7 examples of flat organizational structures
Flat organizational structures are often discussed in theory, but far less often examined in practice.
Removing layers of hierarchy, redistributing authority, and trusting teams to self-organize sound attractive.
The real question is whether these ideas hold up at scale, under commercial pressure, and over time.
This article explores seven real organizations that have implemented flat or radically non-hierarchical structures in very different contexts. They vary in size, industry, and geography, but all share a core belief: control is not the only way to coordinate work.
Each example follows the same structure to make comparison easier.
1. Vertica
Industry and size
Vertica is a Danish IT company developing e-commerce solutions for large organizations. It employs around 150 people.
Why they chose a flat structure
Vertica was founded by five developers who were frustrated with traditional management and poor leadership. From the start, they deliberately chose not to introduce hierarchy as they grew. Their goal was to prove that a company could scale without bosses.
How the structure works
Vertica has no formal managers. The organization is built around self-managing customer teams, each responsible for one client.
- Teams typically consist of four to ten people
- Skills included: development, design, UX, project coordination
In addition to customer teams, Vertica has a small number of support groups focused on IT, administration, marketing, and organizational support. These groups exist to enable customer teams, not to direct them.
Decision-making happens primarily within teams. Coordination across the company is handled through lightweight, informal structures rather than fixed reporting lines.
Key outcomes
Vertica has grown to 150 people while maintaining a flat structure. The company remains highly customer-centric, with teams able to respond quickly to client needs. Hierarchy has not been replaced by chaos, but by clear responsibility at team level.
2. Smartive
Industry and size
Smartive is a Swiss digital solutions company with around 28 employees.
Why they chose a flat structure
Smartive began as a traditional small agency, but as it grew, an informal leadership group started accumulating decision-making power. This created frustration and nearly led to the departure of a senior colleague. That moment forced the company to rethink how authority was distributed.
How the structure works
Smartive operates without bosses.
- Decision-making follows an advice process
- Anyone can make a decision after seeking input from affected colleagues and relevant experts
The company practices radical transparency. Salaries, finances, and major decisions are open to everyone.
Instead of hierarchy, Smartive relies on clear processes, explicit roles, and shared ownership to create alignment. Structure is deliberately minimal, but not absent.
Key outcomes
Smartive has extremely low turnover and strong financial stability, with reserves that allow the company to operate for months without income. Employees report high trust, strong initiative, and a healthy balance between autonomy and responsibility.
3. metafinanz
Industry and size
metafinanz is a German consulting company with around 850 employees, operating in areas such as digital transformation, AI, and cybersecurity.
Why they chose a flat structure
Before 2017, metafinanz struggled with slow decision-making, internal bureaucracy, and increasing competition. Incremental changes to the org chart failed to solve these issues. Leadership concluded that hierarchy itself was the problem.
How the structure works
In 2017, metafinanz launched a radical transformation.
- Traditional hierarchy was removed
- The organization became a network of self-managing teams
Each team functions like a small business:
- Define purpose
- Choose clients
- Manage budgets
- Recruit members
- Organize their own work
A minimal formal structure remains only for legal and compliance reasons. Internal support functions were transformed into service “shops” that teams can use or bypass.
Key outcomes
Decision-making moved closer to the work, speed increased, and employee engagement improved. Teams developed a higher tolerance for uncertainty, which became a core organizational capability.
4. Basetis
Industry and size
Basetis is a Spanish IT consultancy with around 400 employees.
Why they chose a flat structure
As Basetis grew beyond 150 people, traditional hierarchy became a bottleneck. Inspired by self-management principles, leadership decided to dismantle the CEO role and redistribute authority across the organization.
How the structure works
Basetis operates without a CEO.
- Structured around service teams (data, mobile development, AI, etc.)
- Teams decide how they organize themselves
- Teams manage client and commercial decisions
Coordination emerges organically rather than being imposed. Leadership exists as shared responsibility, not positional authority. Structures are continuously adapted.
Key outcomes
Basetis has continued to scale while maintaining flexibility and responsiveness. Decision-making remains distributed, and teams retain strong ownership.
5. 10Pines
Industry and size
10Pines is an Argentine software development company with around 100 employees.
Why they chose a flat structure
10Pines was founded on the belief that trust, autonomy, and craftsmanship are essential for high-quality software. Hierarchy was seen as incompatible with these values.
How the structure works
- Horizontal structure
- No traditional managers
- Sociocratic principles and self-organizing circles
Employees are categorized as:
- Roots
- Aspiring Roots
- Partners
These define legal responsibility, not authority.
Circles form around functions such as recruitment, finance, or sales and dissolve when no longer needed. Mentorship is supported through the Gardener role.
Key outcomes
10Pines has sustained self-management for over a decade. The structure supports strong engagement, shared responsibility, and alignment without formal hierarchy.
6. Clever
Industry and size
Clever is a Danish energy company focused on electric mobility, with approximately 500 employees.
Why they chose a flat structure
As Clever grew, leadership observed that hierarchy reduced engagement and slowed decisions. They chose to redesign around trust and transparency.
How the structure works
- Shared leadership model inspired by sociocracy
- Leadership distributed through roles
- Purpose hierarchy linking team purpose to company mission
Roles include facilitator, purpose guardian, and challenger. Decision-making follows consent-based principles.
Key outcomes
Clever has scaled rapidly while maintaining engagement and clarity. Challenges are met by adding support structures rather than reintroducing hierarchy.
7. Mindera
Industry and size
Mindera is a global software company with more than 1,000 employees across multiple countries.
Why they chose a flat structure
Mindera was founded to prioritize happiness, collaboration, and long-term relationships over short-term profit. Hierarchy was seen as an obstacle.
How the structure works
- Small autonomous client-facing teams (2–7 people)
- Teams operate like mini-companies
- Internal operations support without interference
Teams adapt agile practices locally instead of following standardized frameworks.
Key outcomes
Mindera has maintained high autonomy at scale. Teams remain close to clients while balancing global and local decision-making.
Closing reflection
These seven examples show that flat organizational structures are not a single model, but a spectrum of design choices.
What they share:
- Less authority based on position
- More responsibility based on competence, purpose, and trust
Flat structures do not eliminate structure. They replace hierarchy with systems that make decision-making visible, distributed, and reversible.
The result is not less discipline, but a different kind of discipline.
