Cascading Change:

It’s Your Job; Even When You Do Not Like It

By Beth Schaefer

Because IPD launched a new experiential learning course in 2025 – Leading Teams through Change – I have been hyper-focused on change management.  Even though I do not teach the course, I visit with those who take the course, and I know that one of the most difficult parts of middle management is leading change when you do not agree with the change.

As a middle manager, you can:

1. initiate change (add a new project or team member)
2. have change bubble up from within your team (improved process or team member retirement)
3. have an external force generate change (a new law or a new large client)
4. have an internal force generate change (anything declared by organizational leadership)

During my conversations with those taking the course, middle managers tend to step up to manage the change from the first three items, but the fourth item tends to be viewed as someone else’s problem.  If the organization decides to:

• return to office
• cut the budget
• move to a new location
• merge us with another department
• implement new software

then the organization needs to manage that change, not me. They thought it was a good idea; they can figure it out.

I understand the frustration because this is a classic “in the middle” dilemma.  On one hand, you are responsible for the results from your team, and on the other hand, you do not want to feel like a phony person pretending to cheerlead an effort that you do not value or you think is just plain wrong.  How do you maintain credibility with your team, and yet be a team player for the organization?  It is one of the most difficult lines to walk as a middle manager.

Middle Managers are responsible for cascading change. This is my term for helping lead change that is declared by those above you in the organization.  The trick as a middle manager is to perform your job by helping the change cascade down from the CEO’s office (to the VP’s office, to your boss’s office, to your team), and do to it well while avoiding being viewed as a lackey.  You need to do manage the cascading change in an authentic way – even when you disagree with the decision.

Cascading Change – It’s Not Easy

Of course, many of the statements I have made on how change works are part of the ideal workplace situation.  And, I know that is not always the case. As a middle manager, you can do all the “right” things, but still find yourself and your team in an ongoing bad situation.

Yes, cascading change is easier said than done.  So, here is where I do the shameless plug…take Leading Teams through Change if you need tools to manage change (whether you agree with the change or not) for yourself and your team.

Why Do I Bother with Performance Evaluations?

By Beth Schaefer

When I started talking with Middle Managers for this Middle Management Series, performance evaluations (by far) generated the most frustration.  The cause of the frustration was generated differently based on whether or not employees were in labor unions or reward-based positions; however, both groups mostly found time spent doing annual performance evaluations a waste of time.

Your past experience provides context for your current lens.  My past experiences with consistent annual performance evaluations does not equate to improving my work performance. In a previous role, my boss had me complete my own annual evaluation.  And let me tell you, I was a fabulous employee!  Each year I was sent the same form, and each year I changed the date and submitted the exact same evaluation – still fab-u-lous – every time.  If the organization wanted something in my personnel file that found me less than stellar, they would need to write that evaluation themselves.

My experience causes me to ask the following questions on behalf of all Middle Managers.

Are Performance Evaluations Important and Urgent?

I have discussed Covey Quadrants in the past.  Tasks can be important or urgent or both urgent and important.  For me, performance evaluations are neither urgent nor important, and that is what, for me, makes them a waste of time. Since my staff reads these articles (or at least they say they do), I need to be authentic in saying that I am constantly behind on getting their annual performance evaluations completed.

Not Urgent

My staff belong to labor unions.  Raises in their compensation are related to the negotiated labor union agreements and are unrelated to their annual performance reviews.  Therefore, they are not penalized by my lag in completing performance reviews.

Urgent

For some Middle Managers, their annual performance evaluations do affect the compensation of their team.  Ensuring that your team receives raises in a timely manner should make performance evaluations urgent.

Not important

For decades, research indicates that waiting until an annual performance review to address poor performance does not help fix performance issues.  In fact, it can lead to the employee being resentful that they had an unfavorable behavior for months without anyone helping them correct it. The same research also indicates that waiting to highlight quality work at the annual performance review does not lead to employee satisfaction.  To have a positive workplace culture, people want praise that is specific and timely.

Important

For some workers, they need positive ratings on their performance evaluations to receive a raise or a promotion.  Middle Managers who have compensation tools to reward employees do find annual performance evaluations to be productive.

So, if there are organizations where annual performance evaluations are urgent AND important, why do Middle Managers indicate such frustration with them?

My conversations with Middle Managers indicate a bait and switch situation.

Annual Performance Evaluations are a process.   For me, a well-defined process has 3 parts: WHY am I doing it?  WHAT am I doing? And HOW do I do it?  And, this is where the disconnects between the task and the result are taking place.

Why Am I Doing This?

Since research says that performance review does not improve performance, the main purpose of a performance review is to reward high-performing employees.  The problem is that many Middle Managers are going through the process, trying to reward their high-performers and being told NO by the organization.

1. The organization says No raises or limits the money budgeted to raises which causes Middle Managers to tell their workers there is no reward for being a quality worker.
2. The organization’s raises are negotiated with the labor union and are unrelated to the performance review.

When annual performance reviews are unrelated to rewards, Middle Managers do not have a WHY to do this work. And, if a stellar review does not lead to more money in a merit-based reward environment, it can lead to your best workers seeking employment elsewhere.

What Am I Doing?

Most annual performance evaluations are completed with a form provided by their organization. My conversations with Middle Managers indicate that forms are consistent and standardized, which means they are hard to use for every, or even, any role.

1. Middle Managers are often writing in the margins and jerry-rigging the forms to get them to fit the work. They complete the performance review with their employee, but then spend more time going back and forth getting the forms completed rather than talking with the employee.
2. The completion of the form becomes the goal rather than the actual review. More and more, the forms (now web-based) have more boxes and checkmarks than space to write and truly describe the good work being done.
3. And, let’s not forget the annual goal-setting part of the form can be out-of-date about 8 weeks after being completed because businesses and business needs change so quickly.

The result is that Middle Managers dread the WHAT that is required by the organization when it comes to performance reviews.

How do I do this?

Conversations with Middle Managers also indicate that the unwritten rules of performance evaluations are an issue.  Often Middle Managers are verbally told evaluation constraints to adhere to that are not shared with employees.  Here are some fairly common unwritten rules.

1. An employee cannot receive all 5’s or all “excellents.”

Even if the employee is stellar, the Middle Manager is not allowed to provide a stellar review; they must find fault.  This strategy can lead to discouraged employees and reduced production – which is the opposite of what a performance review should accomplish.

2. Performance reviews should rank your team

Middle Managers are asked to do comparison reviews.  They are required to rank their team members against each other and provide reviews that reflect this ranking.  This pits teammates against one another and creates the appearance that the Middle Manager is incapable of coaxing exceptional work out of all their team members, or that they do not understand how to get a team to work together for excellence—the opposite of what is needed each day to accomplish work.

3. Your ratings are too high or too low.

Middle Managers rate their own team consistently, but then are told that ratings do not align with other managers in the organization.  They are directed to adjust them to be more in line with the ratings of others managers on evaluations they have never seen.  This leads to a mysterious process, and the mystery devalues the process.

The Evaluation Process can end up being a disruption to getting work done rather than encouraging work be completed on time with high quality.

Please fill out this form and share your best work-around for annual performance reviews: