We tend to associate "hierarchy"
with "bureaucracy." We also tend to associate both
concepts with an authoritarian style of management.
The author of this article, Harold Leavitt,
presents an open-minded view of hierarchy. He does not attack
its existence, nor does he defend it. He does show the reader
that hierarchy remains the basic structure of most ongoing human
organizations. Hierarchy allows us to be productive, leveraging
discrete parts into a much larger whole. Anyone who has read
-- or read about -- Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, knows
that the first page of his tomb uses the example of a pin factory
to make exactly that point.
Leavitt points out that in most organizations
any whim of the boss, no matter how trivial, can quickly become
law. He gives several amusing examples to illustrate this point.
He goes on to state that hierarchies can be cruel and insensitive,
yet at the same time, intrinsic to success. How then, can a leader
be both sensitive and authoritarian?
The author spends considerable time putting the present problem
in historical perspective. According to him, the business world
has experienced at least three managerial innovations in the
past half-century. The first wave of change, the human relations
movement, began shortly after World War II, and was an attempt
at industrial democracy. It was referred to as "the human
use of human beings." For example, in the early 1960's,
Standard Oil sent every manager from its Baton Rouge refinery
to two full weeks of off-site immersion in sensitivity training.
Human Relations training was applied more to management than
to hourly workers. The result was that the gap between these
two groups widened. In the 1970's, Japan became an early adopter
of the participative ideas advocated by W. Edwards Demming, the
extension of human relations to rank-and-file employees. Soon
US companies began to copy their practices, especially the development
of teams and quality circles.
The second change was management by numbers, or analytic management.
It was a return to traditional military-style values. Some of
its heroes were the industrialists of the 1950's and 1960's:
Roy Ash of Litton; Harold Geneen of ITT; and, Robert McNamara
of Ford and the U.S. Department of Defense. Although the virtue
of this movement was to add rigor to then growing commitment
to human relations approaches, the style was eventually criticized
as "paralysis by analysis."
The third change began in the mid 1970's. Leavitt and a colleague,
Jean Lipman-Blumen, call the movement, "hot groups".
Also called "communities of practice," this is a method
whereby small, task-focused groups isolate themselves to accomplish
a task. These hot groups became especially prevalent with the
arrival of the high-tech start-ups of Silicon Valley.
Today these three approaches are evident in a variety of organizations.
At the same time hierarchy remains as a principal characteristic
of all, and for good reason. Leavitt points out that hierarchies
can help fill psychological needs. They can give the worker a
sense of self-worth and identity. They can add structure and
regularity to their lives. It can give workers a sense of safety.
(Of course, safety is not a certainty. Suppose one is employed
at Enron?)
The author also acknowledged that there
are issues with respect to individual deference to authority
that one must consider.
- For a deeply individualistic person, it
is hard to blend egalitarian attitudes with a constant awareness
of who the boss is.
- It takes a sensitive leader to handle
failure on the part of his workers. A good manager can show his
people that mistakes are an inevitable part of risk-taking.
- It is important to be aware of social
protocol among hierarchical relations. "Who is parking next
to whom in the parking lot?"
Finally, Leavitt points out that middle
managers at big firms must always be aware of how to be both
engaging and authoritative. The question they must ask themselves,
according to this author, is: "Am I, right now, in the presence
of my superiors, my peers, or my subordinates?"