View source for Hierarchical organization

{{Short description|Type of organizational structure}}
{{More citations needed|date=December 2019}}
A '''hierarchical organization''' or '''hierarchical organisation''' (see [[American and British English spelling differences#-ise, -ize (-isation, -ization)|spelling differences]]) is an [[organizational structure]] where every entity in the [[organization]], except one, is [[subordinate]] to a single other entity.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hierarchy: A Key Idea for Business and Society |url=https://www.routledge.com/Hierarchy-A-Key-Idea-for-Business-and-Society/Child/p/book/9781138044418 |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=Routledge & CRC Press |language=en}}</ref> This arrangement is a form of [[hierarchy]]. In an organization, this hierarchy usually consists of a singular/group of [[Power (social and political)|power]] at the top with subsequent levels of power beneath them. This is the dominant mode of organization among large organizations; most [[corporation]]s, [[Forms of government|governments]], criminal enterprises, and [[organized religion]]s are hierarchical organizations with different levels of [[management]] power or [[authority]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Dobrajska |first1=Magdalena |last2=Billinger |first2=Stephan |last3=Karim |first3=Samina |date= 2015|title=Delegation Within Hierarchies: How Information Processing and Knowledge Characteristics Influence the Allocation of Formal and Real Decision Authority |url=https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2014.0954 |journal=Organization Science |language=en |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=687–704 |doi=10.1287/orsc.2014.0954 |issn=1047-7039|url-access=subscription }}</ref> For example, the broad, top-level overview of the hierarchy of the [[Catholic Church hierarchy|Catholic Church]] consists of the [[Pope]], then the [[Cardinal (Catholic)|Cardinals]], then the [[Archbishop]]s, and so on. Another example is the hierarchy between the four castes in the [[Caste system in India|Hindu caste system]], which arises from the religious belief "that each is derived from a different part of the creator God’s (Brahma) body, descending from the head downwards."<ref>Child (2019), p. 31.</ref>

Members of hierarchical organizational structures mainly communicate with their immediate superior and their immediate subordinates. Structuring organizations in this way is useful, partly because it reduces the communication overhead costs by limiting information flows.<ref name=":0" />

==Visualization==
A hierarchy is typically visualized as a [[pyramid (geometry)|pyramid]], where the height of the ranking or person depicts their power status and the width of that level represents how many people or business divisions are at that level relative to the whole—the highest-ranking people are at the [[Apex (geometry)|apex]], and there are very few of them, and in many cases only one; the [[Base (geometry)|base]] may include thousands of people who have no subordinates. These hierarchies are typically depicted with a [[tree structure|tree]] or [[triangle]] [[diagram]], creating an [[organizational chart]] or organogram. Those nearest the top have more power than those nearest the bottom, and there being fewer people at the top than at the bottom.<ref name=":0" /> As a result, superiors in a hierarchy generally have higher [[social status|status]] and obtain higher [[Salary|salaries]] and other rewards than their subordinates.<ref name=":1">Child (2019)</ref>

Although the image of organizational hierarchy as a pyramid is widely used, strictly speaking such a pyramid (or organizational chart as its representation) draws on two mechanisms: [[hierarchy]] and [[division of labour]]. As such, a hierarchy can, for example, also entail a boss with a single employee.<ref name=":10">Jaques, E. (1996), Requisite Organization: A Total System for Effective Managerial Organization and Managerial Leadership for the 21st Century (2nd edition). Arlington, TX: Cason Hall & Co. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315088846/requisite-organization-elliott-jaques</ref> When such a simple hierarchy grows by subordinates specialising (e.g. in [[Production (economics)|production]], [[sales]], and [[accounting]]) and subsequently also establishing and supervising their own (e.g. production, sales, accounting) departments, the typical pyramid arises. This specialisation process is called [[division of labour]].

== Common social manifestations ==
Governmental organizations and most [[company|companies]] feature similar hierarchical structures.<ref name=":1" /> Traditionally, the [[monarch]] stood at the pinnacle of the [[State (polity)|state]]. In many countries, [[feudalism]] and [[manorialism]] provided a formal [[social structure]] that established hierarchical links pervading every level of society, with the monarch at the top.

