4.4. DUAL AND TRIPLE HIERARCHIES

One of the ways of dealing with the problems outlined above is to develop a dual or even a triple hierarchy within the organization. In the dual structure, organizations develop an additional hierarchy with technical positions that parallel the positions in the management hierarchy. These technical positions comprise a professional hierarchy that has the same degree of control, authority, and compensation as the corresponding positions in the management hierarchy. However, Schriesheim and colleagues (1977) reviewed the literature and concluded that dual hierarchies have been generally unsuccessful at resolving conflicts between professionals and their employee organizations and at providing alternative career opportunities and reward systems.

Apparently, the most important reason that these organizational structures failed is that promotion in the professional hierarchy was, by definition, "a movement away from power." In addition, there were signs of failure among those who followed the professional hierarchy because they felt they lacked parity with the managerial hierarchy and because the evaluative criteria used were inequitable. For this reason, Schriesheim and colleagues (1977) suggested a triple hierarchy as an alternative structure for managing professional organizational conflict.

The triple hierarchy provides three different advancement opportunities. The managerial hierarchy is available to those who desire advancement to managerial positions. For those professionals who desire only professional duties (here "professional" implies scientific, research, and technical duties) the professional hierarchy remains a viable option.

The third hierarchy is occupied by professionals who have key administrative jobs, as well as regular professional duties. They have hierarchical authority in those areas where professional values and organizational requirements are most likely to diverge. The triple hierarchy utilizes many leadership styles: transformational and inactive as well as championing (Waldman and Atwater 1994).

This type of organization is similar to the organization of major research universities. In such universities the administrators are usually individuals with a good research record. Thus, they are able to relate to the faculty. At the same time, they have other attributes that enable them to interact successfully with government officials, trustees, alumni, major donors, and so on. Some administrators are closer to the research process, while others are closer to the political activities needed to run a university. A successful university has the right mix of administrators. Similarly, R&D organizations need some people who will deal with the politics, some with the technical aspects, and some with both. The right mix results in the best R&D organization.

We will use the terms technical, professional-liaison, and management hierarchy to discuss the advantages of the triple hierarchy. In the university setting, these terms might correspond to the head of a department, a dean, and a university president. The head of the department is able to evaluate a faculty member's professional qualifications; a dean is able to evaluate a head of department; a president is able to evaluate a dean. Usually, the head of the department is technically very competent and even does research. The dean is also technically competent and in some cases does research. The president is often a generalist and rarely does research.

The argument is that the triple hierarchy can deal with all three of the problems: the domination of the organization by the management hierarchy, miscommunication, and inadequate evaluation procedures. In the triple hierarchy, managers have less power, since much of it has been taken away by those in the professional-liaison hierarchy. While managers and professionals in the dual hierarchy have different perspectives and often miscommunicate, in the triple hierarchy the technical people interact mostly with those who are in the professional-liaison hierarchy rather than with those in the management hierarchy. As a result, they are able to communicate and get along better because they share the same values. In the dual hierarchy the managers judge the technical people, whereas in the triple hierarchy the professional-liaison hierarchy individuals, rather than the managerial structure, evaluate the professionals. The result is that those who best understand their perspective are the ones who are judging how well the technical people are doing. There is some evidence that the triple hierarchy is effective. For example, Baumgartel (1957) and Pelz (1956) found that when the positions of research director or administrator were held by individuals with professional or scientific backgrounds, researchers felt more protected and work units had higher productivity and morale. Additional support came from studies by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), Likert (1967), Marcson (1960), and Mintzberg (1973).

Can this triple hierarchical approach be successfully implemented in an organization, and is it really practical? In formal organizations, by necessity, both the organizational structure and individual responsibilities are rigidly defined, while the triple hierarchical organizational structure requires more flexibility and cross or parallel communications. When this triple hierarchical approach is successfully implemented many unintended and secondary benefits have occurred, such as retaining highly qualified technical staff and minimizing the complacency process of the organization. (For the purpose of this discussion, complacency is defined as a state of being uncreative, stale, and aging.)