There's a Dilbert cartoon from the 1990s. Consultant comes in and says "centralize!" Later, after that's done, the consultant comes back again and says "decentralize!"<p>For what it's worth, there are many journal publications on flat vs. tall organizations, dating from at least 1950 with Worthy's
"Organizational Structure and Employe Morale". See <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22flat+organization%22" rel="nofollow">http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22flat+organization%22</a> for some of the publications.<p>As I learn more about history, I grow suspicious of statements like "The problem with a hierarchical structure is that it increasingly doesn't fit the needs of modern businesses." How is modern business in this regard any different than businesses of the 1960s and 1970s? Is the author following a current fad or is it based on a deeper historical understanding?<p>For example, <a href="http://www.psgoodrich.com/pc/docs/ARTICLES/HumanSideOfEnterprise.PDF" rel="nofollow">http://www.psgoodrich.com/pc/docs/ARTICLES/HumanSideOfEnterp...</a> from 1957 talks about "In this connection, the flat organization of Sears, Roebuck and Company provides an interesting example. It forces "management by objectives," since it enlarges the number of people reporting to a manager until he cannot direct and control them in the conventional manner. JOB ENLARGEMENT: This concept ... encourages the acceptance of responsibility at the bottom of the organization ..."<p>That's nearly 60 years ago. Why did those fail to produce sufficiently flat modern organizations? How can that failure be avoided this time?