In modern post-feudal states the nominal top of the hierarchy still remains a [[head of state]] – sometimes a [[President (government title)|president]] or a [[constitutional monarch]], although in many modern states the powers of the head of state are delegated among different bodies. Below or alongside this head there is commonly a [[senate]], [[parliament]] or [[congress]]; such bodies in turn often delegate the day-to-day running of the country to a [[prime minister]], who may head a [[Cabinet (government)|cabinet]]. In many [[democracies]], constitutions theoretically regard [[citizens|"the people"]] as the notional top of the hierarchy, above the head of state; in reality, the people's influence is often restricted to voting in elections or referendums.<ref>Mair, P. (2013), Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy. New York: Verso Books.</ref><ref>Mendelsohn, M., & Cutler, F. (2000), The effect of referendums on democratic citizens: Information, politicization, efficacy and tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 30(4):669-698. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400220292</ref><ref>Franklin, M.N. (2001), The dynamics of electoral participation. In: Leduc, L., Niemi, R.G., & Norris, P. (eds.), Comparing Democracies II: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting, pp. 148-166. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</ref>

In [[business sector|business]], the [[business owner]] traditionally occupies the pinnacle of the [[organization]]. Most modern large companies lack a single dominant [[shareholder]] and for most purposes delegate the collective power of the business owners to a [[board of directors]], which in turn delegates the day-to-day running of the company to a [[managing director]] or [[CEO]].<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Fama |first1=Eugene F. |last2=Jensen |first2=Michael C. |date= 1983|title=Separation of Ownership and Control |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/467037 |journal=The Journal of Law and Economics |language=en |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=301–325 |doi=10.1086/467037 |issn=0022-2186|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Again, although the shareholders of the company nominally rank at the top of the hierarchy, in reality many companies are run at least in part as personal fiefdoms by their [[managers|management]].<ref name=":4">Martin, R. (2011), Fixing the Game: How Runaway Expectations Broke the Economy, and How to Get Back to Reality. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.</ref> [[Corporate governance]] rules attempt to mitigate this tendency.

