4 ms·

‘Flat’ company structures rarely work, but some firms aim for middle ground

34 points by Terretta 3y ago

Nux 3y ago
https://archive.is/eJbok https://archive.is/eJbok
rickcarlino 3y ago
Looks like an interesting headline but unfortunately I am pay walled out. Can anyone provide a summary of the article? Personally I have grown tired of flat organizations and I’m glad to see that the idea is coming under scrutiny.
- beebeepka 3y ago
  What was your experience with these companies? I've only spent seven months in a supposed flat structure and in reality it was anything but flat. Barely literate juniors conducting internal "interviews" and wielding actual power made me run like hell.
- Terretta 3y ago
  No-paywall link (in theory): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/business/flat-structure-companies.html?unlocked_article_code=Kus9ECMdkTr94EbFwwy5G_6-TyK-yZ5S5uOzkAkf3I46KGcWvg26kMXOcq5LhBuAa43InPkqpwZfmIEmAXpC_todD8iLCOchqKd0YRBLkOZQppO7r6LxgGt2N6m2-gF22nTQAacD8mB3Y-ReIFdrBsR4HyVk5Yx25nbn8MXn6JKUvi5628Sfh6HFZrV5-lOZpfJME4338sk0kMk3AvRa5GbGWLsnkAGj-BxdsUeshbw8Df077_HSIk1Q65h4nvM0UqvivaT2kDiO1liIApQUVmOtoEE-xrIR8Kza4CHJIw8cJCcboSLTojEOFzIxFtvNjMKlP-M7IomgE04cHhD4XJxUdA&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/business/flat-structure-c...
jvanderbot 3y ago
Open office and Flat company structure always felt better to me when I was a manager than a dev. If there's no doors or walls I can always go grab an IC and get a quick 1:1 for whatever I need. And if everyone is my IC, how efficient am I?! I'm glad that's past. Being an IC is more individually stressful, but I feel more like a part of the solution. It's all explained pretty well in Paul G's Maker Schedule vs Manager Schedule.
Pannoniae 3y ago
I'm sorry but this just sounds like some propaganda piece. First it talks about Valve's "issues with diversity" without establishing a clear link between the flat structure and that. Then the article tries to apply guilt by association, by basically saying "Theranos was bad, so flat structures are bad". It also implies a company being diverse is a mandatory thing, and non-diverse firms are somehow inherently bad or non-desirable. In the end, I don't really see any real arguments against flat hierarchies in the article, it's basically a propaganda piece made to convince those who don't read beyond buzzwords.
- codeflo 3y ago
  From the documentary I've watched, Theranos was a very dictatorial organization that had strictly enforced knowledge silos and spied on its employees. Their fraud wouldn't have been possible otherwise, but the article's "expert" claims the opposite. Also, quoting what Elizabeth Holmes said as evidence for anything is really beyond stupid at this point, yet it's exactly the logic of the article.
  - blululu 3y ago
    The article feels like it was written on a tight deadline by sleep deprived journalist trying to get something out. Theranos is a case of a place that calls itself flat when it really isn't. If anything the moral issue presented here is more significant in hierarchies than in flat structures. In a hierarchical structure a few bad actors can do a lot without anyone even knowing about it. For this reason, more explicit hierarchies typically have a series of checks to try to curtail this issue. The lack of these checks at Theranos is less about being flat and more about the fact that it was a heirarchical org that refused to act accordingly.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      >>journalist Does the traditional media even employ journalist's anymore? Seems to be most organization are very lacking in journalistic standards
  - 3y ago
motohagiography 3y ago
Archive's catchpas are useless and absurd so I will comment without reading the article. Flat structures aren't flat. When they work, there is always a single strong leader who everyone defers to in a hub/spoke pattern, and what makes the person exceptional is they can get people to work together. The necessary condition is ownership. Where I have seen most flat structures fail is the moment when either that leader leaves and the ensuing vaccuum leaves a power struggle to re-establish an order, or the central person's role is diluted by another source of power like a marquee customer account where someone else emerges and becomes the cargo cult broker of, "well I'm not responsible, but the customer wants X, are you going to argue with the invisible customer?" A successful flat org has a concept of "us," and the failed ones use the concept of "you." The worst pattern is when someone is granted some positional authority but has zero charisma, vision, or ownership, and delcares a flat organization, and then just uses it as a reason to micromanage and veto, while enjoying the attention of people having to vie for their mercurial approval. These kind of managers are just avoiding ownership and responsibility. The incompetent neglect creates a power struggle on the team that rewards the worst in people, and you get a low trust, sabotaging, gossipy, hyper political environment. High ownership is the quality you are probably looking for, a flat organization is probably just low responsibility management.
- tbrownaw 3y ago
  > Archive's catchpas are useless and absurd so I will comment without reading the article. Set reader mode and refresh. Or at least that seems to work for me, on Firefox on both mobile and desktop.
- rndmnflnce 3y ago
  This is it. Flat structures aren't totally flat and there is some depth, but it's all about 'us' and there is strong leadership and ownership. People can wear multiple hats to get things done. Essentially, everyone is 'on the same page' for the better of the business.
  - marcinzm 3y ago
    >Essentially, everyone is 'on the same page' for the better of the business. So they're essentially unworkable as a company gets beyond maybe 50-100 individuals as that is maximum for a unified human social group taking into account that people have social connections outside of work as well?
crop_rotation 3y ago
Company structures make sense depending on the products, and there is no universal standard. All kinds of company structures have been demonstrated to work, and they have to be derived backwards from the product development needs.
tbrownaw 3y ago
A lack of legible structure can mean it's that much easier for tyrannies to hide.
- panarchy 3y ago
  And makes it hard(er) for them to do anything tyrannical. Although I doubt your argument holds any more water compared to non-flat institutions when there's the tyranny of lousy upper management that shows up so frequently. Nor am I sure why you think it would make them easier to hide if you're essentially in the trenches with everyone else instead of hiding through the proxy of layers of lower level managers.
jacquesm 3y ago
Check out the Mondragon corporation if alternative models interest you. It is fascinating, both by its size, the scope of the individual businesses and the structure.
blululu 3y ago
This article is not very good. It is riddled with non-sequiturs and irrelevant facts/opinions that doesn't really get into a lot of the subtleties and nuances around org structures. Flat vs hierarchical structures exist on a continuum where neither end point is ever reached. The success of an organization is not just a matter of the structure but how people act within that structure. Different kinds of organizations need different kinds of managers. Sundar Pichai would be a nobody at Apple, and Tim Cook would be pulling his hair out if he were at Google. It's not that one structure is better than the other. What matters is the people. Flat structures are prone to a lot of problems, but in my experience a lot of the most common issues with 'flat' orgs originate from the fact that the org is not actually flat and people are lying about what roles and responsibilities actually are.
nickpeterson 3y ago
The structure is less important than what the structure dictates. If I can email a question to the ceo and it’s no big deal, but there are three layers between us, I’d argue the hierarchy isn’t much of a hindrance. I think sometimes the hierarchy has a chilling effect on candor.
lantry 3y ago
The Tyranny of Structurelessness, by Jo Freeman https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
mdale 3y ago
Did not read because I am not a NY times subscriber; but I think it would be pretty obvious that different org structures work well or are awful at different stages of a companies development, size and goals.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
adolph 3y ago
The org chart of any organization often doesn’t reflect the set of relationships that emerge to run and evolve the enterprise. I think many workspaces are defacto flat but maintain a hierarchy in order to meet traditional career progression expectations.
neonate 3y ago
http://web.archive.org/web/20230826134029/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/business/flat-structure-companies.html http://web.archive.org/web/20230826134029/https://www.nytime...

