In the face of rapid corporate transformation and new employee expectations, vertical management is often called into question. Considered obsolete by some, it nevertheless remains relevant in certain contexts. Let's explore together its limits, the situations where it remains effective, and alternatives to meet today's challenges.

The limits of vertical management

Rigidity

Vertical management, with its strict hierarchies and rigid processes, can hamper innovation and responsiveness, both of which are essential in a constantly changing environment. For example, an industrial company lost a strategic call for tenders because every decision had to be validated at several hierarchical levels. A more agile competitor was able to respond faster and win the contract.

Risks of inefficiency

Centralized decision-making slows down processes, as each validation has to go up the hierarchical chain, creating unnecessary delays in contexts where responsiveness is crucial. What's more, managers are often far removed from the realities on the ground, and sometimes lack the key information they need to make the right decisions. This can lead to choices that are disconnected from operational needs, generating frustration and demotivation within teams.

Intergenerational friction

The vertical model is often perceived as authoritarian, with decisions imposed from above and little room left for individual initiative. This approach rigidifies relations between managers and employees, particularly with the new generations, who are looking for greater autonomy, recognition and meaningful work. This discrepancy between the expectations of young talent and traditional managerial practices can quickly generate tensions and disengage some employees.

Contexts where vertical management remains relevant

Sectors or situations where it remains effective

Certain industries or specific situations require a clear and strict chain of command. For example:

• Hospitals, where emergency management requires rapid, centralized decision-making.
• Manufacturing companies, where safety demands rigorous compliance with protocols.

Example During a major health crisis, a hospital was able to coordinate its teams effectively thanks to a clearly defined hierarchy, ensuring a rapid, structured response.

The specific roles of vertical management

It plays a key role in ensuring strategic alignment and that the priorities defined by management are applied at all levels of the company. This hierarchical structure is particularly useful in large companies, where dispersed teams can complicate collaboration. It also helps maintain overall consistency in actions and decisions.

Furthermore, in complex or uncertain environments, vertical management provides a reassuring framework. By establishing clear rules and precise processes, it reduces ambiguity and helps employees cope better with change.

A complement to other models

Vertical management can be most effective when combined with collaborative practices, striking a balance between structure and flexibility. A clear hierarchy ensures strategic alignment, while collaborative processes encourage innovation and autonomy. This hybrid approach combines the strengths of both models.

Alternatives to vertical management

Cross-functional management: collaboration and agility

Transverse management is based on a network organization, where teams work together without depending solely on hierarchical levels. Decisions are made collaboratively, drawing on each person's skills and expertise rather than on a rigid chain of validation. This approach breaks down silos and enables a better flow of ideas and information.

There are many advantages: 

• It stimulates innovation: by valuing the contribution of each employee, it encourages varied points of view and creative solutions.
• It also strengthens the commitment of our teams, who feel listened to and involved in the decision-making process. 
• It increases responsiveness, as decisions are taken more quickly, closer to operational issues.

Example: Spotify has popularized the "squads" model, autonomous teams in charge of specific projects. This has enabled them to break down silos and accelerate development cycles.

Hybrid models: from vertical to collaborative

Rather than doing away with hierarchy, some companies are opting for a "collaborative vertical" model. This model retains a hierarchical structure while redefining the role of managers. Managers facilitate the work of their teams by providing a clear framework and the necessary resources, while giving them the freedom to take initiatives.

Example At Decathlon, store managers are responsible for their units, but have considerable autonomy to adjust local strategies.

Making a successful transition to less vertical models

Transforming a company requires a structured, step-by-step approach to maximize the impact of changes and guarantee their acceptance. This includes :

• Training managers in coaching and collaborative leadership practices: These courses enable managers to develop essential skills to support their teams, reinforce their autonomy and maintain alignment with global objectives.
• Involve employees in the co-construction of new models: Involving teams from the earliest stages of transformation strengthens their support and commitment.
• Pilot projects before global roll-out: Testing new practices on a small scale helps to identify specific challenges and adjust approaches before generalizing them.

Vertical management is not inherently inefficient, but its limits are obvious in environments that demand flexibility and innovation. What about you? Which management model best suits your company? NUMA offers tailor-made support to help you transform your management practices.