While I do wish more people in more organizations were empowered to utilize all their talents and work toward more of their own goals, saying hierarchy kills learning is a gross oversimplification at the least and most likely a complete misreading of the human animal.

As Jonathan Haidt says in his recent book, the Righteous Mind, human's evolved successfully at least partially by living in dominance hierarchies, which enabled some groups to out-compete other groups. People also band together in reverse dominance hierarchies to thwart the powerful who abuse their position of power. Perhaps this is what the world needs now and needed in the original Gilded age. But still, to say that hierarchy kills learning is just too sweeping.

Research shows that groups actually do better in being creative if they have good leadership, so there may be some benefit to some hierarchy. Being creative is a form of on-the-job learning, right? So if leaders can channel creativity, they are improving learning. Leaders and followers imply hierarchy.

In another line of research, leaders who demonstrate transformational leadership behaviors---as opposed to transactional leadership behaviors---tend to enable their groups to have more success because they are getting more input from their direct reports. This is empowerment, but not really democracy. Still, it shows that hierarchy, as exemplified in leader-follower relationships can be successful in enabling groups to learn and perform well together.

And, going back to the first Gilded Age concept, wasn't it FDR at the top of the hierarchy that enabled enough creative solutions to get the US out of depression?

Finally, Argyris, the double-loop learning guy, not only didn't fight hierarchy, but he thought that organizational learning required it!! Here's what he said:

"The ?first step is for managers at the top to examine critically and change their own theories-in-use. Until senior managers become aware of how they reason defensively and the counterproductive consequences that result, there will be little
real progress. Any change activity is likely to be just a fad. Change has to start at the top because otherwise defensive senior managers are likely to disown any transformation in reasoning patterns coming from below." From Harvard Business Review, May 1991.

Bottom line is that while I cheer on the move toward personal empowerment, it's just too damn simple-minded to say hierarchy is bad for learning.

--Will