The Myth of the "Flat" Org Structure
If I had a dollar for every fad diet that I have read about, I could balance the US budget. There are other sorts of fads, in education, child-rearing, etc. One curious fad was “Holocracy”, the concept of a leaderless organization structure. You know, healthy orgs don’t really need leaders, just free all the people to self-organize and get stuff done. Zappos was the best example of Holocracy in action. Of course, "leaderless" defies common sense, and many employees of Zappos resisted the collectivization of the office. This prompted the CEO, Tony Hsieh to issue a decree to "adapt holocracy or leave" Indeed, George Orwell got it right. All animals are created "equal". But apparently, Tony Hsieh is more "equal" than the other animals. Fortunately, most companies are lead by, shall we say, more well-grounded leaders, and Holocracy usually only comes up in conversations when talking about stupid business ideas.
What about the “flat org structure”. What does this mean? Since it is impossible for a large and successful company to run without leaders, “flat” generally applies to non-leaders. For a dev company, this means that you will have managers, directors, vice presidents, and various chief officers; all titles that carry authority and privilege. The flatness appears when you get to the individual contributors, the software engineers. Indeed, the golden calf of a “flat org” company is that no individual contributor can have a title that confers rank or privilege. I once sat in a room full of leaders, all of whom had titles that confer rank and privilege, as they all argued that software engineers can not have titles that confer rank or privilege. I thought this a bit absurd and hypocritical, and I said as much.
There are IC's with knowledge and experience that is very deep. We all know and work with them. They solve our most difficult problems. They provide direction for many other IC’s in the org. Without them, companies would fail. Make no mistake about it. They are leaders. This truth then allows us to split all tech companies into two buckets: those who acknowledge and reward IC leaders, and those who pretend they don’t exist.
Co-Founder at V-Nova
4 年Thanks David Ronca for sharing your thoughts. From my own perspective, hierarchy is very much needed in fast growing phases, when many decisions need to be taken and quickly. An organisation that has nurtured leaders able to listen and value ICs and to make decisions for me has an edge
Passionate Technology leader and team builder
4 年Since when are managers leaders? And since when does hierarchy hold real leaders back?
Automotive Embedded Software Engineer
4 年Finally somebody said it!
Data@Netflix
4 年I think a test that leaders of a "flat org" should explore is finding all the IC leaders and finding out if they feel supported and included.? Likely they don't and don't feel they have the access they need.? If you can provide that and continue to grow IC leaders without providing the guidance, access, and influence that the titles reflect, then congrats you might have a successful flat org.? If not you should consider the damage that will do to your continued success.