Longtime readers will recall that back in February 2018 I took a new position. This job was with a big corporation and the environment was a significant change from the small, family-run business where I had worked since graduation. The biggest change was the hierarchy – in my new role, there were almost as many layers of management as I had colleagues on the first day at my former job!
I gave real thought to the organizational structure just a few months ago when I responded to an anonymous workplace survey. Although my new company had many layers of management, the questionnaire asked me to identify myself as a member of one of just four layers – worker, team supervisor, manager of multiple teams, or executive. The question made me understand that although our organization officially recognized many more layers of management, the reality of the structure was much like any other company - four layers of management, no more and no less.
The idea that even the biggest companies require only four levels of management is one of Ken Iverson’s most interesting observations in Plain Talk. It forms part of a larger theme that many of the ‘necessary evils’ in corporate life are simply results of an unnecessary emphasis on rank and hierarchy. A manager might not always have the ability to change this emphasis but a good manager can always find ways to attack or circumvent the problems caused by an overemphasis on hierarchy.
A good place to start in this regard is sharing information. In a flat structure, sharing information is vital because everyone recognizes the importance of getting the right information to the relevant colleague. When a hierarchy emerges, information becomes a currency that can be used to consolidate power or leverage influence within an organization. The managers who gather and distribute information in these organizations undermine those who hoard information. These managers also indirectly contribute to the health of the team by reinforcing the value of ensuring the right people get the information they need with only a minimum of fuss.
A hierarchy can also limit the potential of those in the organization with unusual abilities. A supervisor might be capable of managing forty or fifty people, for example, but this ability is wasted if the organizational structure limits teams at some arbitrarily determined number. Again, a good manager in these environments seeks ways to get around this problem by forming roles and responsibilities outside those defined by the hierarchy.
How can someone figure out if their organization’s emphasis on hierarchy is detrimental? I suggest looking for instances where the organization’s stated principles or values are sacrificed for the sake of emphasizing the hierarchy. For example, if your organization’s stated aim is to be ‘data driven’, look for interactions where the opinion of a superior is given more weight than the data presented by a subordinate. An overemphasis on hierarchy is, like any cultural value, a reflection of what consistently happens every day and the organizations that place hierarchy ahead of their listed core values reveal themselves in the way employees work, behave, and interact with each other on a daily basis.