== Origins and development of social hierarchical organization ==
Smaller and more informal social units – [[family|families]], [[Band society|bands]], [[tribe]]s, [[special interest groups]] – which may form spontaneously, have little need for complex hierarchies<ref>
Compare:
{{cite journal
| last1                 = Palmer
| first1                = Gary B.
| editor1-last          = Sprague
| editor1-first         = Roderick
| editor1-link          = Roderick Sprague
| editor2-last          = Walker
| editor2-first         = Deward E.
| title                 = Cultural ecology in the Canadian Plateau: Pre-contact to the early contact period in the territory of the Southern Shuswap Indians of British Columbia
| url                   = https://books.google.com/books?id=23i-DwAAQBAJ
| journal               = Northwest Anthropological Research Notes
| publisher             = Department of Sociology/Anthropology, University of Idaho
| publication-place     = Moscow, Idaho
| publication-date      = Fall 1975
| volume                = 9
| issue                 = 2
| page                  = 201
| quote                 = The principal structural elements of the traditional Shuswap system of cultural ecology are as follows: [...] 13. Loose patrilineal succession to band chieftainship, with no hierarchical organisation above this level.
| access-date           = 27 November 2021
}}
</ref> – or indeed for any hierarchies. They may rely on [[Self-organization|self-organizing]] tendencies.
A conventional view ascribes the growth of hierarchical social habits and structures to increased complexity;<ref>
Compare:
{{cite book
 |editor-last1         = Jagers op Akkerhuis
 |editor-first1        = Gerard A.J.M
 |title                = Evolution and Transitions in Complexity: The Science of Hierarchical Organization in Nature
 |date = 18 October 2016
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=-4hJDQAAQBAJ
 |location             = Cham, Switzerland
 |publisher            = Springer
 |publication-date     = 2016
 |page                 = 253
 |isbn                 = 9783319438023
 |access-date          = 27 November 2021
 |quote                = [...] that the history of life and evolution is characterised by a basic tendency towards increased complexity [...] has been vehemently challenged
}} 
</ref>
the [[religious syncretism]]<ref>
{{cite book
 |last1                = Shaw
 |first1               = Rosalind
 |last2                = Stewart
 |first2               = Charles
 |editor-last1         = Shaw
 |editor-first1        = Rosalind
 |editor-last2         = Stewart
 |editor-first2        = Charles
 |orig-date            = 1994
 |chapter              = Introduction: problematizing syncretism
 |title                = Syncretism/Anti-Syncretism: The Politics of Religious Synthesis
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=-IKJAgAAQBAJ
 |series               = European Association of Social Anthropologists
 |date = 16 December 2003
 |location             = London
 |publisher            = Routledge
 |publication-date     = 2003
 |pages                = 19–20
 |isbn                 = 9781134833955
 |access-date          = 27 November 2021
 |quote                = At one pole we have the development of religious synthesis by those who create meanings for their own use out of contexts of cultural or political domination [...]. At the other pole we have the imposition of religious synthesis upon others by those who claim the capacity to define cultural meanings [...].
}} 
</ref>
and issues of [[tax]]-gathering<ref>
For example:
{{cite book
 |last1                = Rai
 |first1               = Mridu
 |author-link1         = Mridu Rai
 |orig-date            = 2004
 |chapter              = The Obligations of Rulers and the Rights of Subjects
 |title                = Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects: Islam, Rights, and the History of Kashmir
 |date = 31 December 2019
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=43y-DwAAQBAJ
 |location             = Princeton, New Jersey
 |publisher            = Princeton University Press
 |publication-date     = 2019
 |page                 = 150
 |isbn                 = 9780691207223
 |access-date          = 27 November 2021
 |quote                = The Dogra state employed its own tax-gathering agency to collect the revenue directly from the cultivators. This hierarchy began at the village level with the accountant, the ''patwari'', whose chief duty was to maintain records of the area of holding and revenue-paying capacity of each villager. Over the patwaris stood a group of Pandits [...]. Over these were the ''tehsildar'' and one or two ''naib-tehsildars'' (deputy tehsildars) who controlled the revenue collection from the fifteen ''tehsils'' (districts or groups of villages) [...] The tehsils themselves were grouped into three ''wazarats'' presided over by ''wazir wazarats'' (ministers). This entire revenue establishment, known as the Daftar-i-Diwani, [...] was ultimately subordinate to the Hakim-i-Ala, or Governor [...]
}} 
</ref>
in expanding empires played a role here.

However, others have observed that simple forms of hierarchical [[leadership]] naturally emerge from interactions in both [[human]] and [[non-human]] [[primate]] communities. For instance, this occurs when a few individuals obtain more status in their [[tribe]], (extended) [[family]] or [[clan]], or when [[Competence (human resources)|competences]] and [[resource]]s are unequally distributed across individuals.<ref>Wilkinson, R. (2000), Mind the Gap: Hierarchies, Health and Human Evolution. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sapolsky |first=Robert M. |date=2005-04-29 |title=The Influence of Social Hierarchy on Primate Health |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1106477 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=308 |issue=5722 |pages=648–652 |doi=10.1126/science.1106477 |pmid=15860617 |issn=0036-8075|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last1=Magee |first1=Joe C. |last2=Galinsky |first2=Adam D. |date= 2008|title=8 Social Hierarchy: The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status |url=http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/19416520802211628 |journal=Academy of Management Annals |language=en |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=351–398 |doi=10.5465/19416520802211628 |issn=1941-6520|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

== Studies ==
The [[organizational development]] theorist [[Elliott Jaques]] identified a special role for hierarchy in his concept of [[requisite organization]].<ref name=":10" /> 
 
The [[iron law of oligarchy]], introduced by [[Robert Michels]], describes the inevitable tendency of hierarchical organizations to become [[oligarchy|oligarchic]] in their decision making.<ref>Michels, R. (2001), Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (originally published in 1915; translated by E. Paul & C. Paul). Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books.</ref>

The [[Peter principle|Peter Principle]] is a term coined by [[Laurence J. Peter]] in which the selection of a candidate for a position in an hierarchical organization is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and managers in an hierarchical organization "rise to the level of their incompetence."

