
The intention behind the “flat organization” is good.
You reduce or eliminate hierarchy by removing middle managers.
This allows you to create a more flexible and collaborative working environment. One where employees have more autonomy and are more engaged in their work, compared to in the traditional, hierarchical organization.
Little wonder that the proponents of the concept have been called “humanizers,” as compared to “systemizers” (in this book).
But is a flat organization actually more human (or human-centric) than a tall (or hierarchical) one?
Maybe it could be, in a world where goals are perfectly aligned and where there are no conflicts of interest.
But that is not the world I live in (full disclosure: I am a systemizer).
Organizations consist of different groups of varying sizes and with varying degrees of influence over decisions. And it is my observation that it is usually not the minority, but the dominant coalition, which is advocating for a flat organization.
Why? Not because it is more effective for the organization overall, or more “human”; but because it serves their interests.
Let us consider an example, illustrated in the figure above:
Consider a small IT firm with two units: One focused on software development with 12 employees, and another that provides IT consulting, with 6 employees. Each unit is led by a middle manager, who reports to the CEO.
The software unit generates about 70% of the company’s revenue but struggles with profitability, maintaining only a 15% profit margin. It faces quality issues, client complaints and delivery delays.
In contrast, the consulting unit contributes just 30% of revenue but excels in profitability (40% margin) and client satisfaction. The consulting unit is growing fast and is critical to the firm’s future success.
Inspired by agile management philosophies, the CEO is considering introducing a flat organization by merging the units into one, with all 18 employees reporting directly to her.
For the IT consulting unit (and probably for the company overall), it would probably be a bad idea. You go from having two focused units to one, unfocused unit. You mix roles that are responsible for quite different tasks and that require quite different skills.
There are likely to be a lot more conflicts than in the current structures. The two groups of people will need to negotiate how to structure the work (and they no longer have two middle managers to help them do it). We can imagine that there will be conflicts with regards to the sales approach, incentives, training, recruitment and many other factors.
Yet the people in the software unit would likely support such a move.
Not only will they be the majority, but the unit is under pressure due to low profitability and quality issues. In the merged structure, the profit margin would rise to about 23% (a weighted average), due to the consulting unit’s higher profitability, which would mask the poor performance of the software unit.
So the question, then, is not whether a particular organizational form is more human than another one, but rather which humans we are prioritizing: The dominant coalition or the minority? The employees or the clients? The people who work here now, or the ones that will work here 10 years from now?
I also think that the example illustrates that the discussion of the “flat organization” is ignoring an obvious element of organization design. The debate focuses mainly on management layers (the vertical dimension) and overlooks the horizontal dimension (the sub-division of the organization into separate roles and units).
The “humanizers” tend to portray the middle manager as a bottleneck in the system who is interfering in your work.
Try this instead: Consider the middle manager as somebody to whom you can escalate difficult decisions – so you are freed to focus on your core work instead of getting bogged down in discussions with colleagues.
The key benefit of hierarchy is not the imposition of authority from above, but the ability to separate different functions into different units.
In my article with Shawn Pope, we quote American sociologist Eugene Litwak, who expressed this quite well. He said that a hierarchy “permits antagonistic roles to exist side by side in the same organization without ruinous friction.”
To avoid “ruinous friction” – that sounds like a rather humanistic priority to me.




