Hierarchy and Organization – Towards a General Theory of Hierarchical Social SystemsHierarchy and Organization – Towards a General Theory of Hierarchical Social Systems

A book with “general theory” in its title indicates an ambitious project transcending the post-modernistic belief-system in non-intellectual storytelling camouflaged as “narrative” (Thompson, 2004; Sokal, 2008; Vickers, 2013). After Diefenbach's (2009) earlier fruitful inquiring into “Management and the Dominance of Managers”, the author's second project is about something we all know and live with, namely, hierarchies in social- and economic organisations. Surprisingly, we have very little theorising on hierarchies. In closing this theoretical gap, Diefenbach's insightful book tackles hierarchies in six chapters starting with the mind-boggling longevity of hierarchies. This is preceded by an introduction (Chapter 1). And indeed, hierarchies seem to have been around since we became human societies starting to be aware of this as Diefenbach's next chapter outlines. The key to Diefenbach's general theory of hierarchies is developed in Chapter Three. This is instantly followed up by an “application of the theory” in Chapter Four. Interestingly and somewhat startlingly, this leads to a chapter on the Greek philosopher Socrates featuring as an exemplifying case on what Diefenbach calls “boundary crossing”, i.e. people who challenge the boundaries of hierarchies. The final chapter (six) is dedicated to “why things (almost always) don’t change”. Unfortunately, the table of contents has too many subheadings. Even more unfortunate is the inclusion of the book's final conclusion into Chapter Six. A book of this quality and magnitude should have a free-standing conclusion that is presented as an overall conclusion in its own right. But these are perhaps the only two microscopic distractions from an otherwise breath-taking achievement.

For Diefenbach one of the significant defining moments of hierarchies is the division of people through such hierarchies into “ruling elites and other superiors” set against the “common people and subordinates” (p. xv). This division is, of course, “anti-democratic, unfair and unjust” (p. 4). Diefenbach's book makes one re-realising this fact again just as it makes one aware that “most people do not realise how hierarchical their personal lives and workplaces actually are: how much they have internalised the way of thinking along the lines of superiority and inferiority, how much they reconstruct relationships on a daily basis that otherwise would not exist, and how much they live to the tune of the beast” (p. 4). Consequently, Diefenbach's “main argument is that hierarchy is in people's heads (or their hearts and minds) and that they therefore behave in ways that conform to hierarchical notions – even when they deviate from social expectations of dominance and obedience” (p. 6).

In saying this, Diefenbach's illuminating book challenges the eternally rehearsed, empiricist, and positivist textbook ideology of value-free in social- and economic organisations. “Organisations, and whole societies, are anything but value-free, neutral, and functional endeavours” (hence the book's task is found in) “revealing and criticising the (dominant) ideologies around hierarchical or otherwise oppressive regimes” (p. 9). Before today's dominant ideology of managerialism (Klikauer, 2013a, b, 2015) sought to make us believe that hierarchies are eternally defined through the superior-vs-subordinate relationship, there has been a very long period of human existence “from about 2,500,000 BCE to 12,000 BCE” that was composed of “hunter-gatherer groups (so-called ‘band societies’) that were probably fairly egalitarian” (p. 11). Today, such egalitarianism is almost nowhere to be seen, least in traditional, modern, and “post-modern” (sic!) managerial organisations. Diefenbach correctly notes “despite the rhetoric of teamwork, networks, empowerment, and even intrapreneurship, the very logic of hierarchical order and control continues to rule our organizations” (p. 14). But the long period of human living in egalitarian “band societies” has shown that “hierarchy is not a natural law [and] social relationships do not necessarily need to be hierarchical” (p. 17). Equally, human beings are not by nature designed to obey hierarchies and to accept the subordinate-vs-superior relationship:

Philosopher Immanuel Kant described this process as “after the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart” (p. 28) they are ready for capitalist consumption (Bowles and Gintis, 1976; Haworth, 2012). Hence, Diefenbach concludes “many contemporary employees are not much different from late-18th-century domestic cattle. Although most employees are already subordinates before they join a (new) organisation, they will still be subject to further social conditioning and professional socialisation [in the form of] identity regulation” (p. 28). Human Resource Management has developed a raft of ideological instruments to assure that ranging from induction programmes to performance management, and balanced scorecards as any HRM textbook shows (Jobrack, 2011).

