Hierarchy Isn’t the Problem We Think It Is

Editor’s note: This essay sits within Cultivated’s ongoing exploration of how work is structured — and where organisations often misdiagnose their problems. Rather than arguing for or against hierarchy, it asks a quieter question: what responsibility is actually required, and who is supported to carry it?

Hierarchy Isn’t the Problem We Think It Is

I meet a lot of people who complain about hierarchy — and argue that removing it is the answer.

Every few years, a new wave of thinking arrives, promising flatter organisations, fewer managers, and freedom from layers. It sounds progressive. Even humane.

But I’m always left with the same question:

What problem are we actually trying to solve?

Because “no hierarchy” has become a meme — a fashionable position — rather than a thoughtful response to how organisations really work.

What Hierarchy Is Actually For

No one wants needless bureaucracy. Endless approval loops and opaque decision-making exhaust people and slow work down. They are one of the main reasons ideas often don't flow to value effectively.

But hierarchy itself exists for a reason.

Some decisions carry weight — financial, legal, human.
Someone has to:

• hold responsibility for budgets and risk
• navigate markets, regulation, and governance
• make decisions that affect livelihoods, not just tasks

Not everyone wants that responsibility. Not everyone should have it.

A functioning hierarchy is not about control.
It is about holding responsibility at the right level.

When Hierarchy Works Well

In healthy organisations, hierarchy does a few quiet but important things.

It creates focus — allowing people to work within clear boundaries.
It supports development — growing responsibility over time, not all at once.
It provides perspective — different levels see different parts of the system.

Good hierarchy doesn’t overload people.
It protects them from being forced into decisions they are not yet equipped — or willing — to make.

What We Often Blame on Structure

Most complaints about hierarchy are not really about structure at all.

They are about:

• poor decisions
• weak leadership
• unclear expectations
• avoidance of accountability

Removing hierarchy does not magically fix these things.

In fact, I’ve seen the opposite happen.

When management layers disappear without the capability to replace them, decision-making becomes diffuse. Responsibility blurs. Stress increases. People burn out trying to do work they were never supported to do.

In one case I witnessed, the attempt nearly collapsed the business — not because people didn’t care, but because they were asked to carry weight they were not ready for (nor really wanted).

Behaviour Before Org Charts

If an organisation feels suffocating, the answer is rarely to redraw the org chart first.

A better starting point is always behaviour:

• How are decisions made?
• How is responsibility held?
• Where does capability need to grow?
• What conversations are being avoided?

When these improve, many so-called “hierarchy problems” quietly dissolve.

Then move on to look at why ideas aren't flowing to value.

A More Professional Conversation

Hierarchy is not inherently good or bad.

It is a tool.

Used well, it creates clarity, development, succession and resilience.
Used badly, it becomes bureaucracy and power hoarding.

The real work is not removing structure — it is designing responsibility carefully, and developing people so they can carry it.

That is harder than flattening an org chart.
But it is also far more humane — and far more effective.