In the mid-2000s, flat organisational structures became popular in business literature. The idea was that removing rigid role definitions would increase flexibility and collaboration. For a small number of teams, it worked. For the majority, it created a different set of problems that took longer to diagnose.
What flat structures looked like in practice
Teams of 8 to 15 people operating without clear role boundaries consistently reported duplicated effort and ownership gaps within the first 6 months. Two people would each spend time on the same deliverable, or a task would remain incomplete because both assumed the other had taken responsibility.
The 2012 to 2016 period
Several well-documented business failures during this period cited role ambiguity as a contributing factor in post-closure reviews. It was not the primary cause in most cases, but it appeared as a secondary factor in 19 of 26 cases reviewed in one industry analysis covering professional services firms.
Where the decision gets made
Role clarity is typically skipped not out of ideology but out of speed. Businesses in early growth phases prioritise filling seats over defining what each seat is responsible for. The assumption is that clarity will emerge naturally once people are working together. It rarely does without a deliberate process.
The practical observation
Teams that documented role boundaries within the first 30 days of formation reported fewer escalation issues at the 6-month mark. The documentation does not need to be complex. A 1-page responsibility matrix covering 5 to 8 core functions is enough to prevent the most common overlaps.