Remind me again, what was so bad about hierarchies?
Here’s a question for you. What is the fundamental type of management structure which has been invented independently on many occasions in human history, all over the world?
As clues, I can tell you it has been continually refined through a process of trial and error up to modern times. The Egyptian Civil Service and the Roman Army organized themselves this way. It also seems to respond to something deep in the human psyche, which needs order and structure if it is to work effectively.
I’m talking about hierarchies of course. For an idea that seems so natural, and has been independently discovered so often, it’s surprising that the idea is in such disfavour now. “Hierarchical” is almost a swearword, unless we are speaking of databases.
What’s the problem?
Leaving aside the obvious point that any form of organization can be well or badly run, there’s a basic misperception about hierarchical organizations; one that has been encouraged by those who write about them without ever having worked in one. They assume that hierarchies are rigid structures in which every idea and every initiative has to go through endless, multiple layers before anything is decided. In most people’s minds, hierarchies are linked with Max Weber’s descriptions of bureaucracies, which even those who have never heard of Weber have absorbed by osmosis. (If you’re interested, Weber was describing an “ideal type” of organization, not something that actually existed).
In realty, a well-organized hierarchy is a sophisticated device for ensuring that work gets done at the most appropriate level. In most organization, work—sales inquiries, letters from the public, requests for assistance—comes in at or near the bottom. In a properly constructed hierarchy, issues which are entirely routine are dealt with at the lowest feasible level. Those which require more thought are passed up to the next level, and so on. In that way, only the most important and difficult issues ever get to the top of the organization. Conversely, those at the top can ask questions in the knowledge that somewhere below them is an expert, whom they may not even know, who will have an answer.
However, a hierarchy only works properly if two conditions are fulfilled:
- It has to be based on promotion by merit. Those above must have the confidence of those below, and should ideally have done the same or similar jobs earlier in their career.
- It has to be based on a long-serving workforce, capable of developing a common culture, and tackling problems in much the same way. These concepts, pioneered by the British Civil Service in the 19th century, were deliberately based on the way the Chinese ran things several millennia before.
Why are hierarchies out of favor?
Partly, it’s a confused idea that they are inappropriate to what we like to think of as a ‘democratic’ era. (Ask yourself how ‘democratic’ the average flat management structure is.) Partly they’re a victim of populist folklore about inefficient bureaucrats and the benefits of unleashing entrepreneurial independence . . . or something like that. There are other and more worrying reasons too:
- If it ain’t broke, there’s no money to be made in fixing it. The Maoist permanent revolution required by the consultancy industry generates profits by developing expensive new structures which then fail, so they have to be replaced by even more expensive alternatives. Much of the money spent on organizational consultancy these days is to repair the damage caused by earlier reorganizations. Systems that people design for themselves generally work well and last a long time.
- Hierarchies are an easy target for cost-savings. How often have you heard about “stripping out unnecessary layers of management”? Have you wondered why these layers of management were ever introduced in the first place, if they weren’t necessary? Have you ever tried to fight your way through a flat, non-hierarchic organization in search of someone who knew what they were doing and had the authority to decide something? Or have you ever been a manager in a flat structure overwhelmed with queries from subordinates? (If in doubt, human beings always refer problems upwards.)
- Most importantly, attacks on hierarchies are a way of avoiding responsibility. If you are the leader of a twelve-person team, you’re responsible for their welfare and development—with power comes responsibility. But if you are one of several reporting points for matrix-managed, ad hoc ‘tiger teams’, you can afford to forget about that and concentrate on your career. Most organizations long ago stopped promoting people because they were good at managing others. The attack on hierarchies makes the promotion of the ruthless and the ambitious much easier and more acceptable.
Trying to abolish hierarchies is pointless: people will simply re-establish them unofficially. Every time you ask a more experienced colleague for advice, you’re creating a virtual hierarchy. If organizations realized this, and spent some of the effort that goes into destroying hierarchies to make them work better, organizations wouldn’t be in the mess they are.
Technorati Tags: organization, management, hierarchy, leadership, organizational structure
Related articles by Zemanta
- If you’re working in a big group, you’re fighting human nature
- The Everything 2.0 discussion - the real issue
November 5th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Hierarchies still form. In a flat organization, responsibilities get handed out among peers. They wind up doing management work without the authority, pay, or recognition.
November 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
The fundamental type of management structure (hierarchies)is structured before the dawn of mankind. In nature they are called Alpha males and Alpha females (yes, there is such a thing).
In business (or politics), it can be good OR bad, depending on the leadership at the top. Is the leadership a serviant type or self-serving type?
