# The end of hierarchy?



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Because I work in an (some would say overly) academic/intellectual environement among people who very likely think far too much (and hard) about lots of organizatand/or business related matters, I enjoy the privilege of engaging in lots of discussions about power, authority, leadership, and how organizations respond to certain people who have earned (or been elected or promoted to) positions of authority.

Postmodernism means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Granted. But at least one of character traits of the postmodern era is a skepticism about (and opposition or resistance to) hierarchy. These days, if you don't like what somebody has told you to do, you can easily challenge it. If you don't like what someone else has said or done, you can easily challenge it. The privilege of free speech, I guess. Gone are the days when this was heard daily: "What he says is right simply because he's the boss. Because he holds the position he holds, we don't question his authority. Period."

I can't think of a long-standing hierarchy and/or hierarchical institution/organization that's not come under attack for being just that: hierarchical. The Roman Catholic Church has not escaped criticism, nor has IBM or the Armed Forces. Whether one sees this as problematic (even tragic) or beneficial, it's a fact. Did this process of challenging leaders who hold power within hierarchies begin in the 1960s? Certainly not. Long before peaceniks challenged the Johnson and Nixon administrations, Martin Luther nailed 95 theses on a door and a group of "Founding Fathers" declared their independence of England.

Still, hierarchies have taken hit after hit after hit in recent years, and I wonder, for all the praises that Baby Boomers sing of "challenging 'the man'" and and wanna-be revolutionaries speak of "fighting the powers that be", is there reason to lament the slow death of hierarchy? In this day of Microsoft-inspired "flat" organizational structures, is there reason to grieve the loss of the IBM of old--the "organization man" who proudly spoke of himself as a "company man" who eagerly and happily answers to the commands of his "boss"?

Is there something to be said for a structure/organization of authority that demands--insists upon--obedience by/from the lower ranks? Is there something to be said for an organization in which the "boss" can tell the "worker" to follow an order...or else be fired immediately without any opportunity to "mediate" alongside a human-relations (HR) person? Is there something to be said for a team structure whereby the coach can kick a player off the team without worrying about what the player's agent/agents will do in response?

We all know that insofar as nature abhors a vacuum, any community of people abhors a vacuum (absence) of leadership/power. Where it's not, it will need to be created. THE LORD OF THE FLIES tells us as much, as do the Bible and the writings of Shakespeare. The Western tradition is replete with evidence that power will flow upward and somehow inspire positions or ranks of authority. Why deny what history has taught us? 

So, the question is not "Will there be power and will there be people to hold power?" The question is "How will power be shared? And it it's shared among too many people (a la a "flat" organizational structure), will the result be chaos...or at least inefficiency?"

Harris


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

That's a complex question which requires even more complex answering...which others will no doubt provide in great detail. Since you started with your employment, let me start with mine.

My work experience has come from two places: a mail/facilities department in a bank and (now) a consulting firm. Both operate on a team basis, the first much more so given the bottom-of-the-bottom rank we held; however we were considered in organizational terms 'essential staff' and as such earned and received a lot of respect from staff at all levels, including (actually especially) from the executive suite. (Mind you, when I started we had executives who had entered from the bottom and clawed their way up to the top; they knew that even the most humble employees contribute in important ways. The new breed of MBAs who drop right into choice positions know very little about the companies for which they work.) This system worked well and our manager let us run things without supervision, which I suggest is why we had one of the best operations around (maybe the best). Keen, self-motivated workers do not work well under heavy supervision, they need breathing room; if you insist on micro-managing, then hire worker drones and whip them, just don't expect much from them in a pinch.

The consulting firm I now work for operates in a team manner, though not so much as the above. I am allowed to question, politely, the conclusions and instructions of the two principals, and often we come to better results than if we had operated solely as 'master and servant' (wth apologies to DM!). Of course, there is never any question who is approving my invoices and signing my cheques, so the principals get the final word and I obey. But the place would be a lot less successful if they just dictated from the top without incorporating views and experience of all staff.

To my mind, this is really a better way of doing business than the old structures. Even my dad, before he retired from his job in a big, traditional company, had a lot of leeway to make decisions and allocate money, and major decisions usually got hacked out in meetings instead of in circulars or directives dropping in from Mount Olympus.

