What Is Facebook’s Organizational Structure? Facebook Organizational Structure In A Nutshell – FourWeekMBA


Facebook is characterized by a multi-faceted matrix organizational structure. The company utilizes a flat organizational structure in combination with corporate function-based teams and product-based or geographic divisions. The flat organization structure is organized around the leadership of Mark Zuckerberg, and the key executives around him. On the other hand, the function-based teams are based on the main corporate functions (like HR, product management, investor relations, and so on).

Department Type Details Advantages Drawbacks
Engineering Functional – Teams are organized by technical functions, such as software development, infrastructure, and data science. – Functional managers oversee these teams. – Specialization and expertise in various technical areas. – Efficient management of engineering tasks. – Potential communication barriers between different engineering teams. – Siloed work without cross-functional collaboration.
Product Development Functional – Teams focus on designing and developing Facebook’s products and features. – Functional managers lead product development efforts. – Expertise in product design and development. – Clear focus on product innovation and user experience. – Potential misalignment between product development and engineering. – Lack of holistic product strategy.
Marketing and Sales Functional – Teams handle marketing campaigns, advertising, and sales efforts. – Functional managers oversee marketing and sales functions. – Expertise in marketing and sales strategies. – Effective customer engagement and revenue generation. – Potential disconnect between marketing and product development. – Overlook of holistic user experiences.
Data and Analytics Functional – Teams are responsible for data analysis, insights, and analytics tools. – Functional managers lead data and analytics teams. – Proficiency in data-driven decision-making. – Effective data utilization for product improvements. – Limited integration with other functions like engineering and marketing. – Potential data silos.
Regional Management Divisional – Divisions organized by geographical regions (e.g., North America, Europe, Asia). – Divisional managers for each region. – Tailored strategies for regional markets. – Localized decision-making and adaptability. – Potential conflicts between regions in resource allocation. – Challenges in maintaining a consistent global user experience.
Product Categories Matrix – Cross-functional teams for different product categories (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp). – Team members report to both category and functional managers. – Enhanced collaboration between product development and engineering. – Efficient category management. – Potential for power struggles between category and functional managers. – Complex communication channels.

Understanding Facebook’s organizational structure

Facebook’s multi-faceted matrix organizational structure is well suited to the needs of the company and its diverse range of products and services. More specifically, the matrix structure allows tech companies like Facebook to innovative, be creative, and expand at the same time. While the company is now known as Meta, it’s important to note that the organizational structure remains unaltered with the exception of financial reporting.

In terms of leadership, Facebook has a predominant flat organizational structure where there are fewer leaders compared to subordinates who tend to possess more autonomy in their roles. Note that Facebook is not a company where individuals dream of working in a corner office. Those in positions of leadership work on the same desks as team members and Mark Zuckerberg occupies an accessible and visible office with glass walls. The CEO is also noted for hosting Q+A sessions every Friday where even interns can ask him probing questions.

In the next section, we’ll take a look at the other aspects of Facebook’s organizational structure.

Function-based teams

Facebook arranges corporate teams according to their business functions and the particular needs of the company as an online social media business. An executive or senior manager leads each team and, because of the matrix structure, there may be some overlap between teams and the product-based and geographic divisions.

Nevertheless, the primary corporate function-based teams include:

  • Human Resources.
  • Product Management.
  • Investor Relations.
  • Global Public Policy.
  • Business & Marketing.
  • Legal.
  • Marketing.
  • Security.
  • Privacy.
  • Accounting.
  • Technology.
  • Information.
  • Operations.
  • Finance.
  • Chief Executive.

Geographic divisions

Geographic divisions help Facebook make sense of the various social network and online advertising dynamics that differ from region to region. These dynamics may be influenced by culture, consumer behavior, or attitudes toward social media itself. 

Facebook has four, broad geographic divisions:

  1. North America.
  2. Latin America. 
  3. Europe, Middle East & Africa.
  4. Asia & South Pacific.

Each region is run by a management team that reports to corporate operations and executives.

Product divisions

Product divisions may become increasingly important for Facebook in the future as it shifts focus away from its core social networking service to other technologies such as the metaverse and artificial intelligence.

