So, I feel like their conclusion is somewhat obvious since they're studying firms as the basis of examining hierarchies. I think it's quite obvious to anyone t

So, I feel like their conclusion is somewhat obvious since they're studying firms as the basis of examining hierarchies. I think it's quite obvious to anyone that a CEO makes more than a VP and a VP makes more than a Senior Manager and a Senior Manager makes more than an intern within most corporate hierarchies (within the same firm), so in this way, of course the conclusion is correct. But this completely fails to examine /why/ hierarchies are established, and how people end up at various rungs within that hierarchy. It has been my observation over a nearly 20 year career that there are people who want to be told what to do, there are people who want figure out what to do, and there are people who want to tell others what to do. When you combine these preferences, people who want to figure out what to do and then tell others what to do end up rising up the ranks, because the lower rungs of the hierarchies are dominated by people who want to be told what to do. The hierarchy creates stability, both social cohesion and economic stability for the firm, and it provides a clear pathway of progression for those who enter the firm anew with ambitions to rise. It is is no surprise, then, that hierarchy has a large effect size on income. But stating such a thing isn't heretical as they author proposes, rather it's so blatantly obvious that nobody bothers to even consider it. After all, the realities of social hierarchy aren't that interesting, unless you're studying deeper to get to the why, how, and what for.