How Middle Managers Can Help Employees Cope With Crisis

One of the big problems with HR policies is that they are largely based on the idea that most employees want the same things from work. Back in the old paternalistic days, this translated into a reasonable wage for a reasonable working week, paid holidays, some sort of pension scheme and perhaps a subsidised canteen. As time has moved on, things have become rather more complex, with employers offering steadily more perks, from on-site gyms and table tennis tables to all sorts of health benefits, in an effort to win out in what they were convinced was a “war for talent.”

But the enforced changes to working practices brought about by the pandemic have demonstrated that not even this range of offerings is enough to satisfy everybody. Once employers were forced to confront the fact that employees really do have personal lives — generally manifesting themselves as responsibilities that are hard enough to juggle with ever-increasing workloads in normal times, let alone when children are not in school and childcare is closed or when ageing relatives need help — it became clear that whether a benefit looks attractive depends on your circumstances. As those employers that have introduced “cafeteria” schemes, whereby staff can choose from a “menu” of options, have already acknowledged, a pension scheme looks a lot less appealing than extra vacation days when you are under 30 (even though responsible employers should probably stress the benefits of starting savings plans early). Meanwhile, pool tables and gyms are more likely to be favoured by those who do not have to squeeze in time at work around other facets of their lives.

Now, though, it appears that such policies do not go nearly far enough. According to research published earlier this month in the MIT Sloan Management Review, employees are also looking for individual treatment from their managers, especially in difficult times such as those in which we find ourselves today. Some might discount this as more evidence of the younger generation’s concern with self. But there might be more to it than doubters think. Do we not, after all, frequently commend sports coaches for finding out ways of bringing out the best in different players? And should we not also welcome ideas that might help the middle managers who — while being the butt of so many jokes and being portrayed as the villains in organizational charts — increasingly bear the brunt of handling the profound changes occurring in the modern workplace? As Kristine W. Powers, a doctoral student at Claremont Graduate University and coauthor of the article “What Employees Want Most in Uncertain Times”, said in a press release, existing research on leadership tended to focus on organisation-wide strategies that applied to senior executives and left direct managers with little guidance on how to support employees.

The problem was exacerbated by the fact that, while Powers and her co-author, Jessica B.B. Diaz, an assistant professor at Claremont, identified five categories of needs and ways managers could support workers, they also found numerous additional sub-needs. And many of these seemed to be at odds with each other. As the article says, “For example, some respondents in our sample said they desire a leader who will ‘communicate their fears,’ whereas others want a leader who will ‘stay calm and not panic.’ Employees also diverge in job structure needs during uncertainty — some want clear expectations and direction, while others want more autonomy and independence.”

In addition, the study found that employees disagreed on what constituted effective communication in times of crisis. “Some want frequent and transparent communication, even when this means the message may change. Others want only communication that is consistent and accurate,” write Powers and Diaz.

Clearly, the approach is no easy fix. And the authors also point out that often managers will disappoint those for whom they are responsible by not knowing the answers to their questions or being unable to guarantee that there will not, for example, be store closures or lay-offs. But they can help their employees through the difficult times through paying attention to five key, but not altogether surprising, themes. They centre on information, support, communication, leadership and resources. While suggesting evidence-based strategies for addressing these needs, Powers and Diaz go further and encourage leaders to develop two key behaviors — trust and what is termed “individualized consideration,” which involves varying their management approach from employee to employee.

This sounds completely foreign to modern HR practices, where there are policies and protocols for everything. But it sounds a lot like that time-honored concept of “different strokes for different folks,” which, as has already been noted, is used to great effect by many a sports coach. The two behaviors are deeply entwined because — as the authors explain — treating employees as individuals in this way can be an extremely effective strategy for direct managers rather than their more remote superiors, provided there is trust.

Not that this appears from nowhere. Rather, it grows out of the confidence an employee has in their manager’s integrity, care and capability. Moreover, employees' experience of uncertainty can depend on how much trust their managers have been able to establish long before a crisis appears. And Powers and Diaz point to other research demonstrating that in times of crisis, individuals revert to pre-crisis orientations and beliefs about their manager’s trustworthiness. They conclude: “Though crises are, by definition, unexpected, effective managers can and should prepare for them. Practicing individualized consideration and developing trusting relationships can help employees cope with uncertainty, both now and in the future.”