{"id":21186,"date":"2025-07-01T09:00:26","date_gmt":"2025-07-01T07:00:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/primate.consulting\/?p=21186"},"modified":"2026-04-07T18:19:02","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T16:19:02","slug":"evolving-hierarchy-a-challenge-for-companies-and-institutions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/primate.consulting\/en\/evolving-hierarchy-a-challenge-for-companies-and-institutions\/","title":{"rendered":"Evolving Hierarchy – A Challenge for Companies and Institutions"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the English translation of the article by Marina Capizzi published on “Rassegna dell’Arma dei Carabinieri” on July 2025<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Hierarchy has always been the cornerstone of companies and institutions, and is considered the structure most often seen as ensuring order, clarity of responsibilities, and discipline. However, in an increasingly complex world characterized by rapid and unpredictable change, traditional hierarchy is showing clear limitations in organizations. The distance between those who experience problems in the field and those who make decisions at the top creates rigidity and slowness; the fragmentation of tasks creates barriers and conflicts that hinder collaboration; the focus on the individual limits investment in teams, which are now the primary setting to achieve results; the fear of speaking up does not encourage people to share new ideas, observations, proposals, or mistakes, and does not promote innovation and individual and collective learning.<\/p>\n

This is what happens in private organizations. Do these reflections offer useful insights for the Carabinieri? So where should we begin in evolving the traditional hierarchy? And what are the benefits for people, customers, and users?<\/p>\n

Summary:<\/strong> 1. Introduction. \u2013 2. The Critical Issues of Traditional Hierarchy. \u2013 3. The Effects on People. \u2013 4. Hierarchies of Connection.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Introduction<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Hierarchy is the structure that has always provided order and formed the backbone of our corporate and institutional organizations. The design of a clear, fast, and well-organized chain of command has enabled organizations to achieve their objectives, grow, and and sustain themselves over time. Hierarchical structure, in fact, ensures a clear division of roles and responsibilities, simplifying internal coordination, task allocation, and enabling an effective and timely response. Thanks to these advantages, traditional hierarchy withstands every wave of change.<\/p>\n

    Technological, product, and service innovations, as well as frequent reorganizations, have never undermined the principle on which traditional hierarchy is based: in the hierarchical pyramid, decision-making power and authority over people increase as one moves upward. In practice, those \u201cabove,\u201d in addition to making decisions, are authorized to exercise command and control over those \u201cbelow.\u201d An important corollary of this principle is that the higher one moves up the hierarchical pyramid, the more people are expected to think; the further one moves down, the more people are expected to execute. It is true that there are different ways of managing hierarchical power. In fact, for several decades many organizations have invested in the leadership style of management to strengthen behaviors of listening and involvement, with the aim\u2014according to the slogan\u2014of putting people at the center. However, these investments in evolving leadership style have not been matched by equivalent efforts to evolve the logic by which decision-making power is distributed, which, in its essence, remains unchanged: the responsibility for deciding, coordinating, planning, and controlling the activities of others\u2014ensuring that work processes are reliable and efficient\u2014continues to rest with Managers. Should we then conclude that traditional hierarchy is the most effective structure for all organizations?<\/p>\n

    In corporate contexts, traditional hierarchy has taken the form of the \u201cscientific organization of work\u201d through the Taylorist model\u2014developed in the early twentieth century during the second industrial revolution[1]<\/a>\u2014which views the organization as a large machine in which people are required to perform fragmented, codified, and repetitive tasks, following instructions from their superiors. This model emerged in a world that could be governed, predicted, and controlled \u201cfrom the top\u201d because it was driven by supply. We can recall Henry Ford\u2019s famous statement, associated with the launch of the Model T\u2014the first car designed for mass production thanks to the introduction of assembly lines: you can have it in any color you want, as long as it is black.<\/em> Why? Because black was the fastest-drying color. That world no longer exists.<\/p>\n

