Before deciding whether delayering is the right path, it’s worth digging into what it really means. Delayering is the process of removing layers of management within an organization to create a flatter, leaner structure. Instead of multiple supervisory levels (team leads, managers, senior managers, directors) companies reduce the hierarchy so decision-making flows faster and communication becomes more direct.
The purpose of delayering is usually to:
Delayering is often confused with downsizing. The difference is that while downsizing focuses on reducing headcount to cut costs, delayering specifically removes layers of management to speed up decision-making and create a more agile organizational structure.
Same as in downsizing, delayering often involves layoffs, as organizations remove managerial roles or consolidate teams to support a flatter structure. However, it’s important to understand that delayering isn’t simply “cutting managers.” It fundamentally reshapes how a business operates: who has authority, how teams collaborate, and how quickly ideas move from concept to action. When done well, it can boost agility and innovation. When done poorly, it can lead to confusion, burnout, and loss of leadership support.
Delayering is the latest buzzword in boardrooms, but it’s far more than a trendy restructure. As companies push to cut red tape and stay competitive, many are stripping out layers of management in the hope of becoming leaner and more agile. But is this bold shift a smart strategic move or a risky leap that can leave teams overwhelmed and leaders stretched thin? This is what we explore in this article.
Amazon offers one of the clearest modern examples of delayering at scale. As the company grew into a global giant, its once-lean structure accumulated layers of management and processes that slowed decision-making. Under CEO Andy Jassy, Amazon began a deliberate effort to remove excess hierarchy and push authority closer to the teams doing the work.
A major part of this shift involved reducing layers of middle management and increasing the ratio of individual contributors to managers. The goal was to speed up decisions, reduce bureaucracy, and prevent the sprawling organization from becoming slow and inward-focused. Amazon also invited employees to flag unnecessary processes through a “bureaucracy mailbox,” which led to hundreds of internal procedures being streamlined or eliminated.
This push fit naturally with Amazon’s long-standing philosophy of small, autonomous teams—often described through the “two-pizza team” rule. These teams own products end-to-end and thrive in flatter, more agile structures. By cutting layers and expanding team ownership, Amazon aimed to keep operating with the urgency and flexibility of a startup, even at its enormous size.
Yet the approach hasn’t been without challenges. Fewer management layers can mean heavier workloads for the leaders who remain, and flatter structures reduce traditional promotion paths. Still, Amazon’s example shows how delayering can be used strategically—not just as a cost-cutting move, but as a cultural reset designed to increase agility and innovation at scale.
Delayering is the latest buzzword in boardrooms, but it’s far more than a trendy restructure. As companies push to cut red tape and stay competitive, many are stripping out layers of management in the hope of becoming leaner and more agile. But is this bold shift a smart strategic move or a risky leap that can leave teams overwhelmed and leaders stretched thin? This is what we explore in this article.
Before deciding whether delayering is the right path, it’s worth digging into what it really means. Delayering is the process of removing layers of management within an organization to create a flatter, leaner structure. Instead of multiple supervisory levels (team leads, managers, senior managers, directors) companies reduce the hierarchy so decision-making flows faster and communication becomes more direct.
The purpose of delayering is usually to:
Delayering is often confused with downsizing. The difference is that while downsizing focuses on reducing headcount to cut costs, delayering specifically removes layers of management to speed up decision-making and create a more agile organizational structure.
Same as in downsizing, delayering often involves layoffs, as organizations remove managerial roles or consolidate teams to support a flatter structure. However, it’s important to understand that delayering isn’t simply “cutting managers.” It fundamentally reshapes how a business operates: who has authority, how teams collaborate, and how quickly ideas move from concept to action. When done well, it can boost agility and innovation. When done poorly, it can lead to confusion, burnout, and loss of leadership support.
Amazon offers one of the clearest modern examples of delayering at scale. As the company grew into a global giant, its once-lean structure accumulated layers of management and processes that slowed decision-making. Under CEO Andy Jassy, Amazon began a deliberate effort to remove excess hierarchy and push authority closer to the teams doing the work.
A major part of this shift involved reducing layers of middle management and increasing the ratio of individual contributors to managers. The goal was to speed up decisions, reduce bureaucracy, and prevent the sprawling organization from becoming slow and inward-focused. Amazon also invited employees to flag unnecessary processes through a “bureaucracy mailbox,” which led to hundreds of internal procedures being streamlined or eliminated.
This push fit naturally with Amazon’s long-standing philosophy of small, autonomous teams—often described through the “two-pizza team” rule. These teams own products end-to-end and thrive in flatter, more agile structures. By cutting layers and expanding team ownership, Amazon aimed to keep operating with the urgency and flexibility of a startup, even at its enormous size.
Yet the approach hasn’t been without challenges. Fewer management layers can mean heavier workloads for the leaders who remain, and flatter structures reduce traditional promotion paths. Still, Amazon’s example shows how delayering can be used strategically—not just as a cost-cutting move, but as a cultural reset designed to increase agility and innovation at scale.
Delayering doesn’t just reshape the org chart; it reshapes how people feel, communicate, and work together. Its impact on employees and culture can be transformative, but also deeply challenging if the change isn’t managed with sensitivity and clarity.
Removing layers often gives employees more ownership and decision-making power. For many, this feels energizing and empowering. But with autonomy comes responsibility. Employees may suddenly be expected to make calls previously handled by managers, which can create stress if they’re not trained or supported.
Flatter structures tend to reduce the “telephone game” effect. Employees get closer access to leaders, messages are clearer, and information moves faster. This can boost trust if leaders communicate openly and consistently.
Those who remain after delayering often manage larger teams. While this can streamline leadership, it can also dilute attention, reduce coaching time, and leave managers stretched thin. Poorly supported managers can quickly become cultural weak points.
In many organizations, hierarchy is tied to status, progression, and a sense of belonging. Removing layers can disrupt that psychological architecture. Some employees may embrace the shift; others may feel that career paths have been erased or that their roles have lost meaning.
If delayering is associated with layoffs it can heighten anxiety. Employees may worry about job security, wonder who’s next, or question leadership motives. Without transparent communication, uncertainty can spread and morale can slip.
When done well, delayering encourages faster collaboration, fewer silos, and a more entrepreneurial mindset. Teams can become more agile, problem-solving becomes more collective, and innovation tends to rise.
Delayering can absolutely be a viable long-term strategy, but only when it’s driven by purpose, not panic. Organizations that use delayering thoughtfully, with a clear vision for empowerment, agility, and better decision-making, often emerge faster, more innovative, and more responsive to change. In these cases, a flatter structure becomes part of a healthy operating model rather than a one-time cost-cutting exercise.
But delayering is not a cure-all. When implemented too aggressively or without cultural support, it can overload managers, unsettle employees, and create ambiguity around roles and progression. And while delayering frequently involves layoffs, companies that treat it purely as a downsizing tactic rarely see lasting performance gains.
In the long run, the success of delayering depends less on removing layers and more on what replaces them: clearer ownership, stronger communication, intentional leadership development, and a culture that embraces autonomy. Done well, delayering can create an organization that moves with clarity and confidence. Done poorly, it can weaken the very foundations companies rely on to grow.
Delayering is the latest buzzword in boardrooms, but it’s far more than a trendy restructure. As companies push to cut red tape and stay competitive, many are stripping out layers of management in the hope of becoming leaner and more agile. But is this bold shift a smart strategic move or a risky leap that can leave teams overwhelmed and leaders stretched thin? This is what we explore in this article.
