SoylentNews

upstart [soylentnews.org] writes:

████ # This file was generated bot-o-matically! Edit at your own risk. ████

the-grate-flattening

Google cut managers by 35%: Inside Pichai’s layoffs overhaul [thehrdigest.com]:

Google has cut 35% of its managers, focusing on those leading teams with fewer than three people. The move, announced during an all-hands meeting on August 27, 2025, has jolted workers across the globe. The recent Google management layoffs is part of CEO Sundar Pichai’s bold move that focuses on efficiency, reshaping the tech darling’s hierarchy amid ongoing restructuring plans [thehrdigest.com]. Pichai’s ongoing Google layoffs not only reshape the company’s structure but also push for leaner operations.

What’s interesting is that the Google job cuts will once again help the giant double down on its AI and cost efficiency moves.

Did Google cut managers for efficiency?

 The recent Google layoffs target roles seen as unnecessary, particularly managers overseeing small teams. Brian Welle, Google’s VP of People Analytics and Performance, shared the details: “We now have 35% fewer managers, with fewer direct reports than a year ago.”

Welle added that Google aims to reduce its leadership ranks, i.e. managers, directors, and vice presidents, to a smaller share of the workforce over time. So, why did Google fire managers?

The ongoing layoffs at Google won’t just cut managers’ roles. Many affected managers have now been shifted to individual contributor roles, thereby retaining their expertise within the company.

Pichai has been clear about the reasoning behind these Google layoffs in 2025. “We need to be more efficient as we grow, so we don’t just throw more people at every problem,” he said during the meeting. The CEO’s approach marks a significant shift from Google’s past, where rapid hiring fueled growth.

These Google layoffs build on earlier job cuts. This includes the 6% workforce reductions at Google in 2023, and targeted layoffs in teams like Android and Pixel [thehrdigest.com]. With a nod to rival Meta’s policies, Pichai jokingly remarked, “Maybe I should try running the company with all of Meta’s policies,” but clarified that Google’s existing leave options are sufficient.

Voluntary Exit Program (VEP) softening the blow of Google layoffs?

To soften the blow in the aftermath of Google layoffs, the giant has introduced a Voluntary Exist Program (VEP) in January 2025 [thehrdigest.com] for U.S. employees in areas like search, marketing, hardware, and people operations. Fiona Cicconi, Google’s chief people office, called the VEP a success. “It’s been quite effective,” with 3% to 5% of eligible employees taking the offer, often for personal reasons like family or breaks from work.

Pichai praised the program’s flexibility, “I’m glad it’s worked out well, it gives people agency.”

What Google manager firings bring to the table

Google layoffs in the past year aimed to make decision-making faster and foster innovation by reducing management layers. This move, however, comes with a slew of risks. Google firing small team managers could weaken mentorship for junior employees or overload remaining managers.

Alphabet’s CFO, Anat Ashkenazi, hinted last October that cost-cutting needs to go “a little further,” suggesting more changes may come soon.

Employee reactions on Google firing managers overseeing small teams have been mixed. One anonymous worker told The HR Digest that the Google layoffs simply show the fragility of middle-class jobs in the era of AI.

Google’s manager firings isn’t the first time a company has prioritized efficiency over expansion. For companies, the recent Google layoffs offer more than a case study on the balance between agility and stability. Sundar Pichai-led layoffs at Google may set a new standard for Silicon Valley giant, but they also raise several questions about employee morale.

Subscribe [thehrdigest.com] to the leading Human Resources [thehrdigest.com] Magazine to receive exclusive HR news [thehrdigest.com] and insights directly to your inbox.

‘Unbossing’ and ‘the Great Flattening’: Lessons on the risks of ditching middle management [hrleader.com.au]:

The future isn’t about unbossing. It’s about rebossing – developing the human leadership that technology will never replace, writes Rebecca Houghton.

Meta made 2023 its “Year of Efficiency”. German pharmaceutical giant Bayer slashed layers of management, blaming hierarchy for corporate sluggishness. And Elon Musk? He’s casually swinging the axe across the US government under the banner of his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The message is clear: middle management is out. Companies and governments are convinced they can run leaner, faster, and better without it.

It sounds bold. It sounds modern. It sounds like progress.

Except we’ve seen this reckless cost-cutting experiment before.

Since the 1980s, companies have recycled the same tired playbook: slash middle management under the banner of “rightsizing”, “downsizing”, or “restructuring”.

It’s the corporate equivalent of a fad diet – dramatic, headline-grabbing, and usually disastrous in the long term. But in tough economic times, chief financial officers start eyeing the biggest expense on the balance sheet: labour costs.

And middle management? An easy target.

But here’s the problem: when you strip out middle management, you don’t get a high-performance, self-sufficient workforce – you get chaos.

Google learnt this the hard way. So did Zappos.

Google’s Project Oxygen initially removed middle managers – only to bring them back. Zappos’ Holacracy experiment, which promised “no job titles, decentralised self-management”, was quietly rolled back – it didn’t work either. Why? Because people flounder without structure. Without regular feedback, motivation, and career development, employees weren’t empowered – they felt lost and quickly disengaged.

And yet, here we go again. According to Live Data Technologies, layoffs in the US are hitting middle management harder than ever. In 2023, nearly a third of all layoffs were managers. And in 2024? That number has surged to almost half.

But today’s layoffs are different from past waves – because this time, AI is in the mix.

AI is already replacing some traditional middle management tasks – administration, workflow management, workload balancing, resource allocation, and reporting. If that’s all your middle managers do, let’s be blunt: bring in the robots. But if you think that’s all middle managers do, or can do, then you’ve missed the lessons of those who went before you.

The best middle managers – the ones I call B-suite leaders – aren’t just pushing paper. They’re driving engagement, fostering development, and making sure company strategy actually turns into outcome.

B-suite leadership is about three core capabilities:

• Controlling the pace of work.
• Using the space to think.
• Making the case with influence.

Right now, most middle managers are bogged down in controlling the pace of work at the expense of everything else. But their real, high-impact responsibilities – motivating and developing people, giving feedback, organising collaborations, resolving conflicts, thinking strategically, influencing decisions, and designing solutions – these are what keep businesses running.

Let AI take over the admin. But cut middle managers entirely, and you cut out the leadership that AI can’t replace.

The lesson from Google and Zappos? You can do without bad middle managers, but you cannot do without good ones. And understanding that distinction is crucial.

Yes, the temptation to cut middle management is strong, especially in tough times. But instead of falling for the siren call of the “Great Flattening” or “Great Unbossing”, leaders should focus on rebossing – building the next generation of B-suite leaders who can do what AI and automation cannot.

The future isn’t about unbossing. It’s about rebossing – developing the human leadership that technology will never replace.

Rebecca Houghton is an author and the founder of BoldHR.

Original Submission