The Moral Dilemma of Middle Management, Research Paper Example

Introduction 

Various business scandals germinate as a result of ethics violations committed by executives from upper-level management. When running small businesses, it is a natural tendency for ethics guidance to focus primarily on top executives. However, middle managers play an integral role in maintaining ethical company practices. Middle managers must understand that ethical considerations always supersede legal ones. Even if the law does not mandate certain actions or precautions, it is the obligation of the middle manager to follow ethical protocol (Johnston, 2008). Often, middle managers most frequently deal with issues related to hiring practices for a specific department or office; handling various vendors; devising and completing deal with important clients; and meticulously reporting any and all violations related to safety and health codes (Johnston, 2008).  Middle managers must always err on the side of ethics when confronted by a quandary rather than carrying out the minimum stipulations mandated by the law. Ethical quandaries inhere in the decisions made by middle management. As such, managers cannot treat ethics as a crisis that transpires occasionally but rather as a quotidian aspect of conducting business. Higher level executives cannot solely be charged with the responsibility for making ethical rulings. Middle managers thus must be prepared to weigh options with regards to business decisions and choose the more ethical one. By strengthening their own virtues, trusting their own values, and aligning their personal value system with the values of the company or organization, middle managers maintain a sound position for ethical decision making without compromising their own integrity, thereby providing meaningful contributions to the organization.

In the age of globalization and technological advancement, the workplace has dramatically shifted, and the intentions of employees must constantly be questioned because of their desire to enhance their own marketability in order to move up. Middle management jobs have become increasingly demanding, as technology has created many situations in which middle managers are forced to multitask while remaining accessible to business employees. However, they often do not get credited for fulfilling herculean tasks while maintaining company ethics and integrity.  Businesses must establish ethical standards for middle managers to refer to in order to make business decisions within certain parameters. It is impossible to anticipate every ethical dilemma that might arise, but identifying certain quandaries and training middle managers to remain cognizant of a vast array of ethical principles within the business world facilitates the efforts of middle management to maintain ethical compliance. Established standards are never universal, so middle management should consist of individuals who are very self-aware, astute, and retain the capacity to imagine ramifications for various actions as they are conducted. Middle managers should only take actions that they believe that disinterested professionals would approve of. They retain the power to promote ethical sensitivity by intermittently discussing recent ethical quandaries they have faced with their peers. Such discussions should never be judgmental rants or dialogue about any actions taken but rather an examination of the obstacles and difficulties that middle managers face during their decision-making process. Such periodic discussions help middle managers promote ethical sensitivity within the workplace, thereby mitigating future ethical problems and dilemmas from materializing

Literature Review: The Role of Middle Managers 

In larger organizations, middle managers are typically embedded between lower management and upper management, which exposes them to pressures from above and from below. As a result, middle managers face various ethical dilemmas during their decision-making process. Effective middle managers therefore require experience, skills, and knowledge to balance conflicting forces, maintain their own integrity, and to carry out all organizational objectives. Middle managers must always be available to the staffers, which often requires constant meetings and traveling. They must answer to top executives while also shouldering the responsibility of direct reports’ actions. Poor employee performance directly reflects the efficacy of management. Renowned management expert Henry Mintzberg has argued that the work of a manager can be categorized into ten common roles that fall into three distinct categories: informational, or managing via information; interpersonal, or managing through people; and decisional, or managing through action. Middle managers must exhibit the capacity to manage employees using all three types in order to effective implement a company’s strategy. The duties of a middle manager include fomenting an effective working environment; ensuring that the work process they are administrating complies with the requirements of an organization; effectively leading employees; and reporting to upper management (Zhang et al., 2008). Understanding the competencies and role of the middle manager in an organization is crucial to fully comprehending the dilemmas and pressures they face on a quotidian basis.

As the link between lower levels of an organization and senior management, middle managers are charged with the duty to report valuable information because of their active involvement in the quotidian running of the company. Furthermore, they have an insider’s perception of the organization and thus can make meaningful suggestions to improve company efficiency (Likert, 1961). In addition, the middle manager functions as the channel of communication within a company, which means that they inform top executives of major decisions made while conveying the main goals and strategy of an organization to lower-level employees. This system promotes efficient coordination amongst workers and unites an organization on a strategic level. Implementing the company strategy devised at the executive level in an efficient manner thus remains the primary responsibility of middle management. To reach target goals, managers retain the power to adjust strategy and goals (Floyd, 1992). Middle managers also retain a technical function in which they must facilitate any and all changes needed in an organization in order to foment a better and more effective working environment. Within this function, middle managers monitor work performance, administer quotidian company routines, and ensure compliance with the needs of the organization. Strategic functions also figure largely in the role of middle managers in organizations, which involve analyzing the productivity and financial efficacy of employees and creating strategies to improve on organizational performance.

