"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.
Strangely, the most effective time I saw inclusivity practiced was in a UK bank in the 90s. There was a 2-day course that everyone had to attend and when we talked about D&I, it covered everything.
Not only race, religion, colour, sexuality, gender and age, etc, but also personalities, appearance, working preferences and roles in the organization.
There were heaps of exercises around looking at things from a different perspective, appreciating the job that everyone did and the way people liked to work.
There was a language around it too, CREDO. Care, Respect, Empowerment, Diversity and Optimization.
There were examples of what CREDO looked like, and what it didn’t. Etiquette around meeting rooms, meetings, car parking spaces and the lunchroom. The level of courtesy expected from everyone, the sort of jokes and talk that was not acceptable.
If someone stepped out of line, we said, “That’s not CREDO.” From memory, the employees embraced it all enthusiastically and the whole program generated a lot of discussions and behavior change.
Given that it was the 90s, the amount of change was impressive. I’ve seen more recent inclusion trainings and interventions that have been less effective.
Perhaps there was just more money to invest in inclusion back then? I can’t see an organization funding a 2-day inclusion training for every employee these days.
Of course, there was no systemic change, no one had thought of that at the time. But I’m not sure there is much systemic change for the better going on now, either!
The last place I worked at brought in a consultant to implement self-directed, high-performing work teams. It was a manufacturing facility. This did not eliminate the need for management. A shift supervisor still led each department. In my opinion, it was more about delegation and pushing decision-making down to the lowest levels in the organization. The Teams liked it because they were given more autonomy. Problem-solving and critical thinking seemed to improve (I didn't measure it, just a general observation). However, conflict between team members increased because certain team members started acting like the "boss" of the group.
I worked in higher education for nearly 20 years and you don't get much more hierarchical than that. I would argue they actually took it to an extreme that made it very toxic. But I do agree that there needs to be some structure in most cases for business or offices to run smoothly and effectively.
It was definitely a balancing act, and a lot of it depended on your direct supervisor or the unit you were in, which determined how much you had to juggle. You really had to pick your battles carefully. After constantly feeling like I was fighting unnecessary battles, I ultimately decided it was time to move on and become my own boss.
Yep. It’s interesting that the flat organization fad has faded the past few years. I agree with the points made here. The real (but maybe unsatisfying) answer is something between “no hierarchy” and old-school command and control.
The other thing people tend to forget is that hierarchies exist even if you get rid of them on paper. You’re still going to have dominant people, quiet people, deciders, and so on. Hierarchy actually helps by giving people a system to work within vs. allowing unspoken rules that may not work in practice.
You chose an interesting way to use the word brainchild in the last paragraph. My first thought is that you were using it as a derogatory term for a person, but I can also read it as the idea itself, the brainchild, is now suggesting things on its own.
Creative use.
Again not sure if that was accidental or on purpose but it certainly made me pause on the potential metaphor.
Sharing here, in the spirit of collaboration to make things better, that the word brainchild in the last paragraph is used incorrectly. A brainchild is not a person with an idea. A brainchild IS the idea (as in, ideas are the offspring of the brain). So a brainchild cannot make a suggestion or take another job.
More importantly: I completely agree that leadership and structure is required for optimum functioning of groups, but I chafe at the idea that it should be based on "status and power" as you suggest, purposefully or accidentally, in the second to last paragraph. Status and power may accrue to people who show leadership, but they are not themselves the reason why someone should be allowed to lead. The people who lead should have knowledge, quick thinking, charisma, creativity, and an ability to give inspirational instruction to others. That's what we should focus on when creating organizational structures, and why even though we definitely need hierarchies, they should be nimble enough to react to actual situations, instead of set more or less in stone.
I don't see where the above suggested that hierarchy would be based on status or power, but in a more clinical sense, that is the feature of any hierarchy. The things you suggest, of who should have the status and power, sounds like a great basis. Have you seen a novel way for those traits to stay the basis of the hierarchy without giving status or power to individuals who aren't nimble enough?
Hi Mikey -- the sentence I was reacting to was "Those with more status and power keep their colleagues moving in the same direction with more highly coordinated action." It seemed to me that's what we would WANT those with more status and power to do, but it doesn't always work like that; simply having status and power does not grant those skills!
I'm not sure I have seen a novel way to avoid status and power accruing to those who may not be nimble enough to lead well... or at least, I haven't seen the shifts happen without some sort of crisis. It would be nice to be able to keep things nimble without that.
This week, I had a conversation with a teacher I’m trying to recruit to become a principal. She hit me with a big question: *Do schools really need principals?* It’s a fair question, especially with some schools experimenting with teacher-led models where leadership is shared.
