Uncertainty, Contrariness and the Double‐bind: Middle Managers’ Reactions to Changing Contracts
| Date | 01 September 1998 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.9.s1.6 |
| Published date | 01 September 1998 |
| Author | Jean E. Neumann,Sue Dopson |
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES DO NOT FORM PART OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE
Comprehensive change in today’s organization
increasingly results in alterations to the informal
agreements that govern middle managers’ work-
ing lives. By virtue of their position located be-
tween the top and the line, middle managers find
themselves being expected to lead and/or imple-
ment changes regardless of their individual reac-
tions. Indeed, executives and senior managers
express surprise when middle managers feel neg-
ative about strategic change as if being positive is,
itself, part of a middle manager’s psychological
contract. This paper aims to improve understand-
ing about the nature of middle managers’ negat-
ive reactions to their changing working lives.
The problem
Researchers increasingly document the types of
comprehensive changes being initiated by execut-
ives and senior managers, as well as the environ-
mental pressures which motivate such changes.
In the context of these developments, middle
managers have become a focus of academic at-
tention. They have featured in debates spanning
human resource management, total quality man-
agement, business strategy and the changing
nature of managerial work.
Two themes of particular interest in research
on middle managers have been debates about the
extent to which middle management has a future
role, and descriptions of the effect of comprehen-
sive changes on the roles and responsibilities of
middle managers. Many such studies have been
published (for example, see Dopson and Stewart,
1990). However, little has been written from the
perspective of the middle manager about their
emotional reactions to these changes, nor about
the resulting consequences these reactions have
on both the middle manager and the success of
the organizational change.
It is more common to write about middle man-
agers as a major source of resistance to a variety
of changes (Neumann, 1989 and 1993/94). Three
typical organizational changes can be mentioned
briefly. Employee involvement and ‘empower-
ment’ programmes require middle managers to
delegate, to ‘coach’ and to ‘give up power’ to those
below them. Total quality management places
the methods and tools necessary to judge quality
British Journal of Management, Vol. 9, S53–S70 (1998)
Uncertainty, Contrariness and the
Double-bind: Middle Managers’
Reactions to Changing Contracts
Sue Dopson and Jean E. Neumann*
Templeton College, Kennington, Oxford OX1 5NY and *The Tavistock Institute, 30 Tabernacle Street,
London EC2A 4DD
This article describes the emerging changes in psychological contracts being experi-
enced by British middle managers in relation to their employing organizations, the
middle managers’ negative reactions to these changes and organizational responses to
such negativity. By analysing case studies of 16 organizations, a classification of changes
to five elements of the psychological contract are identified: knowledge, motivation,
goals and means, role behaviour and ethics. By analysing the semi-structured inter-
views of 37 middle managers, selected from a much larger database for their obvious
negative reactions, a continuum of such reactions is considered: uncertainty, contrari-
ness and double-bind. This consideration leads, then, to suggestions for further research.
©1998 British Academy of Management
To continue reading
Request your trial