The goal of removing hierarchy is pretty challenging; it's been convincingly argued that the absence of explicit hierarchies often simply results in implicit, i

The goal of removing hierarchy is pretty challenging; it's been convincingly argued that the absence of explicit hierarchies often simply results in implicit, invisible hierarchies. In a situation with invisible hierarchies, it takes a newbie a lot more time to learn what power they do and don't have. There are still power relationships; but they're less obvious and transparent, much harder to navigate, and much harder to modify. My point isn't that non-hierarchical organising is impossible, but that it requires constant attention - frankly, I don't think it's possible unless removing hierarchy is a key aim of the organisation. That is rarely the case, unless the organisation is a more-or-less left-wing political organisation. A commercial organisation will hardly ever put eliminating hierarchy centre-stage. So removing explicit hierarchies is likely to be counterproductive, in most organisations. You end up with implicit hierarchies that are harder to understand and alter, and so more rigid. If I were joining an organisation, I'd sooner it were one with clear, explicit hierarchy, or alternatively one dedicated to the removal of hierarchy. To be clear, you can't completely remove implicit hierarchy. Dominant people tend to dominate, and an explicit hierarchy mitigates that. Dominance might derive from force of personality, having a loud deep voice (men!), knowledge, eloquence, and "who you know". So non-hierarchical organising requires a lot of effort, and definitely slows down decision-making. It has a cost.