A Global-Watch scientific interpretation by
Sabrina Pellerin, PhD candidate in Business Administration at the School of Management of the Université du Québec à Montréal.
Context
While there is much talk about the psychological health of non-managerial workers, the psychological health of their immediate superiors is much less often discussed. As the main drivers of their employees' attitudes and behaviours, first-level managers play a "sandwich role" that places them between strategic directions and operational imperatives. They act as transmission belts at the origin of collective work efforts.
However, the level of psychological distress among first-level managers (44.2%) exceeds that of middle managers (33.7%) and senior managers (30.8%) (Marchand, 2024). The scientific community has not yet specifically sought to understand why this is the case: current studies target different levels of management in a non-specific manner and mainly use generic theoretical models that do not allow for the specific characteristics of managers' work to be targeted.
So what are some possible explanations for these statistics? This is the question this article will seek to answer. The main findings of a doctoral thesis aimed at identifying risk factors specific to first-level managers will be presented. In particular, we will discuss paradoxical tensions and the psychological mechanisms linking them to psychological distress in order to better consider possible solutions.
When managers' psychological health comes to the table...
First-level managers are positioned between middle managers and the non-managerial employees for whom they are responsible (Hales, 2005). To account for the unique nature of their job, the concept of paradoxical tensions is used to identify "contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist" (Smith and Lewis, 2011, p. 382) in their role.
It is important to address the psychological distress of first-level managers, a painful psychological state that combines symptoms of anxiety and depression, as it could translate into abusive supervisory behaviour toward employees and be detrimental to the organization.
The methodological approach behind the results
The results presented are the outcome of doctoral research conducted in three complementary stages:
- Highlighting specific risk factors through a qualitative approach;
- Developing and validating measurement instruments;
- Testing hypotheses using quantitative data.
While the study design does not allow for the identification of causal relationships, it does provide an overview of possible risk factors for first-level managers.
What does the study reveal?
- There are paradoxical tensions specific to the work of first-level managers: these arise from the particular nature of their activities.
- Accountability-control conflict: Tension associated with the perceived contradiction between being held accountable for the results of one's unit (performance, problematic situations) and not having full control over employees (number, quality, behaviour, performance) or over possible means of action (instructions, management constraints).
- Role conflict (sandwich role): Tension arising from the perceived inability to satisfy the demands of management and employees simultaneously, i.e., to maximize both employee contribution (excessive workload, low monetary rewards) and employee well-being (reasonable workload and fair monetary rewards).
- Role overload: Tension arising from the perception of having too many demands to meet in one's role (personnel management and administrative management).