My personal belief is that people who yearn for strong hierarchies are generally dumber than team operators, since a strict hierarchy helps mask incompetance. Slackers and sub-par workers show up like flashing "get rid of me" beacons in less-hierarchical structures. Now when I say team, I don't mean little committee-style teams with carefully chosen like-minded 'friends' all of the same rank, I mean groups of professionals who work largely independently but whose paths and responsibilities cross at time/project nexus points for key decisions or discussions.

Anyway, just some random thoughts.

DD


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

"My work experience has come from two places: a mail/facilities department in a bank and (now) a consulting firm. Both operate on a team basis, the first much more so given the bottom-of-the-bottom rank we held; however we were considered in organizational terms 'essential staff' and as such earned and received a lot of respect from staff at all levels, including (actually especially) from the executive suite. (Mind you, when I started we had executives who had entered from the bottom and clawed their way up to the top; they knew that even the most humble employees contribute in important ways. The new breed of MBAs who drop right into choice positions know very little about the companies for which they work.) This system worked well and our manager let us run things without supervision, which I suggest is why we had one of the best operations around (maybe the best). Keen, self-motivated workers do not work well under heavy supervision, they need breathing room; if you insist on micro-managing, then hire worker drones and whip them, just don't expect much from them in a pinch."
--DD

I would suggest that one can expect quite a lot from any worker (even "in a pinch") if the only alternative to obdience is to be fired on the spot. 

You may be correct that keen, self-motivated workers don't require heavy supervision. Your approach only works if all or most workers are both keen and self-motivated. 

My assumption is that they are not.

"My personal belief is that people who yearn for strong hierarchies are generally dumber than team operators, since a strict hierarchy helps mask incompetance. Slackers and sub-par workers show up like flashing "get rid of me" beacons in less-hierarchical structures. Now when I say team, I don't mean little committee-style teams with carefully chosen like-minded 'friends' all of the same rank, I mean groups of professionals who work largely independently but whose paths and responsibilities cross at time/project nexus points for key decisions or discussions."--DD

Well, I have a preference for strong hierarchies with rather rigid boundaries that divide positions/ranks. I should like to hope that such a preference does not, as you put it, make me "generally dumber" than "team operators." 

How, I wonder, does a strict hierarchy mask incompetence? Curious.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

I always thought it split along gender lines. Males seem to organize themselves into a structured hierarchy, with a clear chain of command, as seen in the the military. 

Females generally prefer to have power more diffused, with a group coming to a consensus so that everyone feels like they had a say and hopefully nobody's feelings are hurt.

Also, the flat rejection of authority simply for the sake of rejecting authority is a sign of immaturity ("you can't tell me what to do"). We all go through it as adolescents and young adults. No coincidence that "Question authority" became a popular slogan during the late 1960s when the baby boom population had reached the stage of adolescence and young adulthood. 

The breakdown of hierarchy in business organizations (the new "flat" structure that Harris mentions) has come at the same time that women have become a significant part of the workforce and feminist theory has worked its way into both the educational system and mainstream thought.


----------



## johnapril (Feb 8, 2006)

We focus on the project and respect the people, as a philosophical guiding light, where I work.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Well, without the "question authority" impulse, there would be no US of A, right?

And there are a lot of Enron victims that are probably not so keen on the whole "unquestioning obedience/trust your superiors" model.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

There is a difference between adolescent questioning of authority simply for the sake of questioning authority on the one hand and on the other hand legitimate, warranted questioning of authority.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Brownshoe_
> 
> Well, without the "question authority" impulse, there would be no US of A, right?
> 
> And there are a lot of Enron victims that are probably not so keen on the whole "unquestioning obedience/trust your superiors" model.


Good point. The USA, among thousands of other examples, stands as proof that the death of one hierarchy (or "bureacracy," if you prefer) marks the birth of a new one. Seems to me that hierarchy cannot be escaped.

It's a fact--a law, even--of nature. Everything--the numerical system, governments, the human body, etc.--is organized according to "most important," "2nd most important," "3rd most important"...and so on and so forth.

-Harris


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

My company is pretty flat. I hate it.

I can walk right up to the COO (who looks just like all the other employees in a knit shirt and khakis) and call him by his first name. If I addressed him as "Mr. _______" I'd probably be corrected.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> My company is pretty flat. I hate it.
> 
> I can walk right up to the COO (who looks just like all the other employees in a knit shirt and khakis) and call him by his first name. If I addressed him as "Mr. _______" I'd probably be corrected.


