If you haven’t watched Nvidia chief executive officer Jensen Huang recently, he made some waves on social media recently, not because of his company’s soaring stock prices.
Speaking at a conference, Jensen shared the following points:
- He believes in a flat work hierarchy and has 60 direct reports, as opposed to the traditional hierarchical chain of command most companies have.
- He doesn’t do one-on-ones and discourages them with his team members and organisation, not even when it comes to criticism or feedback. He believes it’s best to let everyone hear and learn from a colleague’s experiences.
These go against the grain of how most companies operate. Conventional corporate wisdom is that a hierarchical top-down setup is the better way to disseminate information while keeping it on a need-to-know basis at various levels. One-on-ones, while time-consuming, allow for individual mentoring and growth.
But does this style of leadership and management structure actually work well for Singaporean bosses and companies?
We spoke to Betul Genc, the SVP and Head of Asean at Adecco. She shared: “Both flat and traditional hierarchies are effective leadership approaches, each offering distinct advantages.
“The suitability of a flat hierarchy model depends on factors such as the industry, organisational size, and corporate culture.
“A flat hierarchy, characterised by fewer management layers, facilitates quicker decision-making and enhances transparency in communication, thereby promoting greater cohesion within the organisation.
“Typically, a flat hierarchy is more effective in stable environments with experienced senior leadership teams.”
So Jensen’s style at Nvidia may work for him, but it is not necessarily for everyone else?
Betul added: “A flat hierarchy can sometimes lead to role confusion for new employees and may impede career advancement for high-performing middle managers who require clear direction and accountability.
“In such cases, a traditional hierarchy, with its structured system, can more effectively manage large teams and complex operations while maintaining control and coordination within the organisation.
“However, this structure can also slow down the decision-making process, reducing organisational agility and potentially impacting competitiveness in the market.”
Ultimately, the choice between a flat and traditional hierarchy should align with the organisation’s goals and objectives.
In fact, some companies are even opting for a hybrid model that integrates elements of both approaches to better manage their operations.
What are the management and organisation structures Singaporean companies tend to follow?
Betul believes that the effectiveness of each structure and its impact on hiring practices depend on factors such as industry, organisational size, and corporate culture. Ensuring transparent communication and a well-defined career progression framework is crucial; otherwise, role ambiguity may arise, potentially leading to conflicts among employees.
She observed that locally, there seem to be two other management and organisation structures:
- Flatarchy: This hybrid approach combines elements of traditional and flat hierarchy structures. Typically, there are one or a few managers who oversee the business, allowing for quick decision-making and maintaining organisational agility.
- Matrix Structure: In this structure, employees report to multiple managers and often assume hybrid roles within the organisation. Those in these roles serve as intermediaries, facilitating the exchange of resources and information between departments.
What structures enable and encourage reskilling and upskilling for broad-middle and middle-management employees?
In this era where fast-changing technologies and artificial intelligence tools make upskilling workers a big priority, here’s some food for thought: a flat hierarchy can potentially foster reskilling and upskilling through its culture of transparent communication.
It encourages continuous learning through open sharing, such as learning from each other’s mistakes, feedback, shared experiences or idea exchange.
However, this approach may lack formal learning and development programs.
The success of these initiatives largely depends on the organisation’s commitment to supporting employees’ professional growth.
Additionally, the absence of a clear career progression framework can make it difficult for mid- and middle-management employees to determine the skills required to advance their company careers.
Leaders and human resource managers should also consider the age-old problem (pun intended) of how structures will affect the management of different age demographics, such as “boomers” and “Gen Z.”
Betul concludes this is where the flat hierarchy that Jensen preaches has its strengths, which may explain Nvidia’s success.
“In this structure, employees of different age demographics can learn from one another, fostering a collaborative environment.
“Older employees can share their experience and knowledge, while younger employees bring in new trends and technological skills.
“This approach promotes equality, empowering younger employees to contribute and lead while older employees provide mentorship and guidance without the constraints of a rigid hierarchy.
“Ultimately, it highlights the importance of all age groups working together to elevate the business to the next level!”