34 points by Terretta 3y ago

Nux 3y ago

https://archive.is/eJbok https://archive.is/eJbok

Looks like an interesting headline but unfortunately I am pay walled out. Can anyone provide a summary of the article? Personally I have grown tired of flat organizations and I’m glad to see that the idea is coming under scrutiny.

beebeepka 3y ago
What was your experience with these companies? I've only spent seven months in a supposed flat structure and in reality it was anything but flat. Barely literate juniors conducting internal "interviews" and wielding actual power made me run like hell.
Terretta 3y ago
No-paywall link (in theory): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/business/flat-structure-companies.html?unlocked_article_code=Kus9ECMdkTr94EbFwwy5G_6-TyK-yZ5S5uOzkAkf3I46KGcWvg26kMXOcq5LhBuAa43InPkqpwZfmIEmAXpC_todD8iLCOchqKd0YRBLkOZQppO7r6LxgGt2N6m2-gF22nTQAacD8mB3Y-ReIFdrBsR4HyVk5Yx25nbn8MXn6JKUvi5628Sfh6HFZrV5-lOZpfJME4338sk0kMk3AvRa5GbGWLsnkAGj-BxdsUeshbw8Df077_HSIk1Q65h4nvM0UqvivaT2kDiO1liIApQUVmOtoEE-xrIR8Kza4CHJIw8cJCcboSLTojEOFzIxFtvNjMKlP-M7IomgE04cHhD4XJxUdA&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/business/flat-structure-c...

jvanderbot 3y ago

Open office and Flat company structure always felt better to me when I was a manager than a dev. If there's no doors or walls I can always go grab an IC and get a quick 1:1 for whatever I need. And if everyone is my IC, how efficient am I?! I'm glad that's past. Being an IC is more individually stressful, but I feel more like a part of the solution. It's all explained pretty well in Paul G's Maker Schedule vs Manager Schedule.

