Flat Structures: Does “Flat” Really Mean “Leaderless”? Not Exactly.

Going Flat?

1) Understanding Flat Structures and the Role of Leaders

Organizational structures, in simple terms, are how a company arranges and coordinates its people, processes, and decision-making. A “flat” structure is one that minimizes hierarchical layers—rather than a traditional pyramid with multiple managerial rungs, it reduces (or attempts to eliminate) middle management. The fundamental aim is usually threefold: speed up decision-making, empower employees, and foster more flexible, collaborative teamwork.

But does “flat” really mean “leaderless”? Not exactly. Even organizations that eliminate or reduce layers often have someone, or a small group, guiding the overall vision and ensuring alignment. Teams—regardless of how empowered—need to agree on objectives, resolve conflicts, and deploy resources in a coordinated manner. In practice, this is where leadership emerges. It might be a rotating leadership role, a servant-leader who acts more like a facilitator than a boss, or a small circle designated to oversee strategy. Whatever form it takes, a degree of leadership remains essential because human groups still need a sense of direction and accountability.

Thus, while flat structures intentionally push day-to-day decision-making to the frontline and remove the heavy hand of “top-down” control, they do not negate leadership. Rather, they redefine it. Leaders in flat organizations become enablers, coaches, or guides who coordinate and clarify, rather than dictate through command-and-control routines.

2) Does a Flat Structure Work in Practice?

2.1. A Successful Example of flat structure : Morning Star

The most frequently cited example of a large-scale organization working effectively with minimal hierarchy is California-based Morning Star, a tomato-processing company. For decades, it has operated with self-management at its core, and there is no sign of it reversing course in 2024 or 2025. The company is still alive, well, and often discussed in management literature for its radical approach. They do not use formal “boss” titles. Instead, every employee negotiates a set of responsibilities and deliverables with fellow colleagues. This is documented in what they call “Colleague Letters of Understanding,” so everyone is aware who is accountable for what.

Because individuals at Morning Star effectively “run their own business”—albeit within a larger enterprise—each person is motivated to cut waste, improve production processes, and communicate proactively. There are few layers to wait on for approvals; people have the authority to upgrade equipment or optimize a line if they can justify the investment. This fosters rapid problem-solving, a strong sense of ownership, and high morale.

Despite the flattening of hierarchy, Morning Star still acknowledges the importance of leadership. It just happens differently. Project leads may arise informally based on experience or passion, and there is a shared sense of guiding purpose: produce high-quality tomato products in the most innovative, cost-efficient way possible. In times of conflict, employees consult cross-functional peers to solve issues collectively. The overall effect is minimal bureaucracy and a culture that thrives on personal responsibility. It continues to be heralded as a model for those curious if large-scale flat management can actually endure.

2.2. A Less Successful Example: Flattening on Paper Only

By contrast, many multinational companies announce their desire to flatten hierarchies and encourage self-management, but they fail to fundamentally change old power structures. For instance, some major food corporations have created new “empowerment” initiatives, but employees still find themselves reporting to multiple layers of vice presidents and supervisors. Formal authority remains firmly in place: final decisions come from senior executives, and hierarchical lines remain strong. Under these circumstances, employees see empowerment as more rhetoric than reality. They may be told, “You have the freedom to propose big ideas,” but if each proposal is still subjected to multiple sign-offs by managers who outrank them, any initial energy for innovation can wither. The result is a half-flattened structure that appears modern in organizational charts but behaves the same as before in daily practice.

In such scenarios, teams experience minimal difference from the old approach. Collaboration might improve marginally if a few new processes or chat tools are introduced, but the real power distribution stays top-heavy. Employees quickly realize they do not genuinely control budgets or resource allocation, and over time cynicism can rise. This underscores the lesson: proclaiming a shift toward a flatter structure only works if the organization truly relinquishes some authority and invests in new systems to support decentralized decision-making.

3) Consequences for Managers under Flatter Designs

Shifting from a traditional hierarchical organization to a flatter model upends the classic managerial role. In a command-and-control system, a manager is recognized by a formal title and oversees a team with explicit authority—directing tasks, evaluating performance, and approving resources. When the structure flattens, a manager’s job morphs significantly:

• Loss of Formal Authority: Managers cannot rely on positional power as much. They must earn influence through expertise, relationship-building, and persuasion. This can be unsettling for someone accustomed to a clear sense of “I am the boss—therefore, do as I say.”

• New Skill Sets Required: Because the team takes on more accountability, a “coach” or “facilitator” style of leadership is vital. Managers often find themselves spending more time clarifying team goals, mediating disagreements, offering feedback, or removing bureaucratic hurdles so that self-managed colleagues can excel. This shift demands excellent interpersonal and conflict-resolution skills.

• Potential for Role Ambiguity: Some managers worry about becoming obsolete if the organization goes “manager-free.” Even if they still have responsibilities, the sense of “I lead by controlling” disappears. Adjusting to the new model requires rethinking one’s identity and contribution to the organization.

• Emotional and Cultural Challenges: Transition is not just procedural; it’s cultural. Some managers feel threatened by a flattening process, fearing that losing direct subordinates diminishes their career progression. If they are not coached on how to thrive in a flatter environment, they may resist the change, creating friction.

Hence, for managers, flattening is often both liberating and anxiety-provoking. Those who adapt can find great satisfaction in facilitating a culture of autonomy and entrepreneurial thinking. Those who do not may struggle to align with the new ethos—and ultimately may leave or hamper progress.

4) Is a Flat Structure the Future?

Flat structures are not a new idea per se—management theorists such as Warren Bennis and Henry Mintzberg have advocated more organic, “adhocratic” systems for decades. Nevertheless, the urgency to innovate quickly, adapt to market shifts, and tap into frontline creativity has spurred renewed interest in flattening hierarchies across diverse industries.

But is it the trend of the future? In many sectors—particularly knowledge work, technology, creative agencies, and entrepreneurial environments—flattened structures are increasingly commonplace. Digital tools make it easier for teams to coordinate without requiring multiple managerial checkpoints. Younger generations in the workforce often expect autonomy, open dialogue, and minimal bureaucracy. These factors push companies to flatten, at least partially.

Yet, not every organization can or should flatten completely. Very large multinational corporations, or companies in heavily regulated fields (e.g., pharmaceuticals or aviation), still need robust structures to ensure compliance and risk management. Certain environments—like the military—are built around command-and-control for reasons of security and clarity. In short, the future for many may be a hybrid: enough hierarchy for strategic oversight and compliance, but with considerable freedom distributed to teams for day-to-day decisions.

So, yes, it is fair to say the trend is toward fewer layers and more empowerment—but the reality is that “flat” must be thoughtfully integrated into each organization’s context. When done authentically—like at Morning Star—the gains can be impressive: faster decisions, greater accountability, and higher engagement. If done superficially, it risks confusion, dissatisfaction, and “fake empowerment.” Managers, for their part, need to evolve from controlling supervisors to enabling leaders who guide culture, unify vision, and trust employees to bring their best. All told, flat structures may not be a universal fix, but the momentum suggests they will continue shaping how we think about organizing work in the years ahead.