While the technical and strategic functions are of paramount importance for middle management, survey results attest to the perception that the human resources function of middle managing is critical to governing organizational behavior. Motivating, inspiring, and leading subordinate employees is an integral component for organizational efficacy. Supporting employees and building a team of hardworking and trustworthy employees is a function of middle management that is often overlooked. Effective leadership is a competency that involves various skills, which is why middle managers must intrinsically be a leader through persuasion and the ability to make sensible decisions. Doing so makes them a role model to employees by exhibiting the level and quality of work productivity and contribution that organizations depend on in order to develop from within (Zhang et al., 2008).  Middle managers as decision makers must retain the capacity to solve problems in a celeritous manner and under pressure, always ready to take full responsibility. They must maintain a clear and coherent understanding of how to implement company strategy while being creative in efforts to overcome any issues or difficulties when confronted with them.

As modern exigencies have resulted in the anachronistic connotation of the phrase “company loyalty,” middle managers struggle to exhibit any tangible skills with regards to their capacity to motivate employees and deal with problems or conflicts. Middle managers thus struggle with marketing their leaderships skills, which has resulted in the waning desirability to become one within the business world. The importance of middle managers within businesses lies in the domain of ethics, yet middle management remains less desirable for consultants and aspiring business leaders. The workplace currently faces problems regarding middle management because middle management has developed into a deplored niche within business organizations. This problem looms large as members of the baby boomer generation increasingly enter retirement, leaving companies and businesses eagerly searching for effective and ethical leadership (Armour, 2007). As a result, companies like IBM are creating special programs within the middle management sector in order to glamourize middle management jobs. Other companies have found certain ways to give middle managers the same perks and flexibility enjoyed by upper management. According to Tulgan (2007), people remain wary of middle management because of the perception that middle managers get stuck in that position. All of the pressures of running an effective business are placed on mid-level leaders who are responsible for the logistical and ethical components of business management. Studies attest to this waning interest in middle management and escalating levels of dissatisfaction among individuals who hold mid-level positions. One survey conducted by Accenture, a business management consulting and outsourcing company, demonstrates that only four out of every ten managers expressed satisfaction working as middle managers for their employers. Approximately 25% of people searching for new jobs articulated that their desire to find a new job spawned from the lack of prospects for any advancement. 43% of the mid-level managers polled believed that they shouldered the burdens of all the necessary work yet never got credited or compensated for it. The burdens associated with middle management positions fomented frustration among a third of the middle managers because their job disrupted work/life balance (Armour, 2007). Flexibility, or the lack thereof, retains a paramount place in discussions regarding organizational behavior.

In the business world, strategy is a facet of paramount importance as it is ubiquitous. The position of middle managers in a company profoundly impacts the corporate strategy of companies that are rendered multinational. Strategic management, which middle managers are charged with, are separated into two distinct functions: planning and implementation. Middle managers must use practices that combine supervisory responsibilities and the demands of implementing a business strategy.

Middle Management and Moral Dilemmas 

Middle managers face a litany of challenges to make the correct decision under dire circumstances that can impact the organization in a beneficial or adverse fashion. They require particular knowledge and strengths not to succumb to the “integrity-authority trap.” Furthermore, the dilemma has been further complicated in recent years by the destruction of the old psychological contract, a theory that describes the implicit conditions that defines the expectations that employers and employees have of one another. This theory further embraces the expectations of loyalty by the employers and job security of the employees. Unfortunately, this dilemma has been complicated by the job insecurity that undergirds the current economic market. Although the relationship between an employee and an employer is usually guided by formal contracts and government policies that set certain standards for fair treatment and a sound work environment, the psychological contract as an informal understanding between employers and employees retains currency in the workplace. Contingent by nature and constantly changing, the psychological contract and its various models have hitherto remained a pertinent facet of the workplace environment and specifically concerns certain inputs and outputs. Its violation within modern businesses have spawned a litany of probable outcomes that have wide ethical implications.

