Flatter hierarchies are all the rage, but they do come with some downsides. Karlie Cremin outlines what it takes for leaders to succeed in a flatter corporate world
Flatter hierarchies are all the rage, but they do come with some downsides. Karlie Cremin outlines what it takes for leaders to succeed in a flatter corporate world
I can actually remember the first time I heard the idea of a holacratic organisation discussed. It was at a conference in the US focusing on HR. A gentleman was giving a talk about this new structure, where there are open job specifications, sometimes no job titles and perfectly dispersed power within a highly productive workforce. The entire room did three things in unison.
I was visiting an organisation recently to scope out a change management project. I was struck by how much each team member I met knew about the operations of the business, and was willing to talk to me about the organisation generally. The team seemed to communicate well and had a fairly easy flow between themselves. I started to think maybe they didn’t actually need to change that much at all. Then I asked, “So, if that forecast doesn’t work out, whose job is on the line?” The room immediately fell silent and no one would make eye contact. I felt compelled to follow up with “So who is driving here? Who is deciding and communicating the strategy? Mitigating the risk?” It became apparent that no one was. And therein lies one of the main dangers of a flat hierarchy. Without a title and power, most people feel no obligation to lead when things get tough. And subsequently businesses can start to list, while often giving the impression of moving forward.
The challenges of a flat hierarchy
There are of course many challenges to this model; however, I will discuss what I see as the five key ones here.
It can also be a challenge to identify who should be told what. Organisations often either freeze and communicate nothing or communicate everything and lose the meaning in the volume. Clearly, leaders must take charge of the communication and prioritisation of information within these organisations.
With this view, flat hierarchies require leaders to focus on developing new and different areas of skill. Leaders need to:
Karlie Cremin is a principal and founder of DLPA. DLPA customises programs for organisations to strategically develop their workforces to help the organisation thrive into the future. Contact them today on (03) 8678 0389, or [email protected].
I can actually remember the first time I heard the idea of a holacratic organisation discussed. It was at a conference in the US focusing on HR. A gentleman was giving a talk about this new structure, where there are open job specifications, sometimes no job titles and perfectly dispersed power within a highly productive workforce. The entire room did three things in unison.
- Confirmed what holacratic means
- Gasped
- Laughed with abandon
I was visiting an organisation recently to scope out a change management project. I was struck by how much each team member I met knew about the operations of the business, and was willing to talk to me about the organisation generally. The team seemed to communicate well and had a fairly easy flow between themselves. I started to think maybe they didn’t actually need to change that much at all. Then I asked, “So, if that forecast doesn’t work out, whose job is on the line?” The room immediately fell silent and no one would make eye contact. I felt compelled to follow up with “So who is driving here? Who is deciding and communicating the strategy? Mitigating the risk?” It became apparent that no one was. And therein lies one of the main dangers of a flat hierarchy. Without a title and power, most people feel no obligation to lead when things get tough. And subsequently businesses can start to list, while often giving the impression of moving forward.
The challenges of a flat hierarchy
There are of course many challenges to this model; however, I will discuss what I see as the five key ones here.
- Communication channels
It can also be a challenge to identify who should be told what. Organisations often either freeze and communicate nothing or communicate everything and lose the meaning in the volume. Clearly, leaders must take charge of the communication and prioritisation of information within these organisations.
- Matching a skill set to a task
- The legal context
- Roles vs responsibilities
- Distribution of power
With this view, flat hierarchies require leaders to focus on developing new and different areas of skill. Leaders need to:
- be skilled communicators, and adept at prioritising and disseminating information
- fully understand their team and interact with them as peers, while still maintaining power
- be dynamic and able to make decisions quickly, based on consistent logic
- be knowledgeable about the legal context of their actions – they need to know what they are responsible for, and the consequences for getting it wrong
- lead with purpose and charisma – there’s a lot more choice in who we follow now, and leaders need to quite simply be worth following
WHY GO FLAT?
There are many reasons a company might opt for a flatter hierarchy. These include:
• The business is more agile – Without the burden of traditional bureaucracy organisations are free to make decisions swiftly.
• Employees are empowered – Employees are able to make a meaningful contribution to the business every day, and are empowered to make decisions. This should result in a more engaged workforce.
• Lower cost – This model significantly reduces overheads, with less money being dedicated to management staff.
However, organisations beware! Not all businesses are suited to this model. It is essential that any change to a business structure is properly planned and scenario tested. Failing to plan really is planning to fail.
There are many reasons a company might opt for a flatter hierarchy. These include:
• The business is more agile – Without the burden of traditional bureaucracy organisations are free to make decisions swiftly.
• Employees are empowered – Employees are able to make a meaningful contribution to the business every day, and are empowered to make decisions. This should result in a more engaged workforce.
• Lower cost – This model significantly reduces overheads, with less money being dedicated to management staff.
However, organisations beware! Not all businesses are suited to this model. It is essential that any change to a business structure is properly planned and scenario tested. Failing to plan really is planning to fail.
Karlie Cremin is a principal and founder of DLPA. DLPA customises programs for organisations to strategically develop their workforces to help the organisation thrive into the future. Contact them today on (03) 8678 0389, or [email protected].