Middle management has always been caught in the middle—literally and figuratively. For decades, middle managers served as the link between executives and frontline employees. They passed information up and down, monitored performance, and ensured policies were followed. In many ways, they acted as the “glue” that held large organizations together.
But in recent years, the role has come under fire. Critics argue that middle managers add bureaucracy without adding much value. They are seen as a costly layer that slows down decision-making and blocks innovation. At the same time, digital tools, automation, and AI now handle many tasks once done manually—such as reporting, approvals, and performance tracking.
As a result, many companies, especially in tech, have cut large portions of their middle management ranks. Meta, Google, and Spotify are just a few examples of firms that embraced flatter structures to save costs and move faster. However, this raises a pressing question: are middle managers truly expendable, or are companies cutting corners they later regret?
The Traditional Role of Middle Managers
Historically, middle managers played three core functions inside organizations:
- Information conduits: Passing messages up and down the chain of command.
- Approval gatekeepers: Reviewing and signing off on decisions before they reached leadership.
- People managers: Monitoring performance, conducting reviews, and handling day-to-day issues.
This model made sense in large, hierarchical companies. But today, much of that work feels outdated. Project management tools, dashboards, and AI-driven insights reduce the need for information handoffs. Executives can see real-time data themselves. Employees want more autonomy. And businesses under pressure to move quickly see middle managers as a layer they can trim.
Why Companies Are Cutting Middle Managers
Several factors explain why middle managers are being reduced:
- Duplicated communication: Collaboration platforms like Slack and Teams reduce the need for people to “relay” updates.
- Automation and data: Dashboards and AI generate instant insights, making manual reporting less relevant.
- Cultural shift: Flatter organizations are marketed as more agile and empowering.
- Efficiency pressure: Fewer approvals are believed to speed up decision-making.
- Cost control: Managers are expensive, and trimming them produces immediate savings.
In short, companies are not just cutting for efficiency—they are cutting because the traditional job description no longer matches today’s business pace.
What the Data Tells Us
Recent research highlights both the scale of these cuts and their consequences:
- Middle managers made up 29% of all layoffs in 2024, compared to ~22% in 2018–2022 [source].
- Job postings for middle managers have dropped 43% since 2022, while entry-level postings declined only 14% [source].
- 41% of employees say their company reduced management layers, and 37% of them feel directionless as a result [source].
- Describing a company as “flat” reduced women’s interest in applying by 14%, and actual applications by 28% [source].
- Managers who remain now oversee about six direct reports, compared to three in 2019 [source].
These figures show the trade-off clearly. Flattening saves money and removes bureaucracy. But employees often lose guidance, and leaders absorb heavier workloads.
The Trade-Off: Pros and Cons of Cutting Middle Managers
| Pros of Cutting Middle Managers | Cons of Cutting Middle Managers |
|---|---|
| Cuts payroll and benefit costs | Senior leaders become overloaded |
| Fewer layers can speed up decisions | Employees feel directionless |
| Flatter structures feel modern | Career growth paths shrink |
| Automation replaces reporting | Strategy-to-execution gap widens |
| Empowers frontline workers | Diversity may suffer in flatter firms |
What Happens After Cuts
In the short term, cutting managers can look like a win. Costs drop, employees feel empowered, and communication speeds up. However, over time, problems often emerge:
- Overloaded leaders: Executives end up with too many direct reports.
- Burnout on the front line: Without buffers, workloads shift downward.
- Execution gaps: Strategy becomes harder to translate into daily action.
- Blocked careers: With fewer management roles, employees see limited growth opportunities.
Zappos provides a cautionary tale. The company once removed nearly all managers in favor of “holacracy.” While it generated buzz, employees soon found the model confusing and unsustainable. Eventually, Zappos reintroduced managers. Even Meta, after trimming layers, had to bring back parts of management to reduce executive overload.
Are Middle Managers Still Needed?
The debate is not whether middle managers should exist—it is about how their role evolves. Organizations no longer need managers to shuffle reports or stamp approvals. But they do need leaders who:
- Coach and mentor talent
- Translate executive vision into clear tasks
- Build trust during uncertain times
- Facilitate cross-team collaboration
- Identify risks before they escalate
In this sense, the middle manager is not dead—it is simply being redefined.
Conclusion
Cutting middle managers may seem like a shortcut to efficiency. It lowers costs and gives the appearance of agility. But over time, many companies realize what they lost: guidance, stability, and execution power.
The future of middle management is not elimination—it is transformation. Companies that thrive will be those that rethink the role, empowering managers as coaches, connectors, and strategic translators. Cutting corners may help today, but optimizing middle management builds resilience for tomorrow.