Currently, there are three product divisions:

  1. Family of Apps – this includes Instagram, Facebook Messenger, and WhatsApp, for example.
  2. New Platforms and Infrastructure – such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, virtual reality, and augmented reality.
  3. Central Product Services – a division that encompasses any feature that operates across multiple products or apps, such as those related to security and advertisements.

Meta, from hierarchical, slow, and bureaucratic to flatter, leaner, and more efficient! (2023-forward)

How is the new Meta looking like today? The company is getting reorganized around a few core principles. And a massively reduced headcount, which is going back to pre-pandemic levels.

The company’s re-shape is also coming with an additional lay-off of 10,000 people.

In March 2023, Facebook (Meta) announced a further round of 10,000 layoffs due to a complete shift in focus for the company and an attempt to bring back a flatter and more efficient organization in what Mark Zuckerberg dubbed as “The Year of Efficiency.” By the end of 2023, Facebook (Meta) had 67,317 employees compared to 86,482 in 2022, thus a reduction in headcount of 19,165 or 22% of the workforce!

In fact, as Facebook grew, it moved from a flat organization to a hierarchical one, where the information flow got stuck between managerial layers.

In Facebook, post-pandemic (2022) the company found itself in a sluggish organization, where the managerial layer had gone out of control, and with individual contributors who had to report to many managers to get things done!

Zuckerberg explained a few key pillars of how this new organizational structure looks like.


Zuckerberg: In our Year of Efficiency, we will make our organization flatter by removing multiple layers of management.

To make the company flatter, thus enabling the information flow between people doing the work and management to get much faster, Meta will transition many managers to become individual contributors.

And many individual contributors to report at almost every level.

Meaning the company is cutting out various management layers.

Leaner is better

Zuckerberg: Since we reduced our workforce last year, one surprising result is that many things have gone faster. In retrospect, I underestimated the indirect costs of lower-priority projects.

In this respect, it’s important to remark how Facebook, when moving from a startup to a big tech player, ultimately transitioned from flatarchy (information flow between individual contributors and managers very thin) to a hierarchical organization (multiple managerial layers across the organization).

That effect sharpened throughout the pandemic as Meta moved into fully-remote mode.

Keep technology the main thing

Zuckerberg: We are a technology company, and our ultimate output is what we build for people. Everything else we do is in service of that.

Over the years, Marketing, Sales and administrative roles had become instrumental to the organization, whereas now Meta will be focusing on returning to a more optimal ratio of engineers to other roles.

Invest in tools to get more efficient

Zuckerberg: building AI tools to help engineers write better code faster, enabling us to automate workloads over time or identify obsolete processes that we can phase out.

Another key point is about the AI race, which Meta (while being among the first movers back in the 2010s) found itself behind due to its unsuccessful focus on the Metaverse.

And yet by early 2023, Zuckerberg acknowledged that Meta was going to do all it could to get back on track in the Generative AI race, both by empowering its engineering teams through AI and by leveraging generative AI within its core products.

In-person time to build relationships and get more done

Zuckerberg: Our early analysis of performance data suggests that engineers who joined Meta in-person and then transferred to remote or remained in-person performed better on average than those who joined remotely.

During the pandemic, Meta announced how the company was going fully remote.

Yet the experiment didn’t work as expected for them.

Indeed, one thing they noticed is that while long-time employees who had worked together in-person before, once they had moved to remote, that didn’t affect much their productivity.

For new hires, things looked quite different. In short, the new hires who had never been exposed to in-person work were less productive.


I guess the central assumption there is that you can’t quickly transfer the culture of the company to new hires if they have not been exposed to the company’s culture in in-person.

Again, this is what Meta noticed for its own organization, which can’t be generalized across the spectrum of all other organizations.

Facebook, the main product of Meta, is an attention merchant. As such, its algorithms condense the attention of over three billion monthly active users as of 2023. Meta generated nearly $135 billion in revenues in 2023, of which nearly $132 billion was from advertising (97.8% of the total revenues), $1.9 billion from Reality Labs (the augmented and virtual reality products arm), and over $1 billion in other revenue. 

