9. Primary Research Conclusions
Less bureaucratic
Since there is not a vertical structure of approvals such as in a hierarchical system, flat structures are often seen as less bureaucratic and more agile. The daily decision-making process also contributes to a faster process since each employee takes daily decisions without the need to scale up to management.
Freedom and Decision-Making
At the same time that the decision-making process makes the company less bureaucratic, it was perceived as negative for some of the employees. Overall, the decision-making process can be summarised as both challenging and constructive.
The decision-making process can be challenging because people do not always have the support during the transition from a hierarchical system — where you have a manager supporting decisions and deliverables — to a flat structure — where people need to be self-managed. A possible solution for that lack of support could be including a leader in the beginning to help the transition process.
It can also be challenging when the company needs to take a major decision. In this case, the company usually consists if employee’s individual opinions, described as a “chaos”. When too many voices need to be heard, the process cannot be described as agile. Better understanding how the group’s communication is being done can help to create a better process.
The self-managed aspect was seen as constructive in environments where there was a leader (coach) present to support employees. The advantages that were emphasised by the interviewees were more focus on performing likeable tasks, being more responsible and disciplined.
Collaboration
Flat structures were related to less competitive environments which incentivise collaboration between team members. People do not see each other as a threat so they feel more comfortable to share knowledge and support co-workers with their point of view. Collaboration also helps to create trust and transparency, which was pointed as one of the main benefits of a flat structure. All of those factors together contribute to a more friendly environment and encourage motivation.
Leadership
There was not an agreement on the leader’s role or even if it should exist in a flat company. Most of the employers think that the leader’s role is important if related to coach activities. Having a formal leader in a company on the other hand, was seen as something impossible to take out of the structure in the future. People start to rely on a coach as soon as they become supported by them and they will be seen as a vital part of the structure. A long term solution for that dependency could be leaders supporting employees to coach each other so they would not rely on only one person but the whole group.
Some researchers initially defended a structure with no leaders. The idea was to create a group without a leader and based on the experiential learning (learning by doing). Moreover, some of the interviewed employees said that not having a leader in the structure makes space for a non-formal leader to arise which can sometimes cause relationship problems between the group. Not having a formal leader in a flat team can be possible but only considering a group where all the members are experienced, self-managed people.
Considering all of the interviewee’s opinions, the most part agreed that leaders do not have an adverse impact on flat teams, they are necessary. The leader’s role will change along the process since initial dependence is more focused on the individual development and later on, group maintenance. Activities that can be related to the leader’s role can be described as individual support, aligning the team’s goals, guaranteeing group values are being executed and that people have space to participate.
