Save Our Hierarchies: protect us from stupidity and populists

Yes! Save Our Hierarchies (well, at least the good ones)!

We live in a time where anti-establishment sentiments and the concepts of flat organisations continue to gain popularity. So, defending hierarchies might seem counter-intuitive, right?

It feels to me that today's politics and management fads are shifting towards a form of populism that often attacks the "establishment" or traditional hierarchies and this in turn is paradoxically giving authoritarian power to less than kind individuals claiming to speak for ‘the people’....enough is enough.

This article ends with a series of questions for you to pose about the hierarchies you're in (and those that are around you). I want us all to ensure hierarchies serve their intended purpose and contribute positively to society... but first... let's starts by sharing some challenging views.

The unfashionable defense of hierarchies

Hierarchical structures are under attack and examples are abound:

• In Britain we've finally got rid of government ministers who openly criticized hierarchies of scientist in their attempt to connected with populist sentiment.
• In the US, political figures like #DonaldTrump are seeking (again) to capitalise on anti-elite rhetoric.
• Economists, globally, are facing backlash for failing to predict economic crises.
• Medical experts, globally, are too often met with resistance (consider those advocating for childhood vaccinations).
• NHS leaders in England, calling for new ways of working, are met with disbelief.
• Governments replete with data on the net positive impacts of immigration are attacked.

Despite the growing disdain for hierarchies, I believe they play crucial roles in society. So, instead of joining the parade of populism, I'm arguing that:

a) Hierarchies are inevitable, justified, and useful.

b) Not all hierarchies are created equal.

c) We must distinguish between good and bad hierarchies.

d) We must work to eliminate the bad hierarchies - those are are self-serving and exploitative -and save the good.

In praise of hierarchies?

Good hierarchies work well when people higher in the hierarchy use their position not to dominate those lower down but to enable them to grow in their own powers.

1. They enhance democracy and decision making.

Bureaucratic hierarchies, when well-constructed, can enhance democracy and organisations. They ensure that the rule of law and equal treatment, are upheld. For example, by protecting minority rights, they curb the power of majority or minority groups from passing legislation or developing processes that favors them at the expense of the broader good. Moreover, these hierarchies can improve the quality of decision-making by increasing the resources and deliberation needed to make laws and policies reflective of diverse perspectives. Ultimately, they:

- Uphold democratic values like the rule of law and equal treatment.

- Protect minority rights.

- Improve decision-making by leveraging resources for high-quality deliberation.

2. They preserve values and rights.

There are situations where we might prefer accountable hierarchies that preserve values such as democratic legitimacy, social equality, environmental outcomes over mere optimal efficiency and speedy decision-making. Strong hierarchies can be brave enough not to bend to the will of an ill-informed crowd, giving themselves an appropriate degree of proximate insulation from direct accountability, be it to an electorate or a customer base. Think of those who voted to end the death penalty or smoking in public places; their decisions, though unpopular at the time, were ultimately beneficial to society. Ultimately, they:

- Favour social outcomes (e.g., democratic legitimacy and social equality) over mere efficiency.

- Resist ill-informed crowd influences by sensitively maintaining a degree of insulation from direct accountability.

3. They empower relationships - power with, not power over.

The best hierarchies are not about power over others but about power with others. They involve facilitating negotiation rather than domination. Good hierarchies work well when people higher in the hierarchy use their position not to dominate those lower down but to enable them to grow in their own powers. This can be seen in good parenting of children, strong relationships between teachers and students, or the best employer-employee relationships. In this sense, an effective hierarchy does not celebrate or condemn differential ability within the group but makes good use of it for the common pursuit of the good life. Ultimately, they:

- Encourage growth and development rather than domination.

- Make use of differential ability for the greater good.

In criticism of hierarchies

...hierarchies are damaging not because they distinguish between people of differing capabilities but because they perpetuate these distinctions, even when they are no longer merited or serve a good purpose...

1. They can get in the way of efficiency.

Decentralised, competitive markets can work much more efficiently than civic hierarchies, especially when efficiency and effectiveness (usually measured in economic terms) are considered the overriding priorities. In these cases, less weight is given to values such as the rule of law, democratic legitimacy, or social equality.

Markets not hierarchies may be more efficient when economic priorities outweigh values like compassion, the rule of law and social equality.

2. They can have accountability issues.

Yes, we've all experienced those hierarchical institutions that lack direct accountability to the electorate or to employers, citizens or shareholders.

Hierarchical constitutional institutions are often criticized for not being directly accountable to the electorate. This lack of accountability can lead to a disconnect between the governing bodies and the people they are meant to serve, fostering resentment and distrust. Large public sector organisations can appear to be deaf to the voices raised about their actions. Large private hierarchies manage to avoid their social and environmental accountabilities.

