Inside:
What the research actually says about hierarchy and performance
The fine line between clear roles and shutting people down
How to manage complexity with hierarchy
The magic (and chaos) of flat teams
Practical ways to structure teams to be both fluid and flexible
A better question to ask
For most organisations, the central task is to (1) make a set of decisions based on (2) a stack of knowledge, while (3) aligning people to those decisions. And yes, (4) purpose inevitably plays a role. Hierarchy can act as both an enabler and a constraint. However, as a social construct, it is not very effective overall, if you look at scientific research.
Hierarchy as a strategy for effectiveness
Hierarchy is often assumed to improve performance, but research shows that it yields only minimal effectiveness gains unless it is carefully tailored to the task and the team. In environments that require creativity, deep collaboration or shared responsibility, rigid hierarchies typically fall short — both in terms of immediate results and the long-term health of the team. The only notable advantage was found in highly ambiguous or urgent tasks, where a clear decision-maker can help avoid indecision.
Modest gains, real drawbacks: While hierarchy can provide structure, it often leads to status tensions that undermine team performance. These conflicts reduce contributions and create friction that outweigh the benefits of coordination.
Context is everything: Hierarchy is least effective when it comes to collective problem solving or when teams face instability and internal competition. Its strengths only come into play in tightly scoped, time-critical scenarios.
Clarity beats contestation: Teams with a clearly accepted hierarchy perform better than those with constant power struggles. But even then, the advantages dwindle when innovation and collaboration take centre stage.
Where hierarchy adds value
Clarity in decision-making: In crisis situations or time-critical scenarios, a clear chain of command reduces overanalysis. By defining who is in charge, teams can act quickly and eliminate ambiguity.
Simplified communication: When the stakes are high, people tend to defer to a clear leader. This approach lowers cognitive load — everyone knows who makes the final decision.
Stable membership & skill alignment: When team members have similar skill sets and roles rarely change, a hierarchy can streamline decision-making without causing major tensions.
Where hierarchy fails
Stifled innovation: Strict top-down control can prevent bold ideas from surfacing. People may withhold valuable contributions if they fear stepping on their superiors’ toes.
Conflict and status competition: Unequal power relationships can lead to turf wars or “climbing the ladder”. This undermines collaboration and can reduce overall performance.
Limited effectiveness in complex tasks: Hierarchy often struggles when tasks require extensive creativity or diverse expertise. Studies show that it can lead to information bottlenecks and discourage open contributions.
Bottom line: Hierarchy can provide short bursts of clarity for urgent tasks but tends to hurt team performance in the long term if it triggers constant status conflicts or discourages participation.
Hierarchy as a strategy for safety and control
Where hierarchy adds value
Psychological safety through clear roles: In some cultures or environments, people feel more comfortable when they know exactly who can step in to resolve tensions. By formalising authority, hierarchy can contain a group’s anxieties and allow members to focus on their core tasks.
Structured conflict resolution: A clearly defined chain of command gives teams a predictable way to escalate issues. Middle managers, in particular, act as a buffer by translating executive priorities and mediating frontline conflicts.
Where hierarchy fails
Overdependence on authority: When leaders constantly “solve” everything, team members may no longer take initiative or give honest feedback.
Mismatch with shifting cultures: In rapidly evolving organizations that value diversity or shared ownership, a rigid top-down approach can feel outdated and cause friction between the “old guard” and the “new guard”.
Bottom line: Hierarchy can reduce uncertainty and provide a sense of security, especially in cultures that value respect for authority. But when leaders overreach their power or when the organization moves toward more collaborative values, hierarchy can become an obstacle to genuine dialog.
Hierarchy as a tactic for scaling and complexity management
Where hierarchy adds value
Managing complexity: As organizations grow, hierarchy helps break down complexity into clear sub-units — teams, departments and functions — making it easier to align work to larger goals.
Risk and error reduction: In industries where the stakes are high, such as healthcare or aviation, clear chains of command and protocols help prevent errors and control risk.
Clear accountability: Defined levels of oversight clarify who is responsible for what and keep large projects organized and on track.
Where hierarchy fails
Slow decision making: More levels often mean more delays and miscommunication.
Siloed thinking: Teams can become isolated, limiting the flow of ideas and knowledge sharing.
Imbalances of power: Centralized authority can lead to self-serving leadership, which reduces trust and collaboration.
Loss of agility: While structure helps with scaling, it can also cause the organization to adapt more slowly if not carefully managed.
