Middle integration

In an earlier article I wrote about the tearing conditions of “Middle space” in organisations and detrimental impact it so often has on individuals and organisation effectiveness. Based on the work of Systems thinker, Barry Oshry, I introduced the notion of “Middleness” as an organisational disease that deserves our attention. I summarized the predictable symptoms of Middleness with my focus being on the personal experience of an individual Middle manager. In this second reflection on “Middleness”, I want to focus on the collective experience of Middle leaders as they cope with Middleness.

Working with organisations to develop both personal and collective leadership I have noticed a familiar pattern - a point of creative tension, perhaps midway through a programme, where individual participant frustrations seem heightened. They see new possibilities more clearly for themselves, they want to step up as their leaders are inviting them to do, but they feel powerless to do so. As they share these frustrations with peers they realise, somewhat to their surprise, that they have more in common with one another than they had thought possible. They share a desire to do something about commonly experienced frustrations and a growing possibility that they might have collective power and influence. In this exciting moment, they are at the start of a challenging but potentially hugely rewarding journey to shared system leadership.

I wonder if you have had a similar experience?

For me, it is exciting because in these moments I see the possibility that participants might be about to do something about their “ Middleness”.

Middleness “infects” both individuals and groups.

As if Middle space wasn’t hard enough from a personal perspective, Middle peers have a unique collective contribution to make to a healthy and productive organisation. Their unique systemic role is their collective integration of the varied system parts. They can enhance the transfer of information, influence alignment and consistency and help Tops and front line staff to adjust to each other’s requirements. I heard a phrase recently, I wish I could attribute it fully, it was along the lines of “This is the difference between IQ and WeQ”.

Unfortunately, not many Middles discover their unique collective system power. Most Middles see themselves solely as the guardian of their local function or unit. They lead specific units performing independently. This means they ignore their vital roles as System Integrators.

What prevents them from performing this vital system role is another symptom of the Middleness - alienation.

Because Middle leaders are coping with the tearing conditions of middle space and all the symptoms of the Middleness mentioned above, they understandably tend to focus on their piece of the organisation. This orientation pulls groups of Middle peers away from one another and over time and unintentionally they become more isolated from one another. As this persists they have less and less to do with one another and it becomes harder to see that there might be value in coming together. This Alienation means Middle leaders seldom see a need to collaborate, in fact, they might even distrust one another, feel they have little in common, may even be competing for opportunity, attention and resources.

There are significant organisational consequences of this alienation.

For example:

• Missing potential synergies.

• Reinventing wheels.

• Overburdened Tops, who get sucked down into fixing things that a connected group of Middles should.

• Lack of consistency for people and processes.

• Inconsistent Information flows.

To fulfil the system role of Integrators Middles need to find ways to both attend to their own areas (disperse) and to integrate, to come together to explore shared and collective ways of influencing the organisation.

Integration provides for a collective space that increases harmony with other Middles (Tops too) thereby contributing systemically to the organisations broader interests. Integration is a function of Middles venturing outside their unit obligations to connect as collaborative, systemically focused peers. Few organisations or Middles operate here – perhaps a few have considered it – yet it is in this integrative space that Middles often find their true power.

Integration is difficult when:

• Middles are hired and rewarded as individuals

• Tops are resistant to or wary of independent Middle groups

• Tops themselves are giving unclear or inconsistent messages to Middles.

• Middles identify themselves more strongly with the units they serve than they do to the system as a whole

Glimpses of Integration:

• Middles meet with one another, excluding all others (including their bosses - as meetings with bosses tend to heighten competitiveness, suppress openness and promote dependence.)

• Middles share the intelligence they have gathered while attending to their parts of the system.

• Middles may choose to integrate at high or low levels of commitment to one another. The higher the level of integration, the greater potential for individual and system power.

• Middles openly expect support and consistency from their peers.

• Middles gain strength from both diffusing and integration. The more strongly they integrate, the more power they have to attend to their unit servicing and managing functions.

In my experience, Middle integration is most effective when it is in service of a compelling shared mission and purpose. For Middles to serve their organisations as an integrated body. When I work with middle leaders this is often where we start. (Tops tend to be less threatened and more accommodating of Middle integration when they can support a clear integrating purpose.) In reality, Middle groups often are waiting for Tops to tell them what to focus on. I understand this, but there is a danger of falling into a “permission trap”. Maybe Tops are so busy, confused and overwhelmed themselves that they need Middles to see what needs doing and do it …. to be Tops themselves.

With an emerging shared vision for integration, I invite them to explore their levels of integration, current reality and to plan for achieving the level they desire.

Levels of Middle Integration (summary)

Level 0: No Integration

Level 1: Information sharing

Level 2: Assimilating Information

Level 3: Mutual consultation

Level 4: Joint Planning and strategising

Level 5: Power Bloc – exercising collective influence.

In an article published in HBR, 22nd March 2017, “Why being a Middle Manager is so exhausting”, Messrs.’ Ancich and Hirsch thoughtfully explore the unhelpful efficiency and health impacts of Middle roles. Amongst their recommendations to ease the burden of Middle roles they offer “Create a role where managers see themselves as important to this company” (not just their part of the system) and they endorse Tops: “don’t micromanage, put your strategic input to Middle Management then allow them the freedom to implement those strategies…”

Middles who don’t view their problems systemically and fail to integrate tend to lead stressful lives, feeling isolated, unsupported, and torn with conflicting demands between Tops and Bottoms. They may feel undermined by their peers and may please no one by trying to please everyone. Regularly, they become caught in a middle space that threatens to pull them apart vertically and laterally. This is “Middleness” playing out.

So what?

I want to raise awareness of our vulnerability to predictable, but so often unseen, unproductive systemic dynamics of which “Middleness” is one. (Topness could follow; “Bottomness” was the topic of an earlier article).

So, now I invite you to turn on your middleness radars. See what you notice. What could happen in your organisation if you:

• Created a powerful and compelling mission for integrating Middles?

• Made integration meetings sacred commitments?

• Enabled Middles to meet without Tops, but kept Tops informed? Which Tops might be resistant and need to be reassured?

• Included “integration” in job descriptions for Middles?

References:

Seeing Systems: Unlocking the Mysteries of Organizational Life. Author Barry Oshry. (Berrett – Koehler)

In The Middle - by Barry Oshry.

Why being a Middle Manager Is So Exhausting – Eric.M Anicich and Jacob Hirsch. Published in Harvard Business Review, March 22nd 2017.

Context, Context, Context – Barry Oshry. 2017. (Berrett- Koehler)