Flatter Isn't Better
Getting rid of management hierarchy isn't the solution to organizational problems.
Over the years, many forward-thinking companies have called for flatter organizational structures with fewer bosses. Could it be that companies could be faster, more agile, more innovative, without all those layers of hierarchy?
Do we even need “bosses” at all?
Holacracy — a flat, democratic form of organizational governance pioneered at Ternary Software — is probably the most well-known “boss-free” system. But several high-profile champions of Holacracy have ended up abandoning it, and their experience reflects how most organizations actually operate.
For example, the online publishing platform Medium dropped Holacracy after several years of attempted implementation. Andy Doyle, then head of operations, explained the core of the problem: “Holacracy was getting in the way of the work.” While Doyle noted that the experience was overall positive, he summarized why some level of hierarchy helps companies succeed: “We have bosses, people who have the experience of scaling companies, leading through hard challenges, and developing teams. These people build consensus when it’s possible, and make difficult decisions when it’s not.”
Holacracy — and other flat systems like it — fail in two important ways.
1. Self-management creates complexity and overhead that can “get in the way of the work.”
To use Holacracy as your governance platform, you need to adopt the official Holacracy constitution, determine your structure, hold elections, and begin the process of training everyone in the company on how it works — including concepts like domains, anchor circles, subcircles, cross links, and lead links. The system might work in some edge cases, but it doesn’t replicate the speed and clarity of a good management structure, where it’s immediately clear who’s responsible for which decisions and who owns which outcomes.
2. The harmful power dynamics that self-management tries to address often creep back in subtle, hidden ways.
Some people in any organization will always be more influential than others. In a flat system, those who would have been managers in a traditional structure often take on key roles and drive the activities of teams, even without the “boss” title. They become de facto managers while the organization maintains the illusion of egalitarianism.
Chris Savage, CEO of Wistia, makes a similar observation in explaining why his organization moved away from a flat structure:
If you don’t explicitly define your structure, then you are left with an implicit one, and that can stifle productivity. We had hoped that being flat would let us move faster and be more creative, but as we grew, we ended up with an unspoken hierarchy that actually slowed down our ability to execute.
Because bad managers have such a great ability to harm an organization, it can sometimes seem better to have no bosses than to have a group of ineffective ones. But that doesn’t make it ideal. The most effective organizations have managers — they’re just good ones.