Re-imagining Hierarchy | Part Two

Hierarchy is Dead. Long Live Hierarchy - Part 3

In our work with movement organizations that are caught in the current debate about hierarchy vs non-hierarchy, we have come to understand formal hierarchy not as a monolithic thing to be dismantled, but rather a system that can enable coordination around a group’s tactics, strategy, policy, livelihood, and culture. After all, hierarchy is simply a system in which certain members or components of a group defer to the authority of other members/components.

With precision and discernment, we can dismantle oppressive hierarchies while creating liberating, interdependent hierarchies.

This series addresses four formal types of hierarchy and one informal type we have found to be essential for groups to be effective. 

In our previous installment, we discussed two types of formal interdependent hierarchy: Tactical and Strategic. 

Here, we’ll describe the remaining three types of interdependent hierarchy and provide practical advice on how to use them intentionally in your organizations.

The remaining two formal hierarchies are Policy and Livelihood. And the fifth type is an informal hierarchy–Culture. 

Policy Hierarchy

Policy Hierarchy is a system in which some group members defer to another’s direction about the rules that apply to members of the organization and the processes for internal operations.

Recall our Bakery example where the Shift Lead tried to organize the group to recover after someone spilled muffins and batter during rush hour and a Baker raised concerns about this use of hierarchical power. 

Policy Hierarchy is the type of hierarchy that established the Shift Lead position, set the standards by which the Shift Lead was selected, and created the norms for how the Shift Lead would fill the role. In this circumstance, the Bakery’s policy was that the Shift Lead be the person at the top of the tactical hierarchy during the shift. This policy was set by a collective process led by a management team.

When the Baker resisted the Shift Lead, part of what they were resisting was the policy hierarchy. By calling into question the Shift Lead’s position atop the tactical hierarchy, the Baker was not only critiquing the way the Shift Lead inhabited his position but also that the Baker did not want to defer to the policy/rules about how the group would organize and defer during the shift. 

The primary benefits of policy hierarchy include shared agreements, transparent mechanisms for change, and clear places for appeal. For groups to have effective policies and rules about how to work together, the group needs to be on the same page about who has the authority to make the rules. A group might defer to the rules set by a single person, a specific group of members, or the consensus of the whole group, but if it’s not clear where the authority to make the rules lives, then people will all follow different, often unspoken rules and it will be really hard to create shared agreements.  However, when it is clear where authority lives, then it becomes easier for group members to understand how to change policies or appeal issues that arise. Without this clarity, when members of the group are unsure of how to change broken systems, they must rely exclusively on interpersonal skillfulness to resolve conflicts that inevitably arise. 

The potential pitfalls of policy hierarchy are coercion, disempowerment, and injustice. If an exclusive person or group has the authority to set policies, they can intentionally or unintentionally establish policies that coerce people outside of that group. Consequently, the people who are made to follow policies that they have little ability to influence can feel disempowered and be unable to make changes that actually improve the whole system.

Yet, these potential pitfalls do not mean we must avoid policy hierarchy altogether. Groups still need agreed-upon rules to effectively work together. If we are precise and discerning in our implementation of policy hierarchy, we experience the benefits of policy hierarchy and proactively protect against oppressive social hierarchies like white supremacy, patriarchy, and classism replicating informally due to how, when, why, and to whom the group gives authority to establish the rules of the group. 

Livelihood Hierarchy

Livelihood Hierarchy is a system in which some group members defer to others about decisions that directly impact their ability to earn a livelihood now or in the future. These decisions include things like hiring/firing, compensation, promotion, and professional development opportunities.

In our Bakery example, Livelihood Hierarchy is the type of hierarchy that determined who the Shift Lead was at the time. It also decided who was being paid what to perform their jobs. In some cases, Livelihood Hierarchy is intimately related to Tactical Hierarchy because making decisions about who takes on new and more challenging tasks impacts whether people grow, get promoted, and earn more compensation throughout their careers.

The primary benefits of Livelihood Hierarchy are clarity, dignity, and autonomy. Questions about Livelihood issues can be tender, are often critical, and therefore generally need definite and transparent answers that create clarity. Clarity around livelihood issues like pay, growth, hours worked, and circumstances in which members can be removed from the group grants people the dignity of experiencing the mutual respect required for and exhibited by honest, transparent communication about one’s place in and value to the group. Furthermore, with this clarity and dignity, members truly have the autonomy to make informed life decisions about their future both inside and outside of the group. 

The potential pitfalls of Livelihood Hierarchy are self-service, inequity, and oppression. People atop these hierarchies can make decisions that benefit themselves to the detriment of other group members (think about managers deciding that managers should be paid more than program staff). Decisions about Livelihood are rife with complex dynamics about who is seen, valued, and supported that often inevitably implicate things like race, sex, class, and other social categories that are particularly salient with respect to livelihood.

Because systems of oppression like white supremacy, patriarchy, and extractive capitalism exist, decisions that implicate the livelihood of group members will always have to contend with these complex dynamics. We have helped groups attune to these potentially harmful dynamics and intentionally implement Livelihood Hierarchy in ways that reduce the harm of oppressive societal systems that we are working together to dismantle. 

Cultural Hierarchy 

Unlike the prior four formal types of hierarchy we’ve discussed, Cultural Hierarchy is “informal.” We distinguished “formal hierarchies” to emphasize the types of arrangements that we can intentionally design and expressly adopt as part of an organizational structure. Informal hierarchies, however, often emerge from numerous unspoken and assumed hierarchies that are common and normalized in the broader society (like race, age, sex, gender expression, family status, etc). Cultural Hierarchy is informal because instead of being expressly adopted as a part of an organization's structure, it emerges from the interplay of how the group interacts with the organization’s structure and the influence of broader society on each member of the group. 

Cultural Hierarchy is a system in which some group members defer to others about the appropriate way to behave, think, and express themselves with the group.  This includes things like what cultural references are acceptable and shared, how members should dress, how members should gesture, engage in dialogue, conflict, and more.

In our Bakery example, Cultural Hierarchy would have determined whether the way the Shift Lead spoke to the team when assigning tasks was acceptable and appropriate, or, for example, whether he was interpreted as “overly authoritative” vs “direct and clear.”  

The benefits of Cultural Hierarchy are that it can create a sense of coherence and belonging.  We all express ourselves differently in different contexts and it can be dignified to have a basic shared frame of reference for the culture we are in so that we can interact well and interpret each other accurately within it.

The potential pitfall of Cultural Hierarchy is that it can often become rigid, exclusionary, and replicate oppressive social structures.  If the dominant way of being is similar to a predominantly white academic institution then potential entrants who speak AAVE might be excluded, misinterpreted, and/or implicitly pressured to code-switch.  Relatedly, if the person or people to whom the group defers for the appropriate way to behave, think, and express themselves also hold other forms of hierarchical power (like Policy or Livelihood), then dissonance with the subjective cultural way of being can result in exclusion from other forms of formal influence.

Join us for our next installment where we will identify precisely what can cause our five types of interdependent hierarchies (Tactical, Strategic, Policy, Livelihood, and Culture) to become destructive and the skills and tools needed to prevent that.