In practice: Years ago, I was hired to work with a truly flat organization — a large manufacturing business that was having trouble. When my colleague and I arrived, they showed us their binder of rules on how they worked. The binder was about three inches thick.
This team struggled with speed and innovation, but quality wasn't the problem. Their systems were finely tuned and robust — just painfully slow.
I've seen the opposite too. A fast-growing startup of around 80 people, proudly "no hierarchy." In practice, that meant no one was clear on who could make decisions. Every question became a meeting. Every meeting became a debate. They weren't flat — they were stuck.
Here's what I've seen in my years of working with teams: hierarchy itself is not the problem. Hierarchy done well brings clarity, speed, and alignment. What creates dysfunction is misaligned hierarchy — where authority doesn't match the actual work, where titles say one thing and influence says another, where power is informal and contested rather than transparent and earned.
The best teams I work with aren't flat and they aren't rigid. They're clear. They know who owns what, they revisit those decisions as the work changes, and – importantly – they make room for contribution regardless of title.
So here's my question: Where does your org chart look crystal clear on paper but get constantly reshaped by hidden power plays? That's where to start — not by flattening everything, but by aligning authority with actual work and outcomes.