Chapter 7. Getting Hierarchy to Work

Samuel A. Culbert

Scott J. Schroeder

When it comes to the conduct of hierarchical relationships and how those with organizational authority are expected to direct and account, the 20th century concluded the way it began—with a steady stream of abuses, scandals, and exposés of hierarchy gone awry. Yes, there were advances in “democracy” and the participation of plebeians in the ranks, but scrutinizing end results does not reveal a system where those in charge conduct themselves differently from how people in charge conducted themselves a century ago. They self-indulge, use power to dominate, and avoid standing straightly accountable for their actions.^[1]

To be sure, some changes were made. Today, hierarchical uppers are painstakingly thorough in appearing sensitive to the concerns of people lower down, and self-convincing in their charade of having no desire to dominate. They seek input from the ranks, delegate decision making to people with expertise, express sensitivity to the well-being of everyone on the so-called “organization team,” and are immediately responsive to public regulating bodies concerned with safety, product quality, fair business and employment practices, and above-board systems of financial recording. And almost always their motivations are sincere.

But assessing these surface-level enhancements sufficient to constitute “progress” covers up what's still corrupt and taking place today. Bosses and people at the top continue to dominate, exerting subordinate controls that extend well beyond the entitlements and jurisdictions ceded them by the organization chart. Subordinates continue to knuckle under, mimicking beliefs from above without openly expressing those courses of action they believe more corporately correct. This results in bosses having inflated ideas about their knowledge and expertise, feeling supported in their overly indulgent use of corporate resources, and making decisions that those around them believe are severely misguided. And it results in subordinates withholding expression of their alternative viewpoints, justifying their not telling the truth as they know it on grounds that doing so would cost them their jobs. Of course whether or not either party, or both, benefits from this collusion, company interests inevitably lose out. Communication is warped, internal politics is corrupt, teamwork is illusionary, accountability is avoided, and esprit de corps suffers.

The culprit is the faulty system that allows bosses to dominate and take credit for corporate success without standing accountable for squandered resources, unutilized potential, personnel failures, and negative bottom-line outcomes and results. It's a system that forestalls honest dialogue, causing people desiring open and honest interaction to distort, withhold, and doublespeak. A boss who doesn't know better takes at face value what he or she is told. A subordinate concerned with getting a pay raise or a good assignment, or who sees the boss's evaluation as a significant factor in career advancement, naturally spins his or her actions and accounts of real-time events to reflect what he or she thinks bosses want to see and hear.

At one level it's a system problem caused by one-sided accountability. While subordinates are accountable to bosses, bosses are not accountable to subordinates. At a deeper level it's a problem created by a society steeped in a rationalistic mentality that limits the ability of people to internalize and use established principles of human nature or to recognize the basis of the competitive, politicized group dynamics that result from not utilizing these principles. People struggle with hierarchical relationships and lack the correct assumptions to solve the entrapments they create. Fixing the accountability problem and raising corporate-level consciousness of human nature fundamentals and the political dynamics that arise when people form hierarchical relationships are what's required to change how people operate and to improve the system's functioning. The system needs hierarchy; the idea is to eradicate the misconceptions that prevent hierarchy from performing its accountability work.

The key to getting hierarchy to work is changing the system to feature two-sided accountability relationships. The issue today is the same as it was 100 years ago. But interrupting the dynamics that cause people to form one-sided accountable, hierarchical relationships is as daunting an assignment as it has ever been. That's what this chapter is aimed at facilitating. It's the 21st century course on the causes and resistance and what's needed to revise the hierarchical system. We intend it as a stage-setter for implementation.