Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
Key Takeaways
- Flattening removes layers, not leadership work. Before removing a management layer, you need to have an understanding of what the people in that layer do and who will take those tasks in their absence.
- Without clear authority, realistic workloads and adequate support, remaining managers risk becoming overwhelmed, leading to lower effectiveness and higher turnover.
- With fewer layers, companies must create growth opportunities deliberately — through observation and modeling, practice before full accountability, building judgment, coaching, people leadership and progressively broader assignments.
If you’ve ever waited days for approval on something seemingly straightforward, it’s easy to see the attraction of a flatter organization: fewer handoffs, faster decisions and more autonomy.
There’s a deeper question, though. Before removing a management layer, it is important to have an understanding of what the people in that layer do — and who will take on those tasks in their absence.
Flattening removes layers, not leadership work
There are real repercussions that need to be considered before a management layer is removed. Managers have both tangible tasks and responsibilities, as well as the less tangible ones that go along with leadership. Both of these need to be taken into account when considering a flatter organizational structure.
Gallup’s 2026 State of the Global Workplace reports that manager engagement worldwide declined by about 29% between 2022 and 2025. That’s a huge drop in the percentage of managers who feel involved in and enthusiastic about their jobs — and it is an indicator that something is amiss.
While the research doesn’t tell us that flattening management caused this decline, it prompts us to look beyond how many people report to a manager and ask more subtle questions. Under the new structure, what do people need in terms of leadership? And will their manager have the time and skills to devote to it?
Midlevel leaders are becoming the organizational shock absorbers
An analysis from Boston University’s Questrom School of Business explains what’s at stake. Middle managers act as connectors between senior leaders’ strategy and the people carrying it out — putting them under pressure from both sides. Leaders above them expect results, while employees need direction and support to deliver those results.
Coaches on my team see this frequently. When management layers disappear, those remaining get squeezed even more. Thinning those roles can weaken coordination, learning and the development of future leaders. Here are a few examples:
Expectations vs. capacity
Senior leaders move up a launch date, expecting a flatter structure to help everyone move faster. But the manager responsible has the same team and existing customer commitments to meet. They’re accountable for the earlier deadline without any more capacity to deliver it. They’re caught between pushing their team harder and pushing back on the expectations above them.
Promotion speed vs. leadership maturity
A strong technical performer is promoted into a bigger leadership role because the company needs someone capable to take it on. But they’re still learning how to delegate, handle conflict and make decisions when there’s no clear answer. They’re accountable for a broader range of work before they’ve had enough practice leading at a new level. Under pressure, they may fall back on what they know best: solving problems themselves, even as the role requires them to help others do it.
AI speed vs. human discernment
A team uses AI to produce several proposals in the time it once took to develop one. Senior leaders see faster output and expect faster decisions. But the manager still has to check the assumptions, weigh the risks and decide which ones are worth pursuing. More work reaches their desk without more time to review it. They’re caught between keeping up with the new pace and giving each decision the human attention and discernment it deserves.
I’m not suggesting the answer is to keep every management layer. It’s making sure the new structure gives the remaining managers what they need to be successful: clear authority to make decisions, agreed-upon priorities and the number of direct reports they can realistically support. They need time to lead — helping their teams learn and improve — rather than spending every day simply putting out the most urgent fires.
The bigger risk is what happens to the leadership pipeline
If AI handles more entry-level work and companies keep removing management layers, where will emerging leaders get the experience that prepares them to lead?
Leadership development can’t wait until someone gets the title. Companies need to create those opportunities deliberately. Here are five techniques you can use to develop leadership skills:
Observation and modeling
People learn by watching experienced managers work through disagreements, explain decisions and handle uncertainty. Invite an emerging leader into a planning conversation, then talk through why you made a particular tradeoff. Let them hear the reasoning they wouldn’t get from the meeting summary.
Practice before full accountability
Give people opportunities to lead a project, coach a colleague or coordinate work across teams before they’re responsible for an entire team. Be clear about what decisions they own, and make sure someone is available to help them work through questions.
Judgment and discernment
AI can generate options quickly, but human judgment is still vital. When someone brings a recommendation, ask what they checked, what they ruled out and why. Help them develop confidence in their reasoning, including recognizing when they need another perspective.
Coaching and people leadership
Knowing how to give feedback isn’t the same as sitting across from someone who’s upset by what you’ve said. Emerging leaders need repeated opportunities to practice feedback, delegation and difficult conversations in the messiness of real situations with other humans — with guidance afterward.
Succession without a traditional ladder
Fewer titles shouldn’t mean fewer ways to grow. Give people progressively broader assignments and look at how they handle them. That gives the company evidence of who’s ready for more responsibility, even without a promotion at every step.
Fewer layers require thoughtful leadership planning and development
Having fewer managers may make the org chart look more efficient, but it doesn’t make the day-to-day work of leadership disappear. A flatter organization can work when executive leadership rethinks the workload, authority and support that go along with organizational flattening.
Otherwise, they’re merely leaving fewer managers to carry a bigger load, which can lead to faster burnout and turnover. The challenge is to give managers what they need to lead well today — and prepare a new generation of leaders for the future.
Key Takeaways
- Flattening removes layers, not leadership work. Before removing a management layer, you need to have an understanding of what the people in that layer do and who will take those tasks in their absence.
- Without clear authority, realistic workloads and adequate support, remaining managers risk becoming overwhelmed, leading to lower effectiveness and higher turnover.
- With fewer layers, companies must create growth opportunities deliberately — through observation and modeling, practice before full accountability, building judgment, coaching, people leadership and progressively broader assignments.
If you’ve ever waited days for approval on something seemingly straightforward, it’s easy to see the attraction of a flatter organization: fewer handoffs, faster decisions and more autonomy.
There’s a deeper question, though. Before removing a management layer, it is important to have an understanding of what the people in that layer do — and who will take on those tasks in their absence.
Flattening removes layers, not leadership work
There are real repercussions that need to be considered before a management layer is removed. Managers have both tangible tasks and responsibilities, as well as the less tangible ones that go along with leadership. Both of these need to be taken into account when considering a flatter organizational structure.