[paulie_a]

I honestly don't believe flat organizations exist. They claim to be but there is always an informal heirachy. Which is trickier to navigate then just having a bit of structure. No need to go overboard but at least formalize what exists but unsaid.

[noobiemcfoob]

It's a double-edge sword. Inherent hierarchies develop, but without being stated and defined, political types are less able to fully exploit them. But when they do, it's less obvious to the non-political types.

[snowwrestler]

I think you're right, and so do a lot of other people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne...

[davismwfl]

I would agree, people call it flat but in reality there are always some structures, processes etc either known or not. But I do see that there are quality organizations that call themselves flat, when in reality they are more like an open door, open culture workplace. But they still have a structure and organization on how you do things. e.g. you can talk to the CEO, but you are not to use that access to manipulate the team dynamics or direction by skipping the middle leadership.

[paulie_a]

This is dead on. You could approach directly but it's probably better to bring up issues with someone else first then escalate to the CEO if necessary. Flat organization means you can go directly, but you probably shouldn't. So the structure exists.

[juangacovas]

Wasn't Valve who had a record of flat organizations? Their employee book leaked/was published and sounds good or perhaps work for them...