Editing Hierarchical organization (section)

=== Four types of hierarchy ===
A more elaborate [[Typology (social science research method)|typology]] of hierarchy in social systems entails four types: hierarchy as a ladder of formal authority, ladder of achieved status, self-organized ladder of responsibility, and an ideology-based ladder.<ref name="Romme">{{cite journal |last1=Romme |first1=A. Georges L. |title=Ladders of Authority, Status, Responsibility and Ideology: Toward a Typology of Hierarchy in Social Systems |journal=Systems |date=15 March 2021 |volume=9 |issue=1 |page=20 |doi=10.3390/systems9010020 |doi-access=free }}{{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}}</ref> The first two types can be equated with the formal and informal hierarchy, as previously defined. Accordingly, this typology extends the formal and informal hierarchy with two other types.

====Hierarchy as ladder of formal authority====
This type of hierarchy is defined as a sequence of levels of formal [[authority]], that is, the authority to [[Decision-making|make decisions]].<ref name="Romme"/><ref>Tirole, J. (1986), “Hierarchies and bureaucracies: On the role of collusion in organizations.” ''Journal of Law, Economics, &amp; Organization'', 2: 181–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036907</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Adler |first=Paul S. |date= 2001|title=Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of Capitalism |url=https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117 |journal=Organization Science |language=en |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=215–234 |doi=10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117 |issn=1047-7039}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> This results in a ladder that systematically differentiates the authority to make decisions. A typical authority-based hierarchy in [[Company|companies]] is: the [[board of directors]], [[Chief executive officer|CEO]], departmental [[Management|managers]], [[team leader]]s, and other [[Employment|employees]].<ref name="Romme" /> The authority-based hierarchy, also known as the formal hierarchy, to a large extent arises from the legal structure of the organization: for example, the owner of the firm is also the CEO or appoints the CEO, who in turn appoints and supervises departmental managers, and so forth.<ref name="Romme" />

====Hierarchy as ladder of achieved status====
Also known as the informal hierarchy (defined earlier), this type of hierarchy draws on unofficial mechanisms for ranking people.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Joshi |first1=Aparna |last2=Knight |first2=Andrew P. |date= 2015|title=Who Defers to Whom and Why? Dual Pathways Linking Demographic Differences and Dyadic Deference to Team Effectiveness |url=http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2013.0718 |journal=Academy of Management Journal |language=en |volume=58 |issue=1 |pages=59–84 |doi=10.5465/amj.2013.0718 |issn=0001-4273}}</ref><ref name=":11">{{Cite journal |last1=He |first1=Jinyu |last2=Huang |first2=Zhi |date= 2011|title=Board Informal Hierarchy and Firm Financial Performance: Exploring a Tacit Structure Guiding Boardroom Interactions |url=http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2009.0824 |journal=Academy of Management Journal |language=en |volume=54 |issue=6 |pages=1119–1139 |doi=10.5465/amj.2009.0824 |issn=0001-4273}}</ref> It involves differences in [[Social status|status]], other than those arising from formal authority. Status is one's social standing or professional position, relative to those of others.<ref>Magee &amp; Galinsky (2008)</ref><ref name=":12">{{Cite journal |last1=George |first1=Gerard |last2=Dahlander |first2=Linus |last3=Graffin |first3=Scott D. |last4=Sim |first4=Samantha |date= 2016|title=Reputation and Status: Expanding the Role of Social Evaluations in Management Research |url=http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2016.4001 |journal=Academy of Management Journal |language=en |volume=59 |issue=1 |pages=1–13 |doi=10.5465/amj.2016.4001 |issn=0001-4273}}</ref> In anthropology and sociology, this notion of status is also known as [[achieved status]], the social position that is earned instead of being [[Ascribed status|ascribed]].<ref>Bourdieu, P. (1984), [[Distinction (book)|''Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste''.]] Cambridge, CA: Harvard University Press.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ravlin |first1=Elizabeth C. |last2=Thomas |first2=David C. |date= 2005|title=Status and Stratification Processes in Organizational Life |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206305279898 |journal=Journal of Management |language=en |volume=31 |issue=6 |pages=966–987 |doi=10.1177/0149206305279898 |issn=0149-2063}}</ref> The underlying mechanism is [[social stratification]], which draws on shared cultural beliefs (e.g. regarding expertise and seniority as drivers of status) that can make status differences between people appear natural and fair.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=Cameron |last2=Hildreth |first2=John Angus D. |last3=Howland |first3=Laura |date= 2015|title=Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0038781 |journal=Psychological Bulletin |language=en |volume=141 |issue=3 |pages=574–601 |doi=10.1037/a0038781 |pmid=25774679 |issn=1939-1455}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Social Class and Stratification |url=https://www.routledge.com/Social-Class-and-Stratification/Saunders/p/book/9780415041256 |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=Routledge & CRC Press |language=en}}</ref> A ladder of achieved status is [[Social constructionism|socially constructed]], which makes it fundamentally different from the ladder of authority that (largely) arises from an underlying legal structure.<ref name="Romme"/> The social-constructivist nature of status also implies that ladders of achieved status especially arise in groups of people that frequently interact—for example, a work unit, team, family, or neighbourhood.<ref>Saunders (1990)</ref><ref>Dwertmann, D.J.G., &amp; Boehm, S.A. (2016), ”Status matters: The asymmetric effects of supervisor–subordinate disability incongruence and climate for inclusion.” ''Academy of Management Journal'', 59: 44–64. [https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2014. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0093]</ref><ref name=":11" /><ref name=":12" />