    The pressure of competition intersects with the presence of multiple \u201cpublics\u201d with diverse and constantly evolving needs, requiring speed in understanding demand and its changes, as well as the ability to offer products and services aligned with these shifts. This means that companies, in order to survive and thrive, must become \u201csensors\u201d capable of perceiving and responding in step with the world\u2014innovating their products and services, experimenting with new paths, and finding new solutions. More than a large mechanical system, today corporate organizations resemble living organisms that must remain connected to their environment in order to evolve and adapt to change. Certainly, in a simpler world\u2014where long-term planning was possible\u2014it was enough to have a few thinking heads and many \u201coperators\u201d tasked with executing decisions made \u201cat the top.\u201d But today? We live in an era of continuous and unpredictable disruptions that unsettle and reshape the rules of the game. The time available to perceive and respond to needs, threats, and opportunities has drastically reduced, and organizational realities are now too complex to be managed solely from the center by people far removed from the field\u2014that is, from the place where demand and supply meet. Are we sure that the traditional pyramid is still the structure that ensures the best functioning of companies for customers, users, and citizens?<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The critical issues of traditional hierarchy<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Hierarchy has always been considered the structure that enables rapid decision-making based on the clarity of responsibilities tied to individual roles. Every hierarchical structure, in fact, is represented by an organizational chart in which roles and responsibilities are clearly defined: each person is assigned a role, and this role is codified through so-called job descriptions that outline its responsibilities. It is a simple and effective system of functioning, isn\u2019t it? And yet, our companies report structural slowness in decision-making, and confusion about who should do what often prevails. Why? Because traditional hierarchy struggles to respond to the needs of customers, users, and citizens in a world of continuous change.<\/p>\n

      For two reasons.<\/p>\n

      The first reason is linked to the structural distance between problems and decisions that characterizes the traditional pyramid. The people working at the lower levels of the hierarchy are those who interact daily with customers and users, gather their requests and complaints, experience problems firsthand, and could resolve many of them on the spot\u2014if only they had greater autonomy. Instead, in the traditional pyramid, decisions are always made by the higher role. A paradox is thus created: decision-making power increases as one moves upward, while contact with customers and users increases as one moves downward.<\/p>\n

      In practice, the more one deals directly with customers and users, the less one is able to decide, and one must wait for decisions to be made \u201cat the top,\u201d where decisions accumulate, pile up, and wait their turn. The pyramid is a structure designed top-down<\/em>, but problems and decisions constantly move upward, defying the laws of gravity. And the higher they rise, the larger they become. Small problems turn into increasingly larger ones. And large problems require major decisions. Those at the top therefore find themselves making important decisions about problems they do not experience firsthand and, as a result, need time, information, and data to understand them before deciding. And so, what do we do? In companies, meetings are held upon meetings among managers. The focus is primarily on numbers, which are interpreted in order to identify solutions, because decision-makers are not accustomed to asking those \u201cbelow\u201d for clarification and proposals. This decision-making process creates a structural distance between problems and decisions. The effects are significant: timeframes lengthen, meetings multiply, the structure becomes rigid, and the decisions that emerge are not always the most effective.<\/p>\n

      The second reason that makes traditional hierarchy structurally slow is fragmentation. The majority of our organizations adopt a functional organizational model in which people with similar expertise are grouped vertically, from the top to the base. This creates specializations and professional families: Finance & Control, Information Systems, Human Resources, Research & Development, Procurement, Production, Commercial\u2026 each Function has its own objectives, its own expertise, its own evaluation criteria, and its own language. The underlying logic is that fragmentation fosters the development of expertise and allows command and control to be exercised more effectively. However, this highly rational design does not take into account that each function, in order to achieve its objectives, depends on the contribution of the others and that, consequently, an organization\u2019s products and services are the result of the combined contribution of all its parts. Moreover, different languages make listening and collaboration across functions difficult. What typically happens, therefore, is that the organizational chart becomes a map of boundaries; boundaries create territories; territories call for their defense, even\u2014if necessary\u2014through attack. In short, boundaries fuel boundary conflicts. Indeed, in organizations, cross-functional integration is one of the most critical challenges. Of course, there are managers who seek collaboration through relationships, but ultimately functional objectives prevail over the broader, shared organizational objective.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The effects on people<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The distance between problems and decisions has powerful effects on people. First and foremost, it generates excessive stress \u201cat the top\u201d and frustration or excuses \u201cat the bottom.\u201d<\/p>\n

