Do we need Managers?
Hello,
How are you doing?
Recently, I was on The-Ken’s new workplace podcast - Cost to Company, talking about middle management - you can listen to my views here: https://the-ken.com/podcasts/cost-to-company/middle-management-is-silently-cracking/
Since, you are my kind reader, I thought just sharing the podcast with you would be unfair. I had to write down some of my detailed thoughts and also some suggestions to give you a fully rounded piece. Do read through and let me know if you think we need managers?
Thanks,
Nisha
***
Have you thought about this? The company - employee tug of war over returning to office is not really about the office. It is about freedom, space and trust. After two years (or more in some cases), everyone has secretly realised that the workplace is saddled with layers of hierarchy. This hierarchy was created to appease employees by showing them a fictitious growth curve, whereas the work always remained and still remains the same. Unfortunately, until the pandemic, none of us reflected on the workplace and its practices enough. It might be of interest for you to know that we have applied processes of the industrial era (between the 1700s to early 1900s) to the knowledge era of today without batting an eyelid. Suddenly now, it is dawning on us that we have to change and this change is so enormous that we either don't know where to start or we just brush it under the carpet.
I am sorry about the detour, I had to set context before sharing my thoughts on the real issue. That of the Manager. Loosely, a Manager is the evolution of the factory 'supervisor' who monitored people for getting a task done and producing a certain required output. In the industrial era, this concept might have made sense. Apply it to the knowledge era and you will wonder why adults and their outputs should be monitored. That is one part of the problem.
The second is this: as we worked remotely, layers and layers of hierarchy suddenly became flat. We could reach out to anyone in the company (mostly through Slack or a messaging tool) and they would respond. In such a scenario the role of the Manager became even more confusing.
Part three, was when a comparatively younger employee joined a new company (remotely). Not only did the onboarding leave them confused, in many cases, these young folks were not inducted into the company culture nor could they navigate their way through peer support, being new to the company. In many cases, these employees only communicated with their manager, who possibly only passed on their work to them, however, did not spend time talking about the larger picture of why the company exists and how their work matters.
To sum up, I am recapping the three scenarios above.
The concept of the Manager is a hand-me-down of the industrial era.
Managers are layers of a hierarchy that is suddenly becoming flat.
In many cases, Managers are middle people who only pass on work and orders.
Now, before I try and change your mind about why Managers should or should not exist or do we need them in their current avatars, let me say this. The function of Managers can continue to exist, it is the role that must change. By that I mean, yes, we do need more experienced colleagues who can guide us at work, what we do not want is a tag for those who believe their jobs end with people-management. Because, being a Manager is anything but managing people (although that is what we are given to understand). In its true sense and in the knowledge era, what we want from Managers is to be experts who have been-there and done-that and are yet open to newer ideas and ways of doing things that benefit the organisation and the people they work with.
For this to be fully ingrained, here are two scenarios I propose.
We rebrand the 'Manager': Instead of calling them Managers and sounding like we still live in the 1940s, how about we call them, ‘Mentors’. These are subject matter experts within the organisation, who have chosen to be people leaders (remember these are two distinct skill sets). They work with a set of people to guide them, ideate with them and continuously work towards producing better results and come up with newer ways of doing the same tasks. They do this not because they want to wield power, but they do it to genuinely impart knowledge (I like to be an idealist). They are paid for their expertise of making tasks simpler, working with large groups of people to improve their thinking power and most important to continuously innovate (not stagnate).
Introducing a new role of 'Remote Work Culture Officer': In a fully remote scenario, organisations lacked trust and employees lacked loyalty. When I was thinking about that, it struck me that a bridge between the organisation and employee was missing. Thereby, how about introducing a Remote Work Culture Office (RWCO) - or a bridge who is a combination of People Success, Brand builder and Communications expert who in addition to understanding their own function is capable of creating loyalty for the company and can bond with the team so that lack of trust is out of the question. Of course, the role will evolve, but is it a start to think of how a Manager’s role can be enhanced.
Also, one big responsibility of the Manager is performance reviews. In a setup that is honest and made up of well-meaning adults, reviews are more self assessments with feedback from peers. Eliminating a Manager here, might mean less bias (again, this is a theory that has to be tested out). Finally, you can argue that Managers are almost like hands and legs of the leadership - while I partially agree that a CEO cannot be leading every function, what I will say is this - it makes a stronger case for building more Mentors within the system who can help each team work better.
Who would you like to work with - a Manager or a Mentor?
Do tell me what you think.