For much of modern business history, companies have been built around hierarchies with layers of managers supervising employees, reporting upward to senior leaders. In recent years, however, many organizations have begun to reduce or even eliminate these layers of middle management.

This movement, sometimes called “the flattening trend” or “the great unbossing,” reshapes how work is organized, how employees communicate, and how managers lead. Understanding the pros and cons of flattening is essential for grasping how companies are evolving in the digital age.

Why Companies Are Flattening Their Structures

Several forces are driving the move toward flatter organizations. Companies are often motivated by the promise of cost savings and efficiency, since fewer managers means lower payroll expenses and less bureaucracy.

Advances in technology and automation also play a role. Tools like artificial intelligence, project management software, and digital communication platforms reduce the need for managers to serve as information gatekeepers.

Another factor is the desire for greater agility and speed. By cutting layers, executives hope that decisions can be made faster and teams can respond more directly to customer needs. Major corporations such as Google, Amazon, Bayer, and Intel have restructured to reduce the number of managers or to assign managers larger teams. In 2017, the typical U.S. manager oversaw about five employees. By 2023, that number had grown to fifteen, and the trend appears to be continuing.

Why Middle Managers Still Matter

While flattening promises efficiency, critics argue that middle managers serve crucial functions that cannot easily be replaced. Middle managers connect frontline employees with senior leadership, relaying customer insights and employee concerns upward to decision makers. They also play an important role as coaches and mentors, helping employees develop skills, adapt to new technologies, and remain motivated during times of change.

Another key responsibility is ensuring alignment across different departments so that everyone is working toward the same strategic goals. Without this middle layer, employees may feel unsupported or unclear about what is expected of them, and research suggests that engagement and clarity often decline when organizations flatten too aggressively.

Span of Management

The concept of span of management, or how many people report to one manager, becomes especially important in a flattened structure. Larger spans create both opportunities and risks. On one hand, employees may enjoy more autonomy and direct access to senior leaders. On the other, managers who are responsible for very large groups may become overworked and unable to provide the same level of mentorship and feedback.

In some cases, managers now supervise twenty or more employees, which makes it difficult for them to develop close relationships with staff or to notice problems before they escalate. Employees in such environments often report feeling overlooked or disconnected.

Self-Directed Work

Flattening is also closely tied to the rise of self-directed teams. Companies such as Bayer and Novartis encourage employees to manage themselves, reducing reliance on bosses for daily approvals. In this model, managers shift from being supervisors to acting as advisers. Some, for example, set aside weekly “coaching hours” when employees can drop in for career advice or problem-solving help. For employees who value independence, this level of freedom can be empowering. Yet without proper guidance, others may find themselves feeling lost or unsupported, especially if they are early in their careers or unsure how to prioritize tasks.

Communication in Flatter Organizations

Flattening significantly changes how communication flows within organizations. Formal communication is often more direct, with executives addressing large groups through digital platforms, town halls, or video updates.

Informal communication, sometimes called the “grapevine,” becomes even more important as employees rely on peers for guidance when managers are stretched thin. Technology tools such as Slack or Microsoft Teams make it easier for information to circulate, but they cannot fully replace the value of managers who provide encouragement, coaching, and clarity.

The Future of Middle Management

Experts suggest that middle managers are not disappearing entirely but are instead seeing their roles transform. Their responsibilities are shifting from oversight to facilitation, from approving tasks to coaching employees, and from handling administrative duties to focusing on strategy and change management. Organizations that want to succeed in a flatter environment may need to invest in reskilling their managers, emphasizing both soft skills such as communication and mentoring as well as technical skills that allow them to work alongside emerging technologies.

The future of management may not be about eliminating managers but about reimagining what management looks like in a workplace shaped by digital tools and shifting employee expectations. The flattening trend highlights an ongoing debate in business about how many layers of management are truly necessary. Flattening can save costs and empower employees, but it can also create challenges related to communication, employee development, and morale.

For future business leaders, the key takeaway is that organizations must find a balance between efficiency and human connection. The challenge is not simply to cut managers but to redesign management in ways that keep companies agile while still supporting the people who make them successful.

In the Classroom

This article can be used to discuss centralization and communication (Chapter 7: Organization, Teamwork, and Communication).

Discussion Questions

  1.  What does the term “flattening” mean in the context of organizational structure, and why are companies moving toward this approach?
  2. How has the span of management changed in recent years, and what challenges does this create for both managers and employees?
  3. How does flattening affect communication within organizations, both formally and informally?

This article was developed with the support of Kelsey Reddick for and under the direction of O.C. Ferrell, Linda Ferrell, and Geoff Hirt.