Flat organization

Last updated

A flat organization (also known as horizontal organization or flat hierarchy) is an organizational structure with few or no levels of middle management between staff and executives. An organizational structure refers to the nature of the distribution of the units and positions within it, and also to the nature of the relationships among those units and positions. [1] Tall and flat organizations differ based on how many levels of management are present in the organization and how much control managers are endowed with. [1]

Contents

Transforming a highly hierarchical organization into a flat organization is known as delayering.

Organizational structure

In flat organizations, the number of people directly supervised by each manager is large, and the number of people in the chain of command above each person is small. [2] A manager in a flat organization possesses more responsibility than a manager in a tall organization because there is a greater number of individuals immediately below them who are dependent on direction, help, and support. Moreover, managers in a flat organization rely less on guidance from superiors because the number of superiors above the manager is limited. [2]

Benefits

Empirical evidence from Ghiselli and Johnson suggests that the amount of independence that managers in flat organizations possess as a result of the flat organizational structure satisfies many of their needs in terms of autonomy and self-realization. [2] The idea behind flat organizations is that well-trained workers will be more productive when they are more directly involved in the decision-making process rather than closely supervised by many layers of management. Delayering plans may aim to secure these benefits, although potential risks include undermining employee's confidence in their managers and putting the remaining managers under greater pressure. [3]

This structure is generally possible only in smaller organizations or individual units within larger organizations. Having reached a critical size, organizations can retain a streamlined structure but cannot keep a completely flat manager-to-staff relationship without affecting productivity.[ citation needed ] Certain financial responsibilities[ which? ] may also require a more conventional structure. A company would not have to give a raise or promotion, based on service length but on greater productivity. Also eliminating certain departments from the payroll means saving money. [4]

The flat organization model promotes employee involvement through decentralized decision-making processes. By elevating the level of responsibility of baseline employees and eliminating layers of middle management, comments and feedback reach all personnel involved in decisions more quickly. Expected response to customer feedback becomes more rapid.

Australian researchers Dunford, Bramble and Littler note that delayering in an organisation may also lead to down-sizing: "[a]lthough delayering need not involve down-sizing - because it is possible to redefine the position of existing staff within the new flatter structure - the two often coincide". [5]

Frank Ostroff, in The Horizontal Organisation, argues that the horizontal structure "delivers value to customers". [6]

Self-managing teams

A "strong form" of flat organization is an organization with no middle management at all. Very small businesses may lack middle managers because there are too few staff to justify hiring middle managers; in this type of organization, the business owner or the CEO may perform some of the functions performed by middle managers in larger organizations.

However, some organizations do not take on middle managers even as they become larger, remaining extremely flat.

An organization with self-managing teams who organize their own work without the need for a middle manager or supervisor above the team may meet or closely approximate this model. While a manager in self-managing teams determines the overall purpose or goal of the team, the team is at liberty to manage the methods by which to achieve that goal. [7] This can cause conflict with people whose career path expectations include a promotion, which may not be available within the organization due to its flat structure. However, alternative "horizontal" career paths may be available, such as developing greater expertise in a role or mastery of a craft, and/or receiving pay raises for loyalty. [8]

An absence of middle managers does not preclude the adoption and retention of mandatory work procedures, including quality assurance procedures. However, due to the fact that significant responsibilities are given to the team members themselves, if a team collectively arrives at the view that the procedures it is following are outdated, or could be improved, it may be able to change them. Such changes may, in some cases, require the approval of executive management and/or customers (consider, for example, a digital agency producing bespoke websites for corporate clients). If executive management is not involved in the decision, or merely rubber-stamps it, this might be an example of consensus decision-making or workplace democracy at the level of a team - or group of teams, if multiple teams are involved in the decision.

The foremost example of a company with self-managing teams is Valve, which also has rotating, not permanent, team leaders - which Valve terms "group contributors", in recognition of the fact that contributing individually and leading at Valve form a spectrum, not a binary dichotomy. [9] Generally the term of a group contributor at Valve is at most one project, after which time they (voluntarily) rotate back to being an individual contributor. [9] Valve also allows team members to work on whatever they find interesting. This is known as open allocation, and means that employees can switch to another team at any time, no questions asked; all desks are on wheels to make this easy. [10] However, because new ideas may require significant resources, someone with a new idea may need to persuade a number of their coworkers to join them in order to create a new team and reach the necessary "critical mass" for the new idea to come to fruition. [10]

Valve's co-founder has admitted that it has issues with failing to catch bad decisions early on due to a lack of internal controls, due to its lack of managers. [9] Prof. Cliff Oswick from Cass Business School, who has studied Valve and other examples of "non-leadership", believes that Valve works because it hires high-calibre people who are a good fit for the leaderless environment, and because it was founded as a flat organization from the outset, so that new hires always knew what they were getting into. [10] However, he warns that the peer-review-based stack ranking system Valve uses for determining employee remuneration, might become problematic if in the future Valve becomes short of cash. [10]

Other examples of companies with self-managing teams include the following:

In technology, agile development involves teams self-managing to a large extent (though agile development is commonly still practiced within a hierarchical organization, which means that certain types of decisions such as hiring, firing, and pay raises remain the prerogative of managers). In scrum, an agile framework, team members assign work to be done among themselves, either by free choice or by consensus. The scrum master role in scrum is not a management role as such, but is a role that involves helping remove obstacles to progress and ensuring that the basic scrum framework is adhered to by all parties, inside and outside the team - both aspects of the role being more akin to facilitation than to top-down micromanagement. Agile frameworks such as scrum have also begun being used in non-technology companies and organizations.

