
Companies with a flat structure are weird - RKoutnik
http://rkoutnik.com/articles/Flat-is-weird.html
======
sago
I've only got experience of one flat structured company. There, the 'flat'
structure is almost entirely fantasy. The company is very hierarchical, but
hierarchical on the basis of the way individuals command (and collect)
influence and power. One employee described it as 'who's got the biggest
dick'.

Which means that people who are naturally political end up with all the power,
even if they don't make good decisions, and they aren't held accountable for
their management activities, because the fantasy is that they're not managing
anyone. And introverts or people with alternative ideas (especially ideas that
threaten the alphas) tend to be dumped on, badly peer reviewed and fired.

Although this company receives praise inside and out for its flat structure
(even the CEO is just one of the team, don't you know!) All it has done is
replace professional management* with management by popularity, from what I
can see.

[Edit: It has already been mentioned in other comments as an amazing example
of wonderful flatness! :D It's PR is good, I'll say that!]

There is more than a little of the high school atmosphere, to be honest. Not
somewhere I wanted to work (I was there as a consultant for a month).

I'm curious if it is very different elsewhere.

\---

* I acknowledge that 'professional management' is hardly universal, btw! No lack of realism from me on either extreme.

~~~
bane
Informal power structures exist everywhere, and they're usually considered
bad. One of the reasons humans developed formal hierarchies is to minimize the
influence of these informal power structures. Doing so allows an organization
to set consistent patterns that can vastly increase efficiency over more
arbitrary and capricious systems.

Flat organizations emphasize informal power structures and you'll find that
surveys of employees in flat organizations point to consistent and repeatable
problems.

Summary of most of the surveys: for the most part, any employee who hasn't
made it to the "in" clique (which will be most of them) is in for a miserable
time.

A non-scientific bit of insight can be gained from looking at the employee
reviews of notable flat/structure-less companies on glassdoor.

~~~
astazangasta
>One of the reasons humans developed formal hierarchies is to minimize the
influence of these informal power structures.

This is a bizarre assertion. Humans developed formal hierarchies because
people with swords thought they were an efficient way to steal surplus wheat
from peasants. The fact that after millennia of living under hierarchies,
people don't have good skills for living without them doesn't mean we chose
those hierarchies in the first place.

~~~
bane
You didn't provide the rest of the quote

"Doing so allows an organization to set consistent patterns that can vastly
increase efficiency over more arbitrary and capricious systems."

You've simply stated what I stated while claiming to disagree with it, while
using a perfect example of why it's true.

What you miss at the end is that humans will _always_ organize into
hierarchies. Informal hierarchies are something built into us as a species,
and instinct to organize our social groups. But brains often beat instinct,
and our ability to use our brains to build more efficient social structures
than our ad-hoc instinctual ones has demonstrated to be better over the long
run.

~~~
jedrek
The reality of the human condition is that many people want to be "under"
someone. Having complete freedom is both time consuming and exhausting. We
already spend an inordinate amount of time making choices, it's nice to have
many of them already made for us (or at least having our selection limited).

~~~
astazangasta
Yes, you're right, this is why people are always saying things like, "I love
my boss," "I really like other people telling me what to do all the time," and
"I'd really hate to be able to work for myself."

Hierarchies are not the only way to divide labor.

------
funkyy
The largest issue right now in management imo is the fact that you get either
knowledgeable in your field manager, that understands your needs but totally
fails in the field of managing, business and negotiating with upper
leadership, or you get guy that will work out some great deal for team, will
be able to resolve issues and talk to the team, but is failing to understand
working process behind what people under him do and that is demanding for team
to meet the impossible quotas.

Companies should romance with duopoly - where there are 2 managers, one sport
coach style guy, that works for improving quality of employee environment,
understands their needs but yet demands results and second tech guy that
overlooks work progress, helps with his knowledge and provides an ideas and
workflow.

~~~
atopal
I believe you just described the ScrumMaster and the Product Owner in the
SCRUM methodology: [https://www.scrumalliance.org/why-scrum/core-scrum-values-
ro...](https://www.scrumalliance.org/why-scrum/core-scrum-values-roles)

------
andreasklinger
We still think in factory-like management patterns for knowledge work (eg
company charts, top-down decision, etc)

I believe we are on the verge of truly understanding how to "manage" knowledge
workers. (apart of empty phrases)

Imho flat, no-manager, etc are overcompensation combined with a miss-
understanding what management nowadays should be (establishing processes and
enable communication when processes fail – not decide)

------
mparramon
"Any sufficiently complicated company w/o management contains an ad hoc,
informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of management"
[https://twitter.com/wycats/status/368752712894017536](https://twitter.com/wycats/status/368752712894017536)

------
drawkbox
Open Source is a flat structure and seems to work in many awesome ways.

