The Hierarchy Fallacy

He’s the boss, so he’s got to know what he’s doing.

One of my ongoing writing projects involves the Constitution and other historical documents related to the founding of the U.S. (You can read more at “An American Tale Told By An Idiot”). Currently, I am reading the Federalist Papers and writing my interpretation and reactions to them.

In the 3rd article of the Papers, John Jay asserts the following:

…when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government, — especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory…

He uses this as an argument for a unified federal government, as many critics of the Constitution were promoting the idea of establishing the original thirteen colonies as separate nations. His assertion is that the people who are elected to the federal government will be picked from a much larger pool than those elected for state government, and therefore will likely be smarter and better at the job.

When Jay wrote this, it might have been more true, but today do you believe that the people who get elected as representatives at the federal level are any more competent or capable than the people who get elected at the state level? Further, are they even the same kinds of people?

How about at your job? Do you believe that each person who is at a higher level of the organizational hierarchy is more capable or competent than each person at the lower levels? Does your boss know everything about the work you do, and by definition can do it better than you?

How about your family? Are each generation of adults more capable or competent than their offsprings? At what point do parents stop being the grownups and offsprings stop being the kids?

I remember as a kid thinking my parents were infallible. They were the adults, and what they said was right and true because they said so. I also remember the first time I realized they were humans just like everybody else, and were just as flawed and imperfect as I was.

I also remember my first few jobs, where I quickly realized that my bosses/supervisors were NOT smarter, better, or more capable than myself.

And yet every boss I’ve ever had has acted as though the reason they were the boss and I the supervisee was because they were somehow better than or smarter than or more capable than I was. And admittedly, when I was a boss, I had to fight against the urge to do the same to my supervisees.

I am, among other things, a certified Project Manager, and worked for a time as the IT Project Manager for a computer software company. In that environment, I got to experience what it was like to be a team manager, where I was not a boss, and not responsible for the people on my team, but instead was responsible for facilitating the work of the team. It was a great example of how a company can get away from the mindset of boss as superior and instead approach work supervision from a project peer model.

So, the point to all of this so far is that we have a lot of social hierarchical structures built around the assumption that those on higher tiers are somehow superior in ability to those on lower tiers, and it doesn’t take much effort to pick apart that assumption. Thus I call it the Hierarchy Fallacy.

Anyone who has a specialized degree and has been supervised by someone without the same specialized degree knows what I am talking about.

Anyone who has had to face off against their parents as an adult knows what I am talking about.

Anyone who watches or reads any news about American politics knows what I am talking about.

And yes, Trump is why I wrote this article. The Hierarchy Fallacy is no clearer than when you look at the man who is supposedly the leader of the free world.

In my estimation, the man suffers from nearly crippling narcissism, and from all I can tell, he has to be working with below average intelligence. He has no class, no tact, no finesse, no compassion, no empathy, and no soul.

How could we as a country put this man in office, as the boss of all bosses? I’ve spent a lot of time on this question in previous works, and won’t repeat myself here.

However, I think the Hierarchy Fallacy gives us a pretty plausible answer. There are those who felt the Obama administration worked against their interests, largely because Obama as a leader was so different than they were. A black, well-educated, well-spoken, liberal, diplomatic President was the worst kind of boss for white, uneducated, crass, conservative, combative folks. And let’s face it, we have a lot of those in this country.

So, as others have asserted, maybe Trump got into office because he was “one of us” in the eyes of these folks who were sick of political correctness and being forced to give up some of what they had to help others.

The rest of us, who liked having a president who acted presidential, are left constantly shaking our heads and wondering how we are supposed to take anything this guy does seriously. We have to keep showing up for work if we want our paycheck, but how long can we keep our mouths shut and do what we are told when the very idea of this man being the boss goes against so much of what we believe in?

I guess first we have to acknowledge the Hierarchy Fallacy, and accept the fact that often people who are less qualified and capable end up in charge of those that are more qualified and capable. Second, we have to figure out if and how we can work to bring positive change in spite of the failure of the system. Third, we have to think long-term about how we can prevent this kind of thing from happening again.