When flatter isn’t better: The hidden cost of collaborative demand

In 2023, Mark Zuckerberg set the stage for a bold new chapter at Meta with the launch of its “Year of Efficiency” initiative. “Flatter is faster," he declared, pushing for a seismic shift towards a leaner, more agile organizational structure. His aim was clear: cut through the bureaucratic red tape that had been slowing progress and replace it with a streamlined, faster decision-making engine. It was a big bet that removing layers of management to propel Meta into a new era of speed and innovation would pay off.

Amazon, determined to stay ahead in the efficiency race, recently made their own bold announcement. By the end of Q1 2025, the company aims to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by 15 percent. This move also intends to remove bureaucratic bottlenecks, empowering teams to move faster, make decisions more efficiently and drive innovation without unnecessary friction. The message is clear: in a rapidly evolving market, speed is the key to staying ahead – but what if flatter isn’t always faster?

Theory doesn’t always match reality

Conventional wisdom holds that cutting management layers makes organizations faster, more agile and better at getting things done. Fewer levels of hierarchy, the thinking goes, allow information to flow more freely – up, down and across – enabling quicker, better-informed decisions. Flattening the chain of command should, in theory, streamline communication and eliminate unnecessary delays.

Our experience has been that theory doesn’t always match reality. When team sizes grow under flatter hierarchies, two major problems inevitably arise. First, the remaining managers become overwhelmed, their workloads spiraling as they stretch themselves thin across a mounting list of responsibilities. Critical tasks – like updating forecasts or ensuring quality reviews – start to slip through the cracks. Second, and even more troubling, is that managers lose valuable time to focus on their team members, cutting back on one-on-one meetings and missing pivotal opportunities to provide guidance and support. The result? Employee engagement falters, productivity dips and the very efficiency these structures aim to deliver begins to unravel.

Figure 1: Manager hours worked compared to team size

Our data from Worklytics reveals a harsh reality for managers leading larger teams – particularly those with more than seven direct reports (see Figure 1). These managers face grueling workdays of 10 to 13 hours, pushing them to the brink of burnout. Ironically, this relentless workload reduces their availability, creating bottlenecks that slow the very progress they’re striving to drive.

The data highlights a critical balance: while overly small teams can underperform, there’s a clear sweet spot. Beyond this, managers become overwhelmed by collaborative demands, inadvertently trouncing organizational speed and efficiency. This is further exacerbated when managers must also navigate the unique demands of hybrid work environments, balancing in-person and remote collaboration. Managing these dynamics effectively is essential to achieving optimal team performance.

Figure 2: Increase collaborative demand

When a leading technology company adopted a flatter organizational structure mandate, the impacts were striking. After reducing senior-level managers (those overseeing other managers) by 32 percent, many of the remaining managers experienced a dramatic rise in collaborative demands. As illustrated in Figure 2, a distinct pattern emerged: managers and senior managers in the bottom-right quadrant saw a sharp spike in incoming connections, while others remained relatively unaffected. Notably, those sought out more than 28-times became bottlenecks within the organization. The consequence was an actual increase in delays, as these more essential managers were overwhelmed by surging demands.

The surge in workload came at a steep cost: the overwhelmed managers struggled with diminished energy levels (smaller circles in figure) as they grappled with increasing demands. The ripple effects were both clear and costly – decision-making stalled, employee frustration soared and the organization’s forward momentum faltered. This ultimately required the organization to increase support for the overwhelmed managers.

Watch thought leader Michael Arena discuss finding the right recipe for hybrid work

In an effort to create flatter organizational structures, indiscriminately cutting managers without first assessing collaborative demand can have detrimental consequences. The burden often shifts to the remaining managers or thrusts underprepared individual contributors into leadership roles, forcing them to take on heavy coordination responsibilities. This added pressure pulls them away from high-value work and unleashes a flood of meetings, emails and constant communication, leaving teams overwhelmed and progress stalled under the weight of excessive connectivity.

A collaboration-driven solution

We advocate for a more strategic, data-driven approach – one that begins by analyzing existing collaborative demands within the organization. This enables targeted actions, such as expanding team sizes in specific areas where it makes sense or providing additional support to teams currently bogged down by collaboration overload. By optimizing collaboration, organizations can navigate the challenges of flatter structures, maintain operational efficiency and protect manager well-being. Smart, intentional strategies are the key to sustaining both productivity and balance.

• Optimize span of control: Rather than arbitrarily eliminating layers, focus on achieving the optimal span of control. Aim for an ideal number of direct reports (typically five to seven when speed and agility are critical) to prevent burnout and ensure managers can effectively support their teams. Continuously adjust team sizes and workflows based on collaborative demand to maintain balance and efficiency.
• Focus on overload: Address managerial overload by reviewing communication demands. Mapping workflows and tracking metrics like time spent in meetings and emails can identify bottlenecks. Shift low-value administrative tasks away from managers and streamline practices with shorter, agenda-driven meetings, asynchronous updates and ‘no-meeting’ blocks to improve focus and efficiency.
• Delegation strategies: Provide individual contributors with decision-making tools and frameworks that enable them to confidently take ownership of key responsibilities. Clearly outline their areas of autonomy and establish ‘peer coach’ roles for senior staff to offer day-to-day guidance. This approach reduces dependence on managers, enhances team accountability and fosters a culture of ownership and self-sufficiency.
• Monitor workloads: To maintain managers’ performance and protect their energy, organizations must proactively monitor workloads to identify and address excessive demands. Implement strategies to redistribute tasks where needed, offload routine responsibilities and promote smarter collaboration practices. This could include initiatives like no meeting hours, streamlined stand-ups and focused work blocks. By safeguarding managers’ time and energy, organizations can keep them productive, engaged and better equipped to drive success.

By combining these strategies – smart spans of control, workload optimization, targeted delegation and ongoing monitoring – organizations can unlock the speed and agility of flatter structures while preserving efficiency, engagement and well-being.

PEX Report 2024 global state of process excellence

PEX Network's annual report reveals the current state and future trends of process excellence. Based on a study profiling hundreds of global process excellence leaders, the report provides insights on how to leverage innovation, generative AI, and process intelligence to achieve operational excellence, customer-centricity, and organizational growth. Download your copy of the PEX Report 2024/2025 today and benchmark your process excellence journey against your peers.

Download Now