I hope to change all of this if I'm shrewd, talented, and liked enough to become a senior partner one day. The whole first name bit, dress down or dress equal, and buddyness between boss and worker bothers me a lot, just as friends' parents in high school did when they insisted I call them by their first names. In college, I served on student-faculty committees when I was one of 6 student body vice presidents for various tasks covered by SGA (mine was Academic Affairs). When the SGA President, "Bill Jones" and I had meetings with the College President or Deans, he would always call them by their first names. This irked me to no end, but didn't seem to bother them or him. Indeed, he was shocked, when, writing to a senior faculty member, he emailed "Dear [John]...." and signed it "Bill" and the faculty member wrote back "Dear William Jones," and signed it "Professor Smith". I thought that was a refreshing display of authority, but the SGA President didn't get it, perceiving the faculty member as too uptight.I think it is one thing for people on the same level to address each other by the same name, but quite another for a superior and subordinate to communicate in that manner. There is not nearly enough respect for authority and decorum, and hopefully I'll have the opportunity to change that if given charge of a firm for which I worked, or starting my own.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> We all know that insofar as nature abhors a vacuum, any community of people abhors a vacuum (absence) of leadership/power. Where it's not, it will need to be created. THE LORD OF THE FLIES tells us as much, as do the Bible and the writings of Shakespeare. The Western tradition is replete with evidence that power will flow upward and somehow inspire positions or ranks of authority. Why deny what history has taught us?
> 
> So, the question is not "Will there be power and will there be people to hold power?" The question is "How will power be shared? And it it's shared among too many people (a la a "flat" organizational structure), will the result be chaos...or at least inefficiency?"


Having worked in both a traditionally hierarchical organization (the military) and others which were hierarchies on a smaller scale and then in high-tech, where the chain of command is more fluid or in fact a circle, I've found two things hold true:

- If no hierarchy exists, people will create one, as you've said. Even if nothing is written down, there are go-to people and eventually they will become formal leaders in some capacity.

- Workers are entirely happier and more productive if they know to whom they ultimately report and what is expected of them.

- Workers are also more effective if they are given some leeway and power in their own sphere. For example, if they are able to throw a biscuit to an unhappy client to solve a problem without first checking with a supervisor. This also increases the productivity of the supervisory person, since micromanagement is not an effective use of a leader's time.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

It does seem to be hardwired into us to create heirarchies...even very small children do it, with their "most favorite teddy bear, second favorite, " etc.

Or I think of record geeks/film buffs/fill-in-the-blank nerds (I sadly belong to this tribe) with their compulsive "10 best" lists.

I don't know, I'm conflicted. Too liberal to really embrace the idea, but on a personal level I do like formality, tradition, showing respect. Even as I approach middle age, I have a hard time calling friends' parents by their first names.

Life would certainly be simpler if we could just trust in "the man" to do the right thing.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where do you rate? In the human hierarchy, I mean?

Elevating your view of the world to the status of natural law is a bit dicey, don't you think? Similar thinking in the past has had some rather nasty consequences, hasn't it?

"If anyone kicks, it will be me, boy/And if anyone gets kicked, it will be you." Brecht.


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

I love a hierarchical world in which I am on top (or among the top dogs).

Most top dogs are (sometimes deliberately) incompetent at their jobs. That's why they are the commanders in chief. Competent workers slave 8 hours day for a meagre chump change.



The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:One more point: The faculty member who used "Dear William Jones" for a salutation is ignorant of standard American business and academic style. You _never, ever_ use the first and last name after "Dear."


The forename surname salutation long ago became a correct form for intellectual types. If one receives a letter so prefixed, then it is from one of the extremes: someone either very ignorant or very knowledgeable. The context should quickly indicate which.

As for those in traditional leadership positions who merely ride on the fumes of their predecessors' dignity, we can only hope that someday history will render them a just verdict.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by cufflink44_
> 
> One more point: The faculty member who used "Dear William Jones" for a salutation is ignorant of standard American business and academic style. You _never, ever_ use the first and last name after "Dear." To do so is to proclaim that you're sending out junk mail from a mailing list.


Honestly, I think he was intending to express disdain and total unfamiliarity of the sort found in junk mail. As in, if this, well let's be honest, "kid", was just going to write him as "Dear John" without having met him, he felt compelled to show that as of the time of writing the distance between them the distance in familiarity was as far as possible.

