4 ms·

There is some limit to how many people you can manage effectively. So, in a company with, say, 10,000 employees, you can't have just one layer of management bet

There is some limit to how many people you can manage effectively. So, in a company with, say, 10,000 employees, you can't have just one layer of management between COs and ICs. You'd either need each manager to work with 500 direct reports, or you'd need the COs to work with 500 managers. If we look at 100,000 employee orgs, this gets even sillier. If you even attempt something like this, what will actually happen will be a chaotic hierarchy arising within the larger group, with people playing politics to rise above their peers. Edit: I should add that I absolutely believe a bottom-up organization can work, but it needs to be built with the right organizational model in place. You can't just say "no managers" and expect people to work directly for the CEO. You can put in place rules so that employees can self-organize, appoint representatives to interact with other teams, vote for collective decision making and so on. But this typically requires a huge power loss for the C-suite and owners, which is why it's very unlikely to work well outside of a co-op.

adastra22 3y ago
Works for the Vatican just fine. Your point is generally good, but not universally true. Mostly-flat organizations do work in certain contexts.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Well, a thousand years of refinement and a set of company values that most employees have instilled into them since birth will do that to an organization.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    That, and also most of the work of a church (interaction with laypeople) is self-evident, local, and easily managed. Once trained, a priest can be set loose on a community without much oversight. Likewise, I can imagine a chain of Montessori schools being similarly organized, or a trade guild.
    - cyanydeez 3y ago
      If you.ignore the rampant pedophilia
- defrost 3y ago
  What works for the Vatican just fine? It's a long way from being mostly flat, decisions are made at a crawling pace, and is convoluted enough to hide substantial theft, and shield large numbers of pedophiles .. even those rising to the Vatican C-suite level.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    The catholic church is famously held up as an example of a nearly-flat organization in many business schools.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Yet in reality it has as many layers as other governments and businesses of a similar size. "Administration" in https://www.britannica.com/topic/Holy-See https://www.britannica.com/topic/Holy-See gives a rough overview. There's layered mangement for multiple domains of interest.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      I think it's also possible that says a lot more about the shoddy metaphors of most business schools than the actual level of hierarchy in the Catholic church (beyond the other discussion we were having about how atypical the CC is as an organization).
- rjvs 3y ago
  Does this structure explain the organisational response to the (myriad) accounts of terrible behaviour by individuals within it at many levels?
silvestrov 3y ago
Depends on if you are managing people or you are micromanaging people. It should be possible to manage 22 employees if you are good at setting directions and explaining why those directions have been chosen. You can have 22 people in one room and do functional group discussions, this is like a good size for a school class. 1 CEO -> 22 level A managers each level A manager -> 22 level B = 22 * 22 = 484 level B each level B manager -> 22 level C workers = 484 * 22 = 10648 workers. I have yet to see a company with 10_000 employees and only 2 levels of management between workers and the CEO. If you add another management layer, it is only 10 people per manager. This is not much and quickly gets into micromanagement if the manager works fulltime at managing.
- iteria 3y ago
  22 is so many direct reports. If my supervisor had 22 direct reports. I'd just check out mentally because I know I wouldn't get any real face time with them to discuss issues. Skip manager attention? Forget it. With 22 direct reports, you're not there to add your expertise and make the process better, but to be a cog in the machine.
  - silvestrov 3y ago
    Maybe there is a cultural difference here. I see repeated 1:1 sessions as micromanagement, like being treated as a kid that needs their hand held. I don't want to discuss work items on 1:1 with the manager, I want to discuss them in a group setting because it is the group as a whole that solves the tasks. I also want the input from other members in the group instead of only the managers view. In my country we do personal "how is everything going" 1:1 meetings at most once a year.
    - organsnyder 3y ago
      > I see repeated 1:1 sessions as micromanagement, like being treated as a kid that needs their hand held. There's space between viewing employees as children needing to be coddled on the one side and viewing them as completely rational automatons on the other. I worked for three years for a "flat" company where we were all expected to independently define our own goals, schedules, and get support when needed. When everything was going smoothly, it worked well—I had a degree of freedom that was an incredible relief after my previous employer. But when I lost sight of how I could best benefit the company, I went into a spiral that led to months of me questioning my ability to work in this field at all (or whether I was a capable adult at all). Without a reporting chain—or official support structure of any kind—I didn't know where to turn; and knowing that it was my responsibility to correct this mess made the spiral go even deeper when I failed to do so. At the time I was fired from that job, I was having issues with my blood pressure for the first time in my life. Within months afterward, my blood pressure returned to a normal level, and my wellbeing improved in so many other ways that can't be so readily measured. I'm fortunate to now be in an environment that both has formal support structures as well as informal communication and feedback loops. I'm still the ultimate person responsible for my success, but my manager (and others in the company) are also invested in it. Perhaps I have less autonomy than I did (I still have quite a bit, especially compared to other places I've worked), but I find myself much more relaxed. Guardrails can be freeing.

