Once seen as the backbone of organisational stability, middle managers now find themselves increasingly redundant in modern corporate structures. The steady erosion of the middle layer has gone from a whisper to a roar, with companies across sectors slashing jobs, cutting pay, and even demoting long-serving professionals in the name of efficiency and agility.
This structural shift is not merely an economic reaction. It signals a cultural re-evaluation of management itself—fuelled in part by a generational pivot. A recent UK-based study reveals that 52 per cent of Gen Z professionals actively avoid middle-management positions, with 69 per cent prioritising autonomy and personal growth over traditional leadership hierarchies. Far from being an anomaly, this reluctance reflects a widespread questioning of whether middle management is a stepping stone—or a stress-laden dead end.
EY
Professional services giant EY is one of the more prominent players shaking up its management structure. In a sweeping overhaul, the company began dismantling layers of middle management across its major geographic divisions—Americas; Europe, Middle East, India, and Africa (EMEIA); and Asia-Pacific.
Mid-level executives faced a stark choice: compete for fewer senior roles in a flattened hierarchy or consider retirement. The reorganisation was part of EY’s goal to become “the most globally integrated professional services organisation in the world.” According to a company spokesperson, the restructure was meant to enable seamless and comprehensive client service and spur growth through a more efficient decision-making model.
Amazon
At Amazon, CEO Andy Jassy spearheaded a campaign to streamline the company’s bloated managerial ranks. The e-commerce giant had already surpassed its target of cutting 15 per cent of middle management by early 2025.
Jassy publicly stated that a surplus of middle managers had created bottlenecks rather than benefits. “All well-intended, they want to put their fingerprint on everything,” he noted in a Bloomberg interview. His vision for Amazon emphasised autonomy and ownership for employees—without a long chain of command to navigate.
Ford
Automotive giant Ford took a different approach. Instead of widespread layoffs, the company withdrew stock bonuses from about 1,650 middle managers—half of its global managerial workforce. The decision, part of CEO Jim Farley’s cost-cutting initiative, signalled that performance-based incentives would be tightly scrutinised, particularly for roles seen as excessive or duplicative.
Starbucks
In the retail sector, Starbucks announced plans to lay off corporate employees to streamline decision-making and eliminate silos. While the coffee chain emphasised that baristas and store-level staff would remain untouched, the corporate restructure hinted at the broader diminishing value placed on managerial overheads.
With 16,000 corporate employees globally, including 10,000 in the US, Starbucks is looking to eliminate organisational complexity to move faster and more cohesively. The full extent of layoffs was expected to be communicated by early March.
HSBC
Banking heavyweight HSBC initiated a more subtle—but no less ruthless—approach. Managers in its newly formed corporate and institutional banking division were asked to reapply for their positions.
The internal reshuffling was likely to result in hundreds of job losses, especially among managing directors and other senior staff. The bank also decided to phase out ‘general manager’ titles in favour of a more streamlined ‘managing director’ designation—signalling a move towards leaner, more uniform leadership tiers.
Blue Origin
Even in the private space race, middle managers are being grounded. Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin laid off about 10 per cent of its workforce and flattened management layers to reclaim focus and speed.
CEO David Limp admitted that rapid growth in recent years had led to “more bureaucracy and less focus.” The shake-up cut across engineering, research and development, and project management, putting an emphasis on operational clarity over hierarchical control.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai shared during an all-hands meeting that the tech giant had already reduced 10 per cent of its managerial and executive roles. While the company insisted these changes were part of an ongoing restructuring since 2023, the goal was unmistakable: boost efficiency by eliminating managerial redundancy.
Bayer
Perhaps the most radical transformation came from Bayer. CEO Bill Anderson unveiled a plan to eliminate middle management almost entirely, empowering nearly 100,000 employees under a new model dubbed “Dynamic Shared Ownership.”
The overhaul involved scrapping nearly all of the company’s 1,362-page corporate handbook, signalling a revolutionary approach to corporate governance. For Bayer, slashing bureaucracy is seen as essential to breaking free from stagnation and sparking innovation.
Meta (Facebook)
At Meta, the message from Mark Zuckerberg was clear: managers should contribute to core output or face demotion. The Facebook division was reportedly moving to “flatten” its hierarchy, turning former managers into individual contributors.
In some cases, teams were removed entirely from managerial oversight, underscoring Meta’s intent to cut managerial fat and reward technical expertise over bureaucratic supervision.
Intel
Intel’s new CEO Lip-Bu Tan warned employees about upcoming structural changes targeting middle management, which he believed was hindering progress. His predecessor had shied away from tough calls, but Tan appeared determined to make decisive cuts to restore Intel’s competitive edge.
Lloyds
Back in the UK, Lloyds Bank is reportedly preparing to axe around 2,500 roles as it pivots towards digital services. The cuts would mostly affect middle managers—analysts and product managers among them—though the restructure also involves creating 120 new roles aligned with the bank’s digital transformation strategy.
Morrisons
Supermarket chain Morrisons also took a blunt approach. The company announced plans to cut 1,500 middle-management roles in favour of putting more staff on the shop floor.
While affected employees could apply for 800 other management positions within the company, at least 700 were expected to either accept lower-paid roles or leave entirely. The move aligned with Morrisons’ focus on customer service and direct operations over hierarchical control.
Taken together, these organisational shifts suggest the beginning of a new era for the corporate world—one in which middle management no longer holds the gravitational pull it once did.
Middle managers have long been corporate translators—bridging executive mandates with on-the-ground realities. But as businesses lean into AI, agile structures, and remote work, the need for such intermediaries is diminishing. In today’s fast-paced, digital-first environment, the emphasis is on self-management, flat hierarchies, and speed.
For many companies, removing layers of middle management promises not just cost savings, but cultural transformation. It opens the door to faster decision-making, increased accountability, and clearer communication lines.
However, the shift is not without risk. Stripping away managers too quickly—or without a clear replacement for the oversight they provide—can result in burnout, confusion, and inefficiency. Middle managers may be vanishing, but their functions still need to be accounted for, either through smarter systems or empowered teams.
As organisations continue to experiment with flatter structures and autonomous teams, the fate of middle managers remains uncertain. Some may be reskilled or redeployed; others may exit corporate life entirely. But one thing is clear: the blueprint for modern leadership is being redrawn.