We talked about schools like Anzar High, where teachers take on leadership responsibilities together. In some cases, it works—fostering collaboration and accountability. But the research is clear: effective principals make a significant difference in student achievement and teacher retention. Schools without principals often struggle to maintain focus and direction, and critical voices with the most expertise can get lost in the shuffle. Like you said “train doesn’t run.”
I told her that being a principal isn’t about hierarchy for the sake of power—it’s about setting a clear vision, creating space for collaboration, and ensuring teachers and students are supported. Leadership isn’t about doing it all yourself, but without someone at the helm, even the most talented teams can spin their wheels.
We don’t need to erase leadership roles to innovate; we need to rethink how leadership works—balancing clarity and collaboration, sprinkled with a little bit of trust.
We've met some fantastic school principals who share your stated ideals.
But just like any organization, we've seem horrid examples of leaders ejecting their obligations for the protection of their own domains.
If that becomes the dominant archetype for leaders (hope it won't) then great leaders will have the additional job of proving it wrong on their own task list.
Thanks for sharing your experience here. We are better for it.
I am not an Organizational/Industrial psychologist. Many of those people have a lot of good ideas. What I have seen is there are usually two different psychologies. Those that are managers, and those that are team members. Some men and women seek management. They are often hungry, work long hours, and want the pay. Those that seek to remain team members can be more diverse. There are those who give the bare minimum. There are are those who are willing to put in overtime, and travel. They merely don't want the headaches that come with management. Both deserve fair compensation. In the for-profits a lot of our compensation is based on showing up, and putting in a full days' work. We learn the craft with time.
Everyone, of every rank, has to take orders. Even the owner is wise to take orders from the customer/client.
Regarding these academics you referenced. Unfortunately, this attitude does little to make me want to invest in them. Certainly, not more than a bachelor's degree (from most schools).
I suspect this theory you referenced comes from two places. One of empathy. Wanting a "fair" field, and believing everyone produces equally (not accurate). The other place is attempting to justify their enormous salary. When you don't do much work and hoard knowledge. This doesn't make me respect you. Much less want to learn from you....
"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.
Appreciate your insight, Wendy.
Bring your experience into these comments anytime!
Say more about inclusivity please. How have you best seen it practiced?
Thanks :-)
Strangely, the most effective time I saw inclusivity practiced was in a UK bank in the 90s. There was a 2-day course that everyone had to attend and when we talked about D&I, it covered everything.
Not only race, religion, colour, sexuality, gender and age, etc, but also personalities, appearance, working preferences and roles in the organization.
There were heaps of exercises around looking at things from a different perspective, appreciating the job that everyone did and the way people liked to work.
There was a language around it too, CREDO. Care, Respect, Empowerment, Diversity and Optimization.
There were examples of what CREDO looked like, and what it didn’t. Etiquette around meeting rooms, meetings, car parking spaces and the lunchroom. The level of courtesy expected from everyone, the sort of jokes and talk that was not acceptable.
If someone stepped out of line, we said, “That’s not CREDO.” From memory, the employees embraced it all enthusiastically and the whole program generated a lot of discussions and behavior change.
Given that it was the 90s, the amount of change was impressive. I’ve seen more recent inclusion trainings and interventions that have been less effective.
Perhaps there was just more money to invest in inclusion back then? I can’t see an organization funding a 2-day inclusion training for every employee these days.
Of course, there was no systemic change, no one had thought of that at the time. But I’m not sure there is much systemic change for the better going on now, either!
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!
Listening is leading.
I'm sure you agree, Robert.
It's unfortunate that we've come to a point where the two seem to be on opposite ends of a continuum.
The last place I worked at brought in a consultant to implement self-directed, high-performing work teams. It was a manufacturing facility. This did not eliminate the need for management. A shift supervisor still led each department. In my opinion, it was more about delegation and pushing decision-making down to the lowest levels in the organization. The Teams liked it because they were given more autonomy. Problem-solving and critical thinking seemed to improve (I didn't measure it, just a general observation). However, conflict between team members increased because certain team members started acting like the "boss" of the group.
Think that is predictable and inevitable in any team size more than 3 people?
I worked in higher education for nearly 20 years and you don't get much more hierarchical than that. I would argue they actually took it to an extreme that made it very toxic. But I do agree that there needs to be some structure in most cases for business or offices to run smoothly and effectively.
Did you ever see any movement in making positive adjustments in your own situations, Dr. Bette?
It was definitely a balancing act, and a lot of it depended on your direct supervisor or the unit you were in, which determined how much you had to juggle. You really had to pick your battles carefully. After constantly feeling like I was fighting unnecessary battles, I ultimately decided it was time to move on and become my own boss.
I’m in K-12. Co-sign the hierarchy comment.
Yes, K-12 has some of the same issues and being a teacher now is so challenging Jo!
Yep. It’s interesting that the flat organization fad has faded the past few years. I agree with the points made here. The real (but maybe unsatisfying) answer is something between “no hierarchy” and old-school command and control.
