The Myth of the Flat Organization: Why Collaboration, Not Collapse, Drives Innovation

Edited By Brandi Neal. Flat organizations are often touted as the future of efficient work. But when you remove managers and collapse hierarchies, you’re not flattening the org—you’re flattening people. Radical Candor offers a more nuanced, humane, and effective approach.

The Allure—and Illusion—of Flat Organizations

In the modern workplace, the flat organization is often framed as a cure-all: fewer layers, less bureaucracy, more speed. It’s an appealing idea, especially for leaders under pressure to do more with less. But as appealing as it may sound, flattening an organization without a clear structure in place rarely results in greater innovation or efficiency.

In fact, the opposite often happens.

“The myth of the flat organization is that the fewer layers there are between the most junior employee and the CEO, the better,” said Radical Candor author and cofounder Kim Scott. “But if you just play with the math, that means every manager has too many direct reports. And no manager can do what good managers do in that scenario.”

The belief that reducing layers automatically improves productivity has driven many tech companies to eliminate managers under the guise of streamlining. But what’s left behind often isn't a nimble, empowered workforce—it’s an overwhelmed, unsupported one.

Why Flat Doesn't Mean Fast

“If you have 30 direct reports, you're spending 60 hours a week just managing. That’s burnout. And if you don’t spend that time, you’re not really managing at all.” — Kim Scott

Radical Candor co-founder and CEO Jason Rosoff points out that a key reason people resist hierarchy is the misconception that managers merely serve as gatekeepers of information. When information bottlenecks at each level, it can feel like a game of telephone—by the time messages reach the front lines, they’re distorted or irrelevant.

But flattening the structure isn’t the answer.

“When you eliminate hierarchy without solving for how information flows or how decisions are made, you’re not fixing the problem. You’re just creating different ones,” Rosoff said.

Scott emphasized that a lack of clear managerial bandwidth leads to inefficiencies that flat structures don’t solve—they exacerbate them. “If you have 30 direct reports, you're spending 60 hours a week just managing. That’s burnout,” she said. “And if you don’t spend that time, you’re not really managing at all.”

Collaboration vs. Command and Control 

Hierarchy itself isn't the enemy—bad hierarchy is. The real question isn’t whether to flatten or stack—it’s what kind of hierarchy you’re building.

“Some hierarchy is absolutely necessary if we’re going to collaborate at scale,” Scott said. “But is the hierarchy a collaboration hierarchy, or a dominance hierarchy? That’s what matters.”

A collaboration hierarchy, as modeled at Google during Scott’s tenure, involves stripping away unilateral power from managers—things like hiring, firing, and bonuses—while preserving the authority to make and influence decisions through relationships, not fear.

“Authority is different from power,” Scott explained. “When I say strip away power, I mean removing the ability to make decisions that impact others without involving them. That builds inclusion. It makes decisions more transparent.”

The Real Cost of Flattening

When organizations flatten abruptly—often after layoffs—the results can be damaging and hard to detect. Managers with too many direct reports become unable to keep track of performance, leading to favoritism or reactive decision-making.

“In theory, flattening should reduce the return on politics. But in reality, it increases it,” said Scott. “The people who get ahead are the ones who can best paint a rosy picture, not necessarily the ones doing the best work.”

The consequences? Regrettable attrition, missed opportunities, and innovation bottlenecks.

“You start losing your best people, and you don’t even realize it’s a problem,” she added. “That’s a silent failure.”

Decision-Making in Collaborative Hierarchies

Rosoff pointed to decision-making as a critical function that suffers when organizations flatten carelessly.

“If managers are managing 20 or 30 people, they can’t possibly involve everyone in the decisions that affect them,” he said. “That’s where things break down. Either they over-delegate and become absentee managers, or they micromanage and become bottlenecks.”

The solution isn’t to eliminate hierarchy, but to make decision-making processes explicit, inclusive, and fact-based.

“Push decisions into the facts,” Scott said, referencing A Primer on Decision Making by James March. “When decisions are made without involving the people they affect, it creates a psychological sense of lost personhood. That’s damaging.”

How to Support Managers in a Flattened Structure

What Managers Should Actually Be Doing

In Radical Candor, Scott lays out a framework for effective management that includes meaningful one-on-ones, clear communication, and ongoing development. But none of that is possible when a manager’s bandwidth is stretched thin.

“You need 10 hours a week to do the work of managing well—5 of that just for one-on-ones,” Scott said. “If you have 10 direct reports, that’s 20 hours a week. You won’t have time for anything else.”

Organizations must be realistic: management takes time. And effective management isn’t optional if the goal is sustainable innovation and high-performing teams.

A New Kind of Efficiency

The term “efficiency” gets thrown around frequently in leadership circles. But efficiency for what?

“If you don’t define what you’re trying to do—whether it’s innovation, better decisions, or faster execution—you can’t just assume fewer layers will get you there,” said Rosoff. “It’s like looking at an empty glass and pretending there’s nothing in it, when in fact, there’s still air. We’re oversimplifying.”

Instead of aiming for flatness, organizations should aim for clarity, connection, and collaboration. That’s the kind of efficiency that matters.

Rebuild with Radical Candor

If you're a leader navigating a flattened organization, don’t panic. Start small.

• Create informal leadership opportunities to redistribute load.

• Strip away unilateral power, but preserve authority through influence and trust.

• Prioritize decision-making processes that include the right people at the right time.

• Encourage open communication that flows across, not just down.

“Every manager should know information three levels deep,” Scott said. “Great ideas come from everywhere, and communication shouldn’t follow a hierarchical path. Anyone should be able to talk to anyone.”

Ultimately, a truly collaborative organization isn’t one with no managers. It’s one where managers are empowered to lead with Radical Candor: caring personally while challenging directly—and doing so at a sustainable scale.

Need helping getting started? Join the Radical Candor Community — free forever. Or, contact our team.

Join the Radical Candor Community

• Take the Radical Candor quiz >>
• Sign up for our Radical Candor email newsletter >>
• Listen to the Radical Candor podcast >>
• Shop the Radical Candor store >>
• Get the “Radical” books >>
• Get Radical Candor coaching and consulting for your team >>
• Get Radical Candor coaching and consulting for your company >>

If you understand the importance of receiving feedback in the workplace, then you need The Feedback Loop (think Groundhog Day meets The Office), a 5-episode workplace comedy series starring David Alan Grier that brings to life Radical Candor’s simple framework for navigating candid conversations.

You’ll get an hour of hilarious content about a team whose feedback fails are costing them business; improv-inspired exercises to teach everyone the skills they need to work better together; and after-episode action plans you can put into practice immediately to up your helpful feedback EQ.

We’re offering Radical Candor readers 10% off the self-paced e-course. Follow this link and enter the promo code FEEDBACK at checkout