The agile hierarchy problem

It is not surprising that, today, in the world of agilism voices of criticism and suspicion are appreciated regarding the agile practices, methods … that are being imposed in the market. In this case, one of the points that seems to be generating much more attention is hierarchies. And, is that in an agile organization the ideal, at least it seems, is that the hierarchy disappears or is reduced.

Such a question can be understood because "individuals and interactions over processes and tools" makes more sense within a more horizontal than vertical organization. Also, “collaborate and reflect”, for example, as Alistair Cockburn's Heart of Agile requires an organization that eliminates fear and provides the necessary confidence. In addition, in hierarchical organizations not always everyone is willing to collaborate and much less is the team spirit that unites them. Of course, this is not an absolute truth, and I am sure that there are organizations that with the hierarchy can very well work. However, the problem lies between the ideal and the real. And to overcome that distance it is necessary to reflect on its conditions.

In this case, I would like to take into account that in the case of Japanese culture there are not many problems around hierarchy. Rather, the hierarchy is part of their collective aspect. This is due, in part, to the fact that in Japan there is a more communal vision of society, unlike ours where it is the individual who prevails.

The Japanese mentality is impregnated by Confucianism, this can be appreciated from the first stages of human development and its socialization process, because it is

emphasizes the child’s belonging to the group — initially in the family — and tends to repress individualism: ‘the social philosophy of Confucianism tended to eliminate the emphasis on the individual as an end in itself, and instead to accentuate the network of (…) obligations and responsibilities that the individual assumed as a member of his family and of his community ‘. (Harrison, 1992, p. 153).

In addition,

The long, intimate, and accepting relationship between mother and children (Japanese parents generally do not punish their children) reinforce the intellectual message of group membership and instill the need for self-indulgent acceptance of others (called the ‘amae’) , which according to the Japanese psychiatrist Takeo Doi is the basis of the Japanese psyche. (ibidem, pp. 153–154).La relación prolongada, íntima y de aceptación entre madre e hijos (los padres japoneses en general no castigan a sus hijos) refuerzan el mensaje intelectual a la pertenencia al grupo e inculca la necesidad de aceptación ajena de la autocomplacencia (llamada la ‘amae’), que según el psiquiatra japonés Takeo Doi es la base de la psiquis japonesa. (ibidem, pp. 153–154).

With all of the above we can take into account how the community aspect is very strong, but what about hierarchies? Well, according to Lawrense Harrison there is no contradiction between one and the other:

hierarchy still has profound importance in Japan, and a very complex rank structure operates throughout society. On the other hand, vertical relationships coexist with the reciprocal responsibilities on which superior / subordinate relationships depend, the strong group accent of Japanese culture, and a consensus-based decision-making style, and are regulated by these theses. factors. (p. 158).

Now, let’s get closer to our reality. We are in Peru and your case is very particular. Especially because our culture is made up of the very complex mix between the Inca and the Spanish. Situation for some other Latin American countries may be similar.

In our case, the community and hierarchical aspect in the Inca empire was very natural. Apparently, this was what maintained his own survival:

As we can see, there was a very marked hierarchy and the possibility of social advancement was not very high. Rather, I would dare to say that one of the keys to avoiding problems is to reduce this possibility. Plato knew very well that in his Republic he eliminates this question, as well as Aldous Huxley knew it very well where in his Happy World all people are happy because they do not socially aspire much more than they have been determined (conditioned) from the beginning. of his birth. But, in the case of the Incas, they had their ways of maintaining said hierarchy and community aspect:

Property and work had a collective character. Due to their collective nature, the production and distribution relations were based on principles of reciprocity and mutual aid […] such relations allowed the reproduction of the system at the level of the ayllu [family clan], they also served to transfer the benefits of production to the state. “ (Lumbreras et al., 1988, p. 38).

In addition,

Every man and every woman, in the empire, ‘owed’ to the state (read the Inka, his court and relatives), a quantity of their time and work that they gave to the state according to his demand; in exchange for them, the state ‘owed’ — reciprocally — to the direct producer a series of benefits, ranging from divine protection to gifts or gifts granted by the Inka or his representatives. (idem)

In this sense, it is not surprising that both the collective and the hierarchical could coexist based on a very important principle, that of reciprocity [asymmetric in the Inca case]. A very interesting term and that also in the Japanese case fulfills an important condition. And, it is that reciprocity is what would allow the community, collective, etc., aspect to coexist with the hierarchical aspect.

The opposite is the case with European culture, where the individual is the one who is part of society, the collective or the community. Lastly, it is the free wills who, when uniting, make up the social thing. That is, the individual is before the community, unlike the Inca or Japanese where the community is before the individual. This difference is what is lost sight of when seeking to understand the organizational problems that occur to us. It is enough to remember that Francisco Pizarro, thanks to his own effort, impetus and courage, became governor of Nueva Castilla.

At this point, we can understand how cultural characteristics influence our organization too much. Of course, it is nothing new to reiterate the fundamental role of culture, although some differ from my opinion. However, in some cases, the culture is above the organization itself, for example, if it is a company whose human talent is people of the same nationality. In this case, we could appreciate how culture is much stronger than the organizational structure itself. However, in other cases, it is possible that the structure outweighs the culture, taking into account in an organization where the people who constitute it are from different cultures.

it should be noted that not all organizations are made to not have hierarchies. What’s more, I highly doubt that hierarchies will be eliminated and, in the end, it only remains to find an intermediate point between the hierarchy and the community if one cannot be eliminated. In any case, it is only possible to experiment, but it is also necessary to take into account certain conditions. One of these, at least, is cultural and can be too heavy.

References:

Harrison, L. E. (1992). ¿Quiénes prosperan? REI

Lumbreras, L. L., Rostworowski, M., Murra, J., Zuidema, T., Espinoza, W., Wachtel, N., Aranibar, C., Burga, M., Flores Galindo, A., Macera, P., Spalding, K. y Fischter, J. (1988). Nueva visión del Perú (I). Tarea