The psychological contracts differs substantially from any physical contract because it represents the notion of a trust or understanding that exists for employers and employees rather than a tangible legal document penned on a piece of paper. This concept germinated during the 1960s in the writings of organizational and behavioral theorists Edgar Schein and Chris Agyris. It has emerged as a trenchant and varied concept that can be interpreted and theorized in various manners. Central to the psychological contract is the idea that social relationships have always been retained unspecified duties and the distribution of unequal and incommensurate power resources (Blau, 1964). With regards to organizational analysis, constructions of social exchange are discussed by Argyris (1960) and Schein (1978). Argyris (1960) utilized the phrase “psychological work contract” to underscore the how embedded the power of perception is as  well as the values possessed by the individual and organization in relation to employment. These nascent conceptions assert that employment relationships are shaped by both economic and social exchanges. Levinson et al. (1962) further developed this concept by arguing that the psychological contract represented a handful of mutual expectations held by both parties, which governs the sacrosanct relationship between them. Schein (1978) states that these mutual expectations cover how much an employee is compensated; how much work must be performed; and an entire set of rights, privileges, and duties. Violations of the psychological contract result in employee dissatisfaction, labor unrest, and the alienation of workers. Conditions of employment, pay, and working hours all emerge as explicit issues then become viewed as negotiable when such violations occur rather than as tacit parts of the psychological agenda.

The violation of the psychological contract has become a ubiquitous feature of organizational behavior within the modern day. A violation is defined as the failure of one party to carry out one of its tacit obligations. By theory, contracts germinate under assumptions of fair dealing and good faith and depend on the promises each party makes to one another (MacNeil, 1985). As such, violations spawn enhanced and intense reactions because of its implications regarding codes of conduct, respect, and other kinds of behaviors. One example is when a worker feels disappointed when he or she is not compensated market wages promised to them for hard work done. Not getting paid what was promised induces anger and frustration, which erodes the trust and respect necessary for an effective employer-employee relationship. Middle managers are charged with leadership responsibilities and ensuring that ethical decisions are made in accordance to the psychological contract. Thus, the essential destruction of the psychological contract has resulted in middle managers facing various ethical dilemmas, especially as job insecurity continues to escalate.

Probable outcomes upon the breach of the psychological contract are manifold for both the employer and the employee. If an employee believes that the psychological contract has been breached, he or she react in a variety of ways, including: the voluntary termination of one’s contract, which is usually an employee’s last resort option; the articulation of grievances to middle management in order to attempt to restore trust and reduce losses; silence, or the willingness to accept that the contract has been breached yet hoping that the unfavorable circumstances will be ameliorated in the future; and/or the neglect of one’s duties and obligations in order to undermine the goals of the organization. Counterproductive behaviors such as theft or vandalism often ensue, which slows down the work of an organization tremendously. If an employer perceives of a contract breach, a variety of outcomes also exist. Most commonly, an employee would get fired, especially if they act in a way that undermines the strategies or mission of an organization. Employers can also verbally reprimand an employee who has failed to carry out his or her obligations. The most favored outcome by middle managers is degradation, which means that the employee is assigned to a lower-level job that is far more difficult yet yields the same pay. This reaction is designed to elicit an employee to voluntarily terminate his or her contract and exit the organization. Employees today have immense expectations of their employers, and, combined with increasing competition, these factors have resulted in the general disillusionment with the psychological contract. Steady promotion within an organization and lifetime employment no longer form the basis of a mutual understanding forged between employers and employees.

If the ethics and values of and organization are incompatible with a middle manager’s or employee’s ethics, the probability of that person remaining in that organization immensely decreases. Managers must align their ethics with the organization in a way that transcends the traditional interpretation of the psychological contract, which was mainly relational or transactional. Schneider (1987) posits that employees choose to put themselves in certain work situations, which makes them responsible for the work environment that is fomented since the work environment is a product of the choices made by employees and decisions made by middle managers. Moreover, Schneider (1987) argued that when an employee or manager believes that the organization’s values and ethics do not align with his or hers, that individual will voluntarily leave the organization. Ethical dissonance thus plays a formative role in work environment, strategy implementation, and middle management.