There will always be hierarchies, but more naturally occurring ones seem to
evolve better and work better for the ones involved in the
doing/building/engineering part.

Meritocracy yes, but also entirely based on contribution and delivery which is
actually quite efficient. No location required in OSS either, it is remote and
akin to freedom one might say. Are there problems? Sure, but that is where you
fork and diverge, may the best path win.

~~~
falcolas
This is not universally true. In fact, most larger successful projects have a
"Benevolent Dictator For Life", either explicitly or implicitly.

Linus has Linus. Python, Guido. Ruby, Matz. And so on.

~~~
drawkbox
True but those guys are mostly language creators which are unique and rare and
kind of needed to get people to start using them. Many of these guys worked on
the languages alone for years if not near decades before others come in. The
BDFL gives some hope that the language will stay true.

Other projects a BDFL can emerge or the original creator is polled for
direction but largely they are there to keep trust in the platform.

Here's some really cool code_swarm looks at Guido and his long journey as the
sole fighter for Python, bring it to the masses alone for 5+ years:
[https://vimeo.com/1093745](https://vimeo.com/1093745) This video gives a
unique look at the meritocracy team behind Python and how they contributed
over time, fading in and out.

See all of them here:
[http://vis.cs.ucdavis.edu/~ogawa/codeswarm/](http://vis.cs.ucdavis.edu/~ogawa/codeswarm/)
has Eclipse, Python, Apache, PostgreSQL.

------
lisa_henderson
As Jo Freeman once said:

"Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a
structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes
together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure
itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time;
it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the
members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities,
personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are
individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes
this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis
whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is not the
nature of a human group. This means that to strive for a structureless group
is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story,
"value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is
about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a
smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony
over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of
"structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures,
only formal ones. Similarly "laissez faire" philosophy did not prevent the
economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and
distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus
structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's
movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful
(whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure
of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only
to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those
who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in
confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of
which they are not quite aware."

Her comments were aimed at the feminist movement of the 1970s, but her essay
is universal and everyone can gain from reading it:

The Tyranny Of Structurelessness

[http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm](http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm)

------
err4nt
Valve is another company that has a very interesting org chart. It's like
those vegan fair-trade restaurants that run as a work co-op, and the people
show up and work and share responsibility and profits.

I don't know how it works, but it's a thing of beauty when these systems meet
the needs of the people inside them.

~~~
RKoutnik
Yes, Valve is an amazing example of a flat company. I had intended to talk
about them in my original essay but couldn't manage to make it fit in
anywhere. Their employee handbook is a fantastic read on how knowledge workers
should work together:
[http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.p...](http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf)

~~~
StavrosK
Your comment makes it sound like you've worked there, is that so?

------
gaius
There is _always_ a hierarchy. The only question is if its written down
anywhere. And even in companies with an explicit org chart, there is often an
informal one which is more powerful.

~~~
phamilton
The hierarchy doesn't always match what's written down either.

I think everyone has felt they are "doing someone else's job" at various times
in their career.

------
hcarvalhoalves
The "we have no managers" thing is kind of a lie. You put 10 people together
in a room and a leader naturally appears.

I think the point of the flat management structure is not having leadership
roles cemented onto an employee job title.

~~~
veb
Someone who comes out as a "natural leader" should be a good thing, no? It
means people who _shouldn 't_ be leaders, cannot assume the position without
turmoil. (in theory anyway)

~~~
olefoo
Not everyone who thinks they are a "natural leader" should be given that sort
of power.

It can be a recipe for a loudmouthed strongman to drive a group over a cliff.
Better to have groups of people who know and trust each other and who have a
common task to guide them.

~~~
kabdib
Remember that at a flat company, you don't have to stay on the bus with the
loudmouth. You're free to leave any time and do something else, or even work
on the same thing in a different room. Get enough people to do this, and the
loudmouth stops being a problem. If the loudmouth continues to fail, his
performance will be an issue and he might be fired.

