Flatter Organisations: What Managers Need to Succeed

A flatter organisational structure can reduce duplication, clarify accountability and bring decisions closer to the work. It can also leave managers with larger teams, heavier workloads and less time to support the people they lead.

The difference depends on how the organisation approaches the change.

Removing management layers is not simply an adjustment to an organisational chart. It changes how information moves, where decisions are made and what managers must accomplish with the time available to them.

If organisations want the benefits of a flatter structure, they must redesign the manager role rather than assuming the remaining managers can absorb more.

Why flatter organisational structures are attracting attention

Organisations often become more complex as they grow. New products, specialist functions and geographical teams create additional reporting lines and coordination requirements. Structures that once helped manage expansion can eventually make decisions slower or accountability less clear.

Uber provided a significant example this week. The company announced that it would remove approximately 3,300 roles, equivalent to 10% of its workforce, as part of a wider restructuring.

According to Reuters’ report on the changes, Uber plans to reduce by 20% the number of employees sitting seven or more reporting layers below its chief executive. It will also almost halve the number of teams where managers have only one or two direct reports.

The organisation’s stated aims include clearer ownership, faster decisions and less time spent coordinating work.

These are understandable objectives. Most organisations would welcome less duplication and greater clarity about who can make a decision. The important question is what happens to the work previously performed by the layers being removed.

Some of it may genuinely be unnecessary. Some responsibilities can be combined, delegated or simplified. Other work, however, may be redistributed to the managers and employees who remain.

That is where organisational flattening can create a less visible problem.

A wider span of control changes the manager’s job

A manager’s span of control is the number of people who report directly to them. When an organisation removes management layers, that number will often increase.

Gallup’s research into spans of control found that the average number of direct reports among US managers increased from 10.9 in 2024 to 12.1 in 2025, nearly 50% higher than when Gallup first measured it in 2013.

The average conceals considerable variation. Gallup found that around two-thirds of managers still led fewer than ten people, while 13% had 25 or more direct reports.

This matters because there is no universally effective team size. A manager leading an experienced team through stable, repeatable work faces a different challenge from someone managing new employees, complex professional work or significant organisational change.

The relationship between team size and performance depends on factors including:

• The complexity and interdependence of the work.
• The experience and confidence of team members.
• How frequently priorities change.
• The level of coaching and feedback employees need.
• Whether the team is dispersed, hybrid or based together.
• The manager’s other responsibilities.
• The authority employees have to make decisions independently.

Team size should therefore follow an understanding of the work. It should not be determined solely by a target ratio on an organisational chart.

The player-coach problem

Many organisations are not only giving managers larger teams. They are also expecting them to remain heavily involved in operational delivery.

This is sometimes described as the “player-coach” model. The manager leads the team while also completing a substantial amount of the same work.

Some operational involvement is valuable. It keeps managers close to customers, helps them understand emerging problems and can strengthen their professional credibility.

The difficulty arises when direct delivery expands without reducing leadership expectations.

Gallup found that 97% of the managers it surveyed had some individual contributor responsibilities. Managers spent a median of 40% of their time on this work. Engagement was generally lower among managers whose operational work exceeded that level, particularly as their number of direct reports increased.

A manager cannot simultaneously increase their operational output, support more people and maintain the same quality of coaching, communication and performance management without something changing.

In practice, the displaced work often includes:

• Regular one-to-one conversations.
• Thoughtful preparation for performance discussions.
• Coaching and employee development.
• Recognition and informal feedback.
• Team planning and reflection.
• Relationship-building across teams.
• Early intervention when someone is struggling.
• Longer-term service or process improvement.

These activities can appear less urgent than an immediate operational deadline. Their absence is often felt later through weaker engagement, avoidable errors, poor performance conversations or increased turnover.

Why middle managers still matter

The case for simplifying structures should not be confused with an argument that middle management has little value.

An article published by Harvard Business Review this week focused on the role middle managers play in AI adoption. Its central argument is that technology initiatives frequently stall at the point where strategic ambition must be translated into everyday behaviour.

The same principle applies beyond AI.

Middle managers commonly:

• Translate organisational priorities into meaningful team objectives.
• Connect senior decisions with operational knowledge.
• Resolve conflicts between competing priorities.
• Coordinate work across organisational boundaries.
• Identify when a planned change does not work in practice.
• Develop future leaders.
• Help employees understand how change affects their roles.
• Carry information and concerns back to senior decision-makers.

Some of this activity can become excessive. Endless alignment meetings, unclear approval chains and duplicated reporting should be challenged.

However, removing the role does not automatically remove the need. If coordination, interpretation and employee support remain necessary, the work will move elsewhere. It may land with more senior leaders, already stretched managers or employees without the authority to resolve the issues they encounter.

A successful flatter structure therefore distinguishes between unnecessary bureaucracy and valuable management.

Six questions to answer before widening managerial spans

1. What work is genuinely disappearing?

Start by identifying which activities will stop after the restructure.

If a management role is removed but its meetings, reporting requirements, approvals and employee responsibilities remain, the organisation has reduced headcount rather than simplified work.

Be explicit about:

• Decisions that no longer require approval.
• Reports that will be withdrawn.
• Meetings that will end.
• Processes that will be combined.
• Responsibilities that will cease.
• Work that will be automated or supported differently.