Controversies related to the behavior of high-profile business leaders and ministers have become common in the modern day. The study of ethics in business management has often been elided in various discourses and studies. Ethics in the public domain has come under the spotlight recently as a result of the lack of job security, the lack of trust in organizations by the public, and a decline in confidence in the government. Middle managers are mired in a complex organizational environment in which they must juggle various functions while navigating competing interests and obligations (Cooper, 1998: p. 244). Such an environment provides a fruitful site for ethical dilemmas to emerge. Fraud, corruption, illegal conduct, and other kinds of criminal activity have pervaded both the private and public sectors around the globe. Unethical behaviors unequivocally contribute to negative public perceptions of the business world, which is why middle managers are so crucial in dealing with ethical dilemmas. Middle managers are confronted by ethical dilemmas as they endeavor to make decisions based on competing values, beliefs, and principles. Ethical dilemmas arise when managers must render a decision regarding the choice of competing sets of values, usually in value-laden and complex contexts. These dilemmas do not just focus on right versus wrong but often involve “right versus right” (Kidder, 1995, p. 16). In addition, ethical dilemmas also germinate from options that appear equally attractive and can be judged as correct in certain situations. Within various contingencies and circumstances, it is often difficult for middle managers to discern what the correct or incorrect option is or whether an option is legal or illegal. As decision-makers, middle managers must take into account the forces and influences that affect them. Such a contingency approach take into account six key categories, including the governmental and legal environment; the work environment; the professional environment; the social environment; the individual environment; and the peer and family contingency. Risks and perceived consequences also impact a decision. The dynamic interdependence of these forces affects the nature of the decision that must be made.

The misuse of funds is a critical moral dilemma that middle managers often must deal with, as senior officials who receive public funds often try to conceal their activities. The middle manager must draw from his or her beliefs regarding ethical conduct from his or her professional training. As such, professional ethics becomes a cumbersome force on the decision rendered because public servants are expected to use public money in an ethically accountable and defensible manner. Stakeholders include taxpayers, government members, and public servants are affected by the use and misuse of public funds. Middle managers must decide whether or not they should take action in the case of the misuse of public revenue from the perspectives of possible conflicts. Conflicts include the necessity to respond to the government versus serving the best interests of the community; obeying the directives of supervisors versus fulfilling their own personal values; and following their professional ethics versus leaving the organization. Such a moral dilemma is multi-faceted and forces middle managers to remain cognizant of their own values while working in a demanding organizational environment.

Conclusions 

The path of middle managers within organizations is unequivocally very challenging, especially during an epoch in which job insecurity is at an all-time high. Middle managers must be able to balance their personal values and integrity and the necessity to keep the job with the standards of the organization. Middle managers can strengthen their own position by remaining cognizant of conflicting forces within an organization and aligning their own personal values with the values of the company. Doing so requires middle managers to have a clear and coherent understanding of the company goals and standards. The destruction of the traditional psychological contract has forced middle managers novel ways to create loyalty, trust, and commitment of employees to a company. Violations of the psychological contract are quite destructive to individuals, so middle managers and employees alike must avoid dilemmas by clearly articulating their expectations of each other. Furthermore, employers must become trustworthy to their employees by making the right  decisions in moral dilemmas. Pinpointing issues within the organization and assessing how a decision may affect the company at the micro and macro levels by applying ethical reasoning are hallmarks of an effective middle manager who never compromises his or her personal integrity.

References 

Aucoin, P. (1989). Middle managers. Institute of Public Administration of Canada.

Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organisational behaviour . Homewood, Illinois:Dorsey Press

Armour, S. (2007). Who wants to be a middle manager? Usatoday. Retrieved August 25, 2015 from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2007-08-12-no-manage_N.htm

Hanson, K. (2008). Ethics and the middle manager: Creating “tone in the middle.” Santa Clara University. Retrieved August 25, 2015 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/business/middle-managers.html

Huczynski, A.A. & Buchanan, D.A. (). Organizational behavior. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Levinson, H., Price, C.R., Munden, K.J. and Solley, C.M. (1962). Men, management and mental health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

MacNeil, I.R. (1985). Relational contract: What we do and what we do not know.Wisconsin Law Review, 483-525.

Matusik, S. and Hill, C. (1998). The utilization of contingent work, knowledge creation,and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 680-697.

Rousseau, D. (2001). Schema, promises and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract.  Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 74,511-542

Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Schein, E.H. (1965). Organizational psychology. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs

Tulgan, B. (2007). Its OKAY to be the boss. United States: Harper Collins.

Von Hippel, C., Mangum, S., Greenberger, D., Heneman, R. and Skoglind, J. (1997).Temporary employment: can organizations and employees both win? Academy of Management Executive, 11, 93-104.

Wooldridge, B., Schmidt, T., & Floyd, S.W. (2008). The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1190-1221.

Zhang, A. Y, Tsui, A.S., Song, L.J., Li, C. & Jia, L. (2008). How do I trust thee? The employee?organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the organization. Human Resource Management, 47(1), 111–132.