The Myth of Eliminating Hierarchies
To unlock innovation and create a more inclusive workplace, many academics and organizational experts advocate for eliminating hierarchies.
They contend that a “flat” workplace promotes a more open, agile, and motivated organization. If only that were the whole story.
Organizations and teams without the clarity of leaders in charge have been shown to be unfocused, inefficient, and replete with petty conflicts.
While the pursuit of equality and democratic decision-making sounds like a good idea, research has proven it prevents those with the most experience and knowledge from speaking out and persuading colleagues to pursue worthwhile opportunities.
Without hierarchy to establish and maintain a focus on critical goals, colleagues tend to pay attention to the wrong things. They’re also prone to reach stalemates when disagreements occur.
It is true that too much power and status enabled by hierarchy can impede innovation and new ideas while stifling dialogue and opposing viewpoints.
There’s little doubt that the traditional command and control brand of leadership, where hierarchy operates from self-interest and without team input, produces a host of foibles, including diminished motivation, engagement, commitment, and weak decision-making.
But without some hierarchy, teams engage in aimless exploration of bad ideas. Hierarchy establishes ground rules that allow teams to learn and collaborate effectively.
Quality decision-making is enhanced because those with more knowledge and expertise are given higher status within the group.
Those with more status and power keep their colleagues moving in the same direction with more highly coordinated action. Research on social species, from ants to horses, proves that hierarchies are essential for groups to operate effectively.
So, the next time some brainchild suggests the organization should move to a totally flat structure, recommend they take a job as a theorist and leave the practice of effectively working together to those who understand that without hierarchy, the trains don’t run.
"The trains don't run." Literally. I worked in rail for 16 years and you're right. In rail there are typically supervisors, managers and senior managers, all doing different things.
In my experience of 4 decades of work, in 2 countries and various industries, these ideas come and go. One CEO puts in a flat structure, the next CEO removes it. They both move on after a couple of years having 'made an impact'.
You do need hierarchical structure because not everyone is cut out to be or wants to be a leader.
If you want innovation, ask the people who do each job how it could be done faster, more efficiently or better. Then listen to what they say.
If you want inclusivity, issue a clear statement of what that looks like, and what people who demonstrate it would do and say. And have consequences for not adhering to that behavior.
Don't let people get away with not adhering to the required standard just because they are senior or bring in a lot of money.
Hierarchy matters—matters for focus, matters for momentum, matters for true collaboration.
Without it, as you point out, teams go in circles...without decisive action.
A question: Isn’t the real key a healthy hierarchy, one that listens as much as it leads?
Overall, thanks for reminding us how balance builds better workplaces!