
Flat Will Kill You, Eventually: Why Every Company Needs Structure - vskarine
http://themodernteam.com/flat-will-kill-you-eventually-why-every-company-needs-structure/
======
Sleaker
Currently working at a place that considers itself 'flat' I can say that it's
one of the most confusing things ever, and the management tries to continually
tell me that it's such a great thing that everyone can take ownership of
things themselves. It's a bunch of bull really, it just means no one has to
take responsibility for failures to meet goals, there's no pressure to meet
deadline and there's no actual ownership of product. This article hits all the
points on the head about said flat structures, and how they don't work at all.
They breed distrust, and resentment toward management because of an apparent
(or real) lack of defining what's expected.

~~~
tonecluster
I have also found that the flatness fails quickly when the loudest, most
aggressive, least-respectful-of-authority, best-dev-in-the-room type takes the
(de-facto) leadership position, bullying others who challenge him. Schoolyard
stuff, to be sure, and since most people don't like conflict for extended
periods of time, you end up with a local "leader" (scare quotes intended)
despite the intention to remain flat. It's the "rock star dev who's also a
jerk", and eventually it creates chaos.

~~~
hodwik
I actually think that's where flatness works best.

Rather than being whoever can kiss the most ass and not upset the boss (the
usual system), a flat system ends up being a battle for leadership which puts
the smart and commanding at the top. "Rock star dev who's also a jerk" _is_
who should be the boss.

~~~
m_fayer
Really? "Rock star dev who's also a jerk" is typically driven by ego, whereas
the actual leader should be driven by the needs of the business and the needs
of the customer, and be talented at balancing the two. He should also be a
good consensus-builder and emotionally capable, which this guy is by
definition not.

So you'll get "impressive" code that leverages sexy technologies that is also
late, buggy, and not what the customer actually needs. And on top of it all
you'll have a demoralized drama-prone team.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I challenge you to find actual leaders in the past, ones we use as examples,
who would fit your description of "an actual leader".

A leader is someone who can get people to get shit done. Usually it means
convincing them that what the leader wants done is the thing to be done.
Consensus-building can be done in many different way - in particular, a very
good way is to just arbitrarily announce what the consensus is. In most
fields, and in pretty much 99% of business, almost decision is better than
prolonged periods of not knowing what to do. And if a leader is competent in
the field in question, his arbitrary decisions will usually be good.

So as long as you can align their ego with business/customer needs, a "rock
star dev who's also a jerk" isn't the worst choice for a leader.

~~~
RogerL
"isn't the worst" is a pretty low bar.

As for your challenge, just about anyone I have worked for and respected. You
don't know them, so you can use a No True Scotsman defense, I guess. That
won't change that ego/jerkiness is completely unnecessary.

Bad decisions are _catastropic_ in tech. That's a driving force for things
like Agile. Running off and coding or building things without a plan is a
recipe for disaster.

I can make you do something by screaming at you. That works to get you up over
that hill to attack the pillbox. Doesn't work so well in tech where you will
just quit.

~~~
TeMPOraL
But why do you assume that "rockstar dev who's being a jerk" means a despotic
leader who only screams at people? I read it as a leader who is a) very
opinionated, b) doesn't tolerate bullshit, c) may express himself in an
offensive way. You could say that e.g. Patton was a rock-star jerk of military
warfare, but it didn't mean he screamed at everyone all the time.

> _Bad decisions are catastropic in tech._

No, they're not. What's the worst that could happen? Your SaaS cats-on-
Instagram-to-save-the-world startup will flop. Or you won't deliver some
product that's being delivered by 2000 identical companies around the world.
Or some people won't get to see some annoying ads.

We're not talking medicine or space travel here. If we were, we'd be focusing
on whether a leader is _effective_ , not whether he's a nice person.

~~~
sanderjd
They meant catastrophic _to your business_ , not catastrophic in some larger
sense.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I know. And I meant to put all of this into a proper perspective.

------
LukaAl
This article is very interesting but fails to address one point. Why companies
go for "Flat" or "Holocracy" organizations? I know three reasons:

\- People tend to hate managers, they don't trust them.

\- Flat team are faster removing the management complexity.

\- There's more flexibility and more creativity around the problem tackled by
the team.

The last reason is reasonable but is true applied for small unit inside the
bigger organization, not the whole organization, as this article explains
well. Nothing prevent to create a small unit with a specific task inside a
bigger organization and to organize this unit (usually made by "star"
employee) in a flat structure.

The second reason is disputable, it doesn't scale has the article suggest.

But the first reason is not addressed. And it is the real issue. I think
everyone had terrible bosses and great bosses. We usually remember terrible
managers as an example of the average managers (Mental association: Dilbert's
Pointy Hair Boss) while we consider the great bosses we had as mentors, role
models, guide. And we forget that they were also our manager. It is a form of
selection bias.

