Anyone that has seen any job ad from any of my companies for the past decade probably noticed “flat hierarchy” in the perks section. It’s no longer there, and this article explains why.
It became the old-school virtue signalling of companies trying to attract great software talent. Two words that say “no bosses, we’re cool, you can just do your thing, we’re all family.” And if one lives up to that, as I really did, it’s a real problem.
The people pleaser’s company
First of all, I am a people pleaser, and it’s probably one of my best assets but also one of my biggest flaws. A long time ago when I first set out to create a company, I made it in my own image — as in, a place where I’d want to work and stay. And I did achieve that, only to realise that although it was without a question the reason it brought us the success we had, it also crippled us from growing.
When I designed this company’s culture, it was developer-centric. Hell, developers were 95% of the company, they delivered our value, how could this not be the best option? Well, because I was thinking from a developer’s perspective (hence creating the culture that I as a developer would want to be in), but when you run or manage a business, you need to think from a business perspective. And although I can hear the old spirits of the past calling me a “sell out,” hear me out.
These two visions are not incompatible, they should in fact work hand in hand. One does not survive without the other, that’s a pure fact. Paying attention to the business side is not selling out. It’s like when we were kids and our parents told us not to eat before a meal or we’d ruin the appetite. We all know now that that was actually a pretty reasonable request — we just had different perspectives. And not comparing children to developers (of course), it proves the point that sometimes we don’t understand the full picture and we forget that we live in a money-driven world where companies compete fiercely to do all the things they need to do before a developer actually gets paid.
I’m not saying there aren’t sh*tty managers or companies that take advantage of their people (because I would even say they are the majority), but the organisation is the one that has a bird’s-eye view of the entire thing — financial, market-wise, strategic, competitive. It should have a much better vantage point to make certain decisions. If the company makes bad judgement calls, fair, it’s also the company’s responsibility to own them and ultimately pay the price. If people didn’t like it and left and that ruined the company: fair. If it affected quality and the company suffered in sales: fair. People always have the right to leave — the owners, not so easy. They need to live with the weight of their decisions, and that’s exactly why they need to make them.
What “flat hierarchy” actually risks
The term itself, however well intentioned, carries a few dangerous implications that I’ve seen play out firsthand.
The implicit notion that everyone’s opinion counts the same. In a world where three people have four opinions, there is always someone who will feel betrayed when a decision is made. When everyone believes they have equal say, every decision becomes a potential conflict rather than progress.
A lack of ownership in favour of shared responsibility. Nobody is the boss, just people who get to mediate and have different jobs. This severely removes the weight of decision-making because it becomes a “joint decision,” but not everyone has the same responsibility or skin in the game. When ownership is diluted, accountability disappears with it.
And the idea that everyone can be involved in everything. However, most people are not suited to weigh in on every topic, and opening up everything to everyone results in incredibly lower performance and scalability. Also, not everything should be public knowledge — some things require context that not everyone has, and pretending otherwise creates more noise than signal.
What great organisations do instead
A great organisation doesn’t silence people — it listens deliberately and acts decisively. There is a big difference.
Everyone’s opinion matters and should absolutely be taken into consideration. Not listening to someone is simply not an option. But listening does not mean that every opinion carries the same weight in every decision. The person who owns the outcome needs to own the decision, and that requires clearly defined roles, ownership, and an accountability mindset.
Jocko Willink talks about this in Extreme Ownership — the idea that when something goes wrong, the leader owns it completely. No finger-pointing, no diffusion of responsibility. And that only works when there is actually someone who owns it in the first place. In a flat hierarchy, when things go south, there’s nobody to step up because the structure was designed to avoid exactly that.
With a clear focus on communication and collaboration, the people who need to make decisions have to be equipped with all the knowledge available to them. They will be the heroes or the villains, but there is no other way to make decisions without the weight of the outcome on someone’s shoulders.
Trust above everything
And this is where it all comes together. Without true ownership and consequences there cannot be trust. One needs to be clear on expectations and know that someone accepts the full responsibility of a role to expect an outcome — to demand results. And without trust there is nothing.
If an organisation is deliberate about empowering people, it means giving responsibility. It means accountability. It means trust. And by doing that, the organisation also asks the same in return. People need to trust that whatever direction is being taken is done with everyone’s interests in mind. Global first, personal second. Always.
Global first, personal second
This is a phrase I use a lot and it doesn’t mean what it might sound like at first. It doesn’t mean maximising profits. It doesn’t mean cutting costs. It means finding the thin balance and intersection between optimising the company’s potential while maximising everyone’s personal goals. If you go 100% either way, you’ll fail. If you go 80-90% on both, you’ll win big — because they feed on each other.
Great people, great work environment, great values. We’re social beings. I haven’t met a person that hasn’t benefited from or enjoyed being in a positive environment with real personal relationships. However, this is not what a company is built on — that’s a pub. A company needs the personal side to thrive, but it also needs structure, direction, and someone steering the ship. Getting that balance right is the whole job.