Unbossing: 3 Cons, 3 Pros & 10 Takeaways

Unbossing: the systematic elimination of middle managers.

If you’re an employee, unbossing sounds like a great idea — until you have nowhere to turn for anything.

If you’re in HR, unbossing might sound like a cost-cutting nightmare.

Either way, this trend across business types and sizes has some downsides and upsides that HR will want to understand — and then either avoid or manage.

“The trend toward unbossing might seem appealing for increased agility and reduced bureaucracy, but the downsides can be detrimental to employee morale and engagement,” says Jamie Aitken, VP of HR Transformation at Betterworks.

Amid downsizing and company reorganizations these days, middle managers accounted for 30% of all layoffs last year. That’s up from 20% in the previous five years, according to a report from Live Data Technologies. In comparison, the bosses above them account for just 14% of layoffs.

Why Are We Unbossing?

So why are organizations unbossing their ranks?

Some want to cut costs because of economic uncertainty or actual tough times. Others feel they have, or can adopt, new technology that will make certain roles less necessary. Still other organizations want to create more autonomy across the organization, letting employees have more control of the way they do their jobs.

Of course, in most instances of unbossing, companies don’t completely eliminate managers. They just build a flatter, less hands-on approach to management. Management falls on senior leaders or employees themselves in self-managed teams.

“This approach can work in some organizations, especially those with highly autonomous and experienced teams,” says Aitken. “But middle managers play a vital role in bridging the gap between senior leadership and frontline employees, ensuring that strategic objectives are effectively translated into actionable tasks and that employees have the support they need to succeed.”

Therein lies some of the problems. Let’s look at the potential issues and possibilities with getting rid of middle managers.

Con 1: Daily Guidance

Without a manager to turn to, some employees might struggle to perform as well.

When you flatten the leadership curve, “it often leads to gaps in day-to-day support, guidance and feedback, which are crucial for employee development and business outcomes,” says Aitken.

We aren’t saying employees must have daily support. Most employees want a certain degree of autonomy — and organizations want resilient, critical thinkers. But most people still need sounding boards and feedback to develop and flourish.

Con 2: Engagement

We’ve all heard — and likely lived — the saying, “when the cat’s away, the mouse will play.” Even if we love our bosses, when they’re “away,” we tend to be less engaged in our work — and “play” a little more!

Without a direct boss all the time, it “can be detrimental to employee morale and engagement,” says Aitken. “Without the support and direction of experienced managers, employees may struggle with clarity, direction and professional growth, which can ultimately impact the organization’s success and business outcomes.”

While a direct manager doesn’t account for all of employee engagement, they’re damn important. In fact, Gallup says this could be their most profound finding ever: “70% of the variance in team engagement is determined solely by the manager. Frontline managers, in particular, are the most crucial lever when it comes to engaging an organization’s employees.”

If you take away frontline managers, engagement drops. Period.

Con 3: Accountability

Some people can’t handle accountability. And that’s where having a manager helps — their guidance and check-ins essentially hold people accountable.

Plus, employees who are unbossed might be more prone to quietly quit their jobs by doing the minimum when there’s less supervision and infrequent check-ins.

For younger workers early in their careers, unbossing is especially dangerous. Many need help navigating the work world — not just their roles and the company — and a frontline manager is the first mentor and accountability partner.

Pro 1: Decision-Making

“The main advantage of eliminating middle managers is potentially speeding up decision-making processes by way of flatter structures,” says Aitken.

With fewer levels of bureaucracy, everyone can make faster decisions — and essentially act faster, too.

Pro 2: Streamlined Communication, Processes

Similarly, when there are fewer people from top to bottom, teams and individuals end up collaborating better.

They also streamline communications throughout the company because there are fewer people sharing and receiving the information — which also improves clarity and curbs miscommunication.

Pro 3: Savings

We’d be remiss to not acknowledge this advantage: You reduce personnel costs when unbossing is totally necessary.

Fewer middle managers means less payroll and possibly lower overhead as you reduce workforce and need less space and fewer resources.

Takeaways

Whether you want to to avoid unbossing or want to improve operations because you’ve had to unboss, we have takeaways from this trend.

To avoid unbossing, Aitken suggests:

• Focus on upskilling and training existing managers to enhance their efficiency and effectiveness
• Implement tools that streamline administrative tasks, allowing managers to focus more on strategic and supportive roles
• Encourage managers to adopt flexible management styles that work for their teams’ needs. Let them promote a more adaptive and responsive work environment, and
• Shift the focus of management from supervision to coaching, which emphasizes employee development and empowerment.

If you must unboss, we suggest you:

• Recognize that HR and other top leaders will take on a larger role in employee engagement and collaboration. Work with leaders on how you’ll manage the shifting needs and workloads to accommodate this
• Prepare to give employees more autonomy and the tools they need to manage their work effectively
• Train employees to handle self-management and accountability
• Make goal-setting, check-ins, feedback and recognition a critical part of your culture. With fewer leaders, they’ll all need to schedule time to continually stay on top of these engagement factors
• Maintain open lines of communication. While it might seem easier to communicate with flatter management, people will be busier and may forget to communicate. Senior leadership will want to regularly check that they’re clear and aligned in the message — and that the message gets out timely and consistently, and
• Bolster performance management tools. If you already have them, train employees more on how to use — and maximize the use of — them so everyone is on the same page, engaged and productive.