Restructuring Middle Management

Organizational restructuring over the past two decades has stimulated considerable empirical interest in the changing roles and careers of middle management as a consequence (Dopson and Stewart 1990; Floyd and Wooldridge 1997; Dopson and Neumann 1998; Thomas and Linstead 2002; Linstead and Thomas 2002; Littler et al 2003; Sims 2003; Balogun and Johnson 2004). As organizations face increasing global competition, turbulent markets and rapid change, it is suggested that there is a need for organizational structures to become more flexible, flat, responsive and lean (Peters 1987; Kanter 1989a). Accordingly, the middle management cohort are restructured and re-formed, since they, rightly or wrongly, come to be perceived as the root cause of many of the problems associated with the traditional hierarchical organizational form — and an obstacle to change. Scarbrough and Burrell (1996: 178) suggest that middle managers have been accused of being: costly, resistant to change, a block to communication both upwards and downwards. They consistently underperform; they spend their time openly politicking rather than in constructive problem solving. They are reactionary, undertrained and regularly fail to act as entrepreneurs.