The Hindu Business Line : In defence of hierarchy

WHEN the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Mr P. Shankar, blamed the "entire hierarchy" of ministers and bureaucrats for the stifled working of the PSUs, the much-debated issue of desirability of such hierarchies has once again grabbed the centre- stage.

More recently, the former Disinvestment Minister, Mr Arun Shourie, castigated a hierarchy-bound bureaucracy on several counts, not the least for its sluggish decision-making that often leaves it clueless in the face of a fast-changing socio-economic scenario.

End of bureaucracy at sight? Apparently yes as academics, consultants, and management gurus alike regularly forecast its imminent replacement by new, egalitarian structures. Prophets, such as Peter Drucker, Alvin and Heidi Toffler, and Esther Dyson argue that today's information revolution is leading to a new electronic feudalism with overlapping communities and jurisdictions laying claim to multiple layers of citizens' identities and loyalties. Back in 1989, Peter Drucker predicted that the businesses of the future would be modelled on a symphony like Mahler's Eighth, where a single conductor leads more than a thousand musicians and singers without any intermediaries or assistants. A decade later Gifford Pinochet asserted that hierarchical organisations "based on dominance and submission" would soon be replaced by communities that are more adept and appropriate to the high-tech times and post-modern dynamics.

What an irony it is that in his book Management Challenges for the 21st Century the same Peter Drucker finds great virtues in hierarchy which remains even in this digital age of rapid technological obsolescence as relevant as ever — especially in areas such as guiding the transformation of large corporations and small- and mid-sized businesses in arenas such as healthcare, general governance and education. And in being so hierarchy helps create new kinds of alliances working across boundaries and borders, taking on new social responsibilities.

Take the present age: The age of marketisation. Here, to remain in the hunt, the decision-making process has to be silver quick and nothing helps it more than a clear-cut location of authority. On this score, bureaucracy has apparently failed to keep pace with the emerging economic formulations and the polity and it is this "mismatch" that has been pointed out by the former Finance Minister, while speaking in Parliament recently, as the principle cause inhibiting investments internally and externally. The FDI inflow — in areas of power and infrastructure, for example — has got stymied because of the whole juggernaut of an utterly time-consuming decision-making process that runs counter to the interest of the country as it tells a heavy toll on the patience of the potential investors.

However, all these castigations notwithstanding, hierarchy even today remains very much relevant especially in the functioning of the various ministries of the government. Of late, though, with the advent of coalition politics, there has been a serious dilution of the hierarchy; the good-old process of hard, prompt decision-making has given way to a search for consensus-building to honour the aspirations of various diverse, often disparate, groups and political parties with sectoral biases. Structurally, this has given rise to two sets of hierarchy, "formal" and "informal" and on field it is the latter that mostly rules the roost.

In this manner even one of the most essential and elementary characteristics of Weberian model of bureaucracy, that is, hierarchy, has had to undergo paradigm shift both in its orientation and application. These days one sees the emergence of an ever-increasing number of lobbies and counter-lobbies of various hues and dimensions. All this has indeed dented the efficacy of formal hierarchy and it is the growing trend on the part of its constituent members of lending allegiance to their respective lobbies that has greatly compromised the formal structure of the bureaucratic hierarchy. No doubt, the worst victim of all this erosion and dilution of the hierarchical structure has been decision-making. The concept of transparency and accountability too — an essential pre-requisite for the effective functioning of market-led growth based on free and fair competition — has been affected collaterally. It is, thus, high time the old model of bureaucracy was re-structured to make it in tune with the decision-making mechanism of the WTO era — vibrant, efficacious and acting as a robust engine for development of the Indian market, much like its counterpart in Japan's METI (Ministry of Economic, Trade, and Industry).

Historically, hierarchy always seems to have evoked a great deal of injustice in India. The traditional hierarchical society evolved an elaborate division of labour, which earmarked the acquisition and diffusion of knowledge as the exclusive prerogative of Brahmins. This had enduring consequences as manifested by upper caste monopoly in most of the prestigious professions of the time that required long, pre-entry training usually imparted through family elders. While much of it has changed with emerging caste equations in the Indian society, there is a concomitant angle as well — the presence and the importance of the "supreme" for the society in general and that can hardly be undermined.

In any institution there has to be a final authority, a "boss", someone who makes the final call and expects it to be obeyed. In a situation of common peril — and every institution is likely to encounter it sooner or later — survival of all depends on unequivocal, resolute command. If the ship is sinking, the captain does not call a meeting, he gives an order. There is no time to analyse whether it is palatable or of an even disposition; if the ship is to be saved, everyone must obey that order without argument, must know exactly what to do, and do it without either procrastination or precipitation. When the chips are down, it is thus "hierarchy" — and its unquestioning acceptance by all and sundry in the organisation — that remains the only means.

