The thing is that if you're extremely serious about wanting a flat power structure, you can accomplish this _via_ formal means

There's this false dicotomy between "freedom for people to self-organize" and "formal structures to maintain a system", where people see what pointy-haired suits do and conclude that informal orgs will naturally be better. But _something_ needs to be in place to maintain a good environment.

You see this with people talking about Toyota. So many people see Toyota and think "oh I should do kanban". But kanban isn't the thing, the processes that led Toyota to do kanban is the thing.

Similarly, the objective isn't "have a flat org chart", but "maintain an environment where a formal power structure doesn't weigh down progress for the company". That requires acknowledging the informal power structures and making sure that the players involved are willing to maintain that environment _through_ this informal power structure.

Informal power dynamics do not need to be dysfunctional, if there's a principle driving the players

Where can I find more about "the processes that led Toyota to do kanban"?

Book: The Machine That Changed the World

It was the result of a study by several car companies and several governments to learn what made the Toyota Production System different from the Mass Production systems used in the US.

I would argue against the informal power dynamics as they tend to be far less transparent. Informal systems can be coopted by individuals far more easily, and with far less limitations on their power. Moreover, individuals who do take control of these systems have a for more vested interest in maintaining and expanding their power as they can become very wealthy by doing so. Moreover, when they give up power even well intentioned, good rulers run the risk of reprisal for non-work related reasons. I believe that formal structures emerged as a means to prevent corruption, and ease the integration of new comers.

> Moreover, individuals who do take control of these systems have a for more vested interest in maintaining and expanding their power as they can become very wealthy by doing so.

Exactly. As we all know, these people all much making much more than the upper management at Microsoft or Google, who haven't got any real personal benefit from their position.