
In the shifting landscape of corporate America, middle management has increasingly found itself in the crosshairs of cost-cutting measures, restructuring efforts, and efficiency drives. Once considered the backbone of organizational hierarchies, these managers are now often portrayed as unnecessary bureaucratic layers—targets for elimination in the name of agility, innovation, and shareholder value. But is the war on middle management justified, or is it an overcorrection that threatens the long-term stability and effectiveness of businesses?
And am I an unbiased voice in this argument given I am smack in the middle of the management food chain?
The Rise and Fall of Middle Management
Historically, middle managers played a crucial role in bridging the gap between executive leadership and frontline employees. They translated strategic vision into operational execution, provided mentorship, and maintained the institutional knowledge necessary for sustainable growth. In the late 20th century, as corporations expanded, the demand for competent middle managers grew in tandem, solidifying their importance within corporate structures.
However, the digital revolution, lean methodologies, and the obsession with flatter hierarchies have led many companies to reassess the value of middle management. The argument is simple: with technology streamlining communication, automating workflows, and enabling real-time decision-making, do companies still need an intermediary layer between executives and employees? And if they do, how many layers is “just right?”
The Case for Downsizing
Proponents of reducing middle management argue that eliminating redundant layers fosters faster decision-making, reduces operational costs, and empowers individual contributors. Many corporate leaders believe that too many managers create unnecessary complexity, slowing innovation and discouraging autonomy. Agile frameworks, widely adopted in tech and other industries, emphasize cross-functional collaboration with minimal hierarchical interference—an approach that seemingly contradicts the traditional middle-management model on paper.
Additionally, in a world increasingly dominated by artificial intelligence and machine learning, some middle-management functions may be replaced by predictive analytics and automated decision-support systems (anyone who tells you that this is happening at scale today is lying). This efficiency drive has led organizations to prioritize individual contributors and executives, compressing traditional management structures.
The Risks of Eradicating Middle Management
While the push to minimize middle management has its merits, the consequences of its wholesale elimination can be significant. Middle managers serve as more than just bureaucratic cogs; they provide critical guidance, ensure alignment between strategy and execution, and serve as mentors to developing talent. Without them, many organizations face a leadership vacuum, where employees are left without clear career development paths or the necessary support to navigate corporate complexities.
Moreover, recent trends suggest that the removal of middle management can lead to burnout among both executives and employees. Senior leaders, now required to take on additional responsibilities, may struggle to provide the hands-on support needed for sustained operational success. Employees, without immediate supervisors to guide them, may feel disconnected from company goals, leading to disengagement and attrition.
The Path Forward: Redefining, Not Eliminating
Instead of outright elimination, companies should rethink the role of middle management. The traditional command-and-control model may be outdated, but middle managers can be reimagined as strategic enablers, facilitators of collaboration, and champions of employee development. Organizations that successfully redefine these roles—focusing on leadership, coaching, and problem-solving rather than rigid oversight—will be better positioned to thrive in an era of rapid change.
The war on middle management is not just about efficiency; it is about the future of work. And the future of work is something companies have struggled to define; just look at the shifts between remote work, hybrid models, and return to office. When it comes to the location of work, a former colleague of mine once said “We have done a poor job of asking the right question. Instead of where you should work, it should be how do you need to work?” His point was simple: someone who needs space to focus independently shouldn’t be forced to sit in an open floor plan. Similarly, a team that is in a period of heavy collaboration needs the right environment to accomplish that.
The question of middle management isn’t “should we” or “shouldn’t we.” It is more nuanced (which is why companies fail at it). Some teams and functions will not need the same level of layering and support. Others may need the structure and overhead of middle management.
The companies that don’t adopt a hard and fast rule on middle management will be the ones that evolve their operating models to best succeed in the future.
Okay, this article is really well-written and makes a lot of sense. But, honestly, I'm still feeling really mixed up about this. I know we can't just go back to the old ways, and I agree smashing middle management isn't the answer. But... something just feels off. Maybe it's the post Covid era, the shake up with remote work or work from anywhere mantra. Feels different, and I can't quite put my finger on it. 🙂