If hierarchies are inevitable how do you make sure yours actually works?
Because ‘flat’ doesn’t always mean fair
In 2010, Stanford colleagues Deborah Gruenfeld and Larissa Tiedens published a paper titled ‘Organisational Preferences and Their Consequences’ in which they set out to understand how and why people organise themselves.
In the first few pages the authors make this pretty definitive statement:
“When scholars attempt to find an organisation that is not characterised by hierarchy, they cannot.”
Gruenfeld and Tiedens specifically looked at product design firm IDEO as one organisation that was aiming to be “truly egalitarian.” But, on closer inspection, they found that hierarchy was still present, with engineers inevitably “competing for respect” and acquiring status based on their “respective abilities to come up with ideas”.
“Although it might look egalitarian,” the authors concluded, “IDEO is hierarchical.”
That’s the first universal truth of hierarchies: A pecking order is as inevitable as death, taxes, and people misquoting Benjamin Franklin.
The second universal truth has, admittedly, less academic rigour to it; but we don’t think that should make it any less true.
That second truth is this: Most hierarchies suck.
And by ‘suck’ we mean:
The people at either end of the pyramid are detached from the challenges and experiences faced by those at the other;
There are big gaps between what the org chart promises and the reality of those people who have to live in it every day;
New ideas inevitably slip through those gaps and gather dust;
And any ideas that, by some miracle, do make it through are likely to be stifled by a structure that is often too rigid or byzantine to adapt in any meaningful way.
Can these kinds of organisations work? Sure, but sluggishly. They are not fast, not fair and not fit. And, perhaps most importantly, they are unaware of just how inefficient and impractical they are; so there’s little hope of them evolving out of it.
📡 Signals Detected
Don’t just take our word for it. Here’s just a few data points we’ve seen recently that show how hierarchies shape what gets decided, and why a pecking orders rethink is well overdue:
Hierarchies are self-reinforcing ecosystems, “perfect (yet empathically devastating) environments” which elevate those less inclined to listen or empathise and reward loyalty and authority over candor and transparency.
According to the World Economic Forum some of “the world’s most innovative organisations” are trying to battle against those outdated structures, in order to be more agile and innovate faster than their rivals.
But we’re still battling with the fact that powerful funders often decide what gets priority in areas like healthcare. Those funders tend to favour high-profile technical fixes (e.g. specific diseases, big tech tools) over context-specific or integrated solutions; and that means on-the-ground needs and local innovations get sidelined.
Despite that, humanitarian actors in the Global South are starting to challenge the traditional North-led governance, by asserting their presence, seeking to end the top-down, hierarchical governance, and ensuring those on the frontlines of crises have a real say in what matters.
🤷 The ‘So What?’: Move mindfully and build better systems
At Brink, we’ve seen our fair share of unhealthy hierarchies. But we’ve also seen what’s possible when you take the time to design relationships that unlock more honesty and creativity, and encourage behaviours that drive faster, fairer progress.
Earlier this year, we wrote about how traditional structures and power dynamics are stifling innovation in grantmaking. Funders set rigid targets, intermediaries feel the need to protect their position, and grantees don’t feel safe enough to tell the truth about what’s not working
But we also described what it looks like to do things differently. We were writing about it in the context of grantmaking, but really the ideas apply to any system where people are coming together to solve complex problems.
We’ve seen first hand how it’s possible to create the kinds of conditions where intelligent people can make intelligent decisions even in a complex organisational structure; and where it’s safer for people to speak up, easier to course-correct, and possible to build something that actually lasts.
But changing how power flows and relationships develop isn’t as simple as rearranging boxes on an org chart. It’s about rethinking what those lines even mean…
🔧 How do you begin to rethink hierarchy?
If you’re looking to design a healthier hierarchy, start with making power visible. Use tools like power maps (more about those in this post) and feedback loops (maybe using some of the listening and learning exercises found in our Mindsetting tool), to understand who shapes what and how to rebalance it.
Think about decentralising wisdom. You don’t have to dismantle your org chart, instead you can carve out space for smarter behaviours within it. Our whitepaper on Innovation Carve-Outs offers practical tools for equipping teams with the autonomy, frameworks and feedback loops they need to make better decisions in real time.
And, finally, build challenge into the structure. Find those devil’s advocates, invite some outside-in perspectives, and normalise healthy dissent.
If you're ready to explore deeper, we've gathered some fuel below to get you started…
📚 Brain Food
📖 Read: Hierarchy is not the problem… It’s the power dynamics
This essay from Richard D. Bartlett argues that hierarchy itself isn’t inherently bad, that the real issue is opaque power dynamics, and even ‘flat’ or ‘structureless’ groups can breed unaccountable, toxic behavior when power goes unchecked.
📽️ Watch: Great leadership is a network, not a hierarchy
BCG partner, Gitte Frederiksen, makes the case that leadership works better as a distributed network than a top-down pyramid and shares how teams that embrace everyone as a leader (‘participatory hierarchy’) become more high-performing and empathetic almost overnight.
📚 Long read: Power to the People
This SSIR article spotlights participatory grantmaking as a way to democratise philanthropy, showing how foundations are learning to share power with communities, inviting local leaders to decide where funds go and how success is defined.
👤 Follow: Edgar Villanueva
Edgar is a leading voice on dismantling unchecked power in philanthropy. An author and activist best known for Decolonizing Wealth, he challenges top-down, ‘coloniser’ dynamics in funding and advocates using money as medicine for healing.
There are currently 1,409 people receiving this newsletter. The Council of Pisa was held in 1409 to try and end the ‘Western Schism’ in the Catholic Church. Instead, it resulted in three popes reigning simultaneously, and made the whole situation a lot worse. Hierarchies, eh?
If you’d like to help us swell the numbers of this particular polycratic publication, then you can share this issue with someone you think will appreciate that kind of alliteration:
This month’s mystery links
Your reward for reading down this far: