Hierarchy Vs. Authority

This morning while taking a walk, I witnessed one of the security guards in our building trying to prevent a hired car driver from driving on the wrong side. The resident sitting inside the car was arguing on behalf of the driver rather than telling him to follow the rules. While it would have been just a matter of seconds for the car to have reversed and drive through the designated path, much time and energy was expended in this exchange. Clearly, it was not an issue of time or convenience!  What was at stake here was a conflict between two strong principles namely, hierarchy and authority. The security guard  had the authority to regulate traffic movement inside the building complex but since he was seen as lower in status hierarchy, his authority was not acceptable to the resident sitting in the car.

This conflict between hierarchy and authority is played out on almost a daily basis in virtually all spheres of our personal and professional lives. This particular incident reminded me of a paper which Gouranga Chattopadhyay and I had written several decades back. Our central hypothesis was that the concept of hierarchy present in almost all modern organisations creates the breeding ground for incompetence and invisible waste. It is seen as a necessary requirement for exercising authority but in fact, it is one of the biggest impediments to exercise of meaningful authority .

Authority is a structural arrangement whereby certain decision making rights are delegated to a role-holder for effective task performance. In the incident described earlier, the right to regulate traffic movement has been delegated to the security guard and his relative hierarchical status is of no consequence. Hierarchy on the other hand is a relative construct- it places individuals/groups on a scale of lowest to highest on the basis of a criteria. For example, in the Indian caste system the criteria deployed is of purity vs. pollution. The caste groups considered as the purest are placed at the top and those considered as most polluted are placed at the bottom. In another society, economic status may be the primary criteria of hierarchical ordering, but the essence of any hierarchy is the notion of lowest to highest and an assumed superiority of the higher over the lower.

Serious problems arise when this notion of higher/lower is applied to authority which is essentially a task based construct. One of the damaging implications is the assumption that the authority which rests with any role holder also rests with his/her so called superior or boss. The absurdity of such a notion becomes obvious if we imagine a school where the principal has the authority to overturn the decisions of a teacher in respect of his/her pupil or a hospital  where the CEO has the authority to overturn the decision of a medical specialist. Nonetheless, expressions like “higher authority” are freely used by many people in spite of the fact that the concept of higher or lower can not be applied to distribution of authority.

Another deadly implication of this confusion between hierarchy and authority is that status differentials become a pre-requisite for exercise of authority. The individuals concerned start believing that authority becomes legitimate only when it is exercised by a person who is supposedly “higher” over a person who is supposedly “lower”.In other words, the belief is that authority only flows downwards and never upwards or laterally. Consequently accepting the authority of someone gets equated with accepting his/her higher hierarchical status. It is therefore not surprising that most people are over-cautious in exercising authority over someone who they regard as higher or equal and blatantly callous when dealing with someone who they regard as lower.

The end result of this confusion is that many bosses happily usurp the authority of their subordinates and many subordinates happily “delegate” their authority to their bosses- taking their decisions more on the basis of what they believe their boss wants rather than their own judgement. Needless to say, in such a scenario no real accountability can exist. The real decision maker (i.e. the boss) has no structural legitimacy and the the person who has signed on the dotted line (i.e. the subordinate) has no psychological ownership of the decision.

Meaningful exercise of authority has two main elements

-sanctity of role and structure, and

-requisite competence.

For any structure to work effectively it is important that the authority delegated to a role holder is commensurate with the responsibilities/accountabilities and  that the relevant information is available to the role holder for effective decision making. However, when hierarchy enters into the picture, this scenario changes.  The role holder  tends to delegate his/her authority upward as mentioned earlier. Thus it is not uncommon for bureaucrats to delegate their authority to their political bosses and for even elected political leaders to delegate their authority to their “high commands”. In such situations, authority is exercised not by the relevant role holder but by  someone else who may neither have the relevant information nor the associated responsibility/accountability. Thus, the structural/role sanctity gets compromised through creation of extra-constitutional centres of power and consequent disempowering of the legitimate role holders.

Every effective system needs to work continuously on upgrading the skills and competencies of its role holders. The most important source of this is feedback from the operating levels like the shop floor or the market place. When hierarchy enters the picture,people at lower levels tend to hold back their real thoughts and feelings lest they offend those who are higher than them.  Similarly people at the higher levels run the risk of not paying adequate attention to the messages coming from below.  In absence of authentic feedback it becomes extremely difficult for people to work at their own incompetencies. Interestingly,  higher the person is in hierarchy, the more difficult it becomes for him/her to upgrade his/her competence. I recall some time back I had asked a senior manager of a company about their experience with a prestigious consulting firm. His response was very telling- ” What the consultants told us is what our shop floor supervisors have been saying for years, but having paid millions to the consultants, we had no choice but to listen”. When hierarchy is confused with authority, no negative feedback flows from “lower” to “higher” levels, and the system as a whole can never work on its incompetencies.

It may seem that hierarchy can be helpful in at least upgrading of competence at lower levels because “negative feedback” can be more easily given from a higher level. However this is rarely the case. More often than not people at lower levels dismiss this feedback and attribute it to non-appreciation of the ground realities by their seniors. I recall, once  I and another colleague were working with a group of middle managers in a supposedly professional company. Throughout the day the group kept telling us as to how little their seniors understood the ground realities. In the evening we had invited some of their seniors for a joint session. However, the group preferred to just listen to their seniors (and mentally dismiss it) rather than express their own thoughts and feelings. All our invitations and attempts to facilitate a dialogue were ignored by both sides. The end result was that what could have been a significant learning experience became a meaningless ritual.