[[Hierarchiology]] is another term coined by Laurence J. Peter, described in his humorous book of the same name, to refer to the study of hierarchical organizations and the behavior of their members.

{{Blockquote|Having formulated the Principle, I discovered that I had inadvertently founded a new science, hierarchiology, the study of hierarchies. The term hierarchy was originally used to describe the system of church government by priests graded into ranks. The contemporary meaning includes any organization whose members or employees are arranged in order of rank, grade or class. Hierarchiology, although a relatively recent discipline, appears to have great applicability to the fields of public and private administration.|[[Laurence J. Peter]] and [[Raymond Hull (writer)|Raymond Hull]]|''[[The Peter Principle]]: Why Things Always Go Wrong''}}

David Andrews' book ''The IRG Solution: Hierarchical Incompetence and how to Overcome it'' argued that hierarchies were inherently incompetent, and were only able to function due to large amounts of informal [[lateral communication]] fostered by private informal networks.

==Types of hierarchy==
Hierarchical organization is a phenomenon with many faces. To understand and map this diversity, various [[Typology (social science research method)|typologies]] have been developed. Formal versus informal hierarchy is a well-known typology, but one can also
distinguish four hierarchy types.

===Two types of hierarchy: Formal and informal===
A well-known distinction is between formal and informal hierarchy in organizational settings. According to [[Max Weber]], the formal hierarchy is the vertical [[sequence]] of official positions within one explicit [[organizational structure]], whereby each position or office is under the control and [[Supervisor|supervision]] of a higher one.<ref>Weber, M. (1921/1980). [[Economy and Society|Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft]], 5th rev. edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.</ref> The ''formal hierarchy'' can thus be defined as "an official system of unequal person-independent roles and positions which are linked via lines of top-down command-and-control."<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Diefenbach |first1=Thomas |last2=Sillince |first2=John A.A. |date= 2011|title=Formal and Informal Hierarchy in Different Types of Organization |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0170840611421254 |journal=Organization Studies |language=en |volume=32 |issue=11 |pages=1515–1537 |doi=10.1177/0170840611421254 |issn=0170-8406|url-access=subscription }}</ref> By contrast, an ''informal hierarchy'' can be defined as person-dependent social relationships of dominance and subordination, emerging from social interaction and becoming persistent over time through repeated social processes.<ref name=":2" /> The informal hierarchy between two or more people can be based on difference in, for example, [[seniority]], [[experience]] or [[social status]].<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":7" />
The formal and informal hierarchy may complement each other in any specific organization and therefore tend to [[Coexistence|co-exist]] in any organization.<ref name=":7" /> But the general pattern observed in many organizations is that when the formal hierarchy decreases (over time), the informal hierarchy increases, or vice versa.<ref name=":2" />

=== Four types of hierarchy ===
A more elaborate [[Typology (social science research method)|typology]] of hierarchy in social systems entails four types: hierarchy as a ladder of formal authority, ladder of achieved status, self-organized ladder of responsibility, and an ideology-based ladder.<ref name="Romme">{{cite journal |last1=Romme |first1=A. Georges L. |title=Ladders of Authority, Status, Responsibility and Ideology: Toward a Typology of Hierarchy in Social Systems |journal=Systems |date=15 March 2021 |volume=9 |issue=1 |page=20 |doi=10.3390/systems9010020 |doi-access=free }}{{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}}</ref> The first two types can be equated with the formal and informal hierarchy, as previously defined. Accordingly, this typology extends the formal and informal hierarchy with two other types.

====Hierarchy as ladder of formal authority====
This type of hierarchy is defined as a sequence of levels of formal [[authority]], that is, the authority to [[Decision-making|make decisions]].<ref name="Romme"/><ref>Tirole, J. (1986), “Hierarchies and bureaucracies: On the role of collusion in organizations.” ''Journal of Law, Economics, &amp; Organization'', 2: 181–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036907</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Adler |first=Paul S. |date= 2001|title=Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of Capitalism |url=https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117 |journal=Organization Science |language=en |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=215–234 |doi=10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117 |issn=1047-7039|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name=":0" /> This results in a ladder that systematically differentiates the authority to make decisions. A typical authority-based hierarchy in [[Company|companies]] is: the [[board of directors]], [[Chief executive officer|CEO]], departmental [[Management|managers]], [[team leader]]s, and other [[Employment|employees]].<ref name="Romme" /> The authority-based hierarchy, also known as the formal hierarchy, to a large extent arises from the legal structure of the organization: for example, the owner of the firm is also the CEO or appoints the CEO, who in turn appoints and supervises departmental managers, and so forth.<ref name="Romme" />

====Hierarchy as ladder of achieved status====
Also known as the informal hierarchy (defined earlier), this type of hierarchy draws on unofficial mechanisms for ranking people.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Joshi |first1=Aparna |last2=Knight |first2=Andrew P. |date= 2015|title=Who Defers to Whom and Why? Dual Pathways Linking Demographic Differences and Dyadic Deference to Team Effectiveness |url=http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2013.0718 |journal=Academy of Management Journal |language=en |volume=58 |issue=1 |pages=59–84 |doi=10.5465/amj.2013.0718 |issn=0001-4273|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name=":11">{{Cite journal |last1=He |first1=Jinyu |last2=Huang |first2=Zhi |date= 2011|title=Board Informal Hierarchy and Firm Financial Performance: Exploring a Tacit Structure Guiding Boardroom Interactions |url=http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2009.0824 |journal=Academy of Management Journal |language=en |volume=54 |issue=6 |pages=1119–1139 |doi=10.5465/amj.2009.0824 |issn=0001-4273|url-access=subscription }}</ref> It involves differences in [[Social status|status]], other than those arising from formal authority. Status is one's social standing or professional position, relative to those of others.<ref>Magee &amp; Galinsky (2008)</ref><ref name=":12">{{Cite journal |last1=George |first1=Gerard |last2=Dahlander |first2=Linus |last3=Graffin |first3=Scott D. |last4=Sim |first4=Samantha |date= 2016|title=Reputation and Status: Expanding the Role of Social Evaluations in Management Research |url=http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2016.4001 |journal=Academy of Management Journal |language=en |volume=59 |issue=1 |pages=1–13 |doi=10.5465/amj.2016.4001 |issn=0001-4273|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In anthropology and sociology, this notion of status is also known as [[achieved status]], the social position that is earned instead of being [[Ascribed status|ascribed]].<ref>Bourdieu, P. (1984), [[Distinction (book)|''Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste''.]] Cambridge, CA: Harvard University Press.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ravlin |first1=Elizabeth C. |last2=Thomas |first2=David C. |date= 2005|title=Status and Stratification Processes in Organizational Life |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206305279898 |journal=Journal of Management |language=en |volume=31 |issue=6 |pages=966–987 |doi=10.1177/0149206305279898 |issn=0149-2063|url-access=subscription }}</ref> The underlying mechanism is [[social stratification]], which draws on shared cultural beliefs (e.g. regarding expertise and seniority as drivers of status) that can make status differences between people appear natural and fair.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=Cameron |last2=Hildreth |first2=John Angus D. |last3=Howland |first3=Laura |date= 2015|title=Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0038781 |journal=Psychological Bulletin |language=en |volume=141 |issue=3 |pages=574–601 |doi=10.1037/a0038781 |pmid=25774679 |issn=1939-1455|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Social Class and Stratification |url=https://www.routledge.com/Social-Class-and-Stratification/Saunders/p/book/9780415041256 |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=Routledge & CRC Press |language=en}}</ref> A ladder of achieved status is [[Social constructionism|socially constructed]], which makes it fundamentally different from the ladder of authority that (largely) arises from an underlying legal structure.<ref name="Romme"/> The social-constructivist nature of status also implies that ladders of achieved status especially arise in groups of people that frequently interact—for example, a work unit, team, family, or neighbourhood.<ref>Saunders (1990)</ref><ref>Dwertmann, D.J.G., &amp; Boehm, S.A. (2016), ”Status matters: The asymmetric effects of supervisor–subordinate disability incongruence and climate for inclusion.” ''Academy of Management Journal'', 59: 44–64. [https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2014. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0093]</ref><ref name=":11" /><ref name=":12" />

