• Alvaro Munevar Jr. leveraged middle management jobs to help him retire early from his tech career.
• Now, Big Tech companies are culling middle managers, a reduction that Munevar Jr. said makes sense.
• He said he witnessed how middle managers allowed fiefdoms to thrive and slowed down productivity.

I spent nearly all of my 30-year tech career in middle management. I managed teams that built and delivered web and mobile business applications.

I intentionally stayed in the middle management bracket, where I was paid well and typically worked 40 to 45 hours most weeks. This meant I had enough time to build a real-estate side business. Doing that helped me achieve my goal of early retirement.

In 2024, I left my corporate job and live off my real-estate passive income.

My retirement at 59 came as the wider tech industry began eliminating many middle management positions.

Big Tech companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and Google have been trying to flatten their company structure by removing managers. Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, has said this is to increase efficiency, while Amazon's Andy Jassy, who has said he wants the company to run like the "world's largest startup," has suggested that removing management layers can cut bureaucracy.

Although I really enjoyed working and learning as a middle manager, I did occasionally question the value I was bringing at that level.

I worked in startups and bigger companies alike

Beginning in the late 1990s, I worked in both engineering and middle management roles for a few small startup companies.

These startups maintained a flat management structure where the CEO worked directly with individual contributors to quickly make key decisions and deliver software products. There were few middle managers, and little bureaucracy. This leaner model meant we had fewer scheduled meetings and fewer roadblocks to building out products.

In the startups I worked for, everyone was focused on rapidly solving problems to reach the objective. Your job and future stock awards were based on the team's ability to focus and deliver quickly. Teams could make and execute plans more rapidly without the bureaucracy of a middle management layer — the reviews and approvals that middle managers tend to oversee in larger companies often only slow things down.

When I worked in tech roles at larger companies, my role often involved monitoring progress and confirming that software development teams were meeting the project timelines. I was responsible for explaining the delays to senior management and recommending improvements to avoid future hold-ups.

I spent significant time relaying status updates to the leaders above me and directives to the individual contributors below me. From working at startups, I knew that this back and forth could be reduced in a leaner management environment.

While working at larger companies, I also noticed that fiefdoms began to thrive due to the large number of middle managers.

Fiefdoms, a well-known phenomenon in tech, are essentially siloed groups of workers who are closely controlled by middle managers. These managers oversee what information about the group they share with the rest of the company.

I noticed that fiefdoms often benefited managers. By overseeing a larger head count, they had a greater perceived value. However, it unfortunately ended up isolating teams and departments from one another, leading to duplicated efforts across the company due to limited communication between groups.

On several occasions, my team and I would spend months building out a new software solution only to learn upon presenting our work that another manager's silo of engineers had already built out a similar one.

This is a management fiefdom scenario at its worst, and it negatively impacted morale. My team members were furious that their efforts had been wasted because of the lack of communication.

I'm not sad to see middle managers go

I built my tech career in middle management, so it may seem odd that I recommend removing the very role I once performed.

But after working in tech for over 30 years, I've witnessed significant wasted effort, duplicated results, and territorial management practices in the traditional, heavier middle management model.

There may be disruption and some confusion until the new model has fully worked itself out, but I expect that flattening companies will ultimately create leaner, better working environments.

Do you have a story to share about middle management in tech? Contact the editor, Charissa Cheong, at [email protected]

• Taylor Nissi is a senior VP and wealth advisor at the wealth management firm Farther.
• He shared his top tips he would give to clients navigating recent market volatility amid tariffs.
• Nissi said everyone should have three buckets: emergency fund, growth strategy, and retirement plan.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Taylor Nissi, a wealth advisor at Farther. It has been edited for length and clarity.

It's important that people have a financial plan they can refer to during times of economic uncertainty.

In the current climate, people may want to reevaluate their risk strategies for their investment portfolios and cash management.

As a wealth advisor, it's my job to help both small business owners and employees through this time of economic uncertainty. Here are my top tips.

Make a plan and prioritize your emergency fund

We like to say you should have three buckets. The first bucket is your emergency fund, the second is your taxable growth strategy, and the third is your long-term retirement plan.

Having a financial plan gives people a reference point to return to during market fluctuations. It can help with decision-making in times of high anxiety.

Everyone should prioritize building their emergency fund or "first bucket." Your emergency fund is a way to prepare for market risk and life risk.

If your household has one income, you should have at least six months saved in your emergency fund. If you have two incomes — either two income earners, one person with two incomes, or a person with one income and a trust fund — that number could drop to three months.

Any other money you know you'll spend in the next 24 months, a college tuition to pay or a house down payment, for example, should all be added to your emergency fund.

This money should be held somewhere that it can be easily converted to cash without affecting its market price. You want something safe, easy to access, and earning a little interest: High-yield savings accounts, money market accounts, or short-term CDs are all good.

If you're not coping, remove volatile assets like stocks and add bonds

The "second bucket" is your taxable growth strategy: investments to help your money grow, even in accounts where you pay taxes, like a regular brokerage account. We've been talking with a lot of clients about how they felt when the market crashed in early April. Our clients hold a lot of wealth in stocks and were very uncomfortable.

If clients were very stressed or couldn't sleep at night, then we'd look at their "second bucket" and change the allocation of their portfolio to more bonds and fewer stocks.

However, we'd also tell people that selling stocks and buying bonds can impact your long-term financial goals. If you sell stocks when prices are down, you lock in those losses. Buying bonds instead may mean you miss out if the stocks rebound.

If you were emotionally OK during a volatile market, I'd say continue buying stocks. They're the best way to compound wealth. You want to buy companies with strong balance sheets and a strong moat around them.

Do not make reactionary portfolio decisions

If you make an emotional decision to sell everything and go to cash, there could be a knock-on impact on achieving your financial goals.

If my clients call me and tell me they want to sell everything, I generally try to walk them back, share historical data about why that might not be a good idea, and tell them to sleep on it.

Taking your money out of the market, say the S&P 500, when you're most uncomfortable and returning after a couple of days will reduce your annual average returns.

Knowing when to invest back in is the hard part. The best days in the market often come immediately after the worst days. So if you take your money out on the worst day, and wait for some kind of "all clear sign," you will almost certainly miss the best days.

I talk a lot about what we learned through the 2008 financial crisis. A lot of the people who got hurt the most were the people who reacted emotionally.

Consider long-term investments

If you're younger, under 50, I'd advise clients to own mostly stocks in their "third bucket," their retirement savings plan. Stocks have much more growth potential compared to bonds. If you didn't cope emotionally with what happened in early April, you could adjust to having fewer stocks and more bonds, but that will have a downstream impact.

If you are nearing retirement, you should be thinking about moving some of your "third bucket" assets into more stable investments. Or if you cannot handle the market swings, think about building a more stable and less growth-oriented portfolio.

I always try to help my clients who are getting ready to retire be conscious of the "sequence of returns" risk. This is when you have to pull money out of your retirement fund during bad market conditions, which can drain your savings faster than you planned for.

If you retire during a market decline, you'll be forced to sell assets at a discount rather than their fully appreciated value, which will decrease your future value. Selling investments while they're down means you'll have less money left to grow in the future, so your total retirement fund shrinks faster.

If you're preparing to retire in the next two or three years, your third bucket should have an emergency fund of its own. You want to have two years of expenses in cash in addition to the emergency fund you already have. It will protect you against stagflation and market uncertainty.