The systemic patterns of hierarchy

Barry Oshry, a pioneer in systems thinking and former Chairman of the Department of Human Relations at Boston University a few years ago revealed the systemic patterns of hierarchy. Barry and his associates have conducted experiential exercises of one to seven days in length at hundreds of organizations in the US and around the world. During all these exercises, Oshry made a simple observation. In every hierarchical organization, no matter its size, industry or location, the same limiting patterns of behavior emerged. And even if a solution were implemented to improve the results, the same issues kept coming back.

What he noticed was that the problems were not being generated by the individuals, but they were systemic – meaning, shaped by the different contexts within which people operate and work relative to one another. In every organization, there are predictable dynamics that emerge from the mere fact that employees are subject to certain “conditions” typical of a hierarchical structure. And employees are blind to these dynamics. Let’s explore Oshry’s insights a bit more.

When we are in a relationship with an organization, we can step into one of the following spaces:

A “Top”: a person who is responsible for the whole organization, or part of it, or a whole project, but needs to rely on others to achieve his/her goals;

A “Bottom”: an employee who does the work but doesn’t have responsibility for the whole organization, or any part of it;

A “Middle”: a manager who is supposed to coordinate the work of the bottoms, meet customers’ needs, and ensure the desired results for the Top;

A “Customer”: someone who needs products or services from a company or a person, but who doesn’t feel involved in the delivery.

When we are in one of these spaces, we enter into a “condition” that is not necessarily related with our official role in the organizational chart but to the position we hold in each specific relationship.

This condition causes us to see the world in a particular way and to respond to events and circumstances with predictable patterns of reactions.

Top, Middle, Bottom, and Customer are conditions all of us experience regardless of our position in the organization: in any relationship, we may adopt any of the psychological conditions of the list above. In certain interactions, we are Top when we have specific responsibility for a project or a task, a whole department, or company. In other interactions, we are Bottom when we carry out a task and we face problems with our condition and/or with the condition of the system, and we think higher-ups ought to be taking care of those problems but are not. In other interactions we are Middle when we are experiencing conflicting demands, priorities, and pressures coming at us from two or more individuals or groups. And in other relationships, we are a Customer, when we expect a product or service from a person or a team, to satisfy our needs.

We can experience shifts between the conditions of Top/Middle/Bottom/Customer in any relationship.

In each of these conditions (Top/Middle/Bottom/Customer) there are unique and predictable limiting patterns which arise when we experience problems in the organization.

As Tops, when we experience problems we tend – maybe not every time, but with a certain regularity – to take responsibility upon ourselves and away from others. It is like a unconscious reflex: we are the one responsible for solving the problem. We start micromanaging, we disempower others by diminishing their potential contribution, and we are so involved in everything that we lose sight of the big picture. This automatic response may be reinforced by other factors, such as the fear of appearing weak or not in charge, or our concern that delegating to others might lead to negative results for which we would still be held responsible. In any case, the pattern is always the same: taking on too much responsibility. The predictable consequence is an overload at the Top, a feeling of being overwhelmed by the continuous, difficult issues coming at us.

As Bottoms, when a problem occurs, we tend – maybe not every time, but with a certain regularity – to hold the Tops responsible for the issues, not us. It’s their fault, not ours. Again, we enact this pattern unconsciously. There could be other reinforcers, such as our fear of failure, which keeps us from fixing the problem ourselves, or our loyalty to our peers, who are so adamant on blaming the Tops, or the higher-ups’ attitude of keeping the Bottoms out of the problem-solving process. In any case, the pattern is always the same: blaming the Tops, with the consequence of feeling disregarded and vulnerable.

As Middles, when a problem emerges, we tend – maybe not every time, but with a certain regularity – to have a stronger connection to one stakeholder and a reduced connectivity with the other one. For example, we could connect more deeply with our direct reports in an attempt to protect them, but in so doing loose our connection with our superiors, or vice versa. When we strengthen the connection to one stakeholder to the detriment of the other one we reduce our contribution and create more complexity, producing a lack of coordination. The pattern becomes torn and the consequence is the “Middle crunch”.

When we are Customers, we shift responsibility for the delivery of the product or service that we want entirely to the deliverer. We are in no way responsible, we are entitled to blame the deliverer, and we expect improvement only on their side. As a consequence we feel neglected and cheated.

All these patterns, as I mentioned, are produced by the system, not by each individual. And they are inescapable; they are dynamics that characterize any relationship under a hierarchy-based structure. It appears evident that when these dynamics occur, no training or coaching will solve the issue in the long term. The dynamics will come back again and again until:

·??????the people involved become aware of the system dynamics and there is a conscious effort to recognize the pattern and choose a different response; or

·??????there is a fundamental shift in the structure of the organization, where the conditions of Top, Bottom, Middle, and Customer are replaced by a condition of partnership in all relationships.

When we recognized these insights after a workshop where we experienced being a Top, Middle, Bottom, and Customer, a whole new horizon appeared in front of us. We realized that as consultants, coaches, and facilitators we have two choices for setting up a successful change program:

·??????We can do the best we can in the current paradigm, aiming at incremental change, providing our clients with effective transformational journeys that expand their employees’ awareness of the system and support them in mitigating its limits, keeping the hierarchical structure in place; or

·??????We can embark on a journey to design a whole new “operating system” and new processes that transcend the?limits of the hierarchical structure and generate a more sustainable, creative, collaborative environment.

Giovanna D'Alessio

Co-Author of AEquacy. The New Human-Centered Organization Design to Thrive in a Complex World.