====Hierarchy as self-organized ladder of responsibility====
In the literature on organization [[design]] and [[Business agility|agility]], hierarchy is conceived as a [[Requisite organization|requisite]] structure that emerges in a [[Self-organization|self-organized]] manner from operational activities.<ref name="Romme"/><ref name=":10" /><ref name=":8">Robertson, B.J. (2015), ''Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World.'' New York: Henry Holt.</ref><ref name=":5">Romme (2019)</ref> For example, a small firm composed of only three equivalent partners can initially operate without any hierarchy; but substantial growth in terms of people and their tasks will create the need for coordination and related managerial activities; this implies, for example, that one of the partners starts doing these coordination activities. Another example involves organizations adopting [[holacracy]] or [[sociocracy]], with people at all levels self-organizing their responsibilities;<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":5" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Monarth |first=Harrison |date=2014-01-28 |title=A Company Without Job Titles Will Still Have Hierarchies |url=https://hbr.org/2014/01/a-company-without-job-titles-will-still-have-hierarchies |access-date=2024-08-01 |work=Harvard Business Review |issn=0017-8012}}</ref> that is, they exercise "real" rather than formal authority.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Aghion |first1=Philippe |last2=Tirole |first2=Jean |date= 1997|title=Formal and Real Authority in Organizations |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/262063 |journal=Journal of Political Economy |language=en |volume=105 |issue=1 |pages=1–29 |doi=10.1086/262063 |issn=0022-3808|hdl=1721.1/63648 |hdl-access=free |url-access=subscription }}</ref> In this respect, [[Moral responsibility|responsibility]] is an expression of self-restraint and intrinsic [[obligation]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Managing in a Time of Great Change |url=https://www.routledge.com/Managing-in-a-Time-of-Great-Change/Drucker/p/book/9780750637145 |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=Routledge & CRC Press |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Pragmatist Democracy: Evolutionary Learning as Public Philosophy {{!}} Oxford Academic |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/5519 |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=academic.oup.com |language=en}}</ref> Examples of self-organized ladders of responsibility have also been observed in (the early stages of) [[worker cooperative]]s, like [[Mondragon Corporation|Mondragon]], in which hierarchy is created in a bottom-up manner.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Making Mondragón by William Foote Whyte {{!}} Paperback |url=https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780875461823/making-mondragn/www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780875461823/making-mondrag-n/ |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=Cornell University Press |language=en-US}}</ref>