Comparison with Top Related Companies

  • Google: Google, part of Alphabet Inc., uses a matrix organizational structure but with a stronger emphasis on product-based groups alongside functional teams. Google’s structure allows for considerable autonomy within product groups, like YouTube and Google Cloud, facilitating innovation but potentially creating silos. Meta’s structure, while also matrix, tends to emphasize more overlap between teams and integrates more functionally across products to enhance collaboration.
  • Amazon: Amazon employs a hybrid structure combining elements of hierarchical and divisional structures, particularly focusing on its vast array of product lines and geographic markets. Amazon’s divisional approach enables intense focus on customer service and operational efficiencies in specific market segments. In contrast, Meta’s structure is more oriented towards integrating product development with corporate functions, potentially enhancing innovation across its platforms.
  • Microsoft: Microsoft uses a matrix organizational structure similar to Meta’s, with functional groups and product teams. However, Microsoft has made significant efforts to streamline its operations to reduce complexity and increase responsiveness, similar to Meta’s recent strategic shifts. Both companies aim for a balance between autonomy and alignment but may differ in how tightly integrated their product and geographic divisions are.

Similarities and Differences

  • Similarities: All these companies utilize some form of matrix structure to manage the complexities of operating globally and maintaining innovation across a wide range of products and services. Each company emphasizes cross-functional teams to some extent to foster innovation and responsiveness.
  • Differences: Meta’s structure is particularly notable for its flatness, emphasizing fewer hierarchical levels and a more integrated approach across functions and products, which is in line with Mark Zuckerberg’s leadership style. In contrast, companies like Amazon and Google maintain a more defined divisional autonomy which can drive faster growth in specific business areas but may reduce cross-functional synergy.


  • Innovation and Agility: Meta’s matrix structure supports rapid innovation and flexibility across its product lines, essential for its focus on developing new technologies like virtual reality and the metaverse. This may provide a competitive edge in quickly evolving tech landscapes.
  • Operational Efficiency: The flat aspect of Meta’s structure can lead to quicker decision-making and less bureaucracy. However, this also poses challenges in maintaining control and alignment as the company scales, a challenge that more hierarchical organizations like Amazon might manage differently.
  • Employee Empowerment and Collaboration: Meta’s structure fosters a culture of empowerment among employees, aligning with its open communication and collaborative work environment. This contrasts with more traditional models where hierarchical structures might impede direct communication and quick collaboration.
  • Adaptability to Market Changes: Meta’s integrated approach helps it adapt swiftly to changes in social media and technology trends, leveraging its diverse product capabilities. In contrast, companies with more segmented divisional structures like Amazon might focus on adapting to consumer needs in specific markets or product areas.

Key takeaways:

  • Facebook is characterized by a matrix organizational structure. The company utilizes a flat organizational structure in combination with corporate function-based teams and product-based or geographic divisions.
  • Facebook arranges corporate teams according to their business functions and the particular needs of the company as an online social media business. The matrix structure of Facebook means there may be some overlap between corporate teams and its product-based and geographic divisions.
  • Facebook’s geographic divisions help it account for how social media and advertising is perceived across different cultures and regions. Product-based divisions may change in the future as the company shifts its focus toward advanced technologies.

Key Highlights

  • Matrix Organizational Structure: Facebook (now Meta) employs a multi-faceted matrix organizational structure. This structure combines a flat hierarchy, corporate function-based teams, and product-based/geographic divisions.
  • Leadership and Autonomy: The company follows a flat organizational structure, with fewer leaders compared to subordinates. This structure encourages autonomy among team members. Even high-level executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, work in open and accessible office spaces.
  • Function-Based Teams: Facebook’s corporate teams are organized based on various business functions, such as Human Resources, Product Management, Legal, Security, Marketing, and more. Each team is led by an executive or senior manager.
  • Geographic Divisions: Facebook has divided its operations into four main geographic regions: North America, Latin America, Europe-Middle East-Africa, and Asia-South Pacific. Each region is managed by a dedicated team reporting to corporate operations.
  • Product Divisions: The company has three main product divisions: Family of Apps (including Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp), New Platforms and Infrastructure (focusing on technologies like AI, VR, and blockchain), and Central Product Services (features that span multiple products).
  • Transition to Meta: Facebook transitioned into Meta with significant organizational changes aimed at becoming flatter, leaner, and more efficient.
  • Workforce Reduction: Meta underwent workforce reduction with significant layoffs. By 2023, the employee count had decreased significantly due to efficiency-driven restructuring.
  • Flatter Structure: Meta’s reorganization focuses on flattening the hierarchy by removing multiple layers of management. This aims to enhance the speed of information flow between employees and management.
  • Leaner Approach: A reduced workforce led to increased efficiency, suggesting that streamlining operations can result in faster decision-making and project execution.
  • Emphasis on Technology: Meta emphasizes its role as a technology company, directing attention back to building technological solutions for people. The focus is on optimizing the ratio of engineers to other roles.
  • AI and Efficiency: The company plans to invest in AI tools to enhance efficiency, automate tasks, and identify obsolete processes. This includes utilizing generative AI and AI-assisted development.
  • In-Person Collaboration: While Meta attempted a fully remote work model, it discovered that in-person interactions were crucial for building relationships and integrating new hires effectively into the company culture.

