Thoughts on Flat Organizations

The thoughts here are my own and do not reflect that of any organization I have been part of.

A few years ago I had to write a paper on innovation in the workplace, specifically large corporations. The focus of my capstone was Samsung Vs. Apple (fun fact: they don't view each other as competitors, or at least they didn't when I conducted my research). But that's a story for another time. What I did find interesting is how small teams managed to remain creatively divested in product development or, in Apple's case, brand development. A rabbit hole it led me down was how, within large bureaucratic corporations today, it is not uncommon to find teams that are inherently flat in their organizational structure. Even though at a 30,000-foot view, there is some hierarchal structure. What is a Flat Organization?.... Well, it is not this:

Squint your eyes, and you can see a pyramid. Squint your eyes even harder; you may know how the pyramids were built with the workers at the bottom carrying the load. This is probably the most traditional structure and often even the roster for individuals in some offices when assessing manning. How would we make this structure flat?

Some cut out the bottom half of the structure (above) and merely leave out the workforce... completely unrealistic. Let's look at it from another perspective. Maybe from the standpoint that a hierarchal organization requires decisions to be made and then the delegation of commands to follow. And then, sometimes, those commands are assessed at another level and delegated again until the initial intent is far from the work provided. Sometimes, I wonder if the pyramids were meant to be round, but the bureaucracy in between led to a pyramid. Therese a new conspiracy theory.

Traditionally, organizations were structured hierarchically, mirroring the military and religious institutions of the past. This model, characterized by multiple layers of management, was rooted in the principles of the Industrial Revolution. It emphasized efficiency, standardization, and a transparent chain of command, suitable for the manufacturing-dominated era.

However, as the business landscape shifted towards information and technology, the rigidity of hierarchical structures began to hinder adaptability and innovation. The late 20th century saw the rise of knowledge-based industries, where creativity and rapid decision-making became crucial. This environment nurtured the birth of flat organizations as an alternative model.

What if there were still team leads, and maybe a hierarchy, but the team leads carried out the daily tasks the group was responsible for, and the core lead? Administrative responsibilities would lie on the core lead and, respectively, on the team coaches. There may be a tad more to do, but it would even itself out if they contributed to the Work in Process by their respective Teams.

Transparency

Information is no longer top-down to bottom-up but transparent. One person no longer missed a deadline, but the team missed one. The information does not stop at the Team or core lead but is conveyed more accurately and strategically.

Example: (Traditional Task) We need to analyze the data of 100 documents this week.

(The strategy) To meet the production demand projected for next quarter, our records must be clean, and our data has to be better than our competitors based on last year's numbers.

In hierarchal organizations, sometimes the Why is missing.

Moreover, how often do we hear businesses speak about integrity, honesty, and trust? But are they really transparent internally in their own operations?

Democracy over Benevolent Dictatorships

Responsibilities and remaining in one's lane is a touchy subject for employees who have reached their tenure. The last thing anyone wants is to feel like they are being replaced or that someone is doing their job for them or, even worse, better than them.

But what if they were? What if they were doing it better and delivering a different perspective? That would not be received well in a Hierarchical organization because information flows from the bottom up and top down. Laterally, things get misplaced because laterally, in a hierarchical structure, your peers are not doing the work. Their subordinates are.

What if, in a flat organization, you could communicate deliberately from one team member to the next or outside your team? Team to team. Some may say they do this already, but if they were offering advice for a change or to try something differently, there is an approval process or a hierarchal ladder you will have to climb. Flat organizations emerged as a response to the need for greater agility and faster information flow. Pioneered by forward-thinking companies in the tech industry, these structures boasted fewer layers of management, fostering a culture of openness and collaboration. The idea was to empower employees, reduce bureaucracy, and enhance direct communication.

This shift was structural and philosophical, reflecting a new era where employee empowerment and engagement were key drivers of innovation and performance. Companies like Google and Valve became poster children for this approach, demonstrating that a flat structure could be more than just an experiment but a viable, efficient, and innovative way of organizing work in the modern world.