There's also another issue at play, changing organizational structure, trying
Flat or Holocracy is easy (I'm not saying that it's easy to do it right, it's
easy to give it a try). Promoting the right person, with the right skills is
difficult. And if you promote the wrong person (it happens) removing from a
managerial position or moving him to a position that is a better fit is
extremely difficult. So we all decide to do what is easy instead of what is
difficult. Not sure I could blame someone, it is the people mindset, but
doesn't mean that what is easy is also correct while what is difficult, when
done right, proved to be correct.

~~~
amorphid
I'd say that people tend to dislike crappy managers. No one (rational)
actually hates a manager that makes their life easier.

~~~
sanderjd
There is a lot of talk about how the problem is "bad" or "crappy" managers,
which I think allows many of us in the vast masses of untrained tech managers
to feel warmer and fuzzier, because while we might not really know what we're
doing, we're good-natured and right-thinking, so surely we're not _crappy_
managers! In reality, I think _mediocre_ management is the much larger
problem. Or put another way, the idea that management skills are not something
to be invested heavily in, but rather something to be "figured out". It may be
true that a well-managed organization full of good professional managers is
more efficient than less management-focused structures, but I'm not convinced
that most organizations are willing to invest the resources to hire or train
their way into having one of those, so other structures are a sensible
alternative to explore.

------
mstade
In my experience, the thing that I've seen kill the motivation and
productivity of any team, is the feeling – true or not – that the team isn't
being listened to. From what I've seen, most people seem to be able to cope
with most any structure, but if feedback goes (seemingly, at least) unnoticed
then that more than anything will kill their motivation. No amount of flat, or
structure, or holymoly organization voodoo will fix a team that's lost trust
in their ability to do anything because they aren't being listened to.

------
jacques_chester
Adding one thing not addressed directly: sometimes people disagree and there
needs to be a decision mechanism.

Consensus is obviously preferable. But it scales very poorly. A simple
workaround is to nominate someone as the tie-breaker. To avoid secondary
rounds of nonsense, you try to pick someone with the respect of their peers.

~~~
hopsoft
Conway's Law & micro-services help maintain flatter organizations at least in
tech focused companies. When disagreements arise & consensus is hard, the
various parties can simply introduce a new service boundary & go their
different ways.

~~~
Scarblac
We have exactly that. Eight microservices that should have been two, all using
slightly different technlogy, and still nobody buys our product since
everybody disagree on what customers actually need.

------
sparkzilla
Flat systems value the accumulation of power over the actual work done. So if
you are good at working the system, then you'll do fine. Otherwise, you have
no protection. Wikipedia is a good example of a flat system where people
accumulate power in other ways, usually by banding with others to enforce a
particular point of view. While the goal is ostensibly creating content, much
of the time is taken up on power disputes that are not aligned with the goal
of the organization. This political infighting leads inevitably to harassment
of those who do not fit the system. In Wikipedia's case, minorities, women,
and non-aggressive users find it difficult to gain power from the entrenched
power groups, while _those in power think nothing is wrong because they
erroneously think the flat system gives everyone a fair chance_. Combined with
a lack of leadership, flat systems result in inefficient processes and
inconsistent work compared to hierarchical systems where everyone knows their
role and a leader guides the project, and has the final say.

~~~
Avshalom
Except every problem you just listed with flat systems is endemic in
hierarchical systems too, to the same extent (including everyone in power
thinking the system gives everyone a fair chance). Nothing about an org chart
and formal channels of action has ever stopped politics and informal channels.

------
mentos
Can anyone comment on if Valve is as flat as I have heard and what makes it
work for them?

~~~
jblow
You are presuming it actually works for Valve, which is not an uncontroversial
notion.

~~~
jacques_chester
It's controversial because we don't know if it would keep working without a
massive free cashflow.

(My guess is: it would not).

~~~
jblow
That is not even what I am talking about.

I know a number of people who have quit Valve and almost all of them would
cite organizational dysfunction as one of the top reasons for quitting.