November 5th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Hierarchies inhibit upward communication as people are afraid to commit themselves to ideas or information that may not meet with approval. As the down layer face the reality of market and sales, if the information gets choked and does not reach the layer that is supposed to provide response the unit fails to respond to the changes and challenges at the appropriate time and misses out. Looking around you will hardly find an unit where hierarchy does not breed fear and authoritarian tendencies. We may look for a pyramid structure with a flat top where we can blend free and fearless communication with authority and decisive edge of the hierarchy.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I agree with some of the other comments that hierarchies form whether you want them too or not, it is just a question of how formally structured they are.
You have included two conditions which must be fulfilled for a hierarchy to work:
* It has to be based on promotion by merit. Those above must have the confidence of those below, and should ideally have done the same or similar jobs earlier in their career.
* It has to be based on a long-serving workforce, capable of developing a common culture, and tackling problems in much the same way. These concepts, pioneered by the British Civil Service in the 19th century, were deliberately based on the way the Chinese ran things several millennia before.
I agree that those below must be confident in those above but I don’t think they need to have done a similar job before. I changed to a totally different sector a couple of years ago and have no technical knowledge in the new sector but as you also say I have experts who can answer technical questions. In some ways I think it is better for the higher up person in the hierarchy to not know too much detail about the lower jobs otherwise they are likely to interfere too much and frustrate those below them.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:28 am
The issue Barry is that the further up one goes the less technical (hard) skills one requires and is shifted towards the soft (people) skills. It is of my opinion that upper management should listen to the bottom ranks jast as much if not more then the other ranking managers and supervisors.
I agree that things get ‘filtered’ when people are managing up. I could not tell you how many times my upper management only wants to hear the good things and none of the bad. I am sure that is true for any business but to the point that the bad get filtered (eliminated) to the point that NONE of the bad is delivered?!?
Another reason I truely believe in the “walking management” style. When management becomes self-serving and people are managing up rather than serving the customer, then something is wrong!
Our managagement like to see numbers - lots of numbers. Big numbers mean success - and that we are doing a good job! So if someone F’s up and say a server goes down, our service calls (numbers) go up! Does that mean we are successful? According to management - YES! If we creat a bad computer image and there are flaws and customers call in to have this fixed our numbers go up! This is good - right? The issue is that management is measuring the WRONG matrix!
Bottom line - the more we mess up the better the numbers are and the happier management is - at the exspense of the CUSTOMER! The CUSTOMER isn’t happy! But that news is filtered OUT to upper management!
Sorry but I have to disagree with our management on these issues and that is probably why I’m where I’m at - in a deep dark hole where people don’t see me - out of sight, out of mind!
But the fact is that these customers LOVE me! I get e-mails from them praising my work, that I am good at helping them and answering their questions. I even had one call just to talk to me (no problem) to ask how I was doing and to stop by for a visit! (Yet our management sees ME as a problem .. and that I need to work on my “customer-relationship skills!”)
From “Leadership Secrets of Attila The Hun”
“Responsibilities of a Chieftain” – The corruption of the empire is largely a result of the glamorous yet empty life its leaders seek to lead. They have lost their sense of national purpose and employ foreign armies to carry out the responsibilities incumbent to the Roman Legion.
They seek to gain office and stature by political maneuverings, casting aside personal standards of excellence in achievement and high expectations for unity. Their leadership is, therefore, based on weakened foundations and shallow loyalties.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
CK,
You point out that metrics which measure the wrong behavior are not only useless, they can be damaging. Bob Sutton wrote about this in his post “Washington Mutual and Perverse Incentives”(http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/11/washington-mutual-and-perverse-incentives.html). In the case of WaMu, the number of loans generated was rewarded (not good loans, not loans that were being paid on one year later). As a result, loans were granted where they should not have been.
I am unaware of any other way than walking around and talking to with those who have regular contact with customers for someone to really understand what is going on. For those who do not and are truly successful, they get high marks for picking the right subordinates.
November 8th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
CK,
I absolutely agree that management should talk to all levels in the organisation otherwise they won’t really know anything about what it going on. I was just saying that they don’t need to have actually done the job, or have the skills to do the job.
Anyone higher up in a hierarchy has to rely on management information to make their decisions. This is both the hard numbers and the softer stuff that they can pick up from talking to people. Of course, you are quite right that they need to measure the right stuff otherwise the numbers are pointless.
As an example, our call centre staff used to be judged on answering at least 75% of calls in 10 seconds. This gives them an incentive to end a call quickly and give poor service to the customer. The measure needs to look at the quality of the call from the customer’s perspective not just how fast it is answered.
Keep going with giving good service to your customers, your management will realise eventually!