How can you choose between a flat or hierarchical organizational structure?

in my opinion The successful implementation of a flat structure in such contexts requires more than a mere restructuring of the organizational chart. It demands a fundamental shift in organizational culture and mindset. This transition involves redefining values, behaviors, and practices to align with the principles of a flat organization. It requires extensive training and sensitization of employees to operate effectively in a decentralized setup, where collaboration and self-management are key. many times this type of reorganization or approach fails, especially in environments where hierarchy has always had a predominant role

I have always preferred flat organizations with few levels, and when this was not possible at the organizational level due to specific constraints, sometimes dictated by regulations to be respected, I have tried to create "virtual flat organizations" by involving everyone in the decision-making processes, in sharing both victories and defeats.

From my experience, flat organizations not only speed up processes but also facilitate the creation of cohesive and motivated teams because everyone feels a part of the organization and knows that their actions contribute to collective growth. Especially, flat organizations facilitate innovation because everyone contributes to connecting the dots that create new services, new products, or simply excellence for customers.

In the contemporary business landscape, the concept of flat organizations has been lauded for its revolutionary approach to management and organizational structure. Proponents of this system, like myself, argue that flat organizations are instrumental in speeding up processes and fostering a sense of unity among team members. This sense of belonging and purpose is not just motivational; it's transformative. However, beneath the veneer of equality and open collaboration, a different reality often lurks. In many organizations , a highly siloed structure covertly exists, dictated by the ingrained management culture.

This can be experienced in a hierarchical structure as well. Some organisations with hierarchical structures would not have well-implemented guidelines or standards in some circumstances. This causes more pressure to build on managers and causes less autonomy to be given to employees below managerial levels. Managers thus would experience higher workloads and stress due to having to juggle multiple responsibilities without adequate support or feedback also within this type of structure.

In flat organizations, and thus all those I have had the privilege of working in or evolving in this direction, the main issue I have encountered is sometimes the creation of confusion about the ownership of tasks, with the effect that two people thought they had ownership or no one took it. To solve this problem of clarity, proper and clear communication with brief but periodic meetings is sufficient.

I worked for companies whose organization was flat, it is a system that is often found in small organizations or startups, or even in medium-sized companies where the founders have always had a servant-type managerial vision in which the leaders are true leaders and they lead by example rather than imposition. In this situation the dangers mentioned here are minor because the organization grows organically and in accordance with its needs.

In my opinion, the only organizations that benefit from hierarchical structures with many levels are those organizations that do not have innovation as their primary objective and in which the mindset of working towards goals is not as developed. Certainly, there are not the problems that sometimes arise in flat organizations in terms of clarity and ownership, but there is a risk of losing the ability to do cross-fertilization.

Companies are the people who make them up; they embody the values of these people, their ethics. Often, we talk about a company as if it were an abstract entity that has no connection with the people who compose it. If the organization does not meet the needs of the market, the needs of the people within it, it's everyone's responsibility to strive to improve it while respecting the company's rules. It is the duty of every manager to transfer the vision and strategy to their team, regardless of hierarchical levels, and to motivate each team member. In my experience, even in hierarchical and "bureaucratic" structures, this is possible, and one must avoid the error of justifying inaction by this to prevent the growth of their team.

An organization is a living being and, as such, must be able to evolve and change to adapt to the context and challenges. The entire organization must be capable of embracing change, even if disruptive. In my experience, one should never underestimate the cultural element, which can be either an obstacle or an enabler to new forms of organization. In the era we are living in, due to the pace of changes and the unpredictability of external factors such as geopolitical shifts, the best model to apply is the hybrid matrix, always ready to evolve in response to external stimuli, always aiming for customer satisfaction and meeting shareholders' objectives.

Based on my experience, we must be careful not to fall into the mistake of creating hierarchical structures solely to create fictitious positions of responsibility when we are unable to offer real growth paths to our team.