Flat structures have a special lure. “Come work for us, we have a flat organization.” It’s almost as if those words insinuate no explanation is needed! It’s a flat org! Get excited, people.  

In retrospect, the organizations I worked for that claimed they were flat, were in need of some serious direction, structure, and unit empowerment.

Structural options have less to do with the classification, and more to do with how companies interpret the benefits. Further, it has to do with how the organization wants teams to behave within their cohorts.

Let’s start with the types of organizational structure. The most often defined is a traditional hierarchy. This stems from the “modernized” working age that occurred in the industrial revolution. Even before that, though, the government emphasized the chain of command. The order was clear, and often age was associated with relevant experience. For a constantly changing global workplace, a one-size fits all approach is no longer good enough. New structures were considered for the evolving workplace. Flat organizations came to be, then flatter organizations, and then holacratic frameworks (to name the primaries).

The traditional hierarchy:

The traditional hierarchy maintain the bureaucracy many of us have learned to despise. The red tape of checks and balances remove the ability to get work done. Traditional hierarchies mute critical thinkers and, regretfully, empowerment suffers. In the process of minimizing productivity – coinciding with the speed to communicating – companies become less competitive. The ability to pivot becomes a memory of the past.

Some company owners fall into the traditional hierarchy without meaning to. And, as the company scales, no one stops to reconsider if the structure is supporting company goals. The first check and balance: Each year, look at the reporting lines and consider other frameworks. Is there another that better aligns with the goals of your organization?  

The Flat Structure:

I alluded to this – the flat structure has previously been seen as sexy. Here’s the thing: a true flat structure means there are no job titles, no seniority, no reporting formalities, no executives. Come one, come all, we are equal. So, if you’re reading this thinking, hmm, my company is “flat” but there are indeed seniors, executives, and clear titles, word to the wise: your org isn’t flat.

Some companies are able to make flat organizations work splendidly; if an employee wants to start their own project, then they are responsible for securing funding and building their team. In a way, they are part owners (without the equity). This takes ample trust. If you’re comfortable with this construct, proceed!

Most typically, flat organizations are doable with a young and small company. Think of it this way, when you start your company, you may be able to have everyone report to you. However, when there are 15-20 people on board (and still growing) there simply aren’t enough hours in the day for everyone to report to you. Your time will not be used efficiently, and you will end up working twice as long in the workday.

Holacratic:

The primary goal here is to empower and enable decision making. This term is best known thanks to our friends at Zappos. Holacracy has with it its own rules and guidelines; if you’re interested in a deeper look, check out this resource. The way I see holacratic structures is like this: reporting structures are in place, but rather than everyone rolling up, teams roll laterally or diagonally. Leaders are empowered to approve decisions in their respected areas, and every decision does not need to go up the ladder.

The truth is, any hierarchy that ensures empowerment will function very differently than bureaucracies as we know them. Structure helps maintain order and minimizes ambiguity. But, as conveyed, too much structure leads to a stifled and slow-moving work environment. If we look at structures as a tool for leadership development, we can reinvent how hierarchies are defined. Note: I find flatter organizations and holacratic structures have some some overlap. My preference? Take parts from each that work best for you.

At the root of all of this is people management, not organizational line management. If you want your workplace to be collaborative and dare to encourage creativity, as well as question the status quo, enforce a structure that promotes collaboration (flatter or holacratic structures) but doesn’t require only one, or few, people’s omnipresence (flat).