====Hierarchy as self-organized ladder of responsibility====
In the literature on organization [[design]] and [[Business agility|agility]], hierarchy is conceived as a [[Requisite organization|requisite]] structure that emerges in a [[Self-organization|self-organized]] manner from operational activities.<ref name="Romme"/><ref name=":10" /><ref name=":8">Robertson, B.J. (2015), ''Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World.'' New York: Henry Holt.</ref><ref name=":5">Romme (2019)</ref> For example, a small firm composed of only three equivalent partners can initially operate without any hierarchy; but substantial growth in terms of people and their tasks will create the need for coordination and related managerial activities; this implies, for example, that one of the partners starts doing these coordination activities. Another example involves organizations adopting [[holacracy]] or [[sociocracy]], with people at all levels self-organizing their responsibilities;<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":5" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Monarth |first=Harrison |date=2014-01-28 |title=A Company Without Job Titles Will Still Have Hierarchies |url=https://hbr.org/2014/01/a-company-without-job-titles-will-still-have-hierarchies |access-date=2024-08-01 |work=Harvard Business Review |issn=0017-8012}}</ref> that is, they exercise "real" rather than formal authority.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Aghion |first1=Philippe |last2=Tirole |first2=Jean |date= 1997|title=Formal and Real Authority in Organizations |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/262063 |journal=Journal of Political Economy |language=en |volume=105 |issue=1 |pages=1–29 |doi=10.1086/262063 |issn=0022-3808|hdl=1721.1/63648 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> In this respect, [[Moral responsibility|responsibility]] is an expression of self-restraint and intrinsic [[obligation]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Managing in a Time of Great Change |url=https://www.routledge.com/Managing-in-a-Time-of-Great-Change/Drucker/p/book/9780750637145 |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=Routledge & CRC Press |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Pragmatist Democracy: Evolutionary Learning as Public Philosophy {{!}} Oxford Academic |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/5519 |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=academic.oup.com |language=en}}</ref> Examples of self-organized ladders of responsibility have also been observed in (the early stages of) [[worker cooperative]]s, like [[Mondragon Corporation|Mondragon]], in which hierarchy is created in a bottom-up manner.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Making Mondragón by William Foote Whyte {{!}} Paperback |url=https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780875461823/making-mondragn/www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780875461823/making-mondrag-n/ |access-date=2024-08-01 |website=Cornell University Press |language=en-US}}</ref>

