[lkrubner]

"Hierarchy is so baked in to every other company, organization, and education system that people just don't know how to operate absent it."

That's partly because it works. It is proven. It is well-known. We have excellent tooling for it. There is absolutely no need to change it. Changing does not bring any advantages. You cannot point to any company and say "That company was an outstanding success because they were flat and rejected all hierarchy." If you run a business then do you want to make a political point or do you want to make a profit?

"There are examples of stable large companies with flat org charts that do work, they're just not the hypergrowth scale-ups."

So why waste any time with them? What is the advantage? What is your real motivation? You seem more focused on some political agenda than you are focused on making a profit.

[cybrexalpha]

> Changing does not bring any advantages.

Sometimes, progress requires fundamental change.

> So why waste any time with them?

Can you not envision a business model that is not a high-growth startup?

> What is your real motivation? You seem more focused on some political agenda than you are focused on making a profit.

What agenda do you think I'm focused on?

[lkrubner]

“progress requires fundamental change”

Progress towards what? Do you have some political goal? There is zero evidence that flatness increases profits. There is no company that we can point to and say “that company was successful because it was flat” (with the obvious exception of franchise models).

[cybrexalpha]

> Do you have some political goal?

Again, what political goal or agenda do you think I’m pushing?

[lkrubner]

Progress towards what? Do you have some political goal? What you've written does not make sense.