Shi et al. (2009), Journal of Management

The Role of Middle Management in the Strategy Process: Group Affiliation, Structural Holes, and Tertius Iungens

The authors argue that middle managers broker between groups in eight different ways, each serving different strategic goals, and that bridging gaps between unconnected people is not always the smart move.

Parts of the Loop it informs

Start it close to the workMixed

Read the original paper

Summary written by Unfrozen from the published abstract, then checked twice by independent AI reviewers against the source. Loop coding is exploratory and AI-assisted, pending human verification. Spot an error? Email info@unfreeze.us and it gets fixed.

Questions this study helps answer

What the research saysDo middle managers' networks matter for change?

Related studies

Huy (2011)In a three-year case at a large tech firm, executives treating strategy as a purely task-focused job unintentionally stirred middle managers' group identities around tenure and language; the resulting emotions saw managers, even ones executives promoted, back or quietly brush off an initiative.Logan & Ganster (2007)At a large trucking company, a randomized empowerment program raised unit managers' sense of control only where they felt their own bosses backed them, and it also lifted their units' measured performance.Huy et al. (2014)Over three years of a radical change, middle managers went from supporting their top leaders to mutiny as they reassessed whether those leaders were legitimate, and their emotional reactions fed rising resistance.Kellogg (2009)In two hospitals answering new regulation, top managers backed new programs, but using them could require junior staff to challenge middle managers with opposing interests; change hinged on spaces where reform-minded middle managers and staff could band together.