The expected saving in managerial time should be credible and visible.

2. Which decisions are moving closer to the work?

A flatter organisation should normally distribute more authority, not merely remove managers.

Employees and team leaders need to understand:

• Which decisions they can now make.
• What limits or principles apply.
• When consultation is expected.
• Which risks require escalation.
• Who resolves a disagreement between teams.
• Where final accountability sits.

Without clear decision rights, people may compensate for the missing layer by seeking informal approval from several stakeholders. The organisation becomes flatter on paper but no faster in practice.

3. How much operational work will managers retain?

A wider span of control may be workable if managing people is the individual’s primary role. It becomes harder when the same person is also carrying a large project portfolio or individual performance target.

Review the full role, including work that is not captured in a formal job description.

Ask managers how much time they currently spend on:

• Direct operational delivery.
• Meetings and coordination.
• Administration and reporting.
• Supporting individual employees.
• Planning and improvement.
• Resolving unexpected problems.

This provides a more realistic basis for deciding whether the proposed team size is sustainable.

4. What support does the team require?

Not every direct report places the same demand on a manager’s time.

A newly formed team may need help establishing roles, relationships and working practices. Early-career employees may need more frequent feedback and coaching. A team going through restructuring may need additional communication and emotional support.

Conversely, an experienced team with clear processes and substantial autonomy may work effectively with a wider managerial span.

The question is not simply, “How many people can this manager supervise?” It is, “What leadership does this team need, and can the manager provide it consistently?”

5. What will happen to development and progression?

Smaller management teams can create greater autonomy for employees, but they can also weaken the organisation’s leadership pipeline.

If managers have less time for coaching, employees may receive fewer development conversations and stretch opportunities. If small-team management roles disappear, there may also be fewer opportunities for people to practise leadership before taking responsibility for a much larger group.

Organisations should consider alternative ways to develop leadership capability, such as:

• Project and programme leadership.
• Deputising and rotational responsibilities.
• Peer coaching.
• Mentoring.
• Facilitating improvement groups.
• Leading cross-functional work.
• Structured preparation before a first management role.

Progression should not require placing an unprepared employee directly into a demanding, wide-span role.

6. How will the new structure be reviewed?

Organisational charts show reporting relationships. They do not show whether the structure is working.

Agree in advance what evidence will be reviewed after implementation. Useful indicators might include:

• Decision speed and the number of approval stages.
• Time spent in coordination meetings.
• Manager workload and engagement.
• Frequency and quality of one-to-one conversations.
• Sickness absence and turnover.
• Employee understanding of priorities.
• Internal progression and development activity.
• Customer outcomes, quality and rework.
• Problems requiring escalation between teams.

Reviewing these measures after three and six months can reveal whether the organisation has genuinely simplified work or merely transferred pressure.

What managers need during organisational flattening

Managers affected by a restructure need more than an updated organisational chart.

They need a clear explanation of why the structure is changing and what outcomes the organisation expects. They also need opportunities to work through the practical consequences with other managers.

Useful development and support should cover:

• Delegating decisions without withdrawing support.
• Establishing clear team expectations.
• Leading larger or more varied teams.
• Prioritising when capacity is limited.
• Maintaining meaningful individual contact.
• Coaching employees to work more independently.
• Managing performance fairly across a larger group.
• Communicating change and acknowledging uncertainty.
• Building peer relationships across fewer organisational layers.

Managers also need permission to say when the design is not working. Reporting that a team size is unsustainable should be treated as operational evidence, not a personal failure to adapt.

A practical monthly check for managers

Once the new structure is in place, managers can use five questions to protect the quality of their leadership:

1. Who have I not had a meaningful conversation with recently?
2. Which decisions are still coming to me that someone else could make?
3. Where am I becoming a bottleneck?
4. Which important management activity is operational work displacing?
5. What recurring problem should be resolved structurally rather than managed repeatedly?

These questions cannot correct an unrealistic organisational design, but they can help managers identify pressure before it becomes normal.

Flatter should mean clearer, not simply thinner

A flatter organisational structure can create worthwhile benefits. It can reduce distance from senior leaders, remove unnecessary approvals and give employees greater ownership of their work.

Those benefits are not produced by deleting boxes from an organisational chart alone.

Organisations must decide which work will stop, move authority closer to employees and protect the time managers need to lead. They must also recognise that translation, coaching, coordination and employee development remain necessary even when fewer people hold formal management titles.

The aim should be a clearer organisation, not a thinner structure sustained by increasingly overloaded managers.

Frequently asked questions

What is a flatter organisational structure?

A flatter organisational structure has fewer management layers between senior leaders and frontline employees. Managers may have wider spans of control, while employees are usually expected to exercise greater autonomy and make more decisions.

What are the risks of flattening an organisation?

Potential risks include overloaded managers, weaker employee development, less individual support, unclear decision rights and the informal return of coordination processes that the restructure was intended to remove.

How many direct reports should a manager have?

There is no single ideal number. The appropriate span depends on work complexity, employee experience, team location, managerial capability, operational workload and the amount of coaching or coordination required.

No comments

Leave a reply