Lets Talk Structure
Company structures are some of the most important choices that founders or managers will make. But before you make a choice it’s important to understand the two major types of structures available and the benefits and challenges of each.
Small or start-up Games companies tend to choose flat organizational structures more out of necessity rather than choice. When starting with a small team a tall structure is all but impossible.
The challenge comes when the company grows and founders and managers are compelled to choose how best to proceed. If the initial start-up recipe was successful, many will try and replicate the flat structure into a new larger organization in an attempt to capture that initial spirit. Capturing it is one thing, keeping it consistent and effective is something else.
Firstly, let’s define the different styles of organizational structure.
The Tall Organization
Tall organizational structures work for companies that are predominately large, complex establishments whose structure is hierarchal. A good example that almost everyone would recognize is the military. The military structure is one long chain of command where everyone is a subordinate of someone else. With a tall organization the number of management levels increase as the company grows, and each management level becomes responsible for smaller areas of control. The chain of command allows the company to be divided into smaller groups whom specialize in specific tasks related to the company goal. Like the military, every level is subordinate to another level, right through to the CEO.
The Flat Organization
The flat organization has far fewer management levels than a tall structure. With each manager controlling broad areas or many groups. The goal of the flat structure is to encourage autonomy and self-direction, harnessing the talents of the employee pool through collaboration and communication. The removal of the chain of command gives everyone the freedom to participate and make their own decisions based on what’s good for the company.
The Basic Pro’s and Cons
The Tall organization allows management to define the vision of their company and control it within tight boundaries. Each person within the structure knows clearly what is expected from them and whom they are responsible to. The problems start when the structure becomes too large and communication through the lines becomes difficult. The smaller management groups can also compete against each other or have conflicting interests. Sometimes what is best for the team or department may not be in best interest for the whole organization.
The flat organization offers far more opportunity for employees. There are more people involved in the management of the company and in the company projects. Flatter structures are more flexible and offer far more maneuvering potential, which is particularly useful when creating or distributing video games. It’s important however that Information must be shared and that transparency be a true pillar of the organization. Although communication is faster and information can move throughout the organization at a much quicker rate, workloads in such a structure can be much heavier than in a tall organization, simply because of the extra communication, explanation and discussion between managers and their teams.
The leadership style in a flat organization needs to be very different than a tall structure. This is where challenges are faced by companies who try and take the flat structure with them when they grow from a small number of employees to several hundred. The flat structure is politically democratic, requiring that all decisions and projects be consulted amongst the constituents. The managers operating in this structure must be able to generate sufficient ideas to engage their teams and provide the directions and discussions that deliver solutions. The problems start when the managers have too many people reporting to them which can create delineated communication lines throughout the company.
Why do games related companies choose the flat structure? Primarily because it idealistically fits with the creative process of developing games. It’s the sandbox that reflects the freedoms of why people chose this business in the first place. There is however one other important aspect for games companies to consider in regard to the flat structure that relates specifically to the games industry.
The distribution of responsibility and decision-making means that everyone feels equally as invested in the product or service that the company has built. This is extremely positive when everything is going well and your end user is happy with the game, software or services provided. Everyone gets to share in the success and feel equally satisfied. But what happens when the feedback is negative? Unfortunately, it works the same way. When the reception is negative and there are streams of criticism attacking the game, software or services provided — everyone will take it personally. This is an unavoidable consequence of the flat organization. If not managed well then, the flat organization can start working against itself. Moral can drop quickly and the quality of the deliverables suffer.
Of the two styles of organization it’s hard to argue that the flat structure is not the ideal one for most companies in the games industry. We all want to be part of a cooperative management style and have colleagues who actively contribute and are engaged to the maximum of their ability in the delivery of the company’s overall goal. But once your game, product or service hits the consumer, management need to be very aware of how the end users are reacting and if negatively, how to manage criticism. You may not be able to stop your team from taking it personally, but you can certainly support them through the criticism and help them understand why it happened, and what’s the way forward.
Is it possible to mix both styles of structure? The best parts of each Tall and Flat? Perhaps, to some degree. But I stand by the idea that a mix of the two would provide a tainted version of either discipline. Of course it all comes down to the level of trust that your team has built between each other and the fundamental pillars of the company culture. A culture of helpfulness, safety and openness is always going to allow for this criticism to be managed more effectively.
