Why is Property Management so toxic? Weird staffing? Will it always be toxic?

The company I work for is going through major changes because a partner pulled out unexpectedly.

Because of that there was a decrease in budget resulting in some of the higher up corporate workers being terminated or laid off.

These "upper management" positions at the main office were basically self designed for property managers the CEO liked. If she liked them as managers she would invite them to the main office to work for her. Keep in mind these people do not work at any specific property or have a legitimate position vital to a property. They get titles like "Housing Supporter"

When the company lost part of it's budget these employees weren't considered essential because they weren't working at a property.

However since they laid off people the rest of the corporate workers have been extremely abusive and aggressive to the onsite property staff that are on the ground.

They're now trying to pick on onsite property staff on non issues to make it appear that their positions are still needed within the company.

We're under constant unwarranted scrutiny and they've managed to staff split us making us not trusting of our onsite coworkers.

There's so much finger pointing and fear going on because of this.

When I started this position this dynamic didn't exist and the upper management corporate workers kept a distance as their jobs were secure but since they're insecure currently it's a toxic dynamic.

Is this normal for property management?

I have heard of property managers having issues and pointing fingers but I have never experienced a situation where upper management had job insecurity and now they're trying to cross the barrier.

I'm so sorry you are dealing with this! There is a lot to pick apart here. If I were to help resolve this conflict or try to get to the bottom of the abrupt change in culture the first question I would ask is this:
Were these corporate employees involved in directly managing or communicating with property-level staff before the lay-offs?
Or was the job of acting as "liaison" between the property level employees and corporate the role of the individuals that were laid off?

I am not surprised to see a lack of activity on this post. I am leaning towards the viewpoint that it is not because folks did not see your inquiry, but that we are too afraid to respond with our name and face attached (lest we be further relegated to “troublemaker” in the industry). Understandably, you also remained anonymous, likely for the same reasons. Self-preservation, but not in a bad way. You are concerned with the changes taking place at work.

I have come back to this post multiple times and have been disciplining myself to come back when I can respond without too much of my own angst and displeasure with certain experiences within the multifamily industry, so that you may have a balanced reply to what appears to be a genuine question of concern.

That said…

Any time we involve humans there will be juvenile behaviors, toxic behaviors, poor sand-box manners. This is in all industries. However, I have noted it to be worse in multifamily. I am not certain if this is only my perception and because this is where I have been for the past 10 or so years. Or perhaps it seems amplified - but same as other industries - because of the sheer and utter ignorance to bite the hand that feeds you.

The income generated to be in business comes from the actual site - through rents, fees of various sources (pet fees, for example), amenities…and/or management fees if the company is a 3rd party manager. To not fully support site teams with regard, with honor, with dignity, with resources, with empathy - with any positive item of support and encouragement - is to weaken the source of income. Unless you have worked onsite, you have no real idea what site staff manages, endures, creates, withstands, holds up, doing damage control, producing real relationships - because we are humans offering “home and housing” to humans, thus, the need for the “human touch” for a better success.

Site teams must find the balance between business and “home” - as those who live in our communities do not focus, nor want to focus, that they are part of the owner’s plan to have increase and prosperity in their work. Residents are in need of “home” and yes, multifamily is a business, but it is a place of refuge and refreshment for humans. Skilled site teams are adept at keeping the policies and profit in focus, but also maintaining the aspects of home and community for residents. Those in corporate or elsewhere in the organization who would discourage and bombard site teams, for whatever method or motive, actually do themselves a large disservice and create more overall risk of further loss.

United we stand, divided we fall. A kingdom divided against itself will not stand. When any organization adopts or tolerates the “Us & Them” mentality, they have failed and will soon reap the rewards. For those who truly create team environments, healthy site teams, healthy corporate teams, healthy and productive engagement for ALL teams and departments? Well, they will outshine the competition in many ways and defeat the enemy of high-school antics and fear-based reactions.

Why would our competitor down the road need to talk our community down or have specials to out-bid our product while we self-destruct?

I'm so glad you took the time to reply to this post, Kalyn. I had been following it, as well, hoping others might chime in.

Since it showed up in the newsletter...

From my opinion, the disconnect here exists in all sorts of industries, so while I'd like to be able to say, "You won't find this kind of nonsense in IT," I would be lying so hard my pants would spontaneously catch fire. I have noticed three things in Property Management that might make it more susceptible to it, however: 1) _SO MANY_ middle managers. You have portfolio and regional and area and site and levels of directors that all have what are basically the same responsibilities and reporting requirements. 2) Promotion because of seniority or schmooze or even good work at a lower level -- not because of leadership or even because they would be good for those new positions. These two items make for job insecurity in those positions. 3) A reactive nature - we are often reacting to situations on site or legislative changes or even trends -- often not under our control, but it never helps with some vice president hears that "everyone's doing this" and sends it downhill when "this" isn't something appropriate or even feasible for your community.

I do despair sometimes that our Powers That Be don't understand exactly what we do, or what we run into, and don't understand how to adapt their priorities to work with us. I do think some people who have Power don't want to be seen "working with" someone in case there's credit at stake, knowing they have to produce something to stand out from the crowd. Fear leads to anger. As much as I'd like to train those folks (or reach them through therapy) imagine how much the corporate model is based on continuing that insecurity? "If they're scared they'll lose their jobs, they'll do whatever it takes to keep it." This is part of the movement to rethink work. It's not about people not WANTING to work, it's about making that work worthwhile.