Powered by ProofFactor - Social Proof Notifications

The Impact of Flat Organizational Structures on Employee Satisfaction and Performance

Jul 12, 2023 | 0 comments

blog banner

Jul 12, 2023 | Essays | 0 comments

Flat organizational structures are those that their management levels are fewer and these particular levels control a large group or area. Flat organizations put their focus majorly on empowering their employees instead of adhering to their commands chain. In flat structures, a bigger number of employees report to individual managers (Bharath, 2015). Therefore, managers will not be able to offer close supervision and this causes high freedom levels of action for different employees. Research done before shows that there is a provision of greater satisfaction need for the employees working in flat organizations and apart from that there are higher self-actualization levels (Sandhya & Kumar, 2011). These structures have a lot of challenges associated with them and a very good example is that it causes role ambiguity of employees due to the supervision of large numbers. This can be seen as a major disadvantage for employees who require close guidance and supervision from their managers.


People Also Read


A very good example of a company that uses flat structures is Ingvar Kamprad Elmtaryd Agunnaryd (IKEA). This is a Swedish furniture retailer and manufacturer which have been known for using this method within its stores so that it can build job involvement ownership and attitude and has been very successful. In my opinion flat organizations are more likely to last longer as compared to the rest. This is because; they put more of their energy into empowering employees which promotes good communication and relationship between the managers and the employees. This helps in the promotion of the organization’s vision to the employees and when this is done, there is a possibility of influencing the attitudes and work behavior of the employees. When the employees and managers have good communication and relationship, the employees will work to their best and there will be job satisfaction and hence long-lasting positive effects.

The first value from Hofstede’s Framework is masculinity. A very high score on masculinity shows that; society is always driven by achievement, competition, and in most cases success. In this case, the measure of success is identified by winners a system that begins in school and does not stop until organizational life. When we take a look at China its masculinity is at 66, it is considered a society that is Masculine because it is driven and oriented by success. Their constant need to make sure that success is everywhere can be justified by their will to sacrifice leisure and family to work. Their service people will offer services despite the time even if it is late in the night. On the contrary to this, the United States’ masculinity is at 62. It can be explained by its combination with the world’s most individualist drive and high masculinity drive. In simpler terms, Americans show their masculinity drive individually. It has been found that many workers move to a new and different neighborhood in case of any promotion and salary increment in America which is not the case.

Secondly, we have indulgence. This is the tendency where individuals do their best to manage their impulses and desires. This can be used to help in the description of humans from centuries back as early as 14th century. It has been a backbone of cultures. The United States has an indulgent score of 68 on the sixth dimension society. When this is combined with the normative score, it can be seen on the policy of working hard and playing harder. This can be explained by the State’s war on drugs which they have done for a while but the rate of drug addiction in the US is higher as compared to other rich countries. On the other hand, China is at 24 in the indulgence dimension. Societies like China which have low scores have a character of being pessimists and cynics in contrast to those with high scores like the United States (Hofstede, 2011).

In this scenario, the organizational structure used is divisional. This is because all full-time consultants report to various bosses depending on the contract signed. The major disadvantage of this structure is that it gives room for office politics rather than allowing sound thinking to affect different views affecting the company. In most cases, therefore, it causes division of employees because some end up undermining the others. The changes in the structure of the organization lead to tension in an organization. This can be seen in this scenario as the new management is putting a lot of pressure on the employees and is even asking them to charge the customers highly. The employees find this very hard to do and adapting to the new management is proving to be hard enough. It also brings a lot of conflict in the organization. This can be seen when the finance realizes a lot of anomalies in the contract terms from some of the new consultants. This is not good for the organization.


I would recommend the communication between the employees to be improved. This as can be seen is greatly affecting this organization right now because employees are sending emails to the CEO making him aware of their leaving plans. It can be seen that there is no response from the CEO and the new management even asks them to charge the customers highly which should not be the case as they will lose their long-time customers. They should have a meeting to express their concerns and so that they can be heard of their concerns. I know when this is done and there is effective communication, the results will be good and they will come to an understanding.


Bharath, K. (2015). Internship report on organizational study at (Doctoral dissertation, University of Mysore).

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.

Sandhya, K., & Kumar, D. P. (2011). Employee retention by motivation. Indian Journal of science and technology, 4(12), 1778-1782.

5/5 - (11 votes)