Efficiency by Flatness

Each department is often seen as a separate entity that works within a larger system. If one were to look over the organizational chart they could find that each department carries their own hierarchy with the CEO often running everything. The problem is that when departments run with their own fiefdoms they are often slow to respond to organizational change and needs. Lack of response to the needs of both the customers and the market can be deadly in business.

The higher the bureaucratic organizational chart the less responsiveness the organizations becomes because decisions must be approved by people who are often removed from the immediate concerns by a few layers. By the time the decision makes its way through a few layers there is little resemblance to the original problem. Therefore, decisions that are made are often out of balance and skewed for the situation.

As executives make decisions based on incorrect knowledge the solution appears to be off direction and this creates a situation where executive confidence among the workforce is at an all time low. When such a situation arise workers waste time at work, have a hard time following instructions, and often are not committed to the company. In the end, the organization suffers.

Flat organizations more quickly adapt and respond to the needs and changes within the market. Generally, only in highly regulated industries does there need to be many layers and multiple oversights. However, in most organizations a flat design whereby individuals and managers within the organization can respond quickly in order overcome challenges. The more tied they are to the problem and the faster the response the better off they are.

Efficiency comes from the ability of organizations to adapt and change quickly to environmental, economic and marked based threats. Only a flatter design works well in such a situation that requires quick responses and concrete action. The executive and CEO cannot be expected to know all and be all in difficult situations.

This concept changes the manner of leadership from one of general to one of the planter and farmer. The general rules his people and expects them to follow orders. The soldiers do not question authority nor do they know how to act when not given direction. They are utterly confused with the concept of empowerment. The farmer sows his seed and creates the right environment for these crops to grow large and healthy. He influences but he does not command and uproot unless necessary.