Why hierarchies thrive

Hardly anyone has a good word to say about hierarchies. Academics, consultants, and management gurus regularly forecast their imminent replacement because hierarchies--even when populated by considerate and intelligent people--can be cruel and stupid. They routinely transform motivated and loyal employees into disaffected Dilberts. It's no wonder that we continue to search for more humane and productive alternatives to them. Yet the intensity with which we struggle against hierarchies only serves to highlight their durability. Hierarchy, it seems, may be intrinsic not only to the natural world but also to our own natures. In this article, organizational behavior expert Harold J. Leavitt presents neither a defense of human hierarchies nor another attack on them. Instead, he offers a reality check, a reminder that hierarchy remains the basic structure of most, if not all, large, ongoing human organizations. That's because although they are often depicted as being out of date, hierarchies have proved to be extraordinarily adaptive. Over the past 50 years, for example, they have co-opted the three major managerial movements--human relations, analytic management, and communities of practice. Hierarchies also persist because they deliver real practical and psychological value, and they fulfill our deep need for order and security. Despite the good they may do, hierarchies are inevitably authoritarian. That authoritarianism shows up in all kinds of ways and influences everything in organizations, particularly communication. In multilevel organizations, for instance, messages get distorted as they travel up and down the ladder of command. Self-protection and self-interest weigh in, and relevant information is lost as messages make stops along the route. Sensitive leaders take steps to make speaking the truth as painless as possible. But it never is in organizations, because authoritarianism is an immutable element of hierarchy.