The Case for Fewer Managers: Amazon’s Latest Move and Why It Matters
TL;DR: Maximizing incremental value at speed while minimizing bureaucracy, ensuring your organization grows in sustainable directions.
Amazon’s recent announcement regarding its return-to-office policy has sparked conversations about the workplace of the future. But what caught my attention was the decision to reduce the ratio of managers to individual contributors. This shift signals a broader trend in management philosophy and is captured at length in Gary Zamel and Michele Zanini’s book Humanocracy.
Throughout my career, I’ve been privileged to serve in roles where I’ve led teams of all sizes—from a small but mighty team of two (me included) to teams of 450 people. I’ve seen firsthand how management structure impacts performance, culture, and outcomes. So when Amazon announced this shift, I wanted to join the legions of pundits and share my perspective on the balance between people leadership and individual contribution.
Striking the Balance Between Leaders and Doers
Amazon's leadership—right or wrong—often acts as a bellwether for the business world, influencing how organizations rethink their strategies. CEO Andy Jassy’s latest update reflects this as Amazon leans towards a hybrid work model with a minimum of 3 days in the office, a compromise between remote and full-time in-office work. But what I’m particularly focused on is their push for more individual contributors versus middle managers.
As someone who has worn both the manager hat and currently serves as a Chief of Staff (arguably one of the most privileged individual contributor roles), I see the benefits of this shift firsthand. When you’re an individual contributor with a bird's-eye view of the business, as I am, you’re able to directly influence outcomes without the added complexity of hierarchical layers. You have access to decision-makers and can focus on the P&L, the customer, and the key levers that drive growth.
The Middle Manager Dilemma
Let’s be clear—middle management plays an essential role in large organizations. Books like HBR's The Case for Middle Management do a great job defending these positions as the backbone of strategy execution. Middle management, if left unchecked, however, can grow like an unpruned tree—expanding in unsustainable ways, causing the organization to focus on growth that the core, or the “trunk,” can’t support.
The problem? More managers often mean more meetings, more reporting, and ultimately, more complexity. When management focuses too much on oversight rather than facilitation, less time is spent on execution. Amazon—and frankly, most businesses—are trying to strike the right balance between the two. This is why we see companies flattening their structures and encouraging more individual contributors who can directly impact the business without unnecessary layers of oversight.
Why Regular Pruning Makes Sense
Teams and companies must be diligent in periodically diagnosing their organizational layers and ways of working to prevent stagnation. This doesn’t mean eliminating all middle managers, but it does mean being intentional about who is in those roles and ensuring their contribution aligns with the company’s strategic goals.
Amazon’s decision to reduce the manager-to-IC ratio is a powerful reminder that agility and execution are paramount. By minimizing managerial bloat, they’re doubling down on what truly drives results—individual contributors with the freedom to act.
A Framework for Pruning: The 2x2 Approach
For leaders looking to mollify bureaucracy while keeping their teams effective, consider using this simple 2x2 matrix inspired by our book Big Things F@$t, which can help you assess where to make adjustments in your organization.
The 2x2 Matrix: Impact vs. Bureaucracy
High Impact, Low Bureaucracy: This is the sweet spot. These roles and processes directly contribute to your business outcomes with minimal administrative burden. Invest in and nurture these areas—these are the critical branches that feed the growth of the tree, or help produce seeds for additional trees.
High Impact, High Bureaucracy: These are the areas where bureaucracy has crept in, bogging down high-impact roles. Your job here is to prune unnecessary processes and free up these teams to focus on execution. The goal is to keep the impact but reduce the overhead.
Low Impact, Low Bureaucracy: These are low-maintenance areas, but their contribution to the organization may be limited. Evaluate whether these areas can be optimized or if resources could be better spent elsewhere.
Low Impact, High Bureaucracy: Low Impact, High Bureaucracy: These areas often require close evaluation. If the processes aren't critical, they may be prime candidates for pruning, freeing up resources for higher-value activities. However, some essential functions in this quadrant, like compliance, may still require some level of oversight.
Using this framework, you can systematically evaluate different parts of your organization, identifying where management layers may be slowing down progress versus where they’re enabling impactful work. The key is to focus on maximizing incremental value at speed while minimizing bureaucracy, ensuring your organization grows in sustainable directions.
Handling the Human Side of Pruning
Of course, we can’t talk about pruning management layers without addressing the people who are impacted. When middle management is reduced, it’s important to handle transitions thoughtfully. For managers who are displaced as part of this shift, offering support to help them transition into other roles—whether inside or outside the organization—is crucial. Whether it’s through reskilling, offering them opportunities in more direct contributor roles, or helping them exit gracefully, these actions show respect for their contributions.
Pruning should be about making the organization stronger, not creating collateral damage. Ensuring that affected managers feel supported can help maintain morale across the organization and uphold the company’s values during a time of change. This human touch is essential to ensure that organizational adjustments are both effective and compassionate.
My Perspective: A Balanced View
While middle managers serve as the connective tissue in many organizations, the tendency for bureaucracy to self-replicate is real. I’ve seen it in many industries over the past two decades. Flattening structures by shifting the focus to individual contributors can offer organizations the agility they need to remain competitive—especially in fast-moving markets.
Amazon’s move to reduce managers is, in my view, the right kind of organizational pruning that allows businesses to grow stronger, not slower. It’s not about removing managers but about removing unnecessary complexity. And as we continue to experiment with hybrid work and evolving management structures, finding that sweet spot between leadership and execution will be key for long-term success.
Call to Action
Take a look at your organization. Is bureaucracy feeding itself? Are you empowering individual contributors to drive results, or are they getting buried under layers of management? Now might be the perfect time to diagnose and refocus on what drives success.
Disclaimer: The thoughts and strategies outlined here are general guidelines based on my experiences and observations. Always consider the unique circumstances and dynamics of your organization when implementing new approaches. Curious to chat more about how to drive results? Feel free to reach out here.
References:
Andy Jassy’s latest update on Amazon’s return-to-office and management changes: Amazon News.
The Case for Middle Management: A detailed defense of the critical role middle managers play in organizations. Read more here.