Tech companies are aggressively reducing middle management roles
There’s a structural shift happening inside big tech. It’s not subtle. Meta, Shopify, Amazon, and Google have all moved fast, cutting layers of management that, frankly, slow things down. The logic is simple: get to the point. When there are too many managers managing managers, decisions don’t flow. Execution suffers. Speed collapses. That’s not how you build anything worthwhile.
Mark Zuckerberg officially called 2023 Meta’s “Year of Efficiency.” He made it clear to his team: too many managers create distance between ideas and execution. Tobias Lütke at Shopify pointed out that their ratio of individual contributors to managers had become, in his own words, “unhealthy.” That’s not just about overhead, it’s about output. Amazon’s Andy Jassy announced plans to change their ratio by 15% by early 2025. Google’s Sundar Pichai followed by targeting a 10% cut in manager roles. These aren’t minor adjustments. This is a direction.
These leaders are reallocating attention to the staff who actually build and ship. It’s a pivot back toward what some call “founder mode”, CEOs and executives involved at every level, hands-on. Paul Graham from Y Combinator summed it up: founder mode is about being close to the action. Not layers away from it.
But this isn’t just about CEOs wanting more control. It’s about removing friction. Fewer managers means fewer nodes in the chain where communication can break or stall. The upside? Faster product cycles. Faster fixes. Faster customer feedback. Reduced cost goes along with that, sure, but for most of these companies, cost is secondary to speed and control.
For business leaders, here’s the signal: this is not a short-term correction. It’s a recalibration of how companies scale. Teams run leaner. People closer to the tech have more control. Management is no longer a career path built on coordination alone, it’s a role that has to add specific, measurable value. Titles won’t save you if your presence slows down momentum.
According to 2023 U.S. labor data, nearly one-third of total layoffs were in managerial roles, up from 20% in 2018. That shift in itself speaks volumes. It reflects a shift in what’s considered essential. We’re entering a phase where execution speed and clarity of decision-making outweigh formal hierarchical structure.
If you’re running a company today, especially in tech, it’s worth asking: where is management enabling outcomes, and where is it just passing information sideways? Get honest about that, because the best are already making the cuts.
The flattening of organizational structures is a long-term trend
This isn’t a new idea. Management layers have been shrinking for decades. What’s changed now is the pace. We’re seeing tech companies move faster than ever to remove middle layers that no longer serve the product or the customer.
Between 1986 and 1998, research showed companies reduced the number of layers between CEOs and division heads by over 25%. At the same time, the number of direct reports to the CEO tripled. That shift allowed leaders to oversee more of the business directly, removing the space where unnecessary gatekeeping used to live. For a long time, though, many firms paused at that point, comfortable with a leaner form of traditional hierarchy.
But comfort has a cost. Google learned that the hard way in 2002 when they tried operating with no engineering managers. It didn’t work. Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin were soon overloaded with operational issues. There was no one to prioritize projects or communicate strategy down the line. They brought back management, but with clearer purpose: not to control, but to connect, guide, and unblock.
Still, the post-pandemic workspace, combined with the end of the zero-interest rate era, changed the equation. Capital got more expensive, and headcount started weighing heavier on the balance sheet. So in 2023, companies shifted hard, removing tens of thousands of middle management roles across the knowledge economy. This wasn’t overreaction. It was long-overdue optimization.
For C-suite leaders, the lesson is clear: shrinking middle layers should never mean abandoning strategy, communication, or development. Those functions remain essential. The goal is agility, removing friction while retaining alignment. If you flatten the structure and lose visibility, you’ve just created a different problem.
The late David Garvin, professor at Harvard Business School, made this point back in 2013. He described managers’ core functions: translating the big picture into focused action, aligning operations with goals, prioritizing efforts that matter, and supporting employee growth. Remove those contributions, and systems start to miss targets, not because of bad execution, but because no one is steering clearly.
We’re now seeing companies remove what they once thought was essential, layers of reporting, and replace it with what’s actually useful: direct accountability, swift alignment, and clear contribution. For leaders, that shift requires discipline. Flattening doesn’t eliminate responsibility; it redistributes it. You still need people who make things move in the right direction. Just fewer of them, and with clearer mandates.
Flatter organizational structures offer both benefits and risks for productivity
Flattening management cuts complexity. Fewer people in the middle mean decisions are made faster, and communication hits fewer roadblocks. That’s the upfront benefit. Teams move quicker. Ownership increases. More individuals are given the space to execute directly without having to clear every decision through layers of approval.