The other thing people tend to forget is that hierarchies exist even if you get rid of them on paper. You’re still going to have dominant people, quiet people, deciders, and so on. Hierarchy actually helps by giving people a system to work within vs. allowing unspoken rules that may not work in practice.
You chose an interesting way to use the word brainchild in the last paragraph. My first thought is that you were using it as a derogatory term for a person, but I can also read it as the idea itself, the brainchild, is now suggesting things on its own.
Creative use.
Again not sure if that was accidental or on purpose but it certainly made me pause on the potential metaphor.
We actually had someone else mention that elsewhere too, Steve.
Will think to ask the author/editor and try to circle back on it.
Sharing here, in the spirit of collaboration to make things better, that the word brainchild in the last paragraph is used incorrectly. A brainchild is not a person with an idea. A brainchild IS the idea (as in, ideas are the offspring of the brain). So a brainchild cannot make a suggestion or take another job.
More importantly: I completely agree that leadership and structure is required for optimum functioning of groups, but I chafe at the idea that it should be based on "status and power" as you suggest, purposefully or accidentally, in the second to last paragraph. Status and power may accrue to people who show leadership, but they are not themselves the reason why someone should be allowed to lead. The people who lead should have knowledge, quick thinking, charisma, creativity, and an ability to give inspirational instruction to others. That's what we should focus on when creating organizational structures, and why even though we definitely need hierarchies, they should be nimble enough to react to actual situations, instead of set more or less in stone.
We would chafe at the idea too.
Hierarchy based on status and power sounds very coercive and tyrannical.
Hi Katprof, good to see you today!
Glad you're here.
I don't see where the above suggested that hierarchy would be based on status or power, but in a more clinical sense, that is the feature of any hierarchy. The things you suggest, of who should have the status and power, sounds like a great basis. Have you seen a novel way for those traits to stay the basis of the hierarchy without giving status or power to individuals who aren't nimble enough?
Hi Mikey -- the sentence I was reacting to was "Those with more status and power keep their colleagues moving in the same direction with more highly coordinated action." It seemed to me that's what we would WANT those with more status and power to do, but it doesn't always work like that; simply having status and power does not grant those skills!
I'm not sure I have seen a novel way to avoid status and power accruing to those who may not be nimble enough to lead well... or at least, I haven't seen the shifts happen without some sort of crisis. It would be nice to be able to keep things nimble without that.
This week, I had a conversation with a teacher I’m trying to recruit to become a principal. She hit me with a big question: *Do schools really need principals?* It’s a fair question, especially with some schools experimenting with teacher-led models where leadership is shared.
We talked about schools like Anzar High, where teachers take on leadership responsibilities together. In some cases, it works—fostering collaboration and accountability. But the research is clear: effective principals make a significant difference in student achievement and teacher retention. Schools without principals often struggle to maintain focus and direction, and critical voices with the most expertise can get lost in the shuffle. Like you said “train doesn’t run.”
I told her that being a principal isn’t about hierarchy for the sake of power—it’s about setting a clear vision, creating space for collaboration, and ensuring teachers and students are supported. Leadership isn’t about doing it all yourself, but without someone at the helm, even the most talented teams can spin their wheels.
We don’t need to erase leadership roles to innovate; we need to rethink how leadership works—balancing clarity and collaboration, sprinkled with a little bit of trust.
We've met some fantastic school principals who share your stated ideals.
But just like any organization, we've seem horrid examples of leaders ejecting their obligations for the protection of their own domains.
If that becomes the dominant archetype for leaders (hope it won't) then great leaders will have the additional job of proving it wrong on their own task list.
Thanks for sharing your experience here. We are better for it.
Good morning,
I am not an Organizational/Industrial psychologist. Many of those people have a lot of good ideas. What I have seen is there are usually two different psychologies. Those that are managers, and those that are team members. Some men and women seek management. They are often hungry, work long hours, and want the pay. Those that seek to remain team members can be more diverse. There are those who give the bare minimum. There are are those who are willing to put in overtime, and travel. They merely don't want the headaches that come with management. Both deserve fair compensation. In the for-profits a lot of our compensation is based on showing up, and putting in a full days' work. We learn the craft with time.
Everyone, of every rank, has to take orders. Even the owner is wise to take orders from the customer/client.
Regarding these academics you referenced. Unfortunately, this attitude does little to make me want to invest in them. Certainly, not more than a bachelor's degree (from most schools).
I suspect this theory you referenced comes from two places. One of empathy. Wanting a "fair" field, and believing everyone produces equally (not accurate). The other place is attempting to justify their enormous salary. When you don't do much work and hoard knowledge. This doesn't make me respect you. Much less want to learn from you....
Thank you for your time.
Take care.
Good to see you this morning, Joe.