Contrast with a traditional company where the loudmouth is a manager, you're
not allowed to move your desk, and dissent (like working on something else, or
ignoring the guy) leads to HR action.

~~~
dingaling
> You're free to leave any time and do something else,

Unfortunately the loudmouths will remember this come review time, and obtain
their vengeance.

Flat companies seem to drive people to do highly-visible hero work to ensure
they can garner enough positive reviews, rather than the quiet but essential
work that leads to 'dunno what he did all year, requires improvement'

~~~
kabdib
Once, I tried management in a traditional "tree" company for a summer. Among
my reports were two individuals, one of whom was a pretty good coder who
didn't want to talk to anyone, the other was an utter incompetent who could
barely speak English (I have no idea how he was still employed). Both worked
with closed doors and neither talked to anyone, and neither of these guys did
very well on reviews [which I wasn't involved in, since I was just a
substitute manager].

You didn't want to be either one of these people when the layoffs hit. Your
own manager might go to bat for you, but nothing says "keeper" to other
managers like a nice string of public and visible wins.

If nobody knows what you are working on, that's a problem in _any_ company.
It's probably worse in a flat org, but it's still bad in a tree.

Self promotion is necessary, at least to some extent. You could be a great
engineer but in a tree structure _you 're going to get passed over for
interesting projects because nobody knows what you can really do._ In a flat
org you'll ideally get feedback that you can work on before your ass gets
fired, but you can't count on it.

------
JacobAldridge
I think a lot of Flat Structure criticism is actually directed at companies
with no structure [1]. Where it works well, the structure also seems to be
built with a good understanding of a Manager's duties (which can be
distributed) versus the requirements of Leaders and (in private enterprise
especially) Entrepreneurs [2].

[1] [http://www.wattsnext.com.au/Flat-structures-look-good-on-
pap...](http://www.wattsnext.com.au/Flat-structures-look-good-on-paper-but-
stink-in-reality) [2]
[http://www.shirlawscoaching.co.uk/shirlawsresources/2014/3/1...](http://www.shirlawscoaching.co.uk/shirlawsresources/2014/3/11/from-
innovation-to-commercialisation-the-roles-of-entreprene.html)

------
amarjeet
IMO, Decentralized Decision Making is one of the fundamental characteristics
of a flat organizational structure. Nowadays, at many places, 'flat structure'
is being wrongly understood as 'easily approachable management'. However, such
companies don't understand and don't conduct decentralized form of decision
making. I would not prefer to go after literal meaning of the word 'flat', but
at my organization, if I am able to conduct decentralized form of decision
making in an effective manner, I would be happy to call it a 'flat
organization'.

------
sideshowb
As an aside, "Is it acceptable to browse Facebook while you shunt the problem
to a mental background process?"

I'm interested in how many productive engineers here think this is what
they're doing for at least some of the time they browse facebook? Vs how many
think they're just bunking off?

I get the idea of mental background processes, very often I will solve
problems that I failed to solve at work while on my bike ride home at the end
of the day. Personally I suspect facebook might be too full of distractions to
achieve this, though I'm open to other opinions..?

~~~
matwood
I would tend to say no, or at least admit you're just goofing off. For
background time, I have a long list of articles to read that have to do with
either my industry or the technologies I'm currently using.

For actual "I need to get up from the computer time", don't read Facebook. Go
take a walk, or go chat with a workmate about a current problem and see where
the discussion goes.

------
allochthon
In the case of a small startup, a "flat" structure is sometimes simply a
description of what the group have worked out in order to be productive and
effective. In cases where I've seen firsthand a fairly hierarchical management
structure, decisions were often carried out in an abstract, awkward a manner
that was in many cases not in the best interests of the company.

~~~
RKoutnik
I've seen it done many ways. My intention with this essay was not to create a
comprehensive reading on the subject but instead to communicate about what
I've learned thus far (from experience, observation, reading, etc).

I had hoped to come across in favor of a flat style with the admission that
there are times when direct authority is the best solution to a startup's
problems. How'd I do?

------
funkyy
There was no place in history of humans where no-manager system would work
long term. Even communism was based on leaders.

Democracy - the system closest to it is being picked as best in the world as
any other system attracts tyrants that gather unlimited power in their hands.
Yet it still have leaders.