adastra22 3y ago

Works for the Vatican just fine. Your point is generally good, but not universally true. Mostly-flat organizations do work in certain contexts.

tsimionescu 3y ago
Well, a thousand years of refinement and a set of company values that most employees have instilled into them since birth will do that to an organization.
- adastra22 3y ago
  That, and also most of the work of a church (interaction with laypeople) is self-evident, local, and easily managed. Once trained, a priest can be set loose on a community without much oversight. Likewise, I can imagine a chain of Montessori schools being similarly organized, or a trade guild.
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    If you.ignore the rampant pedophilia
defrost 3y ago
What works for the Vatican just fine? It's a long way from being mostly flat, decisions are made at a crawling pace, and is convoluted enough to hide substantial theft, and shield large numbers of pedophiles .. even those rising to the Vatican C-suite level.
- adastra22 3y ago
  The catholic church is famously held up as an example of a nearly-flat organization in many business schools.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Yet in reality it has as many layers as other governments and businesses of a similar size. "Administration" in https://www.britannica.com/topic/Holy-See https://www.britannica.com/topic/Holy-See gives a rough overview. There's layered mangement for multiple domains of interest.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    I think it's also possible that says a lot more about the shoddy metaphors of most business schools than the actual level of hierarchy in the Catholic church (beyond the other discussion we were having about how atypical the CC is as an organization).
rjvs 3y ago
Does this structure explain the organisational response to the (myriad) accounts of terrible behaviour by individuals within it at many levels?

silvestrov 3y ago

Depends on if you are managing people or you are micromanaging people. It should be possible to manage 22 employees if you are good at setting directions and explaining why those directions have been chosen. You can have 22 people in one room and do functional group discussions, this is like a good size for a school class. 1 CEO -> 22 level A managers each level A manager -> 22 level B = 22 * 22 = 484 level B each level B manager -> 22 level C workers = 484 * 22 = 10648 workers. I have yet to see a company with 10_000 employees and only 2 levels of management between workers and the CEO. If you add another management layer, it is only 10 people per manager. This is not much and quickly gets into micromanagement if the manager works fulltime at managing.

iteria 3y ago
22 is so many direct reports. If my supervisor had 22 direct reports. I'd just check out mentally because I know I wouldn't get any real face time with them to discuss issues. Skip manager attention? Forget it. With 22 direct reports, you're not there to add your expertise and make the process better, but to be a cog in the machine.
- silvestrov 3y ago
  Maybe there is a cultural difference here. I see repeated 1:1 sessions as micromanagement, like being treated as a kid that needs their hand held. I don't want to discuss work items on 1:1 with the manager, I want to discuss them in a group setting because it is the group as a whole that solves the tasks. I also want the input from other members in the group instead of only the managers view. In my country we do personal "how is everything going" 1:1 meetings at most once a year.
  - organsnyder 3y ago
    > I see repeated 1:1 sessions as micromanagement, like being treated as a kid that needs their hand held. There's space between viewing employees as children needing to be coddled on the one side and viewing them as completely rational automatons on the other. I worked for three years for a "flat" company where we were all expected to independently define our own goals, schedules, and get support when needed. When everything was going smoothly, it worked well—I had a degree of freedom that was an incredible relief after my previous employer. But when I lost sight of how I could best benefit the company, I went into a spiral that led to months of me questioning my ability to work in this field at all (or whether I was a capable adult at all). Without a reporting chain—or official support structure of any kind—I didn't know where to turn; and knowing that it was my responsibility to correct this mess made the spiral go even deeper when I failed to do so. At the time I was fired from that job, I was having issues with my blood pressure for the first time in my life. Within months afterward, my blood pressure returned to a normal level, and my wellbeing improved in so many other ways that can't be so readily measured. I'm fortunate to now be in an environment that both has formal support structures as well as informal communication and feedback loops. I'm still the ultimate person responsible for my success, but my manager (and others in the company) are also invested in it. Perhaps I have less autonomy than I did (I still have quite a bit, especially compared to other places I've worked), but I find myself much more relaxed. Guardrails can be freeing.