Read Next: Organizational Structure.

Read Also: Facebook [Meta] Business Model, What are Facebook subsidiaries?, The Metaverse Supply Chain, Who Owns Instagram?, Who Owns Facebook?, Facebook SWOT Analysis.

Related Visual Stories

Who Owns Facebook

Mark Zuckerberg is the largest shareholder in the company. Zuckerberg retains ownership and control of the company. Like Google, Facebook has issued two common stocks, Class A and Class B. The holders of Class B common stocks are entitled to ten votes per share, and holders of our Class A common stocks are entitled to one vote per share. Mark Zuckerberg has a voting power of 61.1%; he’s the primary decision-maker. Other individual investors comprise Sheryl Sandberg, Christopher Cox, Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, Dustin Moskovitz, and Eduardo Saverin.

Facebook Business Model

Facebook, the main product of Meta is an attention merchant. As such, its algorithms condense the attention of over 2.91 billion monthly active users as of June 2021. Meta generated $117.9 billion in revenues, in 2021, of which $114.9 billion from advertising (97.4% of the total revenues) and over $2.2 billion from Reality Labs (the augmented and virtual reality products arm). 

Facebook Revenue Breakdown


Facebook Revenues

Facebook generated most of its revenue from advertising in 2023. Indeed, the company generated $131.95B from advertising, $1.89B billion from its reality labs segment, and over a billion in other revenue.

Facebook Employees

By September 2022, Facebook’s (Meta) employee count had peaked at 87,314. Yet, as revenue slew down for the first time in years, the company announced a layoff of 13% of its workforce, bringing the headcount to 75,964. By March 2023, Meta announced another round of layoffs, dubbed “The Year of Efficiency,” which brought the headcount down to less than 66 thousand employees. By the end of 2023, Facebook reported 67,317 employees.

Facebook Revenue Per Employee

In 2022, post layoffs, Facebook generated $1,535,056 per employee, compared to $1,638,586 in 2021. In 2023, as Facebook (now Meta) completed its mass layoffs, the company reported nearly $135 billion in revenue and 67,317 employees, with a $2,003,981 revenue per employee.

Facebook MAU

Facebook (Meta) gained users in 2023. In fact, in 2023, Facebook had over three billion users worldwide, of which 272 million were in Canada, 408 million were in Europe, over 1.3 billion were in Asia, and over a billion were in the rest of the world.

Facebook ARPU

ARPU, or average revenue per user, is a crucial metric for attention merchants like Facebook. It assesses the ability of the platform to monetize its users. For instance, by the end of 2023, Meta’s ARPU worldwide was $13.12. In the US & Canada, it was $68.44; in Europe, it was $23.14; in Asia-Pacific, $5.52; and in the rest of the world, it was $4.50.

Facebook ARPU 2010-2023

ARPU, or average revenue per user, is a crucial metric for attention merchants like Facebook. It assesses the ability of the platform to monetize its users. For instance, by the end of 2023, Meta’s ARPU worldwide was $13.12. In the US & Canada, it was $68.44; in Europe, it was $23.14; in Asia-Pacific, $5.52; and in the rest of the world, it was $4.50.

Facebook Profitability

Facebook (Meta) revenue in 2023 increased to $134.9B, compared to $116.6B in 2022. Its profitability increased to $39.1B in 2023, compared to $23.2B in 2022 and $39.37B in 2021.

