Any organization stands on its own with the help of a visible or invisible hierarchy. It matters little if someone accepts the existence of hierarchy or rejects it because its existence is versatile.
Hierarchy assigns value to the nodes in the web of the organization. We have to understand that, modern organizations are more web-like in structure than a pyramid. No matter what kind of structure, value assignment is an automatic, inherent tendency of human beings. The values are a result of the person’s capacity, skills, and other more subjective parameters. These parameters derive their valuation from the dominant cultural narrative.
Every culture recognizes those who resonate with their narrative and punishes those who fail to do so. This is interesting because the individual is assigned a value by the culture whether he/she agrees or not. These subjective values make up a good part of their node value in an organization.
This subjective valuation results in a difference between the values of any two nodes. The more different the node, the greater the difference. There are two types of nodes that are at extremes: the doers and the critics. Doers nodes provide a place for the individuals who are talking to the customers, selling the product, getting feedback, and facing the heat. In general, these nodes, these spots in the organizations are placed little value than any of the other nodes or spots. One can argue that these nodes are in masses, hence they don’t get the same valuation as the scarcer nodes in the structure. That seems a fair argument until it doesn’t. The flaw in the argument is that the other scarce nodes survive due to the masses of nodes.
If an organization is struggling for a long time, there is a good chance that the other kind of nodes, the critics, are not playing the role they should be playing well. These nodes have high perceived value and they’re the ones who are not in touch with customers. They’re not the man in the arena. They’re interested in computer simulations, spreadsheets, presentations, policies, and anything that keeps them from getting their hands dirty from doing the actual work.
The increasing trend of providing lip service to the doers during annual events or interviews is not a sign of modesty if the words do not translate into actions. The chasm between the doers and the critics is not new. As long as the critics are able to bring the best of the doers by their humble words, actions, we progress, and other times, we struggle.
The doers of our time need a cultural narrative that does not frown upon their work. Also, a cultural narrative that recognizes that leadership is an essential part of any organization; it matters the most, and it is invaluable. A leader cannot be assigned a value. We need more leaders than before and what better way than to expose the potential individuals to showcase their leadership and not limit them by assigning a value.
When we provide lip service to people for the sake of it, they know it. And that makes it feel even worse.
The alternative is to cultivate a genuine interest in the function of every individual, especially the nodes that are in masses, understand their perspective, equip them, and provide an environment where leaders bloom with their own tribe.