Currently working at a place that considers itself 'flat' I can say that it's one of the most confusing things ever, and the management tries to continually tell me that it's such a great thing that everyone can take ownership of things themselves. It's a bunch of bull really, it just means no one has to take responsibility for failures to meet goals, there's no pressure to meet deadline and there's no actual ownership of product. This article hits all the points on the head about said flat structures, and how they don't work at all. They breed distrust, and resentment toward management because of an apparent (or real) lack of defining what's expected.
This article is very interesting but fails to address one point. Why companies go for "Flat" or "Holocracy" organizations? I know three reasons:<p>- People tend to hate managers, they don't trust them.<p>- Flat team are faster removing the management complexity.<p>- There's more flexibility and more creativity around the problem tackled by the team.<p>The last reason is reasonable but is true applied for small unit inside the bigger organization, not the whole organization, as this article explains well. Nothing prevent to create a small unit with a specific task inside a bigger organization and to organize this unit (usually made by "star" employee) in a flat structure.<p>The second reason is disputable, it doesn't scale has the article suggest.<p>But the first reason is not addressed. And it is the real issue. I think everyone had terrible bosses and great bosses. We usually remember terrible managers as an example of the average managers (Mental association: Dilbert's Pointy Hair Boss) while we consider the great bosses we had as mentors, role models, guide. And we forget that they were also our manager. It is a form of selection bias.<p>There's also another issue at play, changing organizational structure, trying Flat or Holocracy is easy (I'm not saying that it's easy to do it right, it's easy to give it a try). Promoting the right person, with the right skills is difficult. And if you promote the wrong person (it happens) removing from a managerial position or moving him to a position that is a better fit is extremely difficult. So we all decide to do what is easy instead of what is difficult. Not sure I could blame someone, it is the people mindset, but doesn't mean that what is easy is also correct while what is difficult, when done right, proved to be correct.
In my experience, the thing that I've seen kill the motivation and productivity of any team, is the feeling – true or not – that the team isn't being listened to. From what I've seen, most people seem to be able to cope with most any structure, but if feedback goes (seemingly, at least) unnoticed then that more than anything will kill their motivation. No amount of flat, or structure, or holymoly organization voodoo will fix a team that's lost trust in their ability to do anything because they aren't being listened to.
Adding one thing not addressed directly: sometimes people disagree and there needs to be a decision mechanism.<p>Consensus is obviously preferable. But it scales very poorly. A simple workaround is to nominate someone as the tie-breaker. To avoid secondary rounds of nonsense, you try to pick someone with the respect of their peers.
Flat systems value the accumulation of power over the actual work done. So if you are good at working the system, then you'll do fine. Otherwise, you have no protection. Wikipedia is a good example of a flat system where people accumulate power in other ways, usually by banding with others to enforce a particular point of view. While the goal is ostensibly creating content, much of the time is taken up on power disputes that are not aligned with the goal of the organization. This political infighting leads inevitably to harassment of those who do not fit the system. In Wikipedia's case, minorities, women, and non-aggressive users find it difficult to gain power from the entrenched power groups, while <i>those in power think nothing is wrong because they erroneously think the flat system gives everyone a fair chance</i>. Combined with a lack of leadership, flat systems result in inefficient processes and inconsistent work compared to hierarchical systems where everyone knows their role and a leader guides the project, and has the final say.
> There’s an impulse among companies these days to differentiate themselves .... or most recently and most astonishingly, [by] raising your minimum salary to $70,000 per year.<p>Really? Raising the minimum wage was about "differentiating" themselves, and not out of the realization that everyone needs a comfortable wage to live on?<p>I'm sorry, but I can't take an analysis by such a person seriously. This attitude demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.
Whenever this comes up in management theory I'm always reminded of this article.
<a href="http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm</a><p>The setting is radical feminism rather than tech management, but the drivers are the same and so are the results.
My understanding is that you can be flat and still have a project lead who is in charge of driving the project to the finish line. I'm skeptical of flat myself but I'm not sure if it is to blame in your situation. Rather, you seemed to need a lead whose job is to ultimately make the project succeed.
Another issue with flat structure is that once implicit management roles arise, other people tend to hold those individuals responsible for results even as they lack official support for the role. It builds resentment towards them and puts them in a difficult position.
I think there be trouble on both ends of the spectrum: too flat, and too hierarchical. I think there's a sweet spot in the middle: my gut-feeling is about log_10 (N) + 1 layers, where N = number of employees.
Flat will only kill you if you do a half-assed job of it. Functional flat organizations require motivated members. If you have a goal that everyone can agree on, and you trust those people to stay on target, you don't need structure.<p>The unfortunate truth is that traditional businesses will never be able to motivate their employees enough to make this work at any kind of scale. You have no reason to care that much, especially not long term.<p>Personally, I think workers-coops are the answer. But that remains to be seen.
My previous comments on flat structures (related to holacracy, but works for any flat org theory):<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8270601" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8270601</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9513604" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9513604</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9367390" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9367390</a>
It sounds like the problem isn't flatness so much as a complete absence of mission and direction. Any team needs a mission to organise itself around solving
Flat doesn't work because people from childhood on have been taught to listen to teacher, listen to boss, listen to parent.<p>Is it any wonder people don't know how to work together independently of authority figures?<p>I think some civic training would be good for people working in flat organizations. They need to be un-educated.
counter-point -- olark (a ycombinator company) uses flat-ish hierarchy and works quite well <a href="https://blog.olark.com/our-world-is-no-longer-flat" rel="nofollow">https://blog.olark.com/our-world-is-no-longer-flat</a><p>(disclosure: i used to work for olark, and their system works quite well)