Meetings

Everyone hates meetings. Even those hosting the meetings hate meetings, but we do it anyway. Maybe we are gluttons for bureaucratic punishment. What if there didn't have to be weekly roll-ups or production syncs? What if your leadership knew what was happening because they were in the heat of the battle with you? What if morning syncs were only fifteen minutes? What if the syncs revolved around the daily tasks and the leadership sync followed with a connection to the strategy? If everyone were present, the translation of design and planning would be prevalent if we communicated effectively.

Teams focus on delivering essential updates about what they are working on, and team meetings only live or exist to share information, driving the transparency piece typically by answering three basic questions: What I accomplished yesterday, what I am doing today, and what I need help with. Based on a few reports I found in scholarly journals, organizational structures has undergone a significant transformation over the decades. Movement of business cultures from rigid hierarchies to more dynamic and flexible configurations. This evolution reflects the changing needs of businesses in a rapidly shifting global market. Flat organizations have emerged as a compelling alternative among these configurations, offering a structure that fosters innovation and agility.

Traditional hierarchical organizations, characterized by their multi-layered levels of management, have long been the standard in business. These structures provided clear lines of authority and responsibility, which were essential in times when business processes were more linear and predictable. However, the advent of the digital age and the increasing pace of market changes have exposed the limitations of these traditional hierarchies. They often lead to slower decision-making processes, reduced flexibility, and stifle employee creativity. From experience, we hear this every day in the DoD … “We are too bureaucratic!” While others have argued that the bureaucracy has a place. Like the people pleaser I am; I tend to agree with both.

The grass on the other side of the fence flat organizations, offers a more streamlined approach. These structures facilitate direct communication and faster decision-making by reducing or eliminating multiple layers of middle management. Employees in flat organizations often enjoy greater autonomy and are encouraged to take initiative, leading to a more empowered workforce. This empowerment is crucial in fostering an environment where innovation can thrive. Many have argued that this culture is only acceptable in a startup. Because there, you can find the ability to fail fast and still deliver without severe repercussions.

A study published in the Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship in 2014 dives into the nuances of corporate entrepreneurship within flat organizational structures. The research highlights how flat organizations, by virtue of their structure, enhance the interplay between organizational factors, creative self-efficacy (CSE), and leader-member exchange (LMX), thereby fostering a culture of sustained innovation.

One of the study's key findings is the role of organizational factors such as work discretion and creative time availability. In flat organizations, employees often have more control over their work and are provided with opportunities to engage in creative pursuits. This enhances job satisfaction and leads to innovative activities during and outside regular working hours.

The concept of creative self-efficacy (CSE) – the belief in one’s ability to be creative – is amplified in flat structures. These organizations' direct and open communication channels help reinforce employees' belief in their creative capabilities. This belief is crucial, as it mediates the relationship between organizational support and innovative output. When employees are confident in their creative skills, they are more likely to translate organizational resources and opportunities into tangible innovations.

Leader-member exchange (LMX) also plays a pivotal role in flat organizations. The closer and more personal interactions between leaders and team members in these structures enhance the alignment with the organization's vision and strategy. Leaders in flat organizations often act more as mentors than as traditional managers, fostering a culture of trust and mutual respect, which is conducive to innovative thinking.

Everyone wants to be flat. Flat organizational structures represent a strategic response to the demands of the modern business environment. But are we really devoted to the type of Autonomy that comes with being flat? Or are we creatures of habit that prefer methods of delegation and dictator-like authority? Flat structures not only streamline decision-making and improve communication but also create an environment where innovation is not just encouraged but is a natural outcome of the organization's culture. As businesses continue to navigate an increasingly complex and competitive landscape, the adoption of flat structures might be the key to unlocking greater creativity, agility, and sustained innovation.