====Hierarchy as ladder of ideology====
In a hierarchy driven by [[ideology]], people establish themselves as legitimate [[Leadership|leaders]] by invoking some (e.g., religious, spiritual or political) idea to justify the hierarchical relationship between higher and lower levels.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Brummans |first1=Boris H. J. M. |last2=Hwang |first2=Jennie M. |last3=Cheong |first3=Pauline Hope |date= |title=Mindful Authoring through Invocation: Leaders' Constitution of a Spiritual Organization |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0893318913479176 |journal=Management Communication Quarterly |language=en |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=346–372 |doi=10.1177/0893318913479176 |issn=0893-3189|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>Gelfand, M. (1959), ''Shona Ritual.'' Cape Town: Juta &amp; Co.</ref><ref name=":9">{{Cite journal |last=Howe |first=Leo |date=1991 |title=Rice, Ideology, and the Legitimation of Hierarchy in Bali |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2803877 |journal=Man |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=445–467 |doi=10.2307/2803877 |jstor=2803877 |issn=0025-1496|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Ideological hierarchies have a long history, for example in the administrative hierarchies headed by [[pharaoh]]s in [[ancient Egypt]] or those headed by [[king]]s in [[Middle Ages|medieval Europe]].<ref name=":6">Shaw, G.J. (2012), ''The Pharaoh, Life at Court and on Campaign''. London: Thames &amp; Hudson.</ref> The main [[Legitimacy (political)|legitimacy]] of any pharaoh or king arose from the strong belief in the idea that the pharaoh/king acts as the [[intermediary]] between the gods and the people, and thus deputizes for the gods.<ref name=":6" /> Another example is the hierarchy prevailing until today in the [[Bali]]nese community, which is strongly connected to the rice cycle that is believed to constitute a hierarchical relationship between gods and humans, both of whom must play their parts to secure a good crop; the same ideology also legitimizes the hierarchical relationship between high and low castes in Bali.<ref name=":9" /> Ideological ladders have also long sustained the way the [[Catholic Church|Catholic church]] and the [[Caste system in India|Hindu caste system]] operates.<ref name=":1" /> Hierarchies of ideology also exist in many other settings, for instance, those driven by prevailing [[Value (ethics and social sciences)|values]] and [[belief]]s about how the (e.g. business) world should operate.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pettigrew |first=Andrew M. |date=1979 |title=On Studying Organizational Cultures |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2392363 |journal=Administrative Science Quarterly |volume=24 |issue=4 |pages=570–581 |doi=10.2307/2392363 |jstor=2392363 |issn=0001-8392|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Gupta |first1=Abhinav |last2=Briscoe |first2=Forrest |last3=Hambrick |first3=Donald C. |date= |title=Red, blue, and purple firms: Organizational political ideology and corporate social responsibility: Organizational Political Ideology and Corporate Social Responsibility |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.2550 |journal=Strategic Management Journal |language=en |volume=38 |issue=5 |pages=1018–1040 |doi=10.1002/smj.2550|hdl=10.1002/smj.2550 |hdl-access=free |url-access=subscription }}</ref> An example is the ideology of "maximizing [[shareholder value]]", which is widely used in [[Public company|publicly traded companies]].<ref name=":4" /> This ideology helps in creating and sustaining the image of a clear hierarchy from shareholders to employees—although, in practice, the separation of legal ownership and actual control implies that the [[Chief executive officer|CEO]] together with the [[Board of directors|Board of Directors]] are at the top of the corporate hierarchy.<ref name=":3" /> Given that public corporations (primarily) thrive on ladders of authority; this example also demonstrates how ladders of authority and ideology can complement and reinforce each other.<ref name="Romme"/>

==Criticism and alternatives==
The work of diverse theorists such as [[William James]] (1842–1910), [[Michel Foucault]] (1926–1984) and [[Hayden White]] (1928–2018) makes important critiques of hierarchical [[epistemology]]. James famously asserts in his work on [[radical empiricism]] that clear distinctions of type and category are a constant but unwritten goal of scientific reasoning, so that when they are discovered, success is declared.{{citation needed|date=March 2023}} But if aspects of the world are organized differently, involving inherent and intractable ambiguities, then scientific questions are often considered unresolved. A hesitation to declare success upon the discovery of ambiguities leaves heterarchy at an artificial and subjective disadvantage in the scope of human knowledge. This bias is an artifact of an aesthetic or pedagogical preference for hierarchy, and not necessarily an expression of objective observation.{{citation needed|date=March 2023}}