3. They can oppress and stagnate - power over.

Hierarchies become oppressive when they are reduced to "power over others", appearing incompatible with human dignity. Often, hierarchies are damaging not because they distinguish between people of differing capabilities but because they perpetuate these distinctions, even when they are no longer merited or serve a good purpose. In the worst such hierarchies, people not only retain power when they have ceased to deserve it personally but also pass it on to their chosen successors.

Yes, hierarchies can perpetuate undeserved distinctions and power, leading to oppression and hierarchical drift.

4. They fall prey to hierarchical drift - experts who fail to stay in their lane.

We've all seen those experts who extend their power from legitimate to illegitimate domains.

This is called hierarchical drift: the extension of power from a specific, legitimate domain to other, illegitimate ones. For example, holders of political power might wield disproportionate legal power, subject to less legal accountability than ordinary citizens. Technology leaders, brilliant in their fields, may believe they have wisdom far outside their expertise. Similarly, scientists in one field might feel confident commenting on other fields with equal vigor, despite not being across the data.

So, what are the principles for good hierarchies?

To foster good hierarchies, we need clear principles:

1. They ensure domain-specificity and avoid hierarchical drift.

Make sure that your power and respect within the hierarchy is confined to relevant domains to avoid generalisation.

- Hierarchies should be domain-specific. They become problematic when they become generalised.

- People who have power, authority, or respect in one domain should not command it in others.

Good hierarchies ensure that expertise and authority are appropriately applied and they prevent the misuse of power.

2. They utilise expertise wisely.

We can make the best use of hierarchies of expertise by not slavishly deferring to them.

From years of running crowdsourcing events and mass deliberations using the tech and methods of Clever Together Leadership Tech, I'm clear that the best people to make complex decisions are often not the experts alone.

The complexity of most real-world wicked problems means general-purpose competences such as open-mindedness and reasonableness are essential for successful deliberation. Expertise can actually get in the way of these competences. The best role for experts is often not as decision-makers but as external resources to be consulted by a panel of non-specialist generalists who can interrogate a range of experts and integrate their answers into a coherent decision.

Good hierarchies ensure experts serve as resources, rather than sole decision-makers, they integrate their knowledge through generalist panels can yield better outcomes.

3. They uphold human dignity:

We can use hierarchies to uphold the principle that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Whilst hierarchies enable us to offer "appraisal respect," where we may honor individuals who embody excellence of some sort by ranking them highly in a relevant hierarchical domain, they can also uphold equal dignity.

Good hierarchies respect and honor individual excellence without compromising the fundamental equality of all humans.

4. They empower and dynamically evolve.

Hierarchies should be empowering, support knowledge transfer, and be dynamic over time.

Deferring to people higher in a hierarchy can sit uncomfortably for those seeking an egalitarian world, yet this is countered by hierarchies that are committed to developing those in the lower levels and replacing the current "elites" when they no longer represent the best.

Good hierarchies signal when it's time to defer, while oppressive hierarchies demand deference, the good ones develop "lower-level" individuals and replace elites when necessary.

5. They promote and support autonomy.

Hierarchies can give more people more autonomy.

Let's face it, we humans are not perfectly rational, so for us to act autonomously with consistently positive effect, we must (a) know the best thing to do, and (b) have the ability to act according to this knowledge.

On this basis, hierarchies have three roles:

1) to disseminate the latest knowledge of what is "best",

2) to make the knowledge as accessible as possible to their imperfectly rational people, and

3) to train people to use such knowledge, habitually.

This helps them act more rationally as just, civil, autonomous individuals in the long run.

Good hierarchies, even if it might feel a bit paternalistic, recognise that they must disseminate accessible knowledge and train individuals to act autonomously, with rational and just decision-making.

Time to identify and save the good hierarchies.

To help you identify and address your "bad hierarchies" and save and promote the good, I reckon you can consider the following questions:

1. Domain relevance. Is your hierarchy confined to its legitimate domain, or does it exert influence beyond its scope?

2. Accountability and transparency. Are the decision-makers within your hierarchy accountable and transparent in their actions?

3. Empowerment. Does your hierarchy nurture growth and development among all its members, or does it seek to perpetuate power imbalances?

4. Adaptability. Is your hierarchy dynamic and open to change, replacing "elites" when necessary?

5. Respect for human dignity. Does your hierarchy respect the inherent dignity and equality of all individuals?

By addressing these questions, we can ensure that hierarchies serve their intended purpose and contribute positively to society.

So, let's save our hierarchies, at least the good ones, and protect ourselves from the pitfalls of populism and stupidity.

This article was first created from a series of book summaries for an academic study into the role of hierarchy in corporate and government innovation by Pete Thomond.