While confusion between hierarchy and authority is a widely prevalent phenomenon, cultures with high power distance (like India) are particularly susceptible to it, because it keeps getting reinforced on almost daily basis. Often this reinforcement is so subtle and seemingly inconsequential  that we don’t even notice it. Take for example, a fairly common expectation that a person of lower status hierarchy  than ourselves must behave in a polite and courteous manner or should be the first to greet/salute us OR our own difficulty in being direct and forthright with someone who we regard as higher in status hierarchy. Over a period of time, these seemingly inconsequential ways become part of us and become “par for the course” What we witness at the organisational and macro-social level are merely more dramatic and magnified versions of the same themes.

Thus any attempt to delink hierarchy from authority must begin with greater consciousness about how it plays out in our day to day life; and how we engage with people who we regard as lower or higher than ourselves in status hierarchy. Honouring and gracing the authority of a security guard or a maid servant may seem like a small matter but it can have profound impact on liberating authority from the clutches of hierarchy .It may also help us to learn to exercise our own authority without getting caught with the issue of our relative hierarchical status vis.a vis. the other person.


11 thoughts on “Hierarchy Vs. Authority

  1. Very well written Ashokji !!! The two aspects which play a key role in these dynamic situations is Fear & Insecurity….as most of the behaviours which you described have the Genesis in those. ..would love to hear your comments on that : )


  2. Provokes a number of thoughts, Ashok. I see the play of hierarchy and authority in organisations I work in, and organisations I have worked with, in a number of ways. I have a question to ask:

    One of the common beliefs is that organisations must have hierarchy (even if it is a necessay evil), because to ensure accountability, people must be made to report to someone (their bosses). Bosses or supervisors are therefore expected to be people with expertise in the subject of work of people they are supervising or monitoring. They must also have the authority to take decisions affecting people they supervise. The currency of such hierarchy may be knowledge, expertise, experience etc. etc… Where hierarchy is created on the basis of caste or money – is seen to be an exploitation – because such hierarchy places power in hands of people who have not earned it. Is there anything that may be called fair hierarchy as opposed to hierarchy that is based on inequality and discrimination?


    1. Thank you Roop. You have raised several issues and it will not be possible for me to do justice to them through a short response. However let me try. I am not questioning the need for authority which I accept is a necessary part of any organisation. If you have greater knowledge or experience than me in any area, then logically you must have the authority to overrule me when required, and also to assess the quality of my output. However this higher level of expertise does not make you “superior” to me in every respect-when authority and hierarchy are mixed up with each other, then the person placed at the “higher” level is deemed to have greater expertise in every area- which I am sure you will agree would be an absurd position to take in the complex organisations of today. Thus the issue is not merely of fairness alone, it has more to do with the assumption of “superiority” which is inherent in the concept of hierarchy. As far as the issues of accountability is concerned, it ought to focus on tasks and outputs. Accountability can not be to a person as gets implied through ideas such as reporting relationships.Admittedly it is the easiest way of handling the issue but certainly there are other alternatives to it. Personally, I believe that in times to come, the idea of reporting relationship will seem as abhorrent as the idea of slavery appears to us today. Trust I have clarified to some extent at least. Simply put, all I am saying is that allocation of role responsibilities based on individual differences of expertise is a necessity. Similarly distribution of authority based on role responsibilities is a necessity . When hierarchy enters the picture, these facets get clouded by several other factors which are of no relevance like assumption of superiority, expectation of obedience, control over career,beliefs around delegation/empowerment/mentoring etc. etc. If we wish that authority is exercised in a rational and meaningful way then it is important to delink it from the concept of hierarchy.


  3. It was Weber who, in his romantic moments, as opposed to his overall pessimistic perspective about human condition introduced the notion of rational authority as opposed to charismatic (read hierarchical) power, with the hope that there would emerge systems which would run on this principle – without perhaps realising that organisational structures would never substitute nor be insulated from social hierarchies and inequities.

    In fact the more complex the organisations become today with greater emphasis on isolations and bureaucracies – the notion of rational authority takes a further setback. The security guard, in a more complex design, may not even understand why this authority has been granted to him – except that the book / policy gives it to him. The real social hierarchies and inequities, that lurk beneath the mechanistic task structures gets more power …

    nice article ashok – i do remember gouranga and your paper quite well – and it was a refreshing refresher so to say…


    1. Thank you, Gagan. I agree with you that organisation structures can not be insulated from social hierarchies and inequities. It is precisely for this reason that differentiating hierarchy from exercise of authority in day to day conduct becomes that much more significant. So long as exercise of authority is associated with feelings of superiority/inferiority, there is little hope for rational authority. In my limited understanding, Weber did not delink hierarchy from authority except to the extent of depersonalising it. Thus the emphasis shifted from person to role, but simultaneously roles got structured in a hierarchical order. Undoubtedly, this takes care of the problem of personalised superiority/inferiority but the issue of role hierarchy still remains. In fact given the complexity of present day organisations, it is reasonable to assume that in many cases people placed at lower levels of role hierarchy will carry greater expertise in their specified areas and hence must necessarily have greater authority for effective functioning.This becomes nearly impossible if exercise of authority remains linked to feelings of superiority/inferiority or higher/lower- irrespective of whether they are person based or role based.


Comments are closed.