Some critics argue that the increasing adoption of artificial intelligence could lead to what they describe as 'asynchronous, agent-driven management.' As technology companies invest heavily in AI and simultaneously reduce their workforces, middle managers have become a primary target.
The Rise of AI-Driven Restructuring
A clear pattern is emerging: when tech CEOs announce that AI enables greater productivity with fewer employees, they promise to flatten organizational structures by eliminating what they call unnecessary management layers and bureaucracy. Recently, cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase laid off 14% of its workforce while highlighting the promise of AI-driven, minimal-management efficiency. This move follows similar actions by Amazon, Block, and Meta, which have collectively laid off tens of thousands of employees over the past year, with a specific focus on removing management layers.
Anastassia Fedyk, assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, has studied how AI is changing workforce composition. She notes that the push to thin management ranks is gaining traction, especially among companies rapidly adopting AI. As AI tools enable shifting more work from managers to their reports, these structural changes may become more permanent.
Impact on Middle Management
These shifts are fundamentally reshaping middle management roles, often requiring managers to act as both supervisors and producers, vastly expanding their responsibilities. Companies are also giving technology a more central role. While these moves aim to accelerate decision-making, they could complicate jobs for everyone up and down the management chain, create new bottlenecks, reduce the benefits of human interaction at work, and degrade products and services.
'The middle manager role is about to be under a lot more pressure,' said Emily Rose McRae, an analyst at Gartner who studies AI’s impact on the future of work. 'What that means for employees is that your job gets harder, too. When your manager doesn’t get the support they need, you don’t get the support you need.'
The trend extends beyond tech: by the end of 2025, openings for middle manager jobs in the US had fallen by 42% compared with a peak in 2022, according to Revelio Labs. Given that managers comprised 13% of the US workforce in 2022, this represents a significant number of positions.
'We’re all trying to figure out what middle management really means,' said Prateek Singh, a software development manager who left Meta in April 2026. 'It’s like a drug trial. Eventually, we will find the right one.'
Inside Meta’s Restructuring
At Meta, managers began feeling pressure even before CEO Mark Zuckerberg discussed flattening management during a January 2026 earnings call, according to Singh. Shortly after joining in June 2025, managers on certain teams saw their number of direct reports increase, and they were increasingly expected to contribute code. Previously, managers at tech companies like Meta focused on delegating and guiding, with execution reserved for individual contributors.
To handle added responsibilities, Meta’s managers turned to AI tools to speed up drafting documents, consolidating notes, and evaluating employees. They also used AI to generate code. Singh switched his one-on-one meetings with his seven direct reports from weekly to every other week, communicating asynchronously using AI agents that connected with his reports’ agents to collect updates and provide feedback. While the strategy worked for his team, he saw risks in relying on AI to replace human interaction.
'If managers are expected to either be writing a lot more code or have a lot more reports, what I see happening is more asynchronous, agent-driven management,' he said. 'Then people lose touch with all the benefits you get from face time,' such as mentorship, human judgment, and guidance. This issue is magnified at competitive employers like Meta, where the battle to be a top performer feels like The Hunger Games. AI cannot improve employee performance the same way humans can.
Singh could envision a future where pressured managers might use AI for decisions, blindly submitting flawed suggestions. This could compound as other teams build on those decisions, leading to data leaks, security holes, or system outages.
Block’s Radical Approach
After fintech company Block laid off 40% of its workers, some engineering managers were assigned as many as 175 direct reports under its new AI-oriented structure, according to internal organization charts. This aligns with CEO Jack Dorsey’s goal of eventually having all 6,000 employees report directly to him, eliminating management layers. Previously, managers typically had six to 12 direct reports, said Freeland Abbott, a former technical lead at Square, Block’s digital payments service, who was laid off in February.
While Block’s new structure may aid information management, Abbott worries that human aspects of managers’ jobs could be neglected. AI cannot provide team motivation, human connection, or support. Offloading employee development to same-level colleagues could disadvantage less-experienced and marginalized teams. Several former Block employees have responded with relief at being laid off, though Abbott admits they may be biased.
Abbott does not expect these management ratios to last, predicting companies will recognize the need for more humans even if the role isn’t called 'manager.'
Industry-Wide Trends
Meta and Amazon were among the first tech giants to suggest flattening management for the AI era. In 2023, Zuckerberg announced the 'year of efficiency,' planning to flatten the organization. Two years ago, Amazon’s CEO Andy Jassy told employees he planned to increase the ratio of employees to managers by at least 15%, a goal reached last year. By 2026, both CEOs believe AI is changing how work gets done, with Jassy suggesting Amazon 'will need fewer people' for some jobs and Zuckerberg saying Meta is 'starting to see projects that used to require big teams now be accomplished by a single very talented person.' Block and Coinbase followed suit this year.
Block’s approach splits management duties: AI primarily shares information, 'directly responsible individuals' oversee strategy, and 'player-coaches' manage employee growth. 'There is no need for a permanent middle management layer,' reads a statement from Dorsey and board member Roelof Botha.
Similarly, Coinbase will no longer have 'pure managers'; managers must directly contribute code and other work, with direct reports jumping to 15 or more. 'We’re fundamentally changing how we operate: rebuilding Coinbase as an intelligence, with humans around the edge aligning it,' CEO Brian Armstrong said in a tweet announcing layoffs. Coinbase, Amazon, Meta, and Block declined to comment.
Challenges for Employees
Companies that significantly reduce middle management are likely those already agile, like tech firms, rather than legacy companies slower to adopt tech, said Raffaella Sadun, a Harvard professor. Any company moving to a new model will likely feel friction, especially if changes are sudden. Tech companies 'are very well positioned to make these changes because they’re advanced from a tech perspective,' Sadun said, but 'they’ll have to incur the cost of change,' such as overhauling work coordination, altering decision-making, and shifting workers into different positions, including demotions.
Reducing middle managers is likely to complicate an already stressful job, said McRae. Many managers across industries would not choose to be managers again if given the choice, according to Gartner surveys. That could worsen as companies reduce managers and require remaining ones to do even more work.
Fewer management layers mean fewer advancement opportunities, potentially causing companies to lose important human talent. For tech companies, this may feed their goal of a leaner workforce powered by AI.
Simplifying management structure requires redesigning how work gets done, giving more authority to lower levels, said Amalia Goodwin, global managing director at Slalom. If more employees make more decisions, they need resources, skills, and training to judge good and bad outcomes—something companies must provide.
As output increases and spans of control change, work could slow down in unintended ways. For example, if one team produces more with AI, the team approving that work may be overwhelmed. With fewer managers, companies must create structures that break down divides between units and keep information flowing.
Some experts are skeptical that tech companies’ experiments with AI to purge middle managers will catch on. Matthew Bidwell, management professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, noted a history of companies trying to break old hierarchies, only to abandon such efforts. Middle managers are often in a 'precarious' position in reorganizations because 'it’s harder to define your value.' As tech companies experiment with fewer managers, they may find they lose necessary scrutiny. 'It means one fewer layer of kicking the tires,' he said. 'You’ll move faster, but you’ll break more things, and for some organizations that’s probably not the right trade-off.'
Singh, who felt his job could be at risk, chose to leave Meta. Now employed outside Silicon Valley, he watches from a distance. 'It’s just too early in the experiment,' he said. 'I didn’t want to be the guinea pig.'