EDIT: Sorry, I missed JCP's post....in that case it makes even more sense.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> With regard to the third: I think the key phrase in the first sentence is "some leeway." As opposed to "a lot of" leeway or "tons of" leeway. When the supervisor/boss/manager okays the throwing of biscuits in advance, I see no problems.
> 
> -Harris


Yes, I suppose there were three things. 

There was a recent longitudinal study linking stress, health and powerlessness at work. Lack of power was a major contributor to stress (and therefore the loss of competent staff who were not allowed any decisionmaking ability even though they were capable of it.)

The military is an interesting example because although it is a hierarchy, there is also a very strong peer/team component at each level of rank and within units. Promotions are also seen to be fair and deserved for the most part. I think this is a key element - nobody wants to work in a hierarchy in which the layer above is seen to be incompetent or just superfluous, and I see this quite a lot.

Part of the popularity of "team" systems is that they are less expensive, minor work can be parcelled out to bigger players and accountability is shared. These are sometimes good things and sometimes bad. It depends on your perspective and the business.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Hierarchies are fine. Hard to function without some structure. 

What makes me nuts is when management, afraid to fire a nitwit for incompetence lest a critical eye turn to their own performance, kick said nitwit upstairs.

Then your hierarchy is shot to hell because the merely competent resent the nitwit and spend all their time scheming to bring his Reign of Error to a hideous and bloody end...and nobody makes the widgets.

Is there no field of human endeavor uncontaminated by the Lizard People?


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Coolidge24_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most management folks these days are hired guns: They didn't found the company or the university they preside over. In some sense, these guys KNOW deep inside that they are illegitimate as far as executive power is concerned. Hence the lack of strong sense of authority.

I don't think Donald Trump would tolerate his underlings greeting him by his first name. Nor would J.P. Morgan, many of your presidents and kings.

Regarding your SGA president: Those who don't know how to salute to power will never get to a position to enjoy others' salute.

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

On the subject of 'Dear William Jones', I find this is used by people who feel it not quite right to address someone by their first name, but who cannot bring themselves to say or write 'Mr Jones'. These often tend to be 'hey we're all equal' sixties liberal types. 

Interviewers on the BBC, who quite often conform to that type of person, use this term of address a lot on TV/radio. 

I generally tend to bin any correspondence that uses this style, but it is at least slightly better than some of the email salutations I get, which include 'Hey folks', 'Hi there' etc. 

Incidentally, I would say the decline in the use of titles in business and social life generally has a lot to do with feminism. In the old days a woman signed herself 'Jane Smith' (Mrs) so you knew she was Mrs Smith. Nowadays you just get 'Jane Smith' so unless you use the unpronounceable 'Ms' (which tends to universally annoy women) you just have to 'get friendly' and use 'Dear Jane' or, the dreaded 'Dear Jane Smith'.

'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Hugh Morrison_
> 
> Incidentally, I would say the decline in the use of titles in business and social life generally has a lot to do with feminism. In the old days a woman signed herself 'Jane Smith' (Mrs) so you knew she was Mrs Smith. Nowadays you just get 'Jane Smith' so unless you use the unpronounceable 'Ms' (which tends to universally annoy women) you just have to 'get friendly' and use 'Dear Jane' or, the dreaded 'Dear Jane Smith'.


Hmm, what if her married name is Jones but she uses her maiden name at work. She'd be Mrs Jones but not Mrs Smith.

I just use Ms as a general catch-all, like Mr, unless someone indicates that she's a Mrs.

But yet, people do default to first names. Dear Ms Jane Jones is ridiculous in a written salutation.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## winn (Dec 31, 2005)

_"What makes me nuts is when management, afraid to fire a nitwit for incompetence lest a critical eye turn to their own performance, kick said nitwit upstairs.

Then your hierarchy is shot to hell because the merely competent resent the nitwit and spend all their time scheming to bring his Reign of Error to a hideous and bloody end...and nobody makes the widgets." _ (Patrick, 13 February 2006)

I was thinking of posting this link in the "death of the english language" thread as we talked about proper use of terms in relation to ADA stuff.

But, somehow this seemed the better place at this time.

Have *you* heard of the ANA?

Cheers,
Winn


----------