I don't know whether that is true -- I have never worked there -- and I don't
wish to spread any ill rumors about Valve. I'm just saying that I know a bunch
of people who have worked there who think the flat thing is one of Valve's
biggest problems (another one being the incentive structure; of course these
two things go hand in hand).

~~~
jacques_chester
Gotcha. I haven't worked there either; but I find the boosterism I sometimes
observe to be annoying because of the confounding factor of massive free
cashflow.

------
discardorama
> There’s an impulse among companies these days to differentiate themselves
> .... or most recently and most astonishingly, [by] raising your minimum
> salary to $70,000 per year.

Really? Raising the minimum wage was about "differentiating" themselves, and
not out of the realization that everyone needs a comfortable wage to live on?

I'm sorry, but I can't take an analysis by such a person seriously. This
attitude demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.

------
paulajohnson
Whenever this comes up in management theory I'm always reminded of this
article.
[http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm](http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm)

The setting is radical feminism rather than tech management, but the drivers
are the same and so are the results.

------
zaidf
My understanding is that you can be flat and still have a project lead who is
in charge of driving the project to the finish line. I'm skeptical of flat
myself but I'm not sure if it is to blame in your situation. Rather, you
seemed to need a lead whose job is to ultimately make the project succeed.

------
seancoleman
Another issue with flat structure is that once implicit management roles
arise, other people tend to hold those individuals responsible for results
even as they lack official support for the role. It builds resentment towards
them and puts them in a difficult position.

------
discardorama
I think there be trouble on both ends of the spectrum: too flat, and too
hierarchical. I think there's a sweet spot in the middle: my gut-feeling is
about log_10 (N) + 1 layers, where N = number of employees.

------
xj9
Flat will only kill you if you do a half-assed job of it. Functional flat
organizations require motivated members. If you have a goal that everyone can
agree on, and you trust those people to stay on target, you don't need
structure.

The unfortunate truth is that traditional businesses will never be able to
motivate their employees enough to make this work at any kind of scale. You
have no reason to care that much, especially not long term.

Personally, I think workers-coops are the answer. But that remains to be seen.

------
bane
My previous comments on flat structures (related to holacracy, but works for
any flat org theory):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8270601](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8270601)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9513604](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9513604)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9367390](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9367390)

------
dreamfactory2
It sounds like the problem isn't flatness so much as a complete absence of
mission and direction. Any team needs a mission to organise itself around
solving

------
mempko
Flat doesn't work because people from childhood on have been taught to listen
to teacher, listen to boss, listen to parent.

Is it any wonder people don't know how to work together independently of
authority figures?

I think some civic training would be good for people working in flat
organizations. They need to be un-educated.

~~~
nickff
> _" I think some civic training would be good for people working in flat
> organizations. They need to be un-educated."_

Do you mean 'de-educated' or 're-educated'? There are plenty of uneducated
people.

You asssert that flat organizations could do well, but without any examples or
evidence to back you up, I am inclined to disagree. If flat organizations were
better, I would expect that some out of the hundreds of thousands (if not
more) companies in the developed world would use that system.

~~~
mempko
Slavery lasted over thousand years as an economic system. Feudalism lasted
just as long. Your argument back then would have been "if capitalist firms
were better, I would expect some. People in the feudalist world would use that
system".

As a matter of fact, there are thousands or such flat firms. Just as during
feudalism there were thousands of capitalist firms that would fail.

Failure is does not mean it won't work in 10, 50 or 100 years.

There will be a time when we think of managers the same way we think of kings
now.

~~~
nickff
It's possible that flat organizations are the future, but it is not true that
all organizations were lord-serf in feudal times or that slave labor was the
only sort of labor in its time (, in fact slavery still exists). Please show
some examples of flat firms, which are not the highly centralized sort
described in the OP, I am interested in reading about them. As far as I have
seen, all so-called flat organizations are actually very centralized for all
important decisions.

~~~
mempko
One of the largest is of course Mondragon in Spain which employs 74,000 or so
workers.

Flat is usually called "Socialist" in the rest of the world.

------
highCs
Flat structure is possible, Valve Software has 0 managers:
[http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.p...](http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf)

------
fernandotakai
counter-point -- olark (a ycombinator company) uses flat-ish hierarchy and
works quite well [https://blog.olark.com/our-world-is-no-longer-
flat](https://blog.olark.com/our-world-is-no-longer-flat)

(disclosure: i used to work for olark, and their system works quite well)

~~~
fingerprinter
This isn't a real counter-point, imo. This basically says "flat didn't scale,
so we introduced some structure or other workarounds, though 'teams' can stay
flat".

That basically is called hierarchy by a different term. And I suspect, as most
with quite a bit of experience would, that as olark grows, more layers (aka,
hierarchy) would be introduced. It's natural and it's fine.

It's fine! I know it's a dirty word, but hierarchy is fine. It really is.

I contend it's NOT the problem that people want to solve, rather they want to
solve a different one. It's the classic case of treating the symptoms and not
the disease. I highly suspect that in most flat companies, the real thing
people are after is some subset of [trust, autonomy, mission, vision,
ownership, accountability, flexibility, empowerment] etc. But, instead of
focusing on those, the focus shifts to the structure. If in solving for the
subset it is found that structure is at fault, by all means give it a go. That
is not how I've seen it done, though. Rather, people /assume/ flat is better
with no mindfully explicit reasons why they would adopt it.

