Editing Hierarchical organization (section)

== Studies ==
The [[organizational development]] theorist [[Elliott Jaques]] identified a special role for hierarchy in his concept of [[requisite organization]].<ref name=":10" /> 
 
The [[iron law of oligarchy]], introduced by [[Robert Michels]], describes the inevitable tendency of hierarchical organizations to become [[oligarchy|oligarchic]] in their decision making.<ref>Michels, R. (2001), Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (originally published in 1915; translated by E. Paul & C. Paul). Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books.</ref>

The [[Peter principle|Peter Principle]] is a term coined by [[Laurence J. Peter]] in which the selection of a candidate for a position in an hierarchical organization is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and managers in an hierarchical organization "rise to the level of their incompetence."

[[Hierarchiology]] is another term coined by Laurence J. Peter, described in his humorous book of the same name, to refer to the study of hierarchical organizations and the behavior of their members.

{{Blockquote|Having formulated the Principle, I discovered that I had inadvertently founded a new science, hierarchiology, the study of hierarchies. The term hierarchy was originally used to describe the system of church government by priests graded into ranks. The contemporary meaning includes any organization whose members or employees are arranged in order of rank, grade or class. Hierarchiology, although a relatively recent discipline, appears to have great applicability to the fields of public and private administration.|[[Laurence J. Peter]] and [[Raymond Hull]]|''[[The Peter Principle]]: Why Things Always Go Wrong''}}

David Andrews' book ''The IRG Solution: Hierarchical Incompetence and how to Overcome it'' argued that hierarchies were inherently incompetent, and were only able to function due to large amounts of informal [[lateral communication]] fostered by private informal networks.