====Hierarchy as ladder of ideology====
In a hierarchy driven by [[ideology]], people establish themselves as legitimate [[Leadership|leaders]] by invoking some (e.g., religious, spiritual or political) idea to justify the hierarchical relationship between higher and lower levels.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Brummans |first1=Boris H. J. M. |last2=Hwang |first2=Jennie M. |last3=Cheong |first3=Pauline Hope |date= |title=Mindful Authoring through Invocation: Leaders' Constitution of a Spiritual Organization |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0893318913479176 |journal=Management Communication Quarterly |language=en |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=346–372 |doi=10.1177/0893318913479176 |issn=0893-3189}}</ref><ref>Gelfand, M. (1959), ''Shona Ritual.'' Cape Town: Juta &amp; Co.</ref><ref name=":9">{{Cite journal |last=Howe |first=Leo |date=1991 |title=Rice, Ideology, and the Legitimation of Hierarchy in Bali |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2803877 |journal=Man |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=445–467 |doi=10.2307/2803877 |jstor=2803877 |issn=0025-1496}}</ref> Ideological hierarchies have a long history, for example in the administrative hierarchies headed by [[pharaoh]]s in [[ancient Egypt]] or those headed by [[king]]s in [[Middle Ages|medieval Europe]].<ref name=":6">Shaw, G.J. (2012), ''The Pharaoh, Life at Court and on Campaign''. London: Thames &amp; Hudson.</ref> The main [[Legitimacy (political)|legitimacy]] of any pharaoh or king arose from the strong belief in the idea that the pharaoh/king acts as the [[intermediary]] between the gods and the people, and thus deputizes for the gods.<ref name=":6" /> Another example is the hierarchy prevailing until today in the [[Bali]]nese community, which is strongly connected to the rice cycle that is believed to constitute a hierarchical relationship between gods and humans, both of whom must play their parts to secure a good crop; the same ideology also legitimizes the hierarchical relationship between high and low castes in Bali.<ref name=":9" /> Ideological ladders have also long sustained the way the [[Catholic Church|Catholic church]] and the [[Caste system in India|Hindu caste system]] operates.<ref name=":1" /> Hierarchies of ideology also exist in many other settings, for instance, those driven by prevailing [[Value (ethics and social sciences)|values]] and [[belief]]s about how the (e.g. business) world should operate.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pettigrew |first=Andrew M. |date=1979 |title=On Studying Organizational Cultures |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2392363 |journal=Administrative Science Quarterly |volume=24 |issue=4 |pages=570–581 |doi=10.2307/2392363 |jstor=2392363 |issn=0001-8392}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Gupta |first1=Abhinav |last2=Briscoe |first2=Forrest |last3=Hambrick |first3=Donald C. |date= |title=Red, blue, and purple firms: Organizational political ideology and corporate social responsibility: Organizational Political Ideology and Corporate Social Responsibility |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.2550 |journal=Strategic Management Journal |language=en |volume=38 |issue=5 |pages=1018–1040 |doi=10.1002/smj.2550|hdl=10.1002/smj.2550 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> An example is the ideology of "maximizing [[shareholder value]]", which is widely used in [[Public company|publicly traded companies]].<ref name=":4" /> This ideology helps in creating and sustaining the image of a clear hierarchy from shareholders to employees—although, in practice, the separation of legal ownership and actual control implies that the [[Chief executive officer|CEO]] together with the [[Board of directors|Board of Directors]] are at the top of the corporate hierarchy.<ref name=":3" /> Given that public corporations (primarily) thrive on ladders of authority; this example also demonstrates how ladders of authority and ideology can complement and reinforce each other.<ref name="Romme"/>