Getting rid of leaders is causing confusion and most companies that claim they
have no managers will still have them, but under different name, like team
leaders, project supervisors etc.

~~~
likeclockwork
There's a difference between leadership and authority.

~~~
funkyy
Authority creates leaders. When you will get rid of labels you will see it.
Only authority on the very bottom of the ladder can avoid creating leaders
(public servants, group organizers, speakers, front line support etc.).

~~~
likeclockwork
If authority and leadership were reversed in your reply it would make more
sense.

While leadership can lead to authority, leadership relationships unlike
authoritative ones can arise consensually among piers. I don't think there's
anything inherent to the concept of a leader (in the sense of one who guides
by going first) that is dependent on hierarchy.

If you want to lead and no one wants to follow then you go alone. If you need
the authority to force people to follow you, well.. that's more about desire
for power than desire to reach stated goals.

------
mempko
Nerds are rediscovering socialism. Next up "Employees sharing and deciding
what to do with profit democratically".

~~~
hueving
Socialism has nothing to do with organizational structure.

~~~
gaius
Not true at all, look up what Soviet actually means.

------
curiously
What happens when you remove hierarchy, high school happens, thats what.

the idea of a flat structure is as solid as communism but in practice it
simply does not work.

the closest thing to a flat structure is feudalistic structure. here,
engineers and designers are peasants (all flat at this level) and various
hierarchy (manager of managers who do little to no intensive work).

the other alternative of this feudal structure is where you have an army of
engineers and designers and one person telling what to do. Dictatorship works
in software, decision by consensus is as useful as day trading via votes.

------
michaelochurch
I'm a major supporter of open allocation (I coined the term) as used by Valve
and Github, but I'm skeptical of "flat" organizations. It's not that I dislike
the idea. I don't think it's really possible.

One of the reasons (at least, in theory) why legible middle management is a
good thing is that they don't have to compete with the managed for visibility
and work. When you have emergent pseudo-managers (or managerial favorites) who
are still technically the same rank but far more influential, they use their
influence in competition with the other workers and do a lot of damage: it's
not a fair competition, because they take the sexy work and delegate the crap.
Most Valley startups tell every engineer that he's reporting to the CTO... but
then they get there, and there are 57 people nominally reporting to that CTO,
which means that they _actually_ report to the people who have the CTO's ear
(and that changes over time).

I like _the idea_ of a flat organization, but I think what you _actually_ need
is constitutional management. You need a strong set of principles ("employees
are trusted to allocate their time to anything that provides business value",
i.e. open allocation) and then you need _official_ and legible managers who
are accountable for enforcing them. It's better to know who is in power, so
you can hold them accountable and remove them from power if they fail, than
have a "flat organization" where power disparities still exist but are subtle.
You need checks and balances, you need laws and you need cops but the cops
shouldn't be making laws on a whim.

In other words, the optimal point is somewhere between the demarchy of the
"flat organization" and the executive dictatorship of the traditional
corporation.

Flat organizations, in general, make it harder to define accountability. Look
at the case of Ellen Pao, for example. Venture capital partnerships are
flatter than traditional corporate hierarchies and rarely have HR departments
with any power over the partner level, but are still afflicted by infighting
and retaliation. Pao's case is one where (a) she was clearly wronged, but (b)
her _legal_ case appears pretty weak (or, at least, lives in undefined
territory). It's obvious that a creepy ex-boyfriend (or, more accurately, ex-
few-night-stand) took vindictive and inappropriate steps to ruin the internal
reputation of a talented female venture capitalist, and that this prevented
her from having a successful career at KP. It's unclear whether the firm or
its upper management is legally responsible. _He_ was engaging in retaliation,
but upper management wasn't; they were denying her promotion based on (faulty,
maliciously provided) information about her performance, not her gender. It's
unclear _who_ is responsible; clearly, the man in question (since then, fired)
is, but he probably doesn't have the money to make her whole. So should
Kleiner _itself_ be held responsible? That's really hard to answer. That's a
problem with flat organizations in general; they still have politics and they
still have good people ending up with bad reputations and vice versa, but the
lines responsibility and accountability are less clearly drawn.

~~~
yuhong
As a side note, I don't generally like anti-discrimination laws. I am
proposing to allow EEOC or anti-trust to impose restrictions on specific
companies on discrimination if necessary instead.

