Authority, Hierarchy and Power

THEE Note: Background—The taxonomy of work levels mentioned below emerges from the framework of communication-PH5 and is now posted in the Work in Organisations Satellite. However, the relevant material was published in 1989 in the Journal of Applied Systems Analysis and can be downloaded.

Avoid Confusion

Management authority is often viewed as about personal power or reduced to leadership. This is understandable but it is probably the major source of serious problems in work relationships.

Authority is about «powers» i.e. rights to interfere with another person's work.

• Authority is organizational and requires specification based on «work to be done».
• Arrangements succeed based on a culture fostering respect and adherence.

Power is about "capability" i.e. personal work that can produce desired results.

• Power is personal and requires recognition in relation to the «work to be done».
• Power is effective when based on role-definition and assignment of authority.
  

The use of brute power, i.e. threats or coercion, typically finds its excuse and origin in dysfunctional states e.g. unwilling staff, bad attitudes, resistance to change. However, the correct response is to alter the causes of dysfunction not ride roughshod over people.

Design Structures

Anyone can abuse personal power and if circumstances encourage or demand such abuse, then it will happen. The only sure defences against the abuse of power are properly designed organizational structures backed by a suitable culture.

The issue of management culture has been clarified earlier.

Proper design of organizational structure is impossible without appreciating THEE principles either intuitively or explicitly. Because intuitive arrangements will not outlast the individual who introduces them, explicit adherence to THEE principles is worthwhile in large organizations. Most current organizational charts are misleading because they do not show roles in accord with work levels (or authority).

The proper design of structures depends on matching people to posts so as to:

1. maximize the exercise of autonomy and enable creative working, &
2. specify roles in terms of the ongoing work-to-be-done (which flows from the mission, strategy, legal requirements, enduring environmental pressures &c.)

If it is essential to maximize autonomy, then it is important that the main line-manager (Syn. boss) works at a level above the subordinate. By setting goals for the context (part of the definition), the boss becomes a leader, and the subordinate can be a willing and creative follower, setting their own lower level goals to help deliver the higher level goals. The subordinate's own level goals may shape work by others at the next level down.
The «one work-level» distance also ensures

• there is no competition for doing a piece of work,
• micro-management is inhibited: bosses are far too busy in their own world,
• the boss has real levers and can actually help with blockages.

There is a maximum of 7 levels of distinct work responsibility in any organization i.e. a maximum of 6 types of line-management relationship in a hierarchy. The strength of the organization is based on the quality of its line-management spine and this in turn depends on absolute clarity about each of those levels. (See more in Work & Its Organisation.)

Note re «Command & Control»: Organisational hierarchy is about describing work-to-be-done precisely, and is not synonymous with «command and control». Line-management authority is far more sophisticated than this slogan suggests.

Typical Line-Managers

Small businesses only require 3 levels of work with 2 line-management links in the top-to-bottom operational spine, and the largest corporations only need 7 levels of work with 6 line-management links. Each inter-level managerial relation is different in its substance because the work and outlook at each level are so different.

The focus here is on conventional organizations with tangible services and products.
Exclusions: Firms in the knowledge economy, artistic arena or societal development require additional analysis. Much confusion in popular advice and research comes from ignoring the differences generated by abstract outputs.

[WL = Work-Level]

WL2 ↔ WL1: 1st Line Managers, often called Foremen or Supervisors, are responsible for handling actual cases or instances. The boss determines needs in actual situations, and the subordinates do as instructed, or as typically expected, to meet that concrete need.

WL3 ↔ WL2: Middle Managers, often called Service Managers or Systems Managers, are responsible for systems and procedures to handle the flow of work including common or possible disruptions. The boss controls a specific department that deals with a range of cases (handled by subordinates) and therefore is the primary controller of quality and efficiency.

WL4 ↔ WL3: General Manager, often called a Director or Vice-President or Divisional Head, is responsible for maintaining and developing a coherent, balanced set of services (e.g. a marketing or production division). This boss thinks in general terms—staff establishment, comprehensive budgets, costed plans, program management.

WL5 ↔ WL4: Chief Executive Officer of a Business Unit. The CEO has to shape the organization via strategy. This is the highest level from which the boss can zoom down into any situation and fix matters personally.

Higher Levels: The managerial relations at WL6 ↔ WL5 and WL7 ↔ WL6 are not standard line-management because there is always a governing body holding a WL5-CEO or a WL6-CEO to account. Also the work is about determining values and demands collegial relationships, so high-level support staff are not fully line-managed either. The WL6 work is about policy-setting, while the WL7 work sets the identity (values) of the entire enterprise.

Line & Staff

Because the WL5, WL4, and WL3 line-managers have a lot of detailed and complicated work to do, they commonly require generalist and specialist support staff to deal with issues and help with implementation.

These «staff officers» usually work at one level below the boss and have monitoring and coordinating authority. Unlike the line-subordinate who is focused on producing outputs at their own level, a staff-subordinate is focused on enabling outputs at the boss's level. So staff officers are assistants and feel helpful to the boss, in contrast to the subordinates with whom the boss experiences a permanent and natural tension.

Staff in support roles find that their work is typically subject to two (or more) influences. This is because the staff role is often a specialist function (e.g. finance, personnel, works, information) and there is a need for functional organization to complement the line-management spine. See how authority can be specified.

At WL4 and higher, the support officer often heads up a team of subordinates in a mini-hierarchy that is off-line. It gets rather complicated in a big organization with many specialist functions.
See diagram ►

In this simplified chart of work levels, staff roles and authority are lined in orange. Note that subordinates might have more subordinates. The generalist and specialist line managers and the personal assistant might have other incoming lines of authority.

More on Staff Roles

In military organizations, combat is the line output. In the late 18^th century, roles that provided a non-combat support function (e.g. logistics, intelligence, planning, personnel) were developed. These roles, viewed as essential, are now generally referred to as «staff officers» or «staff support». This term has been taken over into THEE explanations of management because the management literature has not provided any alternative.

---

The Challenge

The biggest difficulty …

is ensuring that the line-management spine and all posts are structured according to levels of work-responsibility, and that people in post are capable of carrying the responsibility assigned. The next challenge is ensuring that line-managerial and other forms of authority are appropriately assigned to people and that relational expectations are adhered to.

More about «Bad Bosses».

Inappropriate Expectations

An Example

Expecting someone to work as a line-manager where that is impossible is easy to do. I found it often where there was a facility, section, or sub-unit within a General Manager's division (WL4) in a healthcare service. The GM would appoint someone at WL3 to "run a small hospital" containing several specialist managers-WL3. The post might even be referred to as «general management» with an expectation of strong leadership.

However, the role here is an Operations Coordinator with responsibilities like:

• coordinate WL3 & WL2 staff across disciplines,
• help implement higher level priorities and policies,
• ensure that persistent and urgent problems are dealt with,
• check WL3 systems are adequate and mesh satisfactorily,
• monitor finances and overall throughput,
• handle boundary issues of the facility.

The coordinator is not the line-manager or boss of all staff. Attempts to introduce («lead») major changes objected to by service managers (WL3) fail because the specialized working practices are not well-enough understood. The coordinator cannot zoom into details of workload, handle staff deployment, alter technical procedures, reshape roles, appreciate knock-on costs, set new policies, specify different quality standards or train staff. As a further frustration, the actual GM usually withholds developmental tools like control of budgets and staffing and access to key meetings.

---

• See more about «bad bosses».
• Continue to next expectation: delivering results.

Originally posted: 16-Nov-2012. Last updated: 7-Dec-2012.