I made the statement that flat organizations are not inherently good, and
others have disagreed. I meant that flattening an organization _in the
absence of other difficult changes_, will not make an organization any
better than it was. It will not become a LO. It will not perform better.
The evidence is that it will not become more profitable. It will not
actually reduce its overhead costs.
No one has actually disagreed with that. Roy Winkler said, "Yes, there
are examples of flat organizations which do not learn well. Certainly, if
the status regimens are retained, the organization learns no better tier
to tier than a taller one. However, if the flatter organization is
combined with a communication structure which minimizes status and
maximizes encouragement to share information, the opposite is true."
But the changes he describes in status, hierarchy, and communications
structures are exactly the kinds of difficult changes I am referring to.
Furthermore, those changes would improve the functioning of _any_
organization, not just flat ones. As far as I can tell, there is nothing
in his assertions that proves the _inherent_ value of flat organizations.
My concern with being precise here is that there is too much focus on the
'glib fix' at the expense of the thoughtful assessment that might result
in _substantive_ change. Organizational problems? FLATTEN. Management
by slogan, exactly what Deming warned us against. The result will be, as
has been shown, that no change will occur because the real issues --
control structures instead of learning structures -- were ignored.
My guess is that if a company goes through a thoughtful assessment of its
needs, its strengths and weaknesses, and so forth, it will revise its
organization, and it may well flatten it. That in conjunction with other
substantive changes that were identified in the thoughtful assessment will
result in improved competitiveness. However, if they do not go through
the thoughtful process, if they ONLY flatten, then they will be
disappointed in the results. If they survive.
Another way to look at this is to realize that yes, flatness in the right
circumstances is good for certain factors in an organization. At the same
time, hierarchy also adds value to an organization in certain areas.
Otherwise, there would be examples of totally flat organizations -- 1
layer -- that would be successful in their niches. The paradox is that
these contradictions, flatness and hierarchy, both add value. The
challenge is to find the balance, the level at which any added flatness
detracts from the strength of the organization, and any added hierarchy
also detracts. In my company we have flattened some departments, and
steepened others. Time will tell if these were good decisions.
The "counter example" of the 35-layered GM organization of the 70's, is
not relevant. I did not argue that steepness was good, only that flatness
is not _inherently_ good by itself. Finding the appropriate level of
hierarchy is hard work. There are no successful simple solutions.
-- Rol Fessenden LL Bean 76234.3636@compuserve.com