Auguste Escoffier is widely considered the architect of French cuisine and what we now know today to be fine dining. His life experience cooking in the army during the Franco-Prussian war also served as inspiration for the brigade system in professional kitchens. A command and control management system of a general, lieutenants, and soldiers makes sense in this work environment. I can attest to the fact that most busy Saturday nights cooking on a hot line can be so intense, that as an employee, I would depend on strong leadership to take control of service and guide us cooks successfully and efficiently.

These days, concepts such as flat organizations and Holacracy—the organizational structure that relies on circles of governance—seem to be gaining more traction. Zappos uses a business-model that is often referred to in articles written about these concepts, though many writers will be quick to point out that there are stark differences between a flat organization and Holacracy. Even still, it seems that many just want to opine: the Millennials are coming, and they don’t trust hierarchy!

There may be some truth in these fears which are likely to be fortified by the comforts and status symbols that come with a high-rank in hierarchical work systems. However, I think this has more to do with an inherent flaw with traditional organizational structures. For example, try to imagine someone in the waning years of their career having survived the technological upheaval of the past twenty-five years just learning enough to keep pace. At this point, our Boomer has surrounded himself in the comforts of what what he just knows. Information flows up and down the silo of each business function and only across to others when and where the organization allows lateral communication. This is absolutely maddening. For one, directors and vice presidents are unable to access how the work is being done, and knowledge becomes diluted once it is dispersed throughout the organization. Also, concepts such as functional stupidity allow for top-levels of management to espouse the virtues of organizational values and artifacts rather than get at the real truth of how work is enacted or foster meaningful dialogue. Of course, issues such as these may also have to do with accountability. The current plight of General Motors is reason enough to question how we might want to reconsider the siloed approach to organizational design.

From where I sit each workday in cubicle-land, it is very easy to fall into a trap of despair over the inefficiency of traditional organizational structure. I value exceptional customer service, but I try to focus on how I enact this value in terms of offering internal customer service. Instead of accepting the myopic rules of engagement, try imagining ways to build functional resource networks where information and knowledge can be shared. For instance, when evaluating a business process with stakeholders, I often find that there is strong emotional attachment to a procedure or policy. A habit can be so ingrained into everyday work routines that individuals become protectors of a policy. This can cause the stakeholder to lose sight of the customer experience not only internally, but worse, externally.

Another habit I encounter, is a sense of destined defeat. I often hear how something can not be accomplished because power is consolidated by another individual with a enough standing in the organizational hierarchy. This is unfortunate for two reasons. First, having this kind of attitude prevents any innovative idea from being pursued. Second, it instructs others that in order accomplish work that it must comply with idiosyncrasies. Left unfettered, it seems that hierarchical organizations will allow power to accumulate in pockets making efforts to change difficult.

Do not misunderstand me. Hierarchical work systems have their place; such as in a professional kitchen, or when the business need is immediate or in an emergency situation; because in these situations, authority over process is important. How we come together to develop these functions, I think, depends more on transparency and curiosity rather than callous dismissal of something new.

I can not purport that I am at all knowledgeable with the intricacies of Holacracy. However, I would not advocate for a flat organization without structure because it would impede productivity and allow for increased unsanctioned consolidation of power. With Holacracy, it seems that there is more room to evolve around the changing business landscape. There are no silos of information; rather, knowledge is distributed across communities of practice. Further, authority over process is allowed but it is sanctioned and can change in future iterations.

Returning to the end-of-career Baby Boomer, I can understand the desire to cling and hold on to the power that hierarchy provides. It is safe and familiar. I do not expect that the reins of control over organizations will be instantly handed over to the new generation, but I do think it would be prudent for existing leadership to reconsider the effects of hierarchy and the possibilities for change.