Pannoniae 3y ago

I'm sorry but this just sounds like some propaganda piece. First it talks about Valve's "issues with diversity" without establishing a clear link between the flat structure and that. Then the article tries to apply guilt by association, by basically saying "Theranos was bad, so flat structures are bad". It also implies a company being diverse is a mandatory thing, and non-diverse firms are somehow inherently bad or non-desirable. In the end, I don't really see any real arguments against flat hierarchies in the article, it's basically a propaganda piece made to convince those who don't read beyond buzzwords.

codeflo 3y ago
From the documentary I've watched, Theranos was a very dictatorial organization that had strictly enforced knowledge silos and spied on its employees. Their fraud wouldn't have been possible otherwise, but the article's "expert" claims the opposite. Also, quoting what Elizabeth Holmes said as evidence for anything is really beyond stupid at this point, yet it's exactly the logic of the article.
- blululu 3y ago
  The article feels like it was written on a tight deadline by sleep deprived journalist trying to get something out. Theranos is a case of a place that calls itself flat when it really isn't. If anything the moral issue presented here is more significant in hierarchies than in flat structures. In a hierarchical structure a few bad actors can do a lot without anyone even knowing about it. For this reason, more explicit hierarchies typically have a series of checks to try to curtail this issue. The lack of these checks at Theranos is less about being flat and more about the fact that it was a heirarchical org that refused to act accordingly.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    >>journalist Does the traditional media even employ journalist's anymore? Seems to be most organization are very lacking in journalistic standards
- 3y ago

motohagiography 3y ago

Archive's catchpas are useless and absurd so I will comment without reading the article. Flat structures aren't flat. When they work, there is always a single strong leader who everyone defers to in a hub/spoke pattern, and what makes the person exceptional is they can get people to work together. The necessary condition is ownership. Where I have seen most flat structures fail is the moment when either that leader leaves and the ensuing vaccuum leaves a power struggle to re-establish an order, or the central person's role is diluted by another source of power like a marquee customer account where someone else emerges and becomes the cargo cult broker of, "well I'm not responsible, but the customer wants X, are you going to argue with the invisible customer?" A successful flat org has a concept of "us," and the failed ones use the concept of "you." The worst pattern is when someone is granted some positional authority but has zero charisma, vision, or ownership, and delcares a flat organization, and then just uses it as a reason to micromanage and veto, while enjoying the attention of people having to vie for their mercurial approval. These kind of managers are just avoiding ownership and responsibility. The incompetent neglect creates a power struggle on the team that rewards the worst in people, and you get a low trust, sabotaging, gossipy, hyper political environment. High ownership is the quality you are probably looking for, a flat organization is probably just low responsibility management.

tbrownaw 3y ago
> Archive's catchpas are useless and absurd so I will comment without reading the article. Set reader mode and refresh. Or at least that seems to work for me, on Firefox on both mobile and desktop.
rndmnflnce 3y ago
This is it. Flat structures aren't totally flat and there is some depth, but it's all about 'us' and there is strong leadership and ownership. People can wear multiple hats to get things done. Essentially, everyone is 'on the same page' for the better of the business.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  >Essentially, everyone is 'on the same page' for the better of the business. So they're essentially unworkable as a company gets beyond maybe 50-100 individuals as that is maximum for a unified human social group taking into account that people have social connections outside of work as well?

crop_rotation 3y ago

Company structures make sense depending on the products, and there is no universal standard. All kinds of company structures have been demonstrated to work, and they have to be derived backwards from the product development needs.

tbrownaw 3y ago

A lack of legible structure can mean it's that much easier for tyrannies to hide.

panarchy 3y ago
And makes it hard(er) for them to do anything tyrannical. Although I doubt your argument holds any more water compared to non-flat institutions when there's the tyranny of lousy upper management that shows up so frequently. Nor am I sure why you think it would make them easier to hide if you're essentially in the trenches with everyone else instead of hiding through the proxy of layers of lower level managers.

jacquesm 3y ago

Check out the Mondragon corporation if alternative models interest you. It is fascinating, both by its size, the scope of the individual businesses and the structure.

blululu 3y ago

This article is not very good. It is riddled with non-sequiturs and irrelevant facts/opinions that doesn't really get into a lot of the subtleties and nuances around org structures. Flat vs hierarchical structures exist on a continuum where neither end point is ever reached. The success of an organization is not just a matter of the structure but how people act within that structure. Different kinds of organizations need different kinds of managers. Sundar Pichai would be a nobody at Apple, and Tim Cook would be pulling his hair out if he were at Google. It's not that one structure is better than the other. What matters is the people. Flat structures are prone to a lot of problems, but in my experience a lot of the most common issues with 'flat' orgs originate from the fact that the org is not actually flat and people are lying about what roles and responsibilities actually are.

nickpeterson 3y ago

The structure is less important than what the structure dictates. If I can email a question to the ceo and it’s no big deal, but there are three layers between us, I’d argue the hierarchy isn’t much of a hindrance. I think sometimes the hierarchy has a chilling effect on candor.

lantry 3y ago

The Tyranny of Structurelessness, by Jo Freeman https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

mdale 3y ago

Did not read because I am not a NY times subscriber; but I think it would be pretty obvious that different org structures work well or are awful at different stages of a companies development, size and goals.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

adolph 3y ago

The org chart of any organization often doesn’t reflect the set of relationships that emerge to run and evolve the enterprise. I think many workspaces are defacto flat but maintain a hierarchy in order to meet traditional career progression expectations.

neonate 3y ago

http://web.archive.org/web/20230826134029/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/business/flat-structure-companies.html http://web.archive.org/web/20230826134029/https://www.nytime...