Equipped with early (family) and institutional (school) conditioning, the ideology of capitalism and managerial regimes can carry on with authoritarianism because individuals have been conditioned to accept this as normal. Hence, “authoritarianism: a tendency to be dominant towards one's inferiors and submissive towards one's superiors” (p. 39) can be seen in almost all economic and business organisations (Schrijvers, 2004; James, 2013). Not surprisingly, the hierarchical “pyramid [as an image of today's organisations] is well grounded in everybody's mind” (p. 43). And this is so not only because of paralleling ideologies such as flattening the hierarchy. All this remains necessary because the ideology of managerialism and managerial regimes demand a public as well as a hidden transcript whereby “the hidden transcripts must be kept hidden since they otherwise could disturb or even upset the social order” (p. 51). This is supported through the “public transcript”. Such public transcripts and organisational ideologies are invented to “explain and justify ‘the way things are’ and why they will not change and must not change” (p. 65).

To make sure that employees accept the dominant ideology that cements the economic order, managerial training facilities – business schools – have been introduced (Locke and Spender, 2011; Klikauer, 2013a, b, 2015). “For subordinates, only two types of knowledge are disseminated via institutions to which the public have access:

1. (1) functional knowledge that helps people to fill their lower positions and fulfill their tasks; and

2. (2) ideology that helps them to understand and to accept that they have these lower positions and the fulfillment of their task (i.e. their functioning) is good for them as well as the system (p. 70).

Additionally, “systems of group-based social hierarchy are not maintained simply by the oppressive activities of dominants or the passive compliance of subordinates, but rather by the coordinated and collaborative activities of both dominants and subordinates” (p. 75). But this depends on employees showing “public obedience with regard to the organisation's rules and norms [that] ensure the personal legitimacy of the superior and the continuation of his or her career […] this is the very idea of the good subordinates [who] are expected to follow orders from their superiors” (p. 102).

That such superior-vs-subordinate relationships carry ethical connotations is not only self-evident but exquisitely discussed in Diefenbach's chapter on the moral philosopher and psychologist Kohlberg (pp. 11-119). Parts of Kohlberg's stages of moral development (cf. Klikauer, 2012) are dedicated to those who “cross boundaries” (p.127) when for example, “lawful resistance [is] challenging indeed [but] remains within the existing structures and processes the system provides” (p. 127). This touches on the imperatives of “conflict within” and “conflict about” an organisation and capitalism (Benson and Kirsch, 2010). Somewhat regrettably, Diefenbach views German theologian Martin Luther as an example for “conflict about” even though it was Luther's running mate and revolutionary peasant leader Thomas Münzer who was beheaded while Luther fancied reformation as “conflict within” the feudalist system and hence established a new ideological support structure for feudalism, namely, another church (Marcuse, 1972). In Diefenbach's distinction between “practical failure” vs “declared refusal” (p. 139) it was Luther who saw his church failing but it was Münzer who refused to accept feudalism. Today's managerial answer for those who “declare refusal” is no longer beheading but often “downward workplace mobbing” by managerial “petty tyrants” (pp. 146-147) especially when their – not their organisation's (!)– survival is threatened:

This, of course, also applies to major managerial ideologies such as “organisational change”. “Even when using rhetoric about ‘change’, their actual interest is to leave the main principles of hierarchical ordering and social dominance intact” (p. 151). This is what defines managerial power – the power of the managerial office inside a hierarchy. This “kind of paternalistic system develops at times distinctively authoritarian tendencies [leading to an] oligarchisation identified by […] Robert Michels’ 1915 well-known ‘iron law of oligarchy’” (p. 175):

Perhaps one of the most enlightening sections of Diefenbach book is his conclusion on “why things (almost always) don’t change” emphasising that “the concept of individualisation [by which the author means setting one's individuality against managerial hierarchies as well as] solidarisation represent probably the most powerful and threatening ideas against hierarchy” (p. 215). Both are examples of “conflict about’ managerial regimes rather than ‘conflict within’ managerial regimes. And ‘almost all ideological controversies between power groups – even the peaceful or forceful replacement of one power elite and its ideology with another group – happens within the existing boundaries of hierarchy” (p. 221). In other words, ideologies such as “Critical Management Studies”, for example, seeking to “create better management” (Klikauer, 2013a, b, 2015) are directed towards a conflict within management rather than about management. CMS provides a mere system-corrective to management studies when it seeks “the production of better managers” (Alvesson et al., 2009, p. 446ff). In its final consequence, CMS can assist management in solidifying hierarchies albeit with better management and better hierarchies.