Facebook Statistics


Metaverse Mounting Costs


Facebook Organizational Structure

Facebook is characterized by a multi-faceted matrix organizational structure. The company utilizes a flat organizational structure in combination with corporate function-based teams and product-based or geographic divisions. The flat organization structure is organized around the leadership of Mark Zuckerberg, and the key executives around him. On the other hand, the function-based teams based on the main corporate functions (like HR, product management, investor relations, and so on).

Instagram Business Model

Instagram makes money via visual advertising. Acquired by Facebook for a billion-dollar in 2012, today, Instagram is integrated into the overall Facebook (now rebranded as Meta) business strategy. In 2018, Instagram founders Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger left the company as Facebook pushed toward tighter integration of the two platforms. In 2022, Instagram is the most successful product still, in Meta’s portfolio.

WhatsApp Business Model

Founded in 2009 by Brian Acton, Jan Koum WhatsApp is a messaging app acquired by Facebook in 2014 for $19B. In 2018 WhatsApp rolled out customers’ interaction services, starting to make money on slow responses from companies. And Facebook also announced conversations on WhatsApp prompted by Facebook Ads.

Organizational Structure Case Studies

OpenAI Organizational Structure

OpenAI is an artificial intelligence research laboratory that transitioned into a for-profit organization in 2019. The corporate structure is organized around two entities: OpenAI, Inc., which is a single-member Delaware LLC controlled by OpenAI non-profit, And OpenAI LP, which is a capped, for-profit organization. The OpenAI LP is governed by the board of OpenAI, Inc (the foundation), which acts as a General Partner. At the same time, Limited Partners comprise employees of the LP, some of the board members, and other investors like Reid Hoffman’s charitable foundation, Khosla Ventures, and Microsoft, the leading investor in the LP.

Airbnb Organizational Structure

Airbnb follows a holacracy model, or a sort of flat organizational structure, where teams are organized for projects, to move quickly and iterate fast, thus keeping a lean and flexible approach. Airbnb also moved to a hybrid model where employees can work from anywhere and meet on a quarterly basis to plan ahead, and connect to each other.

Amazon Organizational Structure

The Amazon organizational structure is predominantly hierarchical with elements of function-based structure and geographic divisions. While Amazon started as a lean, flat organization in its early years, it transitioned into a hierarchical organization with its jobs and functions clearly defined as it scaled.

Apple Organizational Structure

Apple has a traditional hierarchical structure with product-based grouping and some collaboration between divisions.

Coca-Cola Organizational Structure

The Coca-Cola Company has a somewhat complex matrix organizational structure with geographic divisions, product divisions, business-type units, and functional groups.

Costco Organizational Structure

Costco has a matrix organizational structure, which can simply be defined as any structure that combines two or more different types. In this case, a predominant functional structure exists with a more secondary divisional structure.

Costco’s geographic divisions reflect its strong presence in the United States combined with its expanding global presence. There are six divisions in the country alone to reflect its standing as the source of most company revenue.

Compared to competitor Walmart, for example, Costco takes more a decentralized approach to management, decision-making, and autonomy. This allows the company’s stores and divisions to more flexibly respond to local market conditions.

Dell Organizational Structure

Dell has a functional organizational structure with some degree of decentralization. This means functional departments share information, contribute ideas to the success of the organization and have some degree of decision-making power.

eBay Organizational Structure

eBay was until recently a multi-divisional (M-form) organization with semi-autonomous units grouped according to the services they provided. Today, eBay has a single division called Marketplace, which includes eBay and its international iterations.

Facebook Organizational Structure

Facebook is characterized by a multi-faceted matrix organizational structure. The company utilizes a flat organizational structure in combination with corporate function-based teams and product-based or geographic divisions. The flat organization structure is organized around the leadership of Mark Zuckerberg, and the key executives around him. On the other hand, the function-based teams are based on the main corporate functions (like HR, product management, investor relations, and so on).

Goldman Sachs’ Organizational Structure

Goldman Sachs has a hierarchical structure with a clear chain of command and defined career advancement process. The structure is also underpinned by business-type divisions and function-based groups.

