers are "buffer pillars" is that they are caught in the middle and have to withstand impacts from two directions, and the person in charge here has not praised them for this.
Another junior manager described the problem this way:
If you look deeper, the bottom line managers don't really have a say, they just want to keep everyone here happy. However, they also cannot report anything to management if they find that some practices are not in the best interests of all staff.
The situation of the lower-level managers:
Lower-level managers are responsible for collecting data and drafting reports, which their bosses in turn use to pressure them. As a result, they tire of drafting detailed written reports, which not only mean more work, but may incur more pressure from their bosses. In addition, they are aware of the problems with these data records (subordinate employees may change the reports), and they also know the importance of these reports, because they may be important decision-making basis.
Some lower-level managers are more sympathetic to their employees. In this case, there is a very friendly informal relationship between the grassroots managers and their groups. Generally, there is only one layer of estrangement between them, that is, the difference in identity, and the social distance between the grass-roots managers and the group is very close. Another feature is that the distance between grass-roots managers and department heads is large, and there is a great communication barrier between them. Of course the opposite is also possible. In the opposite case, employees feel that they must guard against lower-level managers, who they see as people who oppose them rather than support them. They take a variety of defensive actions: they pay special attention to their behavior in the presence of lower-level managers; they may also limit production without the knowledge of lower-level managers.
Lieberman confirmed that such conflicts do exist. He pointed out that when the relationship between management and employees is harmonious, lower-level managers who have served as employee representatives "are more likely to feel that they are in a conflicting environment than those who have not been employees' representatives. . However, if the harmony between employees and management is not very good, then lower-level managers who have served as employee representatives are more likely to perceive conflicts than those who have not been employees’ representatives.” Therefore, conflict is always There is only less conflict when the relationship between management and employees is harmonious.
"54% of the lower-level managers are distressed by the unclear authority, and 70% of the lower-level managers have more than one supervisor." In addition, nearly three-quarters of the lower-level managers reported that they felt that they were in "the devil on one side and the other on the other." is the abyss" dilemma.
The grass-roots managers are not only a member of the management group, but also a member of the employee group. The two groups are distinct and sometimes conflict with each other. This is not only a source of stress for lower-level managers, but also often a source of emotional conflict. This is the source of conflict that neither executives nor production workers encounter. The source of the conflict is that lower-level managers know they don't know what's going on, and they know they're in a position where they can't make clear judgments about their boss's actions, but one that allows them to be more accurate than others to judge the impact these actions will have on himself and his working group. Because the impact is often negative, they often fail when trying to persuade employees to follow through on these actions. They usually get buy-in from employees, but less so from management. Unlike executives, they cannot make accurate analytical judgments because of insufficient information; they are more like production workers, although they are usually willing to express their doubts about long-term effects to management. In addition, they also deal with some organizational problems, but in dealing with these problems more as management's "mistakes", rather than the inevitable result of the company's maintenance and development.
One of the consequences of the conflict of values between management and employees is that the lower-level managers, who act as the bridge between the two worlds, become "airbags."
The actual situation of the grass-roots managers may be as follows:
1. Lower-level managers know that the world of employees and the world of management are different.
2. Lower-level managers may feel:
(1) They neither belong to the world of management nor the world of employees.
(2) They belong to one of the worlds and not the other.
(3) They belong to both worlds at the same time.
3. Although they are responsible for the employee world, employees may not report all their activities to him (eg, setting quotas, spending time in the bathroom, slacking off at work, etc.).
4. Although they are a member of management, management may not tell about their own situation (for example, management's evaluation of them, possible salary increase, long-term technological innovation, etc.).
5. The grass-roots managers are not just an "air bag", they may also know nothing about some of the company's activities, especially some activities that have an important impact on the effective management of the company.
6. Lower-level managers may know and want to participate in certain activities of employees and management, but neither employee nor management have allowed them to participate. If these activities are very important to them, they will be very frustrated.
7. Management may allow lower-level managers, or sometimes employees, to request permission from lower-level managers to engage in certain informal activities that they know will be detrimental to management. At this time, if the grass-roots managers are loyal to the management, they will feel a dilemma.
8. Management may allow lower-level managers, or sometimes management, require lower-level managers to support certain activities that they know are not good for employees. At this point, if lower-level managers are loyal to their employees, they will be in a dilemma.
9. If the decisions of employees and management change rapidly, the lower-level managers will find it difficult to handle. For example, lower-level managers might complain, "I want management to be clear about our policy toward unions," or "These goddamn employees said what they wanted today and changed their minds tomorrow.
10. Lower-level managers are in a dilemma if management forces them to do the following:
(1) Cooperate with employees in activities that employees enjoy (eg, with employee representatives).
