Hierarchy is often seen as being an obstacle to innovation and therefore something that makes it difficult for a company to grow. On the other hand, it can be risky to remove hierarchy completely. A balance has to be achieved. A feeling of egalitarianism and the old frustration with rigid, bureaucratic structures were the reasons why a few companies became “boss-less“.
In these companies, there is no one who can veto your great ideas out of hand. Also, while there are no micromanagement distractions, there is no authority that can force anyone to accept responsibility. This can be a problem. For example, Wikipedia and Linux, whose communities are supposedly without hierarchy, in fact rely on a strong informal hierarchy, knowledge.insead.edu claims.
Why multi-layered hierarchy exists
The role of bosses and managers is a critical. They motivate and coordinate all the contributors that are working as their subordinates. They also resolve disputes when necessary. If we want to remove the hierarchy that is necessary for the production of complex products, there will be a strong need for dispute resolution through consensus. Peers will have to be able to agree amongst themselves.
The importance of having a boss
Bosses are important. That is why many start-ups, as they grow, eventually become hierarchical organizations. They are no longer a team of equals. When there are no instructions from above, no tasks assigned, workers may choose to only work on the most visible projects – and not those that are the most critical. Everyone simply follows his bliss and tries to get great reviews.
Balance is key
Perhaps the best approach is to tear down the hierarchical structure in certain departments. Overall, a hierarchy is necessary, but there can be fewer bosses. Manufacturing workers could be unmotivated when left without a manager; however, for R&I department freedom could be a source of major innovations.
What do you think about hierarchy in companies or its lack?
-jk-