????我們可以想象一下中層管理者所處的窘境：既要取悅老板，保證上令下達，完成財務(wù)指標(biāo)；還要為員工做績效評估，而員工業(yè)績評價往往是最棘手的工作；最后還要想方設(shè)法迎合千變?nèi)f化的工作目標(biāo)?，F(xiàn)在就來討論一下中層管理者如何在夾縫中生存。

????雖然中層管理者的工作量激增，但職位數(shù)量卻正在縮減。上個世紀(jì)90年代中期，許多公司決定削減中層管理者人數(shù)?！吨匦露x管理者》（Manager Redefined ）一書的作者、韜?；輴傋稍児荆═owers Watson）的顧問湯姆?達文波特和史蒂文?哈丁說，在1994年，經(jīng)理級員工只占員工總數(shù)的8%，但被裁掉的管理職位卻占裁員總數(shù)的18%。

????在許多公司，職責(zé)過重和時間匱乏導(dǎo)致很多中層管理者面臨著“不可能完成的工作任務(wù)”。與此同時，許多企業(yè)經(jīng)常將最佳員工提拔至管理崗位，卻無法保證這些“管理者”具有勝任該職位所必備的技能。

????根據(jù)2010年韜睿惠悅咨詢公司針對2萬名全球大型公司員工進行的研究報告，48%的受訪者稱，他們的頂頭上司在履行職責(zé)中面臨時間短缺問題，或者不具備應(yīng)有的管理技能，改進落后員工的工作表現(xiàn)。

????針對這一情況，達文波特和哈丁為中層管理者提出了幾項改良措施。達文波特說，最有效的管理方式是“后臺管理”。后臺管理著重“治理總體環(huán)境，而非具體的人員”。傳統(tǒng)的中層管理者在員工之間苦苦周旋，難免落入“微觀管理”的桎梏，且大多依靠獨裁和權(quán)威式的管理方法。

????后臺管理者更像是一位戲劇導(dǎo)演?！皩?dǎo)演創(chuàng)造一個良好的環(huán)境，而自身卻退居幕后，讓每個人在其中自由地發(fā)揮，”達文波特說。

????哈佛商學(xué)院（Harvard Business School）教授、《進步定律》（The Progress Principle）的合著者特麗莎?阿瑪貝爾說，中層管理者好比“夾心餅干”，他們處于高層管理與普通員工利益博弈的夾縫。

????阿瑪貝爾還說，最有效的中層管理者能夠制定清晰的目標(biāo)，闡明每位員工的工作價值，為共同的目標(biāo)服務(wù)；同時賦予員工自主權(quán)，提供必要的協(xié)助，幫助他們完成工作。

????過去，中層管理的主要作用是將高層管理人員的決策下達至下級員工，而過去二十年間發(fā)生的通信革命已極大地改變了中層管理者的這部分職能。

????與傳統(tǒng)的獨裁式管理者相比，“后臺管理者們”或許有更多的機會和員工進行交流，但這種交流是為了“創(chuàng)造更好的工作環(huán)境，培養(yǎng)員工的獨立工作能力”，達文波特說。

????Imagine the plight of the middle manager. She's trying to please her bosses, interpret their messages and convey them to her staff, meet financial targets, give consistently tricky performance reviews, and grapple with ever-changing goals. Talk about being caught in the middle.

????As middle managers' workloads have intensified, their ranks have dwindled. In the mid-1990s, many companies decided to lay off their middle managers. According to Manager Redefined by Towers Watson consultants Tom Davenport and Stephen D. Harding, cuts in supervisory positions in 1994 accounted for 18% of layoffs even though managers made up just 8% of the workforce.

????Overwhelmed by responsibilities, never having enough time to do the work, the middle manager's job at many companies became too complex for anyone to handle. At the same time, companies often promote their best performers to managerial roles, and there's no guarantee that these workers possessed the right skills to succeed.

????In a 2010 Towers Watson study of 20,000 global employees of large firms, 48% of the respondents said their immediate manager didn't have enough time to handle their responsibilities or possess the right skills to improve poor performers.

????In response, Davenport and Harding have proposed several changes in how middle managers should operate. Davenport describes the most effective style of leading as "offstage management." Offstage managers focus on "managing the environment, not the people." The old-fashioned manager hovered over the employee, often lapsed into micromanaging, operated autocratically and ruled by fear.

????The offstage manager operates more like a theatrical director. "The director creates an environment for everyone to succeed and then steps out of the way,"Davenport says.

????Teresa Amabile, a professor at Harvard Business School and co-author of The Progress Principle, says middle managers are in a "sandwich situation." They're squeezed between the interests of upper managers and employees.

????Amabile says the most effective middle managers provide clear goals and explain how individual efforts contribute to a purpose. They also give their staffers the autonomy and support to do their jobs.

????In the past, middle managers mainly served as tools for senior executives to pass along information to subordinates. The communications revolution at work over the past two decades has vastly changed that part of a manager's job.

????These offstage managers may have more contact with employees than the old-fashioned autocratic managers, but the communication "creates the circumstances for individuals to work with high independence," says Davenport.