Status and Hierarchy LO4797

John Woods (jwoods@execpc.com)
Thu, 11 Jan 1996 08:28:50 -0600 (CST)

Replying to LO4644 --

Below I comment on these ideas of status and hierarchy in organizations:

> Replying to LO4644 where Roy Winkler writes --
> >... They are not. Hierarchies simply work against communication
> dynamics. There are many filters of communication. Status is one of
> them. The rule goes thusly: Any person of inferior status (read that:
> reporting position on the organizational chart) has ideas of lesser value
> than those of superior status or position in the organization. In
> addition, the person of inferior status shall enjoy less overt access to
> anyone of superior status.
>
>
> Allow me to add to the rule: Any person of superior status must protect
> their position by not providing information available to their level to
> persons of lower status. If information is passed to individuals of lower
> status, then they may benefit from this new found perspective and
> arrive at conclusions and develop ideas of same value. Is this also true?
> Oh the woes of middle management!

I have been working on a book that includes chapters on the values of what
I called a "company-customer-oriented" culture. This is a culture that
fosters activities that look out both the for the good of the company and
for customers. One of the values I feel is important in such a culture is
"no subordinates or superiors allowed." This does not suggest that
different people don't have different levels of responsibility. However,
it does suggest that the idea of subordinate and superior get in the way
of communicating in such as way as to bring out the best in everyone.
Whenever we give titles to people, such as those that imply hierarchical
relationships, we also suggest that people play the roles those titles
imply. By getting rid of such titles and using terms such as teammates,
colleagues, and associates--and meaning it--you open people up to behaving
in ways that are consistent with these titles. However, if you start
calling people associates but don't abandon the superior-subordinate
behaviors, all you do is create cynicism and distrust in employees.
Behavior is always what matters in terms of giving meaning ot our words.

The most important reason for putting forth this value is that it is one
that will make the organization work well and continuously improve. It is
a more realistic description of what goes on. It is closer to the truth
that everyone has different responsibilities in the organization and that
all must do their best for everyone else and the company to succeed. So
why would we want to muck up the situation by imposing all kinds of
self-limiting roles on people? These roles close them off to being
flexible and open with each other. This is as true for those who must
play the role of superior as it is for those who are subordinates. At one
time the hierarchy may have made sense. But in this age of information
and communication technology, the need for agility to quickly respond to
customers, and the slow fading away of the "job," hierarchical role
playing just gets in the way.

--
John Woods
jwoods@execpc.com