The Rise of the Megamanager: Navigating the Great Flattening

The modern workplace is undergoing a structural transformation, often referred to as the Great Flattening. This movement sees organizations eliminating middle management layers to reduce bureaucracy and cut costs. As a result, the managers who remain are finding themselves responsible for significantly larger teams.

According to recent workplace data, the average number of direct reports per manager has risen sharply. This shift is creating a new class of overburdened leaders known as megamanagers, who must navigate the complex demands of leading larger groups while often continuing to perform hands-on work. The trend raises critical questions about sustainability, employee engagement, and the future of corporate leadership.

The data confirms a dramatic expansion in managerial responsibilities. Managers' average number of reports—known in the industry as their span of control—has grown steadily over the past year, rising from 10.9 in 2024 to 12.1 in 2025. This marks a substantial increase from pre-pandemic levels, where the average hovered around 9 people per manager in 2019 and just 8.2 in 2013.

The increase is not just a statistical anomaly; it represents a fundamental shift in team composition. The trend is driven primarily by the rise of massive teams, with a notable two-percentage-point increase in groups boasting 25 or more members. Currently, approximately 13% of all managers are navigating the complexities of directing 25 or more direct reports.

Simultaneously, the role of the manager is becoming more hybrid and demanding. Data indicates that 97% of managers are now taking on individual contributor work that falls outside their core leadership purview. This dual burden of management and execution is a defining characteristic of the modern corporate landscape.

Major corporations are driving this flattening as a deliberate strategy. Firms like Intel, Amazon, and Meta have executed layoffs specifically targeting middle management to rectify what they perceive as excessive layers of bureaucracy. The goal is to streamline decision-making and empower employees.

Having fewer managers will remove layers and flatten organizations more than they are today. If we do this work well, it will increase our teammates' ability to move fast, clarify and invigorate their sense of ownership.

However, the human cost of this efficiency can be severe. The pressure to manage larger teams while maintaining performance standards often leads to burnout. One middle manager described how her workload ballooned from managing zero to 21 direct reports, a shift that ultimately led to her resignation. She noted that the sheer volume of work forced meetings to become purely transactional, stripping away the time needed for mentorship, career development, and genuine connection.

Workplace experts emphasize that simply increasing the span of control without adjusting support structures is a recipe for failure. Jim Harter, Gallup's chief scientist of workplace management and well-being, warns against blind implementation of this strategy. He notes that when employees are already feeling detached from their employers, increasing their manager's workload without the right conditions creates significant risk.

Research highlights specific behaviors that can mitigate the strain of larger teams. Managers who successfully navigate these expanded roles are those who prioritize meaningful interactions over administrative tasks. The data suggests that managers who have at least one weekly meaningful conversation with each employee achieve substantially better outcomes.

Furthermore, the most effective teams are led by managers who spend less time on individual contributor work. When leaders focus on their leadership duties rather than trying to do the work of their subordinates, team engagement remains high regardless of the team's size. This requires a deliberate shift in how managers allocate their time and energy.

Experts argue that the root of the problem lies in how organizations approach promotions. Tanuj Deora, a vice president with decades of management experience, suggests that experience levels must dictate team size. He advises that new managers should start with small teams of five or six people to build foundational skills before handling larger groups.

Gallup's Harter identifies a systemic issue: people are often promoted to management for the wrong reasons. The two most common drivers are being a strong individual contributor or having long tenure, neither of which guarantees managerial aptitude. Organizations often feel a need to continually promote employees, and the only upward path available is management, which is associated with higher status and pay.

The solution proposed by experts is to create high-status individual contributor roles. By establishing prestigious career paths for non-managers, companies can ensure that employees do not feel forced into management to advance their careers. This allows organizations to staff leadership positions with those who are truly suited for the role, rather than those simply seeking a title change.

The era of the megamanager is defined by the tension between corporate efficiency and employee well-being. While the trend toward flatter organizations offers potential for agility and reduced bureaucracy, it places immense pressure on the remaining leadership. The success of this transition depends entirely on how organizations support their managers.

Ultimately, sustainable flattening requires more than just cutting headcount. It demands a cultural shift that values meaningful leadership interactions, recognizes the limits of individual capacity, and provides alternative paths for career advancement. Without these safeguards, the Great Flattening risks trading long-term stability for short-term savings.