Who Really Holds the Mic? Power and Voice in Flat Hierarchies

By Nathan Waterhouse · 2025-05-20

Over the last two decades or so, I've worked in and with many organisations that describe themselves as "flat." They typically reject command-and-control management, favouring agility, peer collaboration, and decentralised decision-making. At a glance, this seems like a healthy evolution: more empowerment, less ego, greater speed.

But I've also worked with organisations on the opposite end of the spectrum. One that stands out is Generali, a 194-year-old European insurance company I collaborated with during my time at IDEO. It had many layers of hierarchy—centuries of structure etched into its DNA. Kafka actually worked in insurance in early 20th-century Prague (reportedly at Generali), and his novel The Trial written shortly after, captures that eerie, maze-like quality of bureaucratic systems where authority is opaque and elusive.

But here's the question that keeps resurfacing: Even in flat organisations, who really holds the mic? Are so-called "egalitarian" structures genuinely more inclusive and democratic? Or do old patterns simply resurface in new clothes?

The Allure and Illusion of Flatness

Flatness is deeply appealing. Research shows that employees often report higher satisfaction, engagement, and a sense of ownership in less hierarchical environments. A 2021 study published in Organizational Dynamics found that flat structures correlated with increased employee empowerment and faster decision-making—but only when informal power structures were acknowledged and addressed. Otherwise, satisfaction dropped due to perceived inequity and confusion about authority.

Flat hierarchies rose to prominence in the 1990s and early 2000s, fuelled by the internet's decentralising force and the proliferation of startups. Tech infrastructure made lateral communication easier. Startups began outpacing incumbents, and many of them—like Google or Valve—championed cultures without traditional bosses.

Yet research consistently shows that informal hierarchies persist even in "bossless" teams. A 2019 study by Oedzes et al. found that when no formal leader is assigned, groups quickly form implicit hierarchies based on confidence, assertiveness, or expertise—even when individuals have equal formal status.

A so-called "flat" company may simply hide its hierarchy, making it less visible, but no less powerful.

Valve, the gaming company behind the Steam platform, exemplifies this. Internally famous for its "no bosses" culture, Valve encouraged employees to choose what projects to work on. But former employees have described a hidden layer of "barons" who held outsized influence—long-tenured or socially powerful individuals who quietly shaped priorities. As one put it, "It felt a lot like high school."

This isn't unique to Valve. Sociologist Marissa King refers to these patterns as shadow hierarchies—informal networks of influence that often align with privilege, longevity, or dominant cultural norms. Jo Freeman, writing in the 1970s, warned that structurelessness often leads to unaccountable elites: "The rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few."

Why It Matters: Inclusion, Trust, and Lost Potential

Invisible hierarchies aren't just a structural nuisance—they have serious consequences for inclusion and performance. People from underrepresented groups—whether based on gender, ethnicity, or neurodivergence—can be excluded from informal networks that drive real decisions.

For instance, research shows that neurodivergent individuals often struggle to read unspoken social cues, which can leave them disadvantaged in systems where power is informal and fluid. A 2024 systematic review published in Autism in Adulthood found that autistic employees face heightened challenges in ambiguous workplace settings—particularly around unclear role expectations and decision-making pathways—highlighting the need for more transparent structures and support mechanisms.

Even among well-meaning teams, performative participation is common: meetings where all voices are invited, but only a few actually shape outcomes. When teams sense this disconnect between formal participation and real influence, it undermines trust—and over time, people stop contributing.

That's why it's essential to map not just titles, but influence.

A Tool to Surface Hidden Power: The Power-Participation Heat Map

One simple but powerful method is the Power-Participation Heat Map. It helps teams visualise the gap between formal authority and perceived influence.

Here's how it works:

  1. Identify key decision areas (e.g. hiring, budgeting, product roadmap).
  2. Ask team members anonymously: how do decisions really get made?
  3. Compile the results into a visual matrix

You might find that although hiring is "owned" by HR, the real decisions come from a few senior engineers. Or that the same person is named repeatedly across all strategic areas—regardless of their title. This insight can be a conversation starter for change.

Six Ways to Rebalance Power—and What to Watch For

Making power visible and discussable is the first step toward real shared leadership. Here are six ways to redistribute it more intentionally:

1. Rotate Roles

Rather than defaulting to the same facilitator or meeting lead, rotate this responsibility. At one fintech I worked with, rotating facilitators in weekly standups led to more engagement from quieter team members—and surfaced fresh issues that might have otherwise gone unspoken.

Watch for: People may feel unprepared or nervous. Offer support and clear structures to help them succeed.

2. Use Consent, Not Consensus

In consent-based decision-making (used in Sociocracy and Holacracy), decisions go ahead unless someone raises a reasoned objection. This shifts the burden: rather than seeking unanimous approval, the group focuses on identifying risks.

Watch for: Teams unfamiliar with this model may mistake it for consensus and bog down. Clarify that consent means "safe enough to try, good enough for now."

3. Create Shadow Boards

Shadow boards—cross-level, cross-functional advisory groups—have been used by companies like Gucci to inject fresh perspective into executive decision-making. Gucci's millennial shadow board influenced its pivot to digital marketing, contributing to a 136% rise in sales over a few years.

Watch for: Shadow boards only work if leaders genuinely listen. Token efforts quickly erode trust.

4. Formalise Decision Rights

Ambiguity can be paralysing. Map out which types of decisions are:

One client used a "decision radar" to visualise authority levels across their product teams, creating clarity and accountability.

5. Build Psychological Safety

Inclusion isn't just about who's in the room—it's about who feels safe speaking. Leaders should model humility, admit mistakes, and actively ask for dissenting views.

Watch for: Psychological safety doesn't mean comfort. It means people feel secure enough to take interpersonal risks—even when disagreeing with you.

6. Break the Silos with Cross-Tribal Forums

Create space for departments or "tribes" to interact. Innovation labs, hackathons, or rotating task forces expose hidden power structures and give new voices a platform. At one global manufacturer, a quarterly cross-functional forum resulted in several process improvements—and led to a junior staff member spearheading a change in procurement that saved six figures.

Questions to Ask Yourself (and Your Team)

If you're serious about shared leadership, ask:

Where Flatness Works—and Where It Fails

There are also hard business metrics at stake. A 2016 analysis by Deloitte found that companies with flatter structures and empowered teams were 1.8 times more likely to be in the top quartile of innovation performance. Similarly, McKinsey's research on agile transformations shows that organisations with distributed decision-making and fewer layers of management tend to outperform peers in speed, adaptability, and customer satisfaction.

Not all flat organisations fail. Buurtzorg, a Dutch healthcare provider, runs over 1,000 autonomous nursing teams with no middle managers—and consistently scores among the highest in patient and employee satisfaction in Europe. Morning Star, a tomato processing company in California, thrives on peer accountability and individual responsibility.

The difference? Structure by design, not default. These organisations clearly define roles, decision rights, and support systems—even in the absence of hierarchy.

True shared leadership is not the absence of structure—it's the presence of deliberate, transparent structure.

Final Thought

Flatness is not a guarantee of fairness. Without intentional design, so-called egalitarian systems can mask deep inequalities. Titles might disappear, but influence finds a way to concentrate.

If you care about inclusion, adaptability, and trust, start by mapping who holds influence in your team—and open the conversation about what you find.