Criticisms

Drawing on Jo Freeman's famous essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness , Klint Finley has argued that "bossless" companies like Valve might suffer from problems related to the appropriate handling of grievances, the formation of informal cliques, the "soft power" of popular employees, unprofessional and sexist attitudes, and lack of workplace diversity. [14]

Suzanne J. Baker argues that new power dynamics can emerge that undermine the equality afforded by a non-hierarchical context. When an organization decides to no longer place value on a person's position, Baker suggests that new hierarchies based on personality type, skill set, and communication style can emerge. If these hierarchies don't get acknowledged, it is much more difficult to address the emergence of a new hierarchy because they remain implicit or undetected. [15]

Mark Henricks, a business journalist and a critic of flat organization, argues that "when you have too little hierarchy, decisions don't get made or are made wrongly by employees who lack experience, accountability, or motivation to do the work of the missing managers". [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

A hierarchical organization or hierarchical organisation is an organizational structure where every entity in the organization, except one, is subordinate to a single other entity. This arrangement is a form of hierarchy. In an organization, this hierarchy usually consists of a singular/group of power at the top with subsequent levels of power beneath them. This is the dominant mode of organization among large organizations; most corporations, governments, criminal enterprises, and organized religions are hierarchical organizations with different levels of management power or authority. For example, the broad, top-level overview of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church consists of the Pope, then the Cardinals, then the Archbishops, and so on. Another example is the hierarchy between the four castes in the Hindu caste system, which arises from the religious belief "that each is derived from a different part of the creator God’s (Brahma) body, descending from the head downwards."

A software company is an organisation — owned either by the state or private — established for profit whose primary products are various forms of software, software technology, distribution, and software product development. They make up the software industry.

Middle management is the intermediate management level of a hierarchical organization that is subordinate to the executive management and responsible for "team leading" line managers and/or "specialist" line managers. Middle management is indirectly responsible for junior staff performance and productivity.

A cross-functional team (XFN), also known as a multidisciplinary team or interdisciplinary team, is a group of people with different functional expertise working toward a common goal. It may include people from finance, marketing, operations, and human resources departments. Typically, it includes employees from all levels of an organization. Members may also come from outside an organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Information management</span> Organisational activity concerning information lifecycle

Information management (IM) is the appropriate and optimized capture, storage, retrieval, and use of information. It may be personal information management or organizational. Information management for organizations concerns a cycle of organizational activity: the acquisition of information from one or more sources, the custodianship and the distribution of that information to those who need it, and its ultimate disposal through archiving or deletion and extraction.

An organizational structure defines how activities such as task allocation, coordination, and supervision are directed toward the achievement of organizational aims.

Agile software development is an umbrella term for approaches to developing software that reflect the values and principles agreed upon by The Agile Alliance, a group of 17 software practitioners in 2001. As documented in their Manifesto for Agile Software Development the practitioners value:

Span of control, also called span of management, is a term used in business management, particularly human resource management. The term refers to the number of direct reports a supervisor is responsible for.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theory X and Theory Y</span> Theories of human motivation

Theory X and Theory Y are theories of human work motivation and management. They were created by Douglas McGregor while he was working at the MIT Sloan School of Management in the 1950s, and developed further in the 1960s. McGregor's work was rooted in motivation theory alongside the works of Abraham Maslow, who created the hierarchy of needs. The two theories proposed by McGregor describe contrasting models of workforce motivation applied by managers in human resource management, organizational behavior, organizational communication and organizational development. Theory X explains the importance of heightened supervision, external rewards, and penalties, while Theory Y highlights the motivating role of job satisfaction and encourages workers to approach tasks without direct supervision. Management use of Theory X and Theory Y can affect employee motivation and productivity in different ways, and managers may choose to implement strategies from both theories into their practices.

Organizing or organising is the establishment of effective authority-relationships among selected works, which often improves efficiency.

In software development and product management, a user story is an informal, natural language description of features of a software system. They are written from the perspective of an end user or user of a system, and may be recorded on index cards, Post-it notes, or digitally in specific management software. Depending on the product, user stories may be written by different stakeholders like client, user, manager, or development team.

Management consists of the planning, prioritizing, and organizing work efforts to accomplish objectives within a business organization. A management style is the particular way managers go about accomplishing these objectives. It encompasses the way they make decisions, how they plan and organize work, and how they exercise authority.

