5 ms·

Listen to this guy and @wycats. This has been my experience also. Flat structures are horrible.

by joesmo 11y ago

PopeOfNope 11y ago
Perfectly flat structures are horrible, but on the flip side, if you have too many layers between the people making the decisions and the people implementing the decisions you're playing one large game of telephone. That's why I like mid-stage startups. Typically, everyone reports directly to a VP, who reports directly to the CEO. The CEO has a clear picture of the company, the VP has the clear picture of a single specific product and the engineers have clear direction.
icebraining 11y ago
Are flat structures horrible, or are horrible flat structures horrible? Which systems have you experienced?
- tbrownaw 11y ago
  Non-horrible flat structures very quickly become neither. There's an old essay available online called "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" that talks about this.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I've read the essay, but regardless of its merits, it talks about unstructured organizations, not flat structures; hierarchy is just one of the possible structures you can use to avoid the problems she describes.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  Flat structures are really project based orgs. They work fine if you are in fact working on projects. When the org grows and operational/day to day work and process start to appear, flat orgs falter more often than not. Someone needs to be accountable for critical things, and whomever ends up in charge of the most critical thing ends up being "more equal" than everyone else.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Why are flat structures necessarily project based? I'm sorry to appear argumentative, but this is an area where we as tech workers have a great opportunity to explore alternatives to the dominant system of command-and-control, since we have small companies which are already tasked with trying new stuff, and what I'm seeing is blanket rejection based on a few (often misguided and naive) tries. I'm not an expert either, but I've seen many small organizations as a grew up (specifically, theatre groups), and while they had project (plays) based distribution of tasks, some also managed the other stuff (like finances and requests of grants) without creating an hierarchy or putting those people in any way in charge.
    - Spooky23 11y ago
      IMO, the project-based nature of a flat org is essential because the project is a unifying mission with regular updates and well-understood outcomes (project milestones). Small orgs are different because motivated people can self-organize. A small theatre company or neighborhood block party committee can self organize because the core cadre of a half dozen people take care of the finances, grants, etc. Even in those cases, someone is at least nominally in charge -- an individual needs to sign checks, apply for grants, hold the cash, etc. I've lived this at least a dozen times, in a mid/late stage startup, F500 company, and sprawling government bureaucracy. The story is always the same. New business units emerge with a guy in charge and a nimble team of <10 people. They achieve success and grow. Problems start around 10-15 people because folks are focused and cannot productively communicate across the group. Leaders emerge and work out differences. The next point of resistance in around 25-30 people -- the lack of explicit authority undermines the emergent leaders. Everything breaks at 40-50 people unless there is an established chain of command. There may be a way to tweak these things and make it work, but it takes special skills/knowledge/instincts that aren't obvious to people. Special things are hard to repeat, and business relies on repeatable process. IMO, there are a couple of ways that flat orgs can work. The most obvious is where the work is delivering unkilled/skilled tasks. A plumbing company has a dispatcher who sends out plumbers. A consulting company has salesmen called Vice Presidents, Project Managers and dispatchers. No hierarchy. I think the other type of org is a co-op type arrangement. Coops have some hierarchy, but the power structure is elected vs. appointed which changes the dynamic.
inopinatus 11y ago
Flat as in completely amorphous teams are a management anti-pattern because (as the poster above describes) cliques will crystallize anyway and a balkanised, feudal pecking order emerges. Flat as in shallow hierarchy, though, that can work well. My preferred team size is five, with a maximum of seven, because communication patterns grow factorially. Beyond seven, the leader is overburdened by admin. Seven groups of five makes a 35-strong engineering team and can be stunningly agile and productive, especially if the duties of maintenance and support are rotated periodically.
- vosper 11y ago
  Ideally the maintenance and support are part of each team's duties. You'll never be more motivated to do things right than when you have to maintain and support your own work.

Listen to this guy and @wycats. This has been my experience also. Flat structures are horrible.

by joesmo 11y ago

Listen to this guy and @wycats. This has been my experience also. Flat structures are horrible.

Perfectly flat structures are horrible, but on the flip side, if you have too many layers between the people making the decisions and the people implementing the decisions you're playing one large game of telephone. That's why I like mid-stage startups. Typically, everyone reports directly to a VP, who reports directly to the CEO. The CEO has a clear picture of the company, the VP has the clear picture of a single specific product and the engineers have clear direction.

icebraining 11y ago

Are flat structures horrible, or are horrible flat structures horrible? Which systems have you experienced?

tbrownaw 11y ago
Non-horrible flat structures very quickly become neither. There's an old essay available online called "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" that talks about this.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I've read the essay, but regardless of its merits, it talks about unstructured organizations, not flat structures; hierarchy is just one of the possible structures you can use to avoid the problems she describes.
Spooky23 11y ago
Flat structures are really project based orgs. They work fine if you are in fact working on projects. When the org grows and operational/day to day work and process start to appear, flat orgs falter more often than not. Someone needs to be accountable for critical things, and whomever ends up in charge of the most critical thing ends up being "more equal" than everyone else.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Why are flat structures necessarily project based? I'm sorry to appear argumentative, but this is an area where we as tech workers have a great opportunity to explore alternatives to the dominant system of command-and-control, since we have small companies which are already tasked with trying new stuff, and what I'm seeing is blanket rejection based on a few (often misguided and naive) tries. I'm not an expert either, but I've seen many small organizations as a grew up (specifically, theatre groups), and while they had project (plays) based distribution of tasks, some also managed the other stuff (like finances and requests of grants) without creating an hierarchy or putting those people in any way in charge.
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    IMO, the project-based nature of a flat org is essential because the project is a unifying mission with regular updates and well-understood outcomes (project milestones). Small orgs are different because motivated people can self-organize. A small theatre company or neighborhood block party committee can self organize because the core cadre of a half dozen people take care of the finances, grants, etc. Even in those cases, someone is at least nominally in charge -- an individual needs to sign checks, apply for grants, hold the cash, etc. I've lived this at least a dozen times, in a mid/late stage startup, F500 company, and sprawling government bureaucracy. The story is always the same. New business units emerge with a guy in charge and a nimble team of <10 people. They achieve success and grow. Problems start around 10-15 people because folks are focused and cannot productively communicate across the group. Leaders emerge and work out differences. The next point of resistance in around 25-30 people -- the lack of explicit authority undermines the emergent leaders. Everything breaks at 40-50 people unless there is an established chain of command. There may be a way to tweak these things and make it work, but it takes special skills/knowledge/instincts that aren't obvious to people. Special things are hard to repeat, and business relies on repeatable process. IMO, there are a couple of ways that flat orgs can work. The most obvious is where the work is delivering unkilled/skilled tasks. A plumbing company has a dispatcher who sends out plumbers. A consulting company has salesmen called Vice Presidents, Project Managers and dispatchers. No hierarchy. I think the other type of org is a co-op type arrangement. Coops have some hierarchy, but the power structure is elected vs. appointed which changes the dynamic.

inopinatus 11y ago

Flat as in completely amorphous teams are a management anti-pattern because (as the poster above describes) cliques will crystallize anyway and a balkanised, feudal pecking order emerges. Flat as in shallow hierarchy, though, that can work well. My preferred team size is five, with a maximum of seven, because communication patterns grow factorially. Beyond seven, the leader is overburdened by admin. Seven groups of five makes a 35-strong engineering team and can be stunningly agile and productive, especially if the duties of maintenance and support are rotated periodically.

vosper 11y ago
Ideally the maintenance and support are part of each team's duties. You'll never be more motivated to do things right than when you have to maintain and support your own work.