But there’s a balance to think about. Without proper support, teams can spin out. Removing managers too aggressively can leave gaps, no one to prioritize, no one to mentor, no one to translate company strategy into clear deliverables. That’s when the system starts to push too much pressure onto the individual contributor. Deadlines accelerate, responsibilities expand, and people burn out. It’s especially true in technical teams, where ICs already operate at a maximum cognitive load.
Patrice Williams-Lindo, CEO at Career Nomad, put it simply: companies pushing for speed without planning eventually run into failure by exhaustion. You lose the human system that keeps performance sustainable. When no one is looking after workload distribution, structure, or growth paths, your best people risk disengaging, or leaving.
That said, not everyone sees middle management as critical. Seth Geftic, VP of Product Marketing at Huntress, argues the opposite. He points to a misperception: that engineers are only technical and can’t handle complexity. According to him, that’s often wrong. Many engineers operate best when trusted, and a manager without deep technical understanding can block more than they help. If the person overseeing the work doesn’t understand the work, they erase value instead of adding it.
Devansh Agarwal, a senior machine learning engineer at AWS, agreed. He said that skilled individual contributors build real value, especially in advanced areas like AI. From his view, overpaid middle managers slow down that value creation when they’re not directly contributing to outcomes. He also raised a red flag: without someone to advocate for ICs, output expectations keep rising. That’s where strain begins, and where well-being is put at risk.
From a leadership standpoint, this shift demands attention, not to protect managers, but to protect performance. Communication, resource allocation, and career development still need clear ownership. Removing a role doesn’t remove the work. Someone else has to take it on, and if the load isn’t handled properly, teams crack under pressure.
The upside is clear: fewer layers, better speed, cleaner execution. But removing managers isn’t the end-point. It’s the trigger that forces organizations to rethink how they support their teams. Leaders should make sure those systems aren’t dropping out of the company just because a job title did. You either distribute the function or you rebuild it smarter. What doesn’t work is pretending the function wasn’t important.
New hybrid roles and a greater emphasis on technical leadership
Flattening the organization chart doesn’t erase leadership, it redefines it. As traditional management roles are eliminated, companies are creating hybrid paths that combine technical depth with strategic responsibility. These new roles prioritize execution, decision-making, and influence without requiring a step up into people management.
What’s emerging is a model where experienced engineers take on leadership, project ownership, cross-team communication, mentorship, without becoming full-time managers. They stay engaged in the work, but with broader responsibilities. This shift favors capability over hierarchy. Leaders are chosen based on what they contribute, not just what they oversee.
Paul DeMott, CTO of Helium SEO, sees this happening across engineering teams. With fewer managers around, engineers now handle more of the allocation, team-wide guidance, and direct communication. Some pick it up naturally. Others need time and structure to adapt. But the net outcome is clear: people closest to the work are taking more control over how it gets done.
At AWS, Devansh Agarwal has seen former managers shift into IC roles and bring value in new forms, drawing from their background in coordination, strategy, and team-building. These are now highly skilled ICs who use their people-first experience on the front lines of execution. They’re fast, effective, and bring leadership without formal authority.
Seth Geftic from Huntress expects this to become the standard in tech. Traditional top-down leadership is being replaced by systems where influence is distributed and impact defines authority. Tech leaders will play a broader role, not just solving technical problems but also coordinating strategy, mentorship, and execution at scale.
For decision-makers, the move is clear: systems should support this evolution. Build paths for progression that reward execution as much as delegation. Ensure team structures recognize and promote high-impact contributors alongside traditional people managers. Not every engineer wants to manage people, but many want to lead. Give them the framework.
The old ladder, IC to manager to director, isn’t built for this environment. Flattening makes it obsolete. The new structure is more adaptable. Technical leadership, cross-functional responsibility, and high-impact execution are the traits that matter now. Not titles, not reporting lines.
Key highlights
- Tech is eliminating layers to boost speed: Leading tech firms are removing middle management to reduce friction and accelerate execution. Leaders should evaluate whether management structures are enabling progress or delaying outcomes.
- Flattening is a long-term shift: The erosion of middle layers has been underway for decades, now amplified by post-pandemic economics. Executives should treat restructuring as a strategic move, not a temporary fix.
- Cuts risk burnout if teams lack support: Removing managers without redistributing their functions strains ICs and increases turnover risk. Leaders must invest in systems that maintain communication, prioritization, and career development.
- Technical leadership is the new growth track: As traditional management roles decline, hybrid leadership positions rooted in technical expertise are taking their place. Organizations should create clear paths for technical contributors to lead, influence, and scale impact.
