I'm getting older, and I've seen about 40 companies between places where I've worked, those I've advised, and places where I have some insider detail.
I think that open allocation in terms of project mobility is the right way to go. I also think that flat structures are rarely truly that, and that they're certainly not resistant to fast growth (more than 20% per year).
There's a paradox inherent in the fact that if there's no management at all, informal psuedomanagement appears and that's worse (because it's unstable and must compete to hold ground). What you want is minimalist, benevolent management that operates in the joint interest of the company and its people, but that seems to require a relatively rare lack of ego. You need a cultural shift to a maker's culture where people who build things are held in highest esteem, and the long-term builders/individual contributors have as much influence and credibility as management.
It's pretty rare that one can do away with management outright, though. Someone has to protect the good.
There may be other options apart from flat-management versus hierarchical management.
Management is basically there to provide accountability. But peer systems can also provide some accountability.
Semco has an interesting model because they do insane things like allow employees to set their own salary. But your salary will be public, and if you can't prove to your peers on a regular basis that you are still needed, you will be asked to pack up your things.
This is just one of the way that they've delegated management functions downwards, which by all accounts works very well. There is still an official hierarchy but it's more about mediating disputes or very high level strategy.
I don't know, the more I see of this conversation between flat vs hierarchical management, the more I think the actual structure doesn't matter. If you have highly ego driven people with bad motivations, the company will be a bad place to work no matter the structure. Small, family owned or "lifestyle" businesses tend to be better because the motivations are more modest. People working and running those companies are looking to make a living instead of getting filthy rich. Maybe I'm romanticizing it, but the best jobs I've ever had were at private companies where the focus wasn't on getting obscenely rich.
The issue with fast growth is that it requires people to continuously adapt to the changing power structure and the influx of new people. Beyond a certain point, people are no longer focused on their daily work, but on making sure the new hires don't get "slid in" above them.
I think that open allocation in terms of project mobility is the right way to go. I also think that flat structures are rarely truly that, and that they're certainly not resistant to fast growth (more than 20% per year).
There's a paradox inherent in the fact that if there's no management at all, informal psuedomanagement appears and that's worse (because it's unstable and must compete to hold ground). What you want is minimalist, benevolent management that operates in the joint interest of the company and its people, but that seems to require a relatively rare lack of ego. You need a cultural shift to a maker's culture where people who build things are held in highest esteem, and the long-term builders/individual contributors have as much influence and credibility as management.
It's pretty rare that one can do away with management outright, though. Someone has to protect the good.