The Inevitability of Hierarchy
The authors use the French Revolution to argue that removing a hierarchy can lead to a new concentration of power. Their organizational lesson is to examine how leaders are selected: the ability to win a contest for authority may differ from the ability to lead a team.
THE IDEA
A place for everyone and everyone in their place
Charles van Doren’s A History of Knowledge describes a hierarchical picture of the universe associated with Plato and Plotinus: inanimate objects, plants, animals, humans, and a divine being above them. Such a picture can also serve as a justification for social ranks, presenting unequal authority as part of a larger natural order. The authors use this idea to examine how hierarchies persist even when particular rulers or institutions are overthrown.
Yet people have always, at various times, rebelled against hierarchies. As van Doren points out, many of the individuals, in particular religious leaders, to whom we’ve accorded the highest esteem throughout history, are those who have questioned and thought against existing, unequal hierarchies. This is especially true when a hierarchy becomes so severely stratified that only a handful of individuals can benefit from it. The French Revolution is one of the most iconic instances of people fighting to overthrow a flawed social hierarchy.
The French Revolution: A Case Study in Hierarchy
Prior to the French Revolution, French society was divided into three main groups, known as estates:
- The First Estate: Catholic clergy, exempt from taxes, collected tithes, owned lands. Further divided hierarchically.
- The Second Estate: Aristocrats with inherited titles, exempt from taxes, could collect them.
- The Third Estate: Everyone else (96–98% of the population), including the bourgeoisie (wealthy but no political power), sans-culottes (artisans and city workers), and peasants (heavy taxes, few rights). About three-quarters of peasants had less than five hectares (the minimum needed to survive).
At the top was the king with absolute power (absolutism). The system was entirely unfair for most.
During the French Revolution, the common people overthrew the monarchy. However, the interim period (1789–1815) saw constant jostling as various groups tried to establish new hierarchies:
- 1789–1792: Constitutional monarchy.
- 1792–1794: The republic, including the Terror associated with Robespierre and mass executions.
- 1795–1799: The Directory, run by the bourgeois class.
- 1799–1815: Napoleon’s absolutism, meritocracy-based but still hierarchical, coupled with nationalism.
The authors read these changes as a warning that overthrowing an old hierarchy does not by itself prevent a new one from forming. Charles Maurice de Talleyrand thrived by adapting his position across these changing systems.
Leadership and Hierarchical Instincts
Our hierarchical instincts may not always produce the most effective leaders. Sam Walker, in The Captain Class, argues that top performers do not necessarily make the best leaders. The competitive process of selecting leaders (e.g., based on dominance) often favors skills that win competitions, not skills needed for effective leadership. The organizational question is whether a selection process rewards the abilities needed after someone gains authority.
For an organization, this suggests examining how authority is allocated, how leaders are held accountable, and whether those arrangements serve the work and the people doing it.
When to use it
Analyzing political revolutions to predict stabilization into new power structures.
Designing corporate governance to avoid 'alpha' leaders and promote effective team managers.
Understanding resistance to organizational change by acknowledging ingrained hierarchical instincts.
Teaching history or sociology by framing events like the French Revolution through the lens of hierarchy transformation.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
The French Revolution
In pre-revolutionary France, society was rigidly hierarchical with three estates, topped by an absolute monarch. The revolution aimed to destroy this system, but after years of turmoil and shifting power, Napoleon established a new hierarchy based on meritocracy and nationalism, demonstrating that hierarchies are resilient and often re-emerge in altered forms.
Modern Corporate Leadership
In many companies, promotions often go to the most dominant or charismatic performers—the 'alphas.' However, these individuals may lack collaborative or strategic skills needed for effective leadership, resulting in a hierarchy led by people who excel at competition but not management, echoing Sam Walker's observations in sports teams.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think about an organization you belong to (workplace, community group, etc.). How is the hierarchy structured, and does it reflect merit, tradition, or power struggles?
Have you ever seen a leader chosen for their dominance or charisma rather than their leadership skills? What were the consequences?
If you had to design a fairer hierarchy, what principles would you use to select leaders and prevent extreme stratification?
References
- A History of Knowledge — Charles van Doren (1991)
- The Captain Class — Sam Walker (2017)
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Great Mental Models Volume 2 Physics, Chemistry and Biology