Do you prefer working for a company that has a flat or vertical hierarchy?

[Godhumor]

I will give two of my jobs as an example.

A few years ago, I worked for a company that had a vertical hierarchy--one with many possible levels to achieve. This is usually done to ensure employees continue to move up pay and benefit scales even if their jobs don't actually change while doing so. The major issue, of course, is that the more levels you add the further the distance between decision makers and the people actually doing the work. Senior management, for many employees, become nothing more than a rumor or an occasional glimpse at an all hands meeting.

The company I used to work for was laid out as:

Non-officer
Banking Officer
Assistant VP
VP
Admin VP
Group VP
Senior VP
Executive VP
CFO/COO/CPO
President
Vice Chairman
CEO/Chairman

Management track began when you were a banking officer, Experience management was slated for Admin and Group and the true senior management began at Senior VP.


The company I currently work for is a flat hierarchy with very little in the way of title inflation. The major bonus to this is that every level in the company has a lot of direct interaction with senior management and there is little in the way of rigid barriers in communication between levels. The major issue is that, well, you can get stuck in the same job at the same level for a long time. Advancement is slow and highly dependent on people leaving the company or retiring.

The hierarchy is

Individual contributors
Manager
Director
Assistant VP
VP
President

Senior management consists of 4 VPs and the President. Regular management are the managers and directors.

I love my current job and the high level of interaction across all levels. I prefer a flat hierarchy, but it does make me acutely aware that when I begin getting itchy to move up, I will prbably have to move on.

[CincyDem]

1. You're closing comment captures alot of the issue

In my experience, people like flat structures until they figure out there's no real upward mobility. In the banking example you provided, you can get "promoted" every 2-3 years (along with the attendant changes in compensation) and do reasonably well for yourself. In the flat example, the slope of the pyramid dictates that only a small number will see 2 promotions in their entire career and maybe only a handful see three. Doesn't sound very aspirational for the even modestly ambitious individual contributor.

Most people look at hierarchy and say it's created by management just to make things challenging. In many cases, the view from the top is that hierarchy puts rungs on the ladder because, quite simply, most people eventually like climbing. Maybe not on day one or year one but eventually, that desire to see the world from "just a little higher" kicks in.

Even if you have a good performance based push out program, where you're not waiting for retirement or self motivated departures to open up growth, the fact is that a flatter organization loses more of it's strong talent. Turn over isn't necessarily higher but what turnover does occur tends to be people you wish you didn't lose.

[Godhumor]

3. the place I work at now is trying to prevent that talent drain

We will have a large retirement event in the next 5 years or so, but the leadership is aware that most younger employees see this as the one chance to move up. They're trying to figure out what to do to keep those that don't.

[mimi85]

2. I prefer not working at all.

Glad I'm retired, hated all the company bullshit