Google Organizational Structure

Google (Alphabet) has a cross-functional (team-based) organizational structure known as a matrix structure with some degree of flatness. Over the years, as the company scaled and it became a tech giant, its organizational structure is morphing more into a centralized organization.

IBM Organizational Structure

IBM has an organizational structure characterized by product-based divisions, enabling its strategy to develop innovative and competitive products in multiple markets. IBM is also characterized by function-based segments that support product development and innovation for each product-based division, which include Global Markets, Integrated Supply Chain, Research, Development, and Intellectual Property.

McDonald’s Organizational Structure

McDonald’s has a divisional organizational structure where each division – based on geographical location – is assigned operational responsibilities and strategic objectives. The main geographical divisions are the US, internationally operated markets, and international developmental licensed markets. And on the other hand, the hierarchical leadership structure is organized around regional and functional divisions.

McKinsey Organizational Structure

McKinsey & Company has a decentralized organizational structure with mostly self-managing offices, committees, and employees. There are also functional groups and geographic divisions with proprietary names.

Microsoft Organizational Structure

Microsoft has a product-type divisional organizational structure based on functions and engineering groups. As the company scaled over time it also became more hierarchical, however still keeping its hybrid approach between functions, engineering groups, and management.

Nestlé Organizational Structure

Nestlé has a geographical divisional structure with operations segmented into five key regions. For many years, Swiss multinational food and drink company Nestlé had a complex and decentralized matrix organizational structure where its numerous brands and subsidiaries were free to operate autonomously.

Nike Organizational Structure

Nike has a matrix organizational structure incorporating geographic divisions. Nike’s matrix structure is also present at the regional and sub-regional levels. Managerial responsibility is segmented according to business unit (apparel, footwear, and equipment) and function (human resources, finance, marketing, sales, and operations).

Patagonia Organizational Structure

Patagonia has a particular organizational structure, where its founder, Chouinard, disposed of the company’s ownership in the hands of two non-profits. The Patagonia Purpose Trust, holding 100% of the voting stocks, is in charge of defining the company’s strategic direction. And the Holdfast Collective, a non-profit, holds 100% of non-voting stocks, aiming to re-invest the brand’s dividends into environmental causes.

Samsung Organizational Structure

samsung-organizational-structure (1)
Samsung has a product-type divisional organizational structure where products determine how resources and business operations are categorized. The main resources around which Samsung’s corporate structure is organized are consumer electronics, IT, and device solutions. In addition, Samsung leadership functions are organized around a few career levels grades, based on experience (assistant, professional, senior professional, and principal professional).

Sony Organizational Structure

Sony has a matrix organizational structure primarily based on function-based groups and product/business divisions. The structure also incorporates geographical divisions. In 2021, Sony announced the overhauling of its organizational structure, changing its name from Sony Corporation to Sony Group Corporation to better identify itself as the headquarters of the Sony group of companies skewing the company toward product divisions.

Starbucks Organizational Structure

Starbucks follows a matrix organizational structure with a combination of vertical and horizontal structures. It is characterized by multiple, overlapping chains of command and divisions.

Tesla Organizational Structure

Tesla is characterized by a functional organizational structure with aspects of a hierarchical structure. Tesla does employ functional centers that cover all business activities, including finance, sales, marketing, technology, engineering, design, and the offices of the CEO and chairperson. Tesla’s headquarters in Austin, Texas, decide the strategic direction of the company, with international operations given little autonomy.

Toyota Organizational Structure

Toyota has a divisional organizational structure where business operations are centered around the market, product, and geographic groups. Therefore, Toyota organizes its corporate structure around global hierarchies (most strategic decisions come from Japan’s headquarter), product-based divisions (where the organization is broken down, based on each product line), and geographical divisions (according to the geographical areas under management).

Walmart Organizational Structure

Walmart has a hybrid hierarchical-functional organizational structure, otherwise referred to as a matrix structure that combines multiple approaches. On the one hand, Walmart follows a hierarchical structure, where the current CEO Doug McMillon is the only employee without a direct superior, and directives are sent from top-level management. On the other hand, the function-based structure of Walmart is used to categorize employees according to their particular skills and experience.

Main Free Guides:


Source link