I think that EA as a movement is much less similar to multinational corporations than, say, to an academic field. In contrast to a corporation with a clear set of goals and a hierarchical decision-making procedures for how to achieve them, EA is neither likely to settle on the ultimate preference order on goals, nor on the optimal ways to achieve them. This is largely due to the fact that how to effectively help others is an empirical question, for which we don't have clear answers, and which is so complex that it may easily lead to peer disagreements (where different "schools of thought" become convinced of different methodologies, etc.). So I'd say, just like with academic research, what matters here is encouraging discussion and critical exchange within EA community, where EA-related institutions can strive to provide space for such interaction.

It seems to me the organically occurring hierarchy of EA is with organizations representing a language, then regional/national organizations below that, and then the local groups. This model makes sense as more EA movement organizations professionalize in countries around the world. Switzerland and Austria have EA organizations running things in each of those countries subordinate to the EAF for the whole German-speaking world. There is an EA Australia organization, Rethink Charity in Canada, and EA London and other British organizations which run lots of stuff in England while CEA is looking at things on a global scale.

Of course, CEA could be the top-level organization, the first to span multiple languages, as its sponsoring the development of EA in China. Of course in countries like France, the Czech Republic, India, Sweden, the Netherlands and Norway, there has been much independent development of national organization lately. So it doesn't seem like one organization would fill some unoccupied 'global organization' slot yet.

I've tried thinking of models of EA as a network like this. A difficult thing is accounting for all the EA organizations which work on particular causes, or have a particular background, and are correlated with geography, but not in a way you could tell by just looking at the map at the EA Hub. You'd have to know the history and culture of EA as well. We have that, but it doesn't mesh well with the model thinking we're so fond of these days.

I think EA is on the precipice of some major changes to it as a network. Maybe they're already taking place, and we haven't tracked them yet. Because it's still such a young and dynamic community, EA changes so fast our models of how and why it's changing become outdated quickly. I've been thinking that strategically growing and developing EA depends on a better, common group-level self-awareness. We don't have a good enough map of the current trajectories the movement is on. None of us may be steering this ship as much as we think, and if we don't know where we are, we won't know how to orient ourselves toward our destination.

Multinational corporations don't work that way:

Sure they do, companies can have branches in different areas doing different things. E.g. investment bank branches in Houston do energy banking, in LA they do media and retail, in NYC they are generalists.

Different kinds of industries arise in different locations.

Chain restaurants have different menus in different countries.

Universities in different cities focus on different things.

Different music styles and dance techniques become popular in different locations.

Having different centers for different topics is good because it amplifies network effects for the people who are involved with each topic.