Fatalism in the workplace is the belief that you can’t control or influence the work you do or how you do it. Engagement is a measure of commitment, motivation, and involvement. Engagement impacts a person’s work, their colleagues, and their organization. An engaged person is passionate about their work. With few exceptions, hierarchy is a fact of life. Hierarchy defines the levels of authority, responsibility, and decision-making within a company or organization. A simpler definition that is often used is the “chain of command.”
Hierarchy, fatalism, and engagement intertwine. The relationship between these concepts is complex. The right kind of hierarchy provides structure and mitigates risk. The same structure can at a moment’s notice become a boat anchor. Hierarchy needs to be flexible and adaptable – agile to be effective and efficient. Unfortunately, most human institutions once they mature lose flexibility. My colleague Jonathan Lee states that hierarchy can have pros and cons.
“Hierarchy can be good, providing structure for employees to focus on their roles to become masters of it. From a growth perspective, it may limit their creativity and ability to innovate because the hierarchy is there to maintain that status quo.”
Jonathan’s statement highlights the complexity we face as we interact with real people in real organizations. Anthony Mersino, President of Vitality Chicago, gives voice to another potential downside of hierarchy.
“Hierarchy can slow or stop innovation if conversations with peers in related groups are stifled because things have to go up the chain for approval.”
As noted, all organizations have hierarchies even families. The concept of hierarchy is fine. Fine until it passes the point where enough structure becomes too much. The overhead generates plaque in the organization’s decision-making arteries. When decisions become hard to make and change, fatalism rears its head.
Determining how much structure is enough and not too much is not a simple algebraic equation. Hierarchy causes a differential of power between those at the top and those at the bottom. The technical term for how accepting or tolerant a person (or a group) is of that power differential is power distance. While every person is different several attributes that can influence power distance. For example, national or tribal culture can influence power differentials. For example Clearly Cultural has assessed the power distance for a wide group of countries (link). The data states that India has a high power distance suggesting an acceptance of a higher degree of power differential. The United States has a lower power distance. The lower the power distance the more people tend to challenge authority and question power imbalances. Power distance in a team or in a company is not monolithic. Factors that cause variation include leadership style, team composition, and organizational culture.
Organizational culture anchors the belief in hierarchy. Organizations with strong hierarchies hire for belief in the hierarchy. They generate rules and policies that reinforce and then defend the hierarchy. I re-read Star Ship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein this week (audiobook this time). Heinlein described how the Mobile Infantry enforced the chain of command through rules and punishment. While a novel, the same basic behavior is present in the workplace. Strong hierarchies use fatalism as a tool to repress challenges to authority. Returning to thoughts by Jonathan Lee:
“It (hierarchy)reduces the ability to be agile and try new and different things as it requires hierarchy buy-in. This is even more challenging when the hierarchy is filled with managers rather than leaders.”
Every change agent must work on reducing power distance and the strength of the hierarchy or they will fail. Change is not easy, hierarchies will fight back. You will hear the statements like “That is not the way we do it here.” As a change leader, you can fall prey to the narcotic of fatalism.