Hierarchies and hierarchical thinking have been criticized by many people, including [[Susan McClary]] (born 1946), and by one political philosophy which vehemently opposes hierarchical organization: [[anarchism]]. [[Heterarchy]], the most commonly proposed alternative to hierarchy, has been combined with responsible autonomy by [[Gerard Fairtlough]] in his work on [[Triarchy (theory)|triarchy theory]]. The most beneficial aspect of a hierarchical organization is the clear command-structure that it establishes. However, hierarchy may become dismantled by [[abuse of power]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1= Vredenburgh|first1= Donald|last2= Brender|first2= Yael|date= 1998|title= The Hierarchical Abuse of Power in Work Organizations|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25073966|journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume= 17|issue= 12|pages= 1337–1347|doi= 10.1023/A:1005775326249|jstor= 25073966|s2cid= 142827641|issn= 0167-4544|url-access= subscription}}</ref>

[[Matrix management|Matrix organizations]] became a trend (or [[management fad]]) in the second half of the 20th century.<ref>
{{cite book
 |last1                = Shahani
 |first1               = Jasmine
 |date                 = 30 October 2020
 |title                = Limits and Opportunities of a Matrix Organization: A Study of Coordination Mechanisms within a Multiple Brand Organization
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=XmMGEAAAQBAJ
 |series               = Volume 149 of AutoUni – Schriftenreihe
 |publication-place    = Wiesbaden
 |publisher            = Springer Nature
 |isbn                 = 9783658322618
 |access-date          = 30 March 2023
 |quote                = The literature on matrix organizations presents a challenge due to the fact that most of it is outdated and little current research can be found based on empirical evidence. This is due to a management fad which led to the matrix gaining popularity before losing consideration both in practice and academia. [...] matrix organizations, and simultaneously their study, followed a clear management fad. They were hastily adopted and promptly abandoned [...].
}} 
</ref>

Amidst constant innovation in [[Information and communications technology|information and communication technologies]], hierarchical authority structures are giving way to greater [[decision-making]] latitude for individuals and more flexible definitions of job activities; and this new style of work presents a challenge to existing organizational forms, with some{{quantify|date=March 2023}} research studies contrasting traditional organizational forms with groups that operate as [[online community|online communities]] that are characterized by personal motivation and the satisfaction of making one's own decisions.<ref>
{{cite book
| url          = https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221177012
| last1         = Zhao
| first1        = Dejin
| last2        = Rosson
| first2       = Mary Beth
| author-link2 = Mary Beth Rosson
| last3        = Purao
| first3       = Sandeep
| title = 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07)
| chapter = The Future of Work: What Does Online Community Have to do with It?
| publisher    = 40th Hawaii International International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS-40 2007), CD-ROM / Abstracts Proceedings, 3–6 January 2007, Waikoloa, Big Island, HI, USA
| date         = January 2007
| website      = ResearchGate
| pages = 180a
| doi          = 10.1109/HICSS.2007.531
| isbn = 978-0-7695-2755-0
| s2cid = 11575408
| access-date  = 30 March 2023
| quote        = Abstract[:]  Amidst constant innovation in information and communication technologies, a new pattern of work is emerging. Hierarchical authority structures are giving way to greater decision-making latitude for individuals and more flexible definitions of job activities [...]. This new style of work presents a challenge to existing organizational forms. In this paper we investigate this concern by contrasting traditional organizational forms against groups that operate as online communities that are characterized by personal motivation and the satisfaction of making one's own decisions.
}}
</ref>
When all levels of a hierarchical organization have access to information and communication via digital means, [[power structure]]s may align more as a [[wirearchy]], enabling the flow of power and authority to be based not on hierarchical levels, but on information, trust, credibility, and a focus on results.{{citation needed|date=March 2023}}

== See also ==
{{columns-list|colwidth=30em|
* [[Anarchism]]
* [[Authoritarianism]]
* [[Biological organisation#Fundamentals|Hierarchical ecology]] (life systems organization)
* [[Command hierarchy]]
* [[Corporate governance]]
* [[Flat organization]]
* [[Matrix management]]
* ''[[The Nature of the Firm]]''
* [[Reverse hierarchy]]
* [[Social hierarchy]]
* [[Wirearchy]]
}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Aspects of organizations}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hierarchical Organization}}
[[Category:Hierarchy]]
[[Category:Organizational structure]]
[[Category:Corporate governance]]
[[Category:Bureaucratic organization]]