        Stress \u201cat the top\u201d arises because, in our organizations, managers are overwhelmed by problems coming from below\u2014problems for which they do not have firsthand information and with which they have no direct experience, because they do not live them in real time, yet on which they are required to make decisions. Frustration or excuses \u201cat the bottom\u201d emerge because the people who deal with problems (and opportunities) every day have little, if any, decision-making autonomy; as a result, they become demotivated or disengage, expecting everything to be resolved \u201cat the top.\u201d This, in addition to continually undermining the relationship of trust between those who decide and those who act, does not encourage people to work as a team or to develop the skills needed to manage quickly and responsibly the situations that arise in the field.<\/p>\n

        Functional fragmentation also has effects on people\u2019s energy and sense of responsibility. The organizational chart, which separates the \u201cterritory\u201d of individual functions, does not hold up in the face of real challenges and opportunities, which often need to be addressed by integrating different competencies and where responsibilities are multifaceted. As a result, conflicts arise between functions to \u201cclaim\u201d a given project or, conversely, cross-functional problems remain unowned because no function considers them within its scope. Another paradox of the traditional pyramid: hierarchy, which is supposed to ensure clarity and accountability, generates gray areas for which no one feels responsible.<\/p>\n

        A further effect generated by traditional hierarchy on people is the fear of questioning decisions made at the top. The pyramid, being composed of \u201csuperiors\u201d who determine the fate of \u201csubordinates,\u201d can become a powerful mechanism for generating fear, leading people to hold back when they should speak up, in order to protect themselves. In organizations, few managers regularly receive from their direct reports perspectives that differ from their own or feedback that might challenge or warn them about the decisions to be made. When we encounter a manager who is open and capable of listening, it is often due more to personal characteristics than to established organizational practices. The fear of making one\u2019s voice heard is, in fact, reinforced by the culture that prevails in most organizations. For example, it is common to witness meetings where the Manager, after speaking the entire time, asks, \u201cAre there any questions?\u201d, and no one responds. This silence is usually interpreted by the Manager as confirmation that everything is clear. But in most cases, this is not true. People prefer not to speak up\u2014by asking questions, expressing doubts, or sharing ideas\u2014because they fear being judged negatively and facing consequences.<\/p>\n

        In this way, the epidemic of silence is fueled, generating very high daily costs: beyond lowering people\u2019s well-being, it limits contributions, impoverishes solutions, and, in a complex world like ours, increases the risk that wrong decisions will be made.<\/p>\n

        Fear can also cost lives, as in the case of NASA when, on February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia<\/em> disintegrated upon re-entry into the atmosphere, causing the death of the seven astronauts on board. Investigations showed that some engineers had identified an anomaly as early as launch, raising the possibility of fatal damage. Yet their voice never reached the mission\u2019s leadership. Why? Because no one felt authorized to insist. The hierarchical culture at NASA discouraged questioning decisions made \u201cat the top.\u201d As a result, well-founded concerns remained unheard. This dramatic episode shows how fear in organizations is not only an issue of internal well-being, but can have irreversible consequences on human lives and institutional credibility. When fear prevents people from speaking up, hierarchy becomes an obstacle rather than a protection. Organizations therefore face the challenge of evolving traditional hierarchy so that it can once again become a resource rather than a limitation. But how can this be done?<\/p>\n

        In my book, Hierarchy to Die or to Thrive?[2]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>, I outline two starting points for evolving traditional hierarchy:<\/p>\n