In other words, “the rather disappointing bottom line is that things don’t change – and when they do change, they (almost always) do not really change” (p. 225). But Diefenbach's quasi-dystopian outlook is counterbalanced when he emphasises that “the key problem is how non-hierarchical, democratic social systems can be maintained without people intentionally or unintentionally causing the emergence of hierarchical structures or processes via their behaviour (hierarchisation)” (p. 231; cf. Gibson-Graham et al., 2013). Perhaps, the answer lies in the statement “like the anarchist, their aim is not the transference of power from one official to another, but the abolition of the pyramid in total: organisation without hierarchy” (p. 233; cf. Haworth, 2012; Darlington, 2013). To move towards that, Diefenbach appears to indicate something that carries connotations to Habermas’ (1997) “Theory of Communicative Action” (Klikauer, 2008, pp. 141-230) when advocating “collective decision-making procedures without the tyranny of the majority” (p. 237). Set against this is Diefenbach's overall conclusion that covers three key areas, namely, “functional analysis”, “being (much more) critical”, and “providing alternatives” (p. 238).

The first point is highlighted by “how hierarchy works in orthodox organisations and totalitarian regimes is fairly well known. It contrast, we still know little about how it works in modern organisations and societies that are diversified and multidimensional and that constantly change and don’t change” (p. 238). Perhaps it might even be possible that orthodox and modern organisations are totalitarian regimes? In all three, “many [people] have internalised the ideology of the superiority and legitimacy of the power elite” (p. 240; Luntz, 2007). On the second and more crucial point, Diefenbach emphasises “the aim of critical theory is human emancipation, and this is accomplished in part by laying bare structural impediments to genuine freedom, contradictions and incoherencies in people's belief and values, and hidden ideologies that mask domination” (p. 242; Klikauer, 2013a, b, 2015; Schecter, 2013).

Finally, Diefenbach's last point is that “hierarchy is not a necessity like the air we breathe, social dominance is not in our genes, and hierarchical social order is not a natural law we have to follow gravity in their course”. In other words, we need to move towards a future in which there are “no longer oppressor [and] nor longer the oppressed, but humans in process of achieving freedom [as] a utopian spirit” (p. 246). Ultimately, Diefenbach finishes with a statement that carries intimate connotations to the continuous relevance of Habermas’ “Modernity: an unfinished project” (1980/2012) when noting “the search for such social systems continues the endeavour and unfinished business of the Enlightenment. And we have to do it because we can” (p. 246).

Overall, Diefenbach's timely and potentially seminal work on hierarchies in social- and economic organisations may pave the way not only for critical reflections on hierarchies in organisations, trade unions, society, and capitalism as the book's picturesque cover signifies. A book on hierarchies may also lead to at least four potentially insightful if not critical-emancipatory developments:

1. (1) it may challenge the present ideologically motivated acceptance of authoritarian and anti-democratic hierarchies as a given;

2. (2) it may lead to a greater awareness of the fallacies of hierarchies;

3. (3) it may influence positively on future research on work organisations, managerial regimes, the labour process, capitalism, and managerialism; and

4. (4) it may assist us in shaping theory development to enhance our understanding of hierarchies, business organisations, and capitalism directed towards emancipation.

For that, Diefenbach's book could have enhanced his discussion of the superior-vs-subordinate relationship by including what the pre-Marxian philosopher Hegel called the “master-slave dialectics” (Herrschaft & Knechtschaft) as outlined in Hegel's (1807/2003), “Phenomenology” (Kojève, 1947/1969/1986; Arthur, 1983; Anderson, 2009; Aching, 2012). This would only enhance an otherwise exquisitely well-composed book on hierarchies.