Workquake Weekly

The Mega Manager Problem: What happens when you cut the connective tissue of work

The Megamanager Era: What Happens When We Stretch Managers Too Thin The average U.S. manager now has 12.1 direct reports — up nearly 50% in just twelve years. Meta is running new teams at 50-to-1. Nvidia's Jensen Huang famously keeps 60 people reporting directly to him. The "flatter is better" playbook is rolling downhill from CEOs to first-line managers, and in this episode of Workquake Weekly, Steve Cadigan unpacks what that's actually costing us. Drawing on his nearly four decades in HR — including building LinkedIn's people function during its hypergrowth years — Steve makes the case that the first-line manager isn't overhead. It's infrastructure. They're the layer that catches the quiet drowner on a Tuesday, invests real time in a new hire, and has the hard performance conversation while there's still time to help. That's the connective tissue of an organization. And it's the first thing that disappears when you double a manager's span. The data backs him up. Gallup reports manager engagement fell nine points between 2022 and 2025, and for the first time in decades of tracking, managers no longer hold an engagement edge over the people they lead. Korn Ferry found 41% of companies thinned management layers in 2025 alone. The Optimism Company found 75% of managers report extreme burnout, with more than one in four planning to leave within the year. Gartner found 69% of HR leaders say their managers don't have the skills to lead through change — and that's before full AI integration even lands. Steve also pushes back on the AI assumption driving much of the flattening: yes, AI absorbs coordination work, but it doesn't absorb relational work — the judgment, trust, and read on a person that only builds over time. That still takes a human with room to do it. And at the exact moment we're doubling managers' spans, leadership development investment is at an all-time low. In this episode: * Why the "megamanager" trend is being copied from CEOs down to first-line managers — and why that's a category error * The Gallup, Korn Ferry, Gartner, and Optimism Company data showing the layer that does the human work is breaking * What "connective tissue" really means, and why it never shows up as a problem until it's already gone * The three questions every leader should ask before flattening their org chart again * Why the companies that compound through this decade won't be the ones with the flattest structure — they'll be the ones who protected and prepared the people doing the work that has no calendar invite If you're a CHRO, people leader, founder, or first-line manager navigating restructuring, AI-driven cost pressure, or expanding spans of control, this episode is for you. Connect with Steve: Find Steve Cadigan on LinkedIn — he reads everything. Enjoyed the episode? Rate Workquake Weekly on your podcast platform of choice and share it with a colleague — especially the leader who just flattened their org. #FutureOfWork #Leadership #Management #HR #EmployeeEngagement #WorkplaceCulture #AIatWork #Workquake

Who's running your company in 2035?

Three headlines from this week in work, and the pattern connecting them. Steve breaks down: why dropping degree requirements barely moved the needle on who actually gets hired (fewer than 1 in 700 hires affected), why 55% of HR leaders regret their AI-driven layoffs and one in three companies are now spending more on rehiring than they ever saved, and why a 40% collapse in entry-level tech hiring is quietly mortgaging the leadership pipeline of 2035. The thread tying it together: companies are making decisions that look smart this quarter but will look like obvious mistakes a decade from now. 10 minutes. No fluff. Find Steve on LinkedIn to keep the conversation going.

Loyalty Is a Broken Contract And it's time to stop pretending otherwise

Loyalty Is a Broken Contract… And It’s Time to Stop Pretending Otherwise What if the biggest misunderstanding in the workplace today isn’t about AI, remote work, or even talent shortages… but about loyalty? In this episode of Workquake Weekly, Steve Cadigan challenges one of the most deeply held assumptions in leadership: that employees should be loyal to organizations, even as the terms of employment have fundamentally changed. From companies reducing entry-level roles in anticipation of AI, to return-to-office mandates pushing top performers out the door, the signals are everywhere. The traditional “loyalty in exchange for security” contract no longer reflects reality. And yet, many organizations are still operating as if it does. Steve unpacks what he calls the “Employer Loyalty Paradox” and explores why this disconnect continues to persist… even when both employers and employees know the old model is broken. Drawing on his experience as LinkedIn’s first Chief HR Officer, Steve shares the story behind the “Tour of Duty” approach… a more transparent, growth-focused model that reframes the employer-employee relationship around mutual value, not false promises. You’ll hear why: * Retention may no longer be the best measure of success * Growth and employability are becoming the real currency of work * Organizations that embrace shorter tenures can actually create more value * The future of work depends on honesty, not nostalgia This episode is a call for leaders to rethink what they’re really offering… and what employees are actually agreeing to. Because the problem isn’t that loyalty is gone. It’s that the contract behind it hasn’t caught up. And the organizations willing to rewrite that contract… are the ones that will win. Tune in for a candid, practical, and optimistic take on what comes next.

AI Didn't Fire You. Your Leaders Did

Oracle cut 30,000 people last week. At 6 AM. Via email. No manager conversation. No handoff. Just: you're done, your access is revoked. Steve has been through dozens of staff reductions in his career — and this one hit differently. Not because of the number, but because of what the process communicated. In this episode, he breaks down why the Oracle move is a leadership failure dressed up as a technology decision, what every major tech shift has taught us about the human cost of "deploy first, figure people out later" — and why the organizations that will win with AI are asking a completely different question than everyone else. The research is clear. The logic is there. So why aren't more executive teams listening?

Augmentation Made the Jobs Better. So Why Are We Hiring Less?

This week on Workquake Weekly, Steve unpacks new research from Harvard Business Review that brings real data to one of the biggest debates in the future of work… are jobs being replaced by AI, or reshaped by it? The answer is becoming clearer. Roles built around human and AI collaboration are growing fast, while purely automated roles are shrinking. But the real story isn’t job loss or job growth. It’s how the work itself is changing. Steve walks through what this shift looks like in practice, from financial analysts spending less time gathering data and more time making decisions, to organizations redefining what productivity and value actually mean. But there’s a tension emerging. As companies lean into augmentation, entry-level opportunities are quietly declining, especially in AI-exposed fields. Steve challenges this instinct and asks a bigger question. If AI is unlocking capacity across organizations, why are we using it to do less instead of more? This episode explores: * Why augmentation is winning over automation, and what that really means for leaders * How AI is reshaping the day-to-day reality of knowledge work * The unintended consequences for early-career talent * Why shrinking roles may be the wrong response to increased capacity * A powerful example of how one company bridged the gap between experienced and junior workers Steve offers a grounded but optimistic perspective on what leaders can do next, and why this moment is less about efficiency and more about imagination. Because the real opportunity isn’t just improving what already exists. It’s building what comes next. Harvard Business School — "Displacement or Complementarity? The Labor Market Impact of Generative AI" — Suraj Srinivasan, Wilbur Xinyuan Chen, Saleh Zakerinia. Covered in Harvard Business Review, March 2026. https://hbr.org/2026/03/research-how-ai-is-changing-the-labor-market [https://hbr.org/2026/03/research-how-ai-is-changing-the-labor-market]Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas — "AI is simultaneously aiding and replacing workers, wage data suggest" — J. Scott Davis, February 2026. https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2026/0224 [https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2026/0224]McKinsey & Company — "The State of AI in 2025: How Organizations Are Rewiring to Capture Value" — Alex Singla, Alexander Sukharevsky, Bryce Hall, Lareina Yee, Michael Chui, November 2025. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai [https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai]