There’s a certain irony to being a middle manager right now.
Loading audio narration…
We’ve been chronicling how vulnerable managers have become in the AI era. Companies are flattening org charts to boost efficiency. Coinbase is eliminating “pure managers” as part of its AI-driven job cuts. Block has rebranded them as “player-coaches.” Meta and Snap have made similar proclamations.
And yet, many of these same managers are tasked with pushing their colleagues to embrace the very technology that poses such a threat to them. As my colleague Emily Stewart writes, people are becoming inadvertent job executioners.
Disney, JPMorgan, and KPMG are among the companies tracking and incentivizing employees’ use of AI tools, according to Business Insider’s reporting. Managers have become the front lines of AI adoption — monitoring usage, building dashboards, flagging laggards, and nudging employees who aren’t engaging enough. (Tell us where you stand on AI leaderboards and whether they are a healthy form of office camaraderie).
The dynamic raises a bigger question: What, exactly, is the optimal role of a manager now?
Business-school case studies have long framed managers as the bridge between executives who devise strategy and employees who execute it. These are the people responsible for motivating teams and getting the best out of their workers.
But AI is reshaping that equation. Some managerial functions are being automated. Many are overseeing AI agents in addition to their growing number of direct reports.
The real issue is whether this flattening of managers (and increased responsibilities for those who remain) will ultimately make organizations better, or if the proverbial transformation pendulum has swung too far.
What should the role of a middle manager be in the AI era? Send me your thoughts at srussolillo@businessinsider.com.
