This seems obvious given that population grouped by age in most countries have transitioned from pyramidal to a more flat, squared structure.
The main advantage for organizations (besides the obvious social-benefits derived from equality, and greater employment) is the turn into a more cooperative culture, instead of the competitive that is based on artificial scarcity for the places in the top.
To arrive at better solutions faster, it's important for team members to have diverse backgrounds and experiences. Homogeneous teams may become stuck in local optima.
Another factor to consider is the skill level, experience, and character of the individuals.
If team members have low skills, are juniors, or are only motivated by a high salary, then they will need a micromanaged organizational structure with a heavyweight and bureaucratic SDLC like Scrum or SAFe.
However, if team members are highly skilled, experienced, and passionate about their work, they can be given goals/OKRs, a budget, and a deadline, and they will be able to figure out how to achieve the objectives on their own.
Put another way, a pyramid-like org if done properly can rely on "the invisible hand" to do much of the coordination. Matrix-like requires some kind of central planning, which never works
There are major inherent reasons why most social structures are pyramidal.
What’s your plan to work around them?