Yes. Without them there is no justification for inequality. So to the people in power, they are very important.
But incase you genuinely believe that social order is impossible without hierarchies, you should probably read up on stateless societies, communal decision making, and anarchism.
If the goal of society is to put equality above all else then i take your point.
I think horizontal hierarchies are generally better in an organization in terms of motivating people to contribute and give them a sense of equity.
But idk how you avoid the fact that people do have bad ideas, or well intentioned ideas that could start a cascade of delays in project planning for example. People focusing on the excellence at different levels of work is important right? But having a chain of command to maintain vision, timelines, budgets, stakeholders seems to depend on hierarchy.
I think the main rebuttal to that argument is what stops that from happening in a hierarchy? If anything having one makes that more likely, since someone in charge can have a bad idea and no one below them has any real power to stop it. There’s a reason “incompetent boss/manager” is such a common trope. Having a horizontal structure where consensus is prioritized actually helps prevent those sorts of issues, since people who are the most knowledgeable and involved in the process are the ones making those decisions. It’s why group brainstorming sessions are so common, bouncing ideas off of other people involved in a project is extremely useful to help filter or improve bad ideas and build on good ones. Horizontal groups are sort of the natural state that you fall into when collaborating with people when there isn’t an existing rigidly enforced hierarchy between the members.
Yes. Without them there is no justification for inequality. So to the people in power, they are very important.
But incase you genuinely believe that social order is impossible without hierarchies, you should probably read up on stateless societies, communal decision making, and anarchism.
If the goal of society is to put equality above all else then i take your point.
I think horizontal hierarchies are generally better in an organization in terms of motivating people to contribute and give them a sense of equity.
But idk how you avoid the fact that people do have bad ideas, or well intentioned ideas that could start a cascade of delays in project planning for example. People focusing on the excellence at different levels of work is important right? But having a chain of command to maintain vision, timelines, budgets, stakeholders seems to depend on hierarchy.
I think the main rebuttal to that argument is what stops that from happening in a hierarchy? If anything having one makes that more likely, since someone in charge can have a bad idea and no one below them has any real power to stop it. There’s a reason “incompetent boss/manager” is such a common trope. Having a horizontal structure where consensus is prioritized actually helps prevent those sorts of issues, since people who are the most knowledgeable and involved in the process are the ones making those decisions. It’s why group brainstorming sessions are so common, bouncing ideas off of other people involved in a project is extremely useful to help filter or improve bad ideas and build on good ones. Horizontal groups are sort of the natural state that you fall into when collaborating with people when there isn’t an existing rigidly enforced hierarchy between the members.