So, per se there is nothing wrong with bureaucracy and the hierarchical structure it entails. Procedures and protocols too, are necessary for any organisation to function well, albeit, an unbridled rein of the red-tape can impede progress, dampen employees' enthusiasm, and leach their energy. Winning companies owe their success to a constant process of trimming every emerging vestige of unnecessary bureaucracy — dispensable layers of management, anachronistic modalities and an abundance of obfuscatory regulations that makes rules impotent.

They always strive to keep their structures and in-house processes lean and transparent so that the organisational responses to systemic developments are prompt and adequate. No one can create an environment which will not change over time; it is how one minimises the tremors triggered by them that is the clincher. A vibrant bureaucracy indeed comes very handy for this so long one remembers that the devise is very good as a servant, though no less than a monster when allowed to gallop away unbridled.

So, the issue at stake is not that of survival of hierarchy in the present times; it is really its form and mode that has to be determined. In this digital era also there is a felt need to have a functional hierarchy in place facilitating rule-framing necessary to govern evolving concepts like cyberspace to protect its lawful users from intruders and criminals and to ensure intellectual property rights. Rules in turn require authority whether in the form of present day public governance or community governance of the Classical Era and authority pre-supposes hierarchy for its effective implementation.

Actually, the intensity with which we struggle against hierarchies only serves to highlight their durability. Even today, just about every large organisation including those of the "knowledge" economy — whether loosely coupled, networked, or federalised — seems to be no more than modified replications of the same basic hierarchical design. The new flatter, faster organisations certainly in a way epitomise the emerging patterns of changes that are not just cosmetic but reflective of the ways and postures the businesses are run. Yet, the basic blueprint of a hierarchical organisation is present in them as well.

Subordinates continue to report to superiors, much as they historically have done and superiors still set the agenda and monitor progress by issuing commands and guidelines for the subordinates to follow. This appears to suggest that hierarchy may be intrinsic to our very nature and no wonder it remains till date the basic structure of most ongoing human organisations. It further appears to possess all that is required for it to persist, and even thrive, albeit not by ignoring changes but certainly in spite of them. This explains, at least partly, how a great many of those classical organisational pyramids despite their reputations to the contrary have proven themselves quite capable of change and in the process keeping obsolescence at bay.

More important, though, is the practical and psychological value hierarchies deliver. On a fundamental level, while they do enslave us, they also address our deep-seated needs and concern for order and security. Of course, hierarchies are often terribly flawed inevitably fostering authoritarianism and its destructive derivatives: distrust, dishonesty, parochialism, fear and obsequiousness. Our ability to work effectively in hierarchies, thus, depends in large measure on how we deal with those dangers and marginalise their fallouts.

At the micro level, for a deeply individualistic worker, it is hard to blend its ingrained egalitarian values with a constant mindfulness of who the boss is. For leaders, too, it is just as hard to maintain their individual authenticity and do justice to their acumen while working inside a hierarchy constrained by the presence of elements of far lesser, often mediocre capabilities, no matter how modern and benevolent it may be.

Beyond these paradoxes, hierarchy represents intrinsically the complexities of the natural world besides helping us in more than nature's way to process it. Powerful psychological forces are released; hierarchies provide clear markers that let us know how far and fast we are climbing the ladder of success.

However, the real worth of hierarchies is in giving an identity. Just think of how it feels to be out of a job for an extended period. Not just loss of income, it dents one's self-esteem: Its role in society, its very identity becomes at stake. When someone is jobless in an individualistic, high-achieving culture like ours, it takes a strong ego to maintain a sense of self-worth. Only the very young and the very old are permitted the luxury of respectable joblessness though for the very old, it is still important to have a decent track record. Of course, there are many who thrive outside hierarchical organisations — artistes, entrepreneurs, freelance professionals and so on, but most of us inside hierarchies derive comfort from the sense of belonging. Like families, communities and religions, they help define and locate ourselves which is an essential to optimise our potential. They provide identity, a flag to fly.

The ultimate justification for hierarchy, thus, lies in its power to propel growth and lend stability. It thrives on its inherent, historical inter-linkages with man's perennial search for synergic growth through formation of organisations not just capable of delivering what is unattainable to the individuals but to tide over all the turmoil and turbulences — including many which are essentially caused by this process of growth itself — that often threaten to overtake man's commitment to growth by rocking its most important plank — stability.

Ultimately, for the institutions survival is about having the capacity to change before the case for change becomes desperately obvious. And it is, indeed, hierarchy by virtue of its uncanny, self-procreating resilience and appetite — whetted up rather ironically by all these doubting Thomases who from time to time have predicted its doomsday — to become even more relevant in the ever-changing socio-political matrix that has the strength and the resolve to manoeuvre and navigate man's growth through uncharted waters ahead.

(The author is a member of the Indian Revenue Services. The views are personal.)

More Stories on : Management | Corporate

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Will this hike sail through?

Cyberchondriacs

UPA's Common Minimum Programme — I: Issues and implications

Who is the real Manmohan Singh?

Interlinking of rivers — Buffetted by international politics

In defence of hierarchy

Common minimum programme

Scope for improvement

Irrational exuberance