"Kicking the Addiction to Hierarchy in Organizations"
by Gerard Fairtlough
Author of "Creative Compartments: a Design for Future Organization" and "The Three Ways of Getting Things Done in Organizations" - written exclusively for eWork-out.co.uk — March, 2006
"Two hundred years ago it was a social fact that the British aristocracy were the ruling class and that the working man 'knew his place'. A hundred years ago patriarchal domination of the family was considered inevitable. At the time, any thought of change to those conventions was for most people inconceivable; but it happened. Now, being the boss is no longer considered the birthright of a privileged elite. Social structures vary enormously. Most women and men balance work and the task of bringing up their families between them. Nor do we expect to work for one organization for the whole of our careers. We may start out in one area of work and finish in an entirely different one. This is because we make decisions about work that reflect lifestyle choices at different stages in our lives. But if we have changed socially there is still one area where traditional hierarchy remains virtually unchallenged as almost the only acceptable power structure: the organization.
"Given the change in the rest of society, why is it that organizations have stuck with hierarchies? Like most people, when I was young I thought hierarchy was the only way to run organizations. Now, after over fifty years working in organizations of many different kinds, I've come to realise there are two other, equally important, ways of getting things done and that it's vital for us to understand these other ways. We also need to understand why hierarchy always seems to trump the others. Well, I believe that we are culturally and genetically hardwired to accept hierarchy as a species survival mechanism; we rarely question its existence, never mind its efficacy. But I am convinced that this unquestioned dominance, or hegemony, of hierarchy is in fact the very reason why it so often fails us. My experience of managing organizations has convinced me that our addiction to hierarchy is not only bad for us as individuals - it is also bad for business. Every year corporations spend millions on change management and consultancy, yet they so easily slip back into dysfunction because they fail to address the underlying and unrecognised addiction to hierarchy.
"In too many businesses directors remain separate and inaccessible - living on a separate floor, even eating apart from the rest. They do not encourage conversations between other staff and themselves. I think this quasi-paternalistic approach corrodes the working practice of organizations. The lack of interaction at meetings organised from the top leads to mistrust and lethargy, or to sycophancy and office politics. Employees further down the line expect the bosses to be ritualistic dictators. It removes responsibility and is incredibly artificial. We are talking about Greek gods in their heaven and mortals on earth below! And yet we all know that the bosses often aren't the best people to decide how best to get things done. Line management and pyramid communication does not induce trust or promote best practice. I have said that there is not one way of getting things done but three. I call the combination of the three triarchy, which means triple rule. There may be times when hierarchy is still needed but I would prefer to move to what I call heterarchical and responsibly autonomous ways of working.
"Heterarchy means multiple or dispersed rule and moves away from the traditional control and command structure to which we are so addicted. Heterarchy is the structure commonly found in professional-service firms, the partnerships of accountants or lawyers in which key decisions are taken by all the partners jointly. In other words heterarchical systems share power and have checks and balances through separation and overlaps of power. This second way points to selfgovernment, particularly around an agreed purpose.
"Responsible autonomy is purer self-organization - i.e. it has no inherent structure. It distinguishes itself from anarchy by holding decision-makers responsible for the outcomes of their decisions made within agreed parameters. Accountability is what makes responsible autonomy different from anarchy.
"These different ways of getting things done encourage the participation of employees in procedural planning at all stages of a company's development. This means that everyone works to common agreed goals and talent comes to the fore because leadership is dispersed. In these systems, trust comes first. Heterarchical skills involve longer, different communications: more interaction, more joint learning, more sharing of responsibility and above all, jointly held agreement and consensus gained through clarity of concepts that enable infrastructure, encapsulation and critique. It also means the introduction of different institutional mechanisms, such as, democracy through voting, separation of powers, job rotation, selection by lot, non-hierarchical reward systems and proper structuring of decision-making. Most of this applies to responsible autonomy too.
"In order for sound procedure to grow, by which I mean consensus strategies, people need to think about the commonalities and differences between functions. And they need professionals to help with this fundamental change of approach. A flatter system means the development at all levels of softer skills which are needed in the interpersonal process - such as dialogue, teamwork, mutual respect and openness.
"Successful communication means listening, developing leadership skills at all levels, breaking down the line structures and being open to ideas. It also means focused questions. What do we need to do? How can we achieve it? Who is needed to achieve it? How will we evaluate and change? How do we show the outside world that we are accountable? Listening, conversation and building on agreement need to be encouraged and learned. Skills in boundary spanning and leadership are particularly important. Leadership is not the same as hierarchy. A charismatic leader can have influence without any kind of command structure. Leadership is about people choosing to follow because the leader reflects the common goals of the group. Think of Nelson Mandela: he led the movement from apartheid to democracy from a prison cell.
"In the end, what I am talking about is a change from short term campaigns to a process culture in which the wishes and aspirations of the people who work for an organization align with what it makes or services. This requires a shift of values through which to feed goals - of the organization and its employees. It is not impossible to move away from hierarchy and it should be a long-term aspiration of any organization worth its salt. You will have to fight hard for it but it will be worth it. Because, I believe, more dispersed ownership and membership leads to greater success in organizations."
Download this article as an Acrobat file
You can also download a 20-page Executive Summary of Gerard Fairtlough's book from Triarchy Press
Click through to the interview with Sally Bibb
Return to the Library Contents section
