We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
When companies approach delayering as a cost-cutting measure driven by spreadsheets and salaries—without considering the capabilities being lost—they are committing 'organizational vandalism.' This approach ignores the complex web of interactions and processes that middle management supports, leading to systemic failure.
Delayering may increase an executive's span of control, but it destroys their 'flow of context.' Without middle managers to relay messages, senior leaders become a bottleneck, forced to constantly repeat information to maintain alignment, which is an inefficient use of their time.
The objective of an effective organizational flattening is to streamline the interactions and dependencies between teams, not just to remove people from an org chart. Companies that focus on redesigning workflows and communication patterns first, using frameworks like Team Topologies, achieve sustainable efficiency.
Leaders in large companies often lack visibility into the day-to-day workflows that drive results. They see inputs like salaries and outputs like KPIs, but the actual process of how work gets done—the institutional know-how—is a black box that walks out the door every day.
A successful reorg simplifies work, but delayering often does the opposite. Pushing management, QA, and coordination tasks onto developers dramatically increases their cognitive load, harming their primary function and leading to burnout. This is a key failure metric for any flattening initiative.
Coordination work does not disappear when roles like project coordinators or scrum masters are eliminated. Instead, a 'coordination vacuum' is created where essential tasks are either dropped or haphazardly absorbed by unprepared team members, leading to widespread inefficiency and chaos.
Removing middle management doesn't speed up decisions; it slows them down. Senior leaders become overwhelmed with the volume of tactical requests they previously delegated, causing 'decision latency' across the entire organization as they become a bottleneck.
Many leaders fight bureaucracy like an external threat. The real cause is the organization's design: too many layers, functional silos, and distant decision-making. To fix bureaucracy, you must fundamentally change the organizational structure, not just treat symptoms.
When companies remove the middle management layer, they also eliminate the primary path for career progression and mentorship for individual contributors. This lack of a clear future within the organization is a major, often overlooked, driver of high turnover, especially among younger employees.
The success of any org model is tied to preconditions like executive backing and a collaborative culture. Simply renaming teams to "squads" and "tribes" without changing underlying behaviors is just "installing a new set of jargon" and leads to failure.
Companies like Amazon and Meta that cut middle management are not necessarily wrong to flatten their organization, but they err by doing so without first redesigning the underlying system. The true mistake is removing the people responsible for coordination and decision-making without fixing the processes they managed, leading to chaos.