Flat organizations and vertical organizations or hierarchies
The majority of organizations we deal with are hierarchies: schools, churches, corporations, police,
the military, hospitals, government and health care systems. Examples of flat organizations are: service
clubs such as Rotary International, Alcoholics Anonymous and other such support groups that arise around
social issues and groups such as Great Books Groups.
A significant distinction between these two types of organization is that vertical organizations are
assumed to be production oriented and flat organizations are assumed to be oriented around service,
companionship and mutual support. Often, one sees flat organizations becoming vertical when they start to
be geared towards output. For example most Citizen Advocacy Groups begin as flat organizations. Then,
when they identify "things they can do to help", they tend to assume a vertical structure to accomplish these
purposes. This is often because they start to fundraise to accomplished their identified goals and assume,
correctly, that they need a vertical structure to be accountable for the financial details. What they miss is the
opportunity to preserve the flatness for what it is good at and subsume everything into this new vertical
structure.
People with disabilities and other marginalized groups are dependent on others to support them to
live fully, especially in the area of connectedness because this is the piece they cannot maintain for
themselves. Connectedness is fostered by flat organizations because they depend on cooperation and mutual
support, which are conducive of connectedness. It is diminished in vertical organizations, because they rely
on control and coercion. This is a problem for service organizations because the shift to vertical, described
above, is accompanied by a loss of responsiveness to individual, personal needs, wishes and idiosyncrasies.
Unfortunately, this often means that the quality of the outcome, understood, at least implicitly, in the flat
organization, is lost. The baby gets thrown out with the bath water.
On deeper examination of flat and vertical organizations a paradox appears. Superficially, it appears
as if the vertical organization is "productive" and the flat organization is "relational". However, if you look
at what happens in real life, production actually depends on a team process occurring between equal
participants. The vertical structure provides accountability, control, and communication. These factors
enhance productivity by providing a structure that forces the parts to, stay on task, plan more thoroughly and
check up on each other, including hiring and firing to maintain a workforce that is specific to the current
conditions. These, especially the hiring and firing, are almost impossible for a flat organization. But if you
look at the actual process it is in flat organizations or parts of organizations that the actual work happens.
If you examine the whole process in real life you will notice flatness where relationships and
production happen alternating with verticality where control and accountability happen. Consider a group of
people with a task to do. Someone is in charge; he or she has a plan and shares it, so far vertical. Now the
group considers it. Depending on the leader’s style more or less flatness appears here. There may be
discussion. There may be people in the group the leader counts on for their expertise. The team arrives at a
version of the plan they all agree to. Now they start to implement it. They’re working as a team (flatness and
production are happening). Something goes wrong. The leader steps in, takes control (vertical) and resolves
the issue. Things return to normal. The team starts working as equals again (flatness). Lunchtime
approaches, the leader checks the time announces (vertical) a break for lunch. And so on through the day, a
breathing in and out between flat and vertical.
AA is one of the best examples of a flat organization. Earlier in the last century the Rockefeller’s
saw the success of AA and wanted to help. They offered Bill Wilson a large donation. He turned it down. I
think he had a keen sense for the effect it would have. As soon as there is money involved, there is a need
for accountability and verticality is the only way we have ever done that. AA would have been changed
forever in a way that would have prevented it fulfilling its mission.
Why is this significant for Lifesharing communities? First, being aware of these dynamics allows us
to be more in control of the forces and conditions we are living with. Beyond that, if we recognize the above
to be true, then we can consciously give our organizations flat or vertical structure as needed. That sounds
simple but it is not easy. It would be easy to see the term “flat organization” as an oxymoron. We are
spiritual beings. We relate to a spiritual world. It is natural for us to think vertically when we think of
organizing. This has been going on for millennia and we have very few well developed examples of flat
organizations with structure. So we tend to adopt what is familiar and end up with a Board, an Executive
Director, and Bylaws that often deal with little but the necessary legal aspects. I believe it is only the fact
that in lifesharing we don’t draw salaries that has saved us from joining the ranks of thousands of well
meaning organizations that have diluted or distorted their missions by becoming vertical. I in no way wish
to diminish the significance of what Camphill has achieved in this area. It represents an incredible
accomplishment. But if we don’t develop consciously planned community organs that honor the distinct
characteristics of the flat and vertical we risk losing the vitality of our organizations. We could win the
battles and lose the war.
There is an alternative. We can purposefully develop community organs that support the relational
aspects of our communities. The future success of lifesharing depends on the quality of the relationships that
will be developed, strengthened and maintained.
We are all familiar with the usual organizational documents, the bylaws and strategic plan. The
bylaws properly serve the vertical dimension, up/down, the Free Spirit Life, and strategic plans, financials
and agreements between producers and consumers serve a second dimension the Economic Sphere,
brotherly/sisterliness. There is a third dimension, left/right, horizontal, the Social Sphere, the realm of
rights/responsibilities and equality. A third document is needed for this realm. We could call it the
constitution. It would describe how the relational life of the members of the organization works in this
horizontal dimension. Often, we try to get the bylaws to serve this dimension as well as the vertical and they
become muddy and in the end fail to serve the needs of either.
The foundation of lifesharing is caring, caring for each other, the environment, our relationship to
the spiritual world and our selves. Documenting the details of the flat organizations that support this caring
attitude will make our efforts more durable and replicable.
© 2005 Nick Stanton