Extremely interesting thoughts, which generates lots of thoughts of my own. and reminds me of Skinner's novel on Utopia. My husband and I own a 20-person company and we've worked hard to avoid the standard hierarchy and instead create a structure that uses interdependent teams (though it's funny how people set up their own hierarchies even in teams!) I personally hate the concept of a hierarchy that seems to deem some folks as more important than others in an organization.

But I've come to realize that some hierarchy is required. Otherwise, people get uncomfortable as they crave clarity on roles and responsibilities.

As you say, the "do-ers" in any organization are indeed the ones generating the profit for the company. So what's up with hierarchies and paying people lots more the further they get away from "doing?"

Hierarchy comes into play when it comes to risk, strategy, and decision-making. While do-ers may generate profit (if senior leaders are pricing appropriately), how much risk are they willing to assume on behalf of the organization? Can they make the toughest decisions (Perhaps a decision to pursue or not pursue work, not knowing if a "no" decision might lead to financial hardship later on.) Can they formulate strategies for future growth? (What sells today may not sell tomorrow.) If the answer is "no,' then that may answer the question of value and who becomes most valuable within an organization. If no one is willing to assume risk or make difficult decisions, then being profitable today is of little value because it's unlikely the business will exist in the future.

I've often wondered how many people crafting leadership strategies and organizational strategies have actually started, grown, and run a full-fledged business. Even those who spend years studying organizations and leaders are looking in from the outside. I'm a big believer in the adage, "Walk a mile in my shoes." Only then can someone truly answer the question about value and the issue of hierarchies. Which is more valuable? Generating today's revenue or making the decisions and crafting the strategies that enable tomorrow's? Is that value of these two things equal or is it of greater value to have the person who can think ahead?

I think a zero hierarchy is a recipe for disaster (not that your blog post is advocating for zero hierarchy). Ultimately, people like to know that someone - or a small team of someones - exists at the top of a metaphorical food chain who will make the hardest decisions, assume the risks, and set direction that teams then execute. People place a high value on that, which is why the senior members of an organization make more. What's of little value in my mind is multiple layers of hierarchy that make it difficult for decisions to get made or for people to get what they need to do their jobs.

The more interesting question to me is, "How MUCH more is it worth to be a direction-setter as opposed to a do-er?" I'm a big advocate of the 10x rule - no single person's salary in an organization should be more than 10x greater than anyone else's in the organization. (Within our organization, I can tell you it is far less than that!). No one, in my mind, adds enough value to an organization to make them worth $1M plus while someone else on the front lines of doing makes $35K or thereabouts. People in senior roles have no profits today without the do-ers. Do-ers have little future without senior leaders willing to make the hardest decisions, take risks, and set strategy. It's a symbiotic relationship.