(2) Do not participate in an activity that the employee likes.
(3) Force employees to participate in activities they do not like.
(4) Force employees not to participate in favorite activities.
Kahn made a prediction on the factors that affect the conflict of grassroots managers:
1. When lower-level managers find that employees' expectations are aligned with management's expectations, they perceive their roles as fully aligned with those expectations.
2. When junior managers find that employees' expectations conflict with management's expectations, how they view their roles will depend on:
(1) Sensitivity to employees' attitudes.
(2) The degree of attention to subordinate issues.
(3) Awareness of factors that affect employee motivation.
(4) Views on the responsibilities of grass-roots managers established by management.
(5) Views on the requirements of the boss.
(6) Perceptions of employees' degree of agreement with their requirements.
The management's response to the "basic management problem" is:
1. Use inspirational speeches, bonuses, extra pay”, movies and magazines to “mold” lower-level managers into managers.
2. Hold banquets for lower-level managers.
3. Hold various forms of lower-level managers’ seminars In order to arouse their interest.
4. Further strengthen the leadership of "increasing vigilance", "keep the trend" and "strict control", and control employees more closely.
5. More emphasis on:
(1) The company's policies, rules and regulations.
(2) The company's cost system, wage system and production procedures.
(3) Theories of production control, cost control, quality control, working hours and action research.
(4) U.S. labor laws.
(5) Labor laws of the states where the company is located.
(6) Specific labor contracts.
(7) How to recruit, instruct and train new employees. (
8) How to handle and prevent lawsuits.
(9) How to improve safety conditions.
"Better leaders:
(1) How to correct employees' mistakes and maintain discipline.
(2) How to never get angry and always be "just".
(3) How to win cooperation from various characters.
(4) How to get along with employee representatives.
(5) In some companies, lower-level managers must know how to work better than employees.
The first 5 measures do little to solve the problem. Measures 1, 2, and 3 are an attempt to "compensate" for the dissatisfaction of lower-level managers; measures 4 and 5 basically put pressure on lower-level managers to improve their "lower-level management capabilities" in order to deal with (rather than eliminate) frustration. Under these measures, we can understand why lower-level managers say that speeches, magazines, banquets, small-scale seminars, security and legal training "do not have much use", but make them feel more pressure.
In dealing with the problems of grass-roots managers, the management has adopted similar methods and measures as dealing with employees' problems, which are all "persuasion", "pressure" and "training". The implicit assumption is that there are deficiencies in both lower-level managers and employees. As with the employee problem, management's response made the problem worse.
Now let's analyze the training problem. Research shows that lower-level managers do not perceive training as realistic and useful. Evidence suggests that such training does not contribute much to the actual performance of lower-level managers. In addition, there is evidence that lower-level managers may view training as a manifestation of management's disrespect for lower-level managers. The thinking logic of grassroots managers is as follows:
1. Management wants to give us leadership training, which means that management thinks we lack certain qualities that we should have as a leader.
2. We don't think we're missing anything, instead, it's the organization (boss or employee) that really needs to change.
3. Management believes that whatever knowledge we lack, it can be supplemented by training by specialists who have no practical management experience.
4. So we think it's a disrespect for us by the management.
Lower-level managers may respond by taking the following actions:
1. Attend training casually rather than seriously.
2. Listening without remembering takes pride in being able to quickly and massively forget what you heard.
3. Arguing with teachers in an attempt to "explode" the lack of validity and practicality of what teachers say, Lu.
4. Criticize training experts for not understanding the reality of the company.
5. Hostile to management because sending them here for training is an obvious implying that the training experts know more than they do.
6. Blame your problems on top management, budget, and sales, and think it's them who should be trained.
Even if the principles in the training are effective, because many lower-level managers are too busy solving production problems, they don't have time to think hard, let alone try them out. Even if they had time to apply these principles, most people would not do so because their supervisors were unable to adapt to the new changes in their behavior
For example, in the eyes of superiors, "good" grass-roots managers should have strict control over their subordinates, while experts demand relaxation of control in order to achieve effective leadership. In short, the management's response to the problems of lower-level managers does not fundamentally solve the problem, so it may cause lower-level managers to become more nervous.
The tension of the grass-roots managers may lead to:
1. Tensions intensified further.
2. suffer more setbacks and failures.
3. Conflicts between departments.
4. Conflicts between functional personnel and grassroots.
5. "Internalizing" stress.
As a result of formal organizational structures, imperative leadership, and managerial control, aloof, uninterested employees can only be led by aloof, uninterested, lower-level managers. It is important to stress that not all lower-level managers experience the same level of conflict and tension. Since the research is not widespread enough, the jury is still out. The above analysis lists possible factors that can create difficulties for lower-level managers.