5 ms·
Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why? I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the bi
by js8 7y ago
Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why?
I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.
- StreamBright 7y agoWhat is the mode of operation you are suggesting to be used instead? On the top of that, what flaws are you talking about in specific?
- js8 7y agoSame flaws mentioned in the article - lack of accountability in the upper layers of hierarchy, which resulted in loss of human life. Possible solution is more democratic control (by the people down in the hierarchy) over the people who are in charge, for example an independently elected accountability board with a power to penalize and recall the leaders.
- ip26 7y agoSo, some kind of democratically elected commander in chief who is the supreme commander of the US military?
- js8 7y agoYes, but you need a shorter feedback loop too. The U.S. president doesn't make the decisions that would be required to fix the problems that the article is talking about. I am not sure if it's practiced in the U.S., but in Europe lot of universities were historically actually run democratically, the management was elected by academics and students. So something like that.
- ip26 7y agoSo instead of the public electing the President who appoints generals etc, the military elects its own leaders? Not to be difficult, but I think history teaches us that's how you get a military coup.
- js8 7y agoNo, military could elect its own leaders regarding matters that concern the military. Citizens would still elect normal government, to which the military would be subjected.
- ip26 7y agoThe point is when the military picks all its own leaders, it winds up with the sort of leaders & develops the sort of culture that leads to the military conducting a coup against the normal government which it was supposed to be subject to.
- js8 7y agoI don't see why it should be the case at all, and I would like to see the evidence that it is more likely. It sure is a possibility, but realistically you have to compare it with the possibility of a military coup with traditional autocratic military. The only plausible explanation for that phenomenon is that democratic group (military in this case) is more efficient/willing at asserting its own status as a group than an autocratic (hierarchical) one. And that is, in fact, internally contradictory. If intent of the military as a democratically-controlled social group was to overthrow the democracy in the state as a social group, then it would be acting against the very existence of ts own democratic process.
- ethbro 7y agoThat they have many flaws does not mean that they don't have strengths. For some use cases the strengths outweigh the flaws. Combat operations are certainly such a use case.
- js8 7y agoNot sure what you mean specifically, but this was not in a context of combat operations, where quick decisions were needed. There was plenty of time to address the complaints and fix the problems.
- icegreentea2 7y agoThe question is, if you need an organization to work efficiently as an hierarchical organization at a moments notice (because that's how you have to plan), is it possible for the organization to operate the majority of the time not as an hierarchical organization.
- js8 7y agoI don't see why it would be a problem. As someone already mentioned here, the members of the U.S. military are also voters. So people have no trouble doing both.
- ethbro 7y agoThat doesn't seem very related: they're parallel structures. The existence of other, non-hierarchical structures participated in by the military does not negate their efficacy in the military.
- 0xBA5ED 7y ago>I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences This is not an open problem at all. It is a _well_ explained phenomenon.
- bluntfang 7y agoBecause with a lack of explicitly hierarchy, an implicit hierarchy is created. I'm not sure of any social system that doesn't include some form of hierarchy, but am very inclined to read an opinion.
- blaser-waffle 7y agoI am reminded of the video game company Valve. Famously without official hierarchies... but not according to former employees. The difference is with formal hierarchies there is also formal authority and responsibilities. A lack of explicit expectations means that informal the leadership can shirk responsibility or invent authority. And that's a software company; a military org that's ordering people into dangerous situations is going to have a much harder time without explicit authority; POUM in the Spanish Civil War comes to mind.
- js8 7y agoYou can have democratic decision-making, which isn't hierarchical and yet is explicit about the distribution of power. So while it's true that holacracies can quickly turn into hierarchies rather than democracies, it's still doesn't explain why hierarchies are preferred by humans over democracies, while the latter is obviously more acceptable on the state level.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> So while it's true that holacracies can quickly turn into hierarchies rather than democracies, it's still doesn't explain why hierarchies are preferred by humans over democracies, while the latter is obviously more acceptable on the state level. Democracy on the state level mostly refers to bureaucratic heirarchy where the leaders are (sometimes indirectly) accountable to the electorate; heirarchy and democracy coexist rather than being mutually exclusive. Heirarchy dominates state-level organization with or without democracy, just like it does virtually all other human enterprises. Democracy, on the state level, seems to be more reliant on formal reservation and delineation of powers and well-institutionalized means of enforcing those formalities than non-democratic heirarchy, which is perhaps why holacracy becomes informal non-democratic heirarchy rather than something democratic.
- protonfish 7y agoI suppose it is because we have not found an organizational strategy that does not quickly break down into corrupt hierarchy.
- js8 7y agoThat doesn't explain why people do not massively despise hierarchies in the first place.
- protonfish 7y agoStockholm Syndrome?
- NeuNeurosis 7y agoPeople play lip service to hating hierarchy's but I would argue that they regularly espouse them and value them in almost all aspects of their lives. The ones they seem to hate are the faceless ones that they don't understand how they work, why they exist and who really runs them and has stakes in them. People hate facelessness especially from those in power. But they are more than happy to take orders from someone they think they can relate to, see the hate for Obama or Hilary from the right but their love of anything Trump does.
- js8 7y agoAs I mentioned, the exact reasons why people value hierarchies are IMHO not known. But people do value them, although differently. I recommend looking at the book The Authoritarians from Bob Altemeyer, which outlines the mindset of people who are Trump supporters. There is also some research into universal values like Jonathan Haidt does, which shows that liberals value hierarchy less than conservatives. So people in fact do have somewhat different value systems. Also, there was a fascinating story from Robert Sapolsky, which showed that in baboons, lack of strict hierarchy can actually benefit the group. Personally, I am totally willing to take orders from my boss if I have good relationship with him, but I perceive it as helping a fellow human, I am not doing it out of respect to hierarchy. I think this can alternatively explain what you observe. As I already stated, we have many possible explanations (and also perplexing examples) both pro and against hierarchies, but there is no clear unifying theory. The above is just a sampling.