Hierarchies

I have always instinctively preferred collaborative structures, and felt uncomfortable with hierarchies. I always tried to respect the preferences of others, fully aware that structures need to meet the needs of context.

Then I watched an organisation transition from collaboration and non-hierarchical structures to hierarchy and realised why I value the former. A flat management structure and relative equality of access to decision making can be exhausting. If everyone is entitled to their view, then there has to be space and time for everyone to give their view and hear each other. If everyone is entitled to transparency and all the information, then channels have to be sustained for information and opinion to flow in all directions. And of course, at the end of the line, the buck stops with the person carrying the ultimate responsibility, in the case of a school, the principal. And of course, you can’t please all of the people all of the time, and everyone having access to input means that every decision will leave some people regretful or dissatisfied that theirs was not the prime contribution heard. A key element in a non-hierarchical system is that a manager is a facilitator, not just a boss. A key element is a genuinely open door policy, where you don’t have to wait for a formal consultation to give your views.

Hierarchies are simpler. People have line managers who tell people what to do. Hierarchies have senior people who make decisions, middle people who put the decisions into action and other people who carry the decisions out. Consultation may of course happen, but will be on the terms of the senior team. And of course most people would be very happy, and most organisations would work well, under benign dictatorship. People choose to work there if that is the system they prefer, be happy with the proven direction of the senior team and appreciative of the opportunity to contribute.

But for those who value collaboration as a model, much is lost. To use an example of an organisation built to support a community in recovery from civil unrest, segregation and sectarianism. The only appropriate motto could be ‘Learning from Each Other’, because a segregated society meant that people couldn’t know what colleagues might think, might expect, might take for granted. A balance of representation across the divide among the staff was essential if clients were to trust the mission. If you don’t know how to address a person, how to respect their language, now to understand their priorities, there is no alternative but to ask. There is no alternative but to make the effort every day to ensure that everyone feels safe to say what they think. There has to be an ethic that recognises that coming together to work together effectively doesn’t mean people all agree. The whole point is to be there together and work together effectively, even though we disagree.

If real collaboration is working, there can be a dynamic of recognising what other people really care about, and ensuring they can act on what matters to them, even if it doesn’t matter to everyone. This place is full of commemorations, celebrations and events which mean something to only one section of the community, or indeed have been appropriated by one section of the community. People with equal access to decision making will insist on their stuff showing, and the system will resist the kind of blurring that militates against people saying what they think and doing what they believe it is important to do. Only through a collaborative system can a dynamic ethos develop and persist, not led from above. It is a truism that people who come together, believing that we need to leave division behind, very quickly rediscover that difference is real, that diversity is a challenge as well as a good thing. You might aim to be open to all ideas, but you will come up against anathema, and that’s when you negotiate round it. A senior leader can order you to get your head round it, but they can’t make you. They can only make you pretend.

You have to ask, when you opted into diversity, whom did you think you would be mixing with, only ‘diverse’ people like yourself? When you have a diversity of faiths and beliefs in an organisation, an ecumenism model can only take you so far. Ecumenism is fascinating and highlights values we can share. But people also need to do their own thing, respect their own tradition, whether that means doing some stuff, or not doing some other stuff. But if you’re not doing some stuff, you’ll be there to stand by the people to whom it is important stuff.

Hierarchies aim to produce smooth working conditions where the aim is to avoid disruption. Under collaboration, there will be constant disruption and that’s a good and dynamic thing if you're up for it. Experiencing what is lost in the move to smooth has convinced me of my instinctive preference. Do we design an annual programme of showcasing world religions, or do we stand by each other as we recognise each other's practice in real time?