he ideas of hierarchy, engagement, and fatalism struck a nerve within the SPaMCAST family. To a person, the prevailing attitude is that hierarchy has value but only to a point. Susan Parente identified that hierarchies are valuable for “quick decision-making and action”. A well-understood and compact chain of control that does not need a Google search to determine who can make a decision is useful. The caveats to the term “useful” include understood and compact.  In the same breath, to a person, they all agreed that while some hierarchy is good, too much is not. Hierarchies grow until they find a tipping point where they become too heavy or too stolid and protective. Past a certain point, they dampen engagement and yield mediocrity without intervention. There are all sorts of good reasons for organizations to react in this fashion. But mediocrity in a competitive environment is a harbinger of a death spiral. As Keis Kostaci, (SPaMCAST’s newest columnist) stated, “Hierarchy can hinder engagement and especially when those people/individuals that need to speak out get shut down.”

One of the troubling aspects of hierarchy, as it spoils, is the appearance of denied responsibility. One aspect of this behavior occurs when individuals feel that they are not personally responsible for certain actions or decisions because they were following orders or instructions. You won’t have to tax your memory to dredge up incidences where you have heard someone say, “I was just doing what I was told.” The My Lai massacre is an example of this phenomenon at its worst. While this is less an issue of hierarchy than it is a people issue, the culture of hierarchy is a contributor. As we have noted in earlier installments, rigid command and control hierarchies provide space for fatalism to emerge. Combine fatalism and layers of the hierarchy that feel they feel cut off from participating in decision processes there is little reason for them to feel any responsibility for their actions.

The relationships between hierarchy, engagement, and fatalism represent a balancing act. The SPaMCAST columnists identified two concepts that affect the balance between these three areas. The problem often boils down to empowerment and aligning with a common goal. Jon M Quigley introduced the concept of resilience into the discussion which highlighted the need for alignment to a strong goal. Tony Timbol stated engagement will be higher if the hierarchy delegates and empowers people to act on that delegation. The combination of delegation and empowerment reduces the potential for blame-shifting and hierarchy-driven fatalism. Aligning to a common goal provides a purpose for people to rally around. Note – aligning is not be same as receiving a goal. Aligning to a common goal is powerful. A strong goal provides fertile ground for a sense of belonging to grow leading to resilience and engagement. Combining empowerment and goal alignment helps to push back the forces of fatalism.

Knowing the solution and acting on those solutions are two very different things, It is easy to accept that how we lead and how with work with others is “just how it’s done.” Falatism can exist everywhere. Jermey Berriaut pointed out a role change agents must play. “When functional experts are promoted without a good mentor to show what leadership means, they will rule more than lead.” As people interested in change, we need to reach out to mentor fellow leaders. Lead by example or accept your lot.