The flaws of hierarchies

Hierarchies cause harm.  Most organizations that are hierarchies have good intentions.  However, when a group utilizes a vertical structure of leadership it almost always allows for abuse, manipulation, lack of accountability, and oppression of people marginalized by the hierarchy. 

The most obvious solution for this problem is for organizations to utilize a totally horizontal structure, where all members are perfectly equal in authority and autonomy over the decision-making of the organization.  This structure is truly equitable, allows for true representation of the people who make up the group, and fosters investment from all members.  This is a great idea in theory and is still preferable to a vertical hierarchy. 

But a horizontal structure still has its weaknesses.  If there are no leaders or authority figures to make a decision these types of organizations need to make decisions using consensus or majority.  In settling most issues in this way, the organization must necessarily move at a glacial pace.  To hear most members’ opinion, this requires time, organizing forums and reconciling the schedules of members to meet, gathering and interpreting data, and then performing all of these tasks over again if consensus or majority is not reached.

Yet another issue that comes from a truly horizontal organizational structure is that it allows the faults of each individual member and smaller groups to have a much more significant impact on the organization.  Every member is prone to have biases, various amounts of education or information, different preferences, varying levels of personal growth or healing, traumas, different access to resources, different levels of self-esteem and ego, personal struggles that may make being helpful or considerate challenging, and standards for truth that are not based in reality and evidence.  They may also be susceptible to cliques, hierarchical thinking, supporting their friends and people they like over doing the right thing, the desire to control or wield power, and often use the ability to hold the group hostage with their beliefs to limit progress.  Lastly, while all people in any group are worthy of dignity and respect, it is literally impossible for every person to be qualified for every task, position, or to speak on every decision made for the group.  Our society today struggles greatly with the impact of ultracrepidarianism and malignant hubris.  While we all are aware of the fact that we do not know everything and can be wrong, in practice it is so very rare to find people who are willing to admit this to themselves, and especially to others or to a group.  

In vertical hierarchies, horizontal hierarchies, and society in general, the human factors mentioned create tremendous barriers for progress and change.  This phenomenon in an organization is pernicious or outright harmful, especially if the person or group wields power, influence, or authority.  Leaders that are elected or promoted within vertical hierarchical organizations that have these qualities or values can cause damage, especially to the people beneath them in the hierarchy.  But if a vertical hierarchy is well-organized (which can also be rare) usually there are levers of accountability in place to either address the harm they are causing or remove them from power.  The best of vertical hierarchies listen to people at all levels of the hierarchy and the leaders at the top are never immune from accountability.  However, this is a rare thing, and it is incredibly important to place the best of us at the top of the pyramid if a vertical hierarchy is required.  It is even more important to promote someone who is a good leader, has emotional intelligence and empathy, and has a strong sense of integrity and justice even above their skills and knowledge related to the organization.  People can learn skills but can rarely become better people when they acquire more power.  Usually, power corrupts and allows for less accountability, allowing people to act out their worst qualities even more.

In a vertical hierarchy it is much easier to remove a person who is causing harm or going against the will of the organization.  After all, they are usually one person and can be easily replaced.  In theory, leaders are promoted to their positions based on their years of experience and skill set that allow them to act as an expert in their department or committee.  While this is often not the case due to bureaucratic, discriminatory, and cronyism practices, it is still often easier to assign an “expert” in the vertical hierarchy structure and assign them duties based on their years of experience and proven ability to do the work.  But a vertical hierarchy that operates on a framework of mutually respectful, beneficial, consistent accountability, and leadership is capable of properly assigning experts and leaders.

This is not the case with horizontal hierarchies, as the same issues present with vertical hierarchies rear their head, but in a different and more challenging way.  A leader in a vertical hierarchy is responsible for the people below them, and so there is a chain of command and an ability to trace up the command structure to find where the problem occurred.  Because there are no leaders in a horizontal hierarchy structure it is much more challenging to assign accountability if a subset of the organization fails or causes harm.  This dilution of direct responsibility allows for transgressors to hide behind the safety of the group.  Worse still, if these people have enough friends, influence, and charisma, it is much easier to influence all parts of the organization, or even use the organization to avoid accountability for their actions.  If there is no leader or adjudicating body for harm or progress, then this structure collapses under the weight of groupthink.  Conformity is much more valued in these structures, and whistleblowers are shunned.  Standards for integrity and harm must necessarily be reduced to the member who acts out the most to accommodate the large tent of every member and their multitudes of beliefs, behaviors, or transgressions.  The organization may make suggestions for behaviors and what is harmful, but ultimately with horizontal leadership there is no standard to meet for truth or integrity.  Because no member is above another how can anyone hold a fellow member truly accountable?