In a McKinsey article about the book ‘Why Managers Matter: The Perils of the Bossless Company’, the authors, Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein argue that it’s inappropriate to assume that the call for more self-management, autonomous working and equality of agency is appropriate in improving the performance of an organisation.
It caused me to reflect on the value of hierarchy and the degree to which it can or should co-exist with a move toward greater distribution of leadership across the members of an organisation or group.
In all likelihood we will be tempted to rush toward the either/or debate in such a consideration. We can all list the advantages of the more directive, hierarchical, command and control approach and for sure there are times when this is needed. Equally, who can argue with the value that leadership is something that can exist regardless of hierarchical role, position or power and that if more people assume a leadership mind-set then this will elevate the overall quality of the culture, outcomes and experiences for all stakeholders.
Whilst personally I would argue wholeheartedly for a broad and inclusive approach to leadership, I am also a strong advocate for the value of hierarchy. That said, it’s a complex and sophisticated balance or paradox that we need to navigate here – especially given our historical experiences with hierarchical power and the abuses of that power that we have witnessed in this regard.
In our move to include a larger group in the practise of leadership, it’s important to consider the value of hierarchy as a synthesising force, as a means of unifying and enacting the interdependence within the system (organisation) that may not always be visible for those who don’t have the same level of responsibility (hierarchically). Sometimes, it is right and necessary for the most senior leader to give direction of one sort or another.
If we have made good decisions, those in positions of hierarchical power will be there because they are worthy of such a role. ‘Worthy’ of course is a qualitative concept unless one is clear on the criteria that underpin it. And even then, who determines those criteria and to what extent are they biased toward one perspective or another? Alongside hierarchy we could bring in the notion of meritocracy – that those in positions of hierarchical leadership are there/should only be there because of merit. We could also argue that merit should be determined by a diverse group of peers rather than a small group who may be tempted toward maintaining their own sense of security regarding the criteria for leadership.
When we place hierarchy and ‘democracy’ or a more diverse expression of leadership, alongside each other, we must increasingly be prepared to open ourselves to some uncomfortable questions and considerations which aren’t about a massive pendulum swing from one position to another but which demand a more sophisticated, considered and step by step move toward a more mature model. A model, within which we can include not only a wider practise of leadership and decision making but also recognise the value of hierarchy and the power and responsibility that comes with that.