When Following Industry Trends Sets You Back: The Leadership Crisis in Outdated IT Organizations

In the world of IT, staying competitive requires a nuanced approach to modernization—one that considers an organization’s unique structure, culture, and growth trajectory. Unfortunately, many IT organizations find themselves perpetually behind the curve, not because they lack examples of innovation but because leadership, lacking strategic foresight, attempts to implement trends without considering their applicability.

This issue becomes particularly pronounced when decision-makers pursue strategies that were once relevant for industry giants like Meta, Google, or Amazon but are wholly incompatible with their own organization's operational realities. A prime example is the adoption of a flat organization model and a dual career ladder—concepts that, when misapplied, can do more harm than good.

A Culture of Stagnation and Fear

One of the most telling signs of dysfunction in an IT organization is its approach to recruitment and career growth. Many managers in such organizations will outright tell new hires that this is not a place to climb the career ladder—a clear indication that ambition and innovation are not just undervalued but actively discouraged.

As a result, hiring decisions are not made based on talent or potential but rather on how little of a perceived threat a candidate poses. The organization has to purposely recruit weaker candidates, fearing that A-players—those who thrive on challenges and drive change—will quickly uncover the nepotism and favoritism baked into the system. Worse yet, outperforming a manager is not a sign of success but a liability, often leading to retaliation in the form of exclusion, poor performance reviews, or even fabricated HR issues to push employees out.

This toxic environment ensures that mediocrity reigns, and any attempt at transformation—like the flat organizational structure—becomes a hollow effort doomed from the start.

Why the Flat Organization and Dual Career Ladder Model Fails

The logic behind implementing a flat hierarchy and dual career ladder is typically to create an agile and empowered workforce. However, in an organization with slow or stagnant growth, no high turnover, and employees staying for 30+ years, these models are a recipe for disaster.

Here’s why:

• Flat Hierarchies Work Best in High-Growth, Rapidly Changing Environments – Companies like Meta implemented flat structures out of necessity to remain agile while scaling at breakneck speeds. A slow-moving organization with limited innovation and zero governance cannot sustain this model without creating confusion, misalignment, and power struggles.
• The Dual Career Ladder is Useless Without Proper Structure – In theory, a dual career ladder allows employees to choose between technical and managerial paths. But when poorly implemented the technical path becomes a demotion rather than a legitimate career trajectory. Since management wields all the decision-making power and lacks the expertise to properly value technical contributions, choosing the tech track is a dead end.
• Everyone is a Director, So Titles are Meaningless – In a desperate attempt to appear modern, organizations like this often inflate titles, where even someone managing a single person is a “Director.” This not only dilutes leadership but also makes it impossible to establish clear authority, accountability, and expertise within the company.

Better Organizational Models for This Type of IT Organization

Instead of copying trends from companies operating in completely different landscapes, an IT organization with these challenges should focus on models that align with its reality:

1. Functional Hierarchy with Clear Governance

Given the long tenure and slow growth, a structured functional hierarchy with strong governance would provide stability and clarity. Leadership roles should be based on competence, not tenure or favoritism, with well-defined career progression and accountability measures.

2. Competency-Based Career Progression

Instead of arbitrarily assigning leadership roles, a competency-based framework should be established, where employees are promoted based on measurable contributions rather than tenure or politics. This would help attract and retain real talent rather than relying on a system that thrives on mediocrity.

3. Mentorship-Driven Growth Model

Since employees tend to stay for decades, the company should leverage this by creating a mentorship-driven culture where experienced employees guide newer ones in both technical and leadership roles. This would ensure knowledge transfer and help address the lack of structured career development.

4. Balanced Management and Technical Paths with Real Value

If a dual career ladder is to exist, it must be respected. Technical leaders should have actual decision-making power, not just be sidelined as second-class employees. This means creating a culture where deep technical expertise is valued on par with management, ensuring technical specialists are rewarded for their contributions.

5. Streamlined, Transparent Hiring Practices

Rather than hiring based on perceived threats, the organization needs to eliminate nepotism and focus on attracting top talent. This means clear, transparent hiring practices, structured interview processes, and an environment where performance is rewarded rather than feared.

Conclusion: Stop Copy-Pasting and Start Thinking

Following industry trends without understanding their context is a guaranteed way to set an organization back, not push it forward. For an IT organization that struggles with governance, recruitment, and leadership development, implementing strategies designed for high-growth, high-turnover companies is reckless and counterproductive.

Instead of blindly copying Meta and other tech giants, leadership must take a hard look at the organization's true needs, limitations, and long-term goals. Only then can they design a structure that fosters real growth, innovation, and sustainability—rather than one that looks good on paper but fails in execution.