Bayer is getting rid of bosses and asking staff to ‘self-organize’

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.