A product manager (PM) is a professional role that is responsible for the development of products for an organization, known as the practice of product management. Product managers own the product strategy behind a product, specify its functional requirements, and manage feature releases. Product managers coordinate work done by many other functions, and are ultimately responsible for product outcomes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scrum (software development)</span> Management framework

Scrum is an agile team collaboration framework commonly used in software development and other industries.

A typical corporate structure consists of various departments that contribute to the company's overall mission and goals. Common departments include Marketing, Finance, Operations management, Human Resource, and IT. These five divisions represent the major departments within a publicly traded company, though there are often smaller departments within autonomous firms. Many businesses have a CEO and a Board of Directors, usually composed of the directors of each department, potentially with the addition of one or more non-executive directors. There are also company presidents, vice presidents, and CFOs. However, there is a great diversity in corporate forms, as enterprises range from single company to multi-corporate conglomerate. The four main corporate structures are Functional, Divisional, Geographic, and the Matrix.

Business agility refers to rapid, continuous, and systematic evolutionary adaptation and entrepreneurial innovation directed at gaining and maintaining competitive advantage. Business agility can be sustained by maintaining and adapting the goods and services offered to meet with customer demands, adjusting to the marketplace changes in a business environment, and taking advantage of available human resources.

Staff management is the management of subordinates in an organization. Often, large organizations have many of these functions performed by a specialist department, such as personnel or human resources, but all line managers are still required to supervise and administer the activities and ensure the well-being of the staff that report to them.

Line management refers to the management of employees who are directly involved in the production or delivery of products, goods and/or services. As the interface between an organisation and its front-line workforce, line management represents the lowest level of management within an organisational hierarchy.

Holacracy is a method of decentralized management and organizational governance, which claims to distribute authority and decision-making through a holarchy of self-organizing teams rather than being vested in a management hierarchy. Holacracy has been adopted by for-profit and non-profit organizations in several countries. This can be seen as a greater movement within organisational design to cope with increasing complex social environments, that promises a greater degree of transparency, effectiveness and agility.

Open allocation refers to a style of management in which employees are given a high degree of freedom in choosing what projects to work on, and how to allocate their time. They do not necessarily answer to a single manager, but to the company and their peers. They can transfer between projects regardless of headcount allowances, performance reviews, or tenure at the company, as long as they are providing value to projects that are useful to the business goals of the company. Open allocation has been described as a process of self-organization. Rather than teams and leadership arrangements existing permanently in a company, such relationships form as they are needed and disband when they are no longer necessary. Additionally, open allocation implies that projects are not unilaterally created and staffed by executive mandate. Rather, the person forming the project is responsible for convincing others to invest their time, energy, and careers into the effort.

References

  1. 1 2 Ghiselli, Edwin E.; Siegel, Jacob P. (December 1, 1972). "Leadership and Managerial Success in Tall and Flat Organization Structures". Personnel Psychology. 25 (4): 617. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1972.tb02304.x.
  2. 1 2 3 Ghiselli, Edwin E.; Siegel, Jacob P. (December 1, 1972). "Leadership and Managerial Success in Tall and Flat Organization Structures". Personnel Psychology. 25 (4): 618. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1972.tb02304.x.
  3. ↑ CIPS, Flat/Horizontal Organisation, CIPS Procurement Topic, n.d.
  4. ↑ "The Advantages of Flat Organizational Structure". Small Business - Chron.com. 16 September 2010. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
  5. ↑ Richard Dunford, Tom Bramble and Craig R. Littler, "Gain and Pain: The Effects of Australian Public Sector Restructuring", Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Jun., 1998), pp. 388, accessed 1 December 2020
  6. ↑ Ostroff, F. (1999), The Horizontal Organisation, accessed 9 December 2020
  7. ↑ Thompson, Leigh (2000). Making the team : a guide for managers . Prentice Hall. ISBN   0130143634.
  8. 1 2 Fried, Jason (April 2011). "Why I Run a Flat Company". Inc. Retrieved 1 Sep 2013.
  9. 1 2 3 "Why There Are No Bosses at Valve". BusinessWeek . 27 April 2012. Archived from the original on April 30, 2012. Retrieved 1 September 2013.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Leo Kelion (23 September 2013). "Valve: How going boss-free empowered the games-maker". BBC News . Retrieved 1 October 2013.
  11. ↑ "Work with cutting-edge technology in challenging projects to create lasting value – together with other extraordinary people".
  12. ↑ Appelo, Jurgen (29 October 2015). "The Fourth Qualification For Future Companies". Forbes . Retrieved 13 September 2016.
  13. ↑ Evelyn, Rusli (17 July 2014). "Harassment claims make startup GitHub grow up". Wall Street Journal . Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  14. ↑ Finley, Klint (20 March 2014). "Why Workers Can Suffer in Bossless Companies Like GitHub". Wired . Retrieved 13 July 2014.
  15. ↑ Baker, Suzanne J. 2015. "Exploration of Equality and Processes of Non-Hierarchical Groups." Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change 12, no. 2: 138-158. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed November 3, 2015).
  16. ↑ Henricks, M. (2005). Falling Flat?. Entrepreneur, 33(1), 69-70.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.