Bayer is getting rid of bosses and asking staff to ‘self-organize’
Bayer’s plan to cut a large share of middle managers and move to “self-organizing” teams is drawing skepticism, especially given the company’s role in tightly regulated pharmaceutical development. Commenters compare the move to past experiments with flat hierarchies and holacracy at firms like Zappos and Valve, noting recurring problems: informal power structures, overburdened senior staff, weak accountability, and chaos when everyone is expected to manage. Many see the initiative less as a genuine organizational innovation and more as a cost-cutting or PR-driven response to bloat and legal troubles, warning that good management is valuable but hard to replace.
Overall reaction
- Strong skepticism that Bayer’s “boss‑less, self‑organizing” model will work, especially at pharma scale and in a heavily regulated domain.
- Many see it as a familiar management fad (Agile, holacracy, “flat orgs”) repackaged as cost‑cutting and middle‑management layoffs.
- Some argue it could work in limited contexts: small expert teams, specific R&D tasks, or in orgs explicitly designed this way from the start.
Experiences with self‑organizing / flat structures
- Multiple posters report “self‑organizing” teams devolving into:
- “Biggest asshole / highest‑status person wins.”
- Hidden cliques and informal power structures (“tyranny of structurelessness”).
- Within otherwise traditional companies, a single self‑organizing department was described as chaotic and politically exposed.
- Others share positive experiences where:
- Small, highly skilled teams without managers coordinate via standups and shared responsibility.
- Decision‑making and accountability are clear and social norms are strong.
- Consensus: it’s easy to claim “flat” or “Agile” while just renaming managers and keeping hierarchy and dysfunction.
Role and value of managers
- Many criticize middle management as bloated, empire‑building, and incentivized to grow headcount rather than results.
- Counterpoint: good managers are described as:
- Shielding teams from chaos and politics.
- Turning strategy into clear priorities.
- Handling HR, coordination, and cross‑team alignment.
- Several note that removing managers doesn’t remove management work; it gets pushed down to ICs or up to executives, often hurting productivity and burnout.
Incentives and power dynamics
- Commenters highlight:
- Headcount as status and pay lever (“empire building,” Parkinson’s Law).
- Budget rules (“spend it or lose it”) and bonus structures reinforcing bloat.
- Flat structures often weak at dealing with underperformance and conflict.
Bayer‑specific concerns
- Some see this as:
- A cover for large‑scale middle‑management RIFs, especially hard under German labor law.
- A PR spin while dealing with major legal/financial issues (e.g., Monsanto/glyphosate lawsuits, past scandals).
- Concerns that:
- 90‑day rotating “self‑directed teams” are mismatched to multi‑year drug development.
- Informal structures and diluted accountability are risky for safety‑critical pharma processes.