Bottom line: For large organizations, some degree of hierarchy is often unavoidable — if only to manage risk and coordinate complex work. But keep an eye on slow decision making and siloed thinking, which can undermine agility.
Cooperative (or collaborative) groups as an alternative
Where cooperative leadership adds value
Shared decision making: Encouraging input from the whole team increases motivation, encourages diverse problem solving and can lead to more innovative results.
Group-level rewards: Recognizing team performance rather than individual excellence builds trust and cohesion and prevents destructive internal competition.
Deeper sense of purpose: People often feel more connected to the mission when they have a real voice in shaping it, which can increase ownership and collective accountability.
Where collaborative leadership fails
Lack of clarity: Flattened teams without a clear decision maker (or: -making) can get stuck in endless debates when no one feels empowered to make the call.
Hidden hierarchies: Pretending “we’re all equal” when some members actually have more influence can lead to cynicism and confusion.
Bottom line: Collaboration can foster creativity and shared ownership, but teams still need clear structures and accountability. “Flat” doesn’t work if no one can break a deadlock or mediate conflict.
Structuring teams: Practical tips
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to team structure. The best structures are flexible — sometimes they rely on hierarchy to create speed and clarity, sometimes on collaboration to encourage creativity and shared responsibility. Effective leaders design the structure based on the task at hand, the people involved and the wider environment.
Use hierarchy with intention: Defaulting to hierarchy can backfire — especially in work that thrives on the sharing of ideas, collaborative creativity and long-term trust. In these cases, a more collaborative model tends to outperform.
Match the structure to the task: For high-pressure ambiguous work with tight deadlines, some top-down clarity can help. But for complex, creative challenges, loosening the hierarchy usually leads to better results.
Be clear, but stay open: Make expectations around roles and decisions explicit— but leave space for input. Ask questions like: Does this need top down control, or would a flatter approach spark better ideas?
Make it safe to speak up: Encourage open dialog, especially with those who formally have less power. Whether it’s anonymous feedback or regular check-ins, create channels that lower the stakes for honesty.
Identify and reduce status tensions: If team members are jockeying for rank or recognition, the hierarchy could lead to friction. This is especially likely if there are large skill gaps or constant changes in team composition. Address tensions quickly and model communication that flows in all directions — not just from the top down.
Reduce the risk of conflict: Look for stable teams and balanced skill levels whenever possible. If there is a natural difference in expertise, focus on unique value rather than rank to reduce status-related friction.
Celebrate team successes, not just titles: Shift the focus from rank to contribution. Recognizing collaborative efforts reduces internal competition and reinforces a culture of shared success.
Evolve the structure as needed: No structure should be set in stone. If your team is faltering, morale is dropping or the hierarchy isn’t providing clarity, it may be time to rethink the structure.
The key? Let the structure serve the team — not the other way around.
Conclusion: A tool, not a default
In Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, David Graeber argues that hierarchies exist not only through authority, but also through shaping the narrative — defining what feels “normal” or legitimate. Over time, this reinforces itself and influences how people understand their roles and what is possible within those roles.
Hierarchy can indeed be a powerful tool for clarity, safety, and scaling. But when used blindly, it often enables conflict, silences diverse perspectives and undermines the long-term health of the team. The real question is not: “Should we have a hierarchy?” but: “How can we use it wisely to advance our goals — and know when to let more collaborative methods shine?”
The healthiest hierarchies are those that serve the work, not the ego. They provide stability and accountability while leaving space for autonomy, creativity and adaptability. By regularly reviewing how the structure is performing — and listening to feedback from all levels — organizations can keep the hierarchy dynamic, human-centric and aligned with purpose.
I’ll leave you with a quote that captures the spirit of what a flexible, human-centered structure can look like—rooted not in control but in adaptability, creativity and shared wisdom:
“For the majority of human history, throughout the majority of the world, except for islands of hierarchy, people tended to resist domination and instead live in voluntary associations of mutual support. (…) Some groups, for instance, transitioned from short-term rigid hierarchy during a hunting season, to total egalitarian relations during the next. The result of such fluid experimentation seems to have been a much more accepting, creative populous, where eccentricities were celebrated, and individuals could change identities, kin, even names from season to season as a spirit of perpetual reinvention and regeneration flourished. Far from Rousseau’s naive state of innocence, the indigenous people of the Americas were keenly aware of the dangers of hierarchy and had become adept at the art of heading off any signs of individuals amassing coercive power.”
— David Graeber, The Dawn of Everything
I expected references to "What the research actually says about hierarchy and performance". Willing to share?