ZRUN¶¶ZKLFKWHQGVWREHQRQ-routinized, thus relying heavily on the expertise and creativity of the
employees (Alvesson, 2004). In this type of work, hierarchical management is seen as counter-
productive, and new forms of management are suggested that acknowledge complex rather than
hierarchical interaction with employees (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). The manager, in turn, is seen as a
coach, teacher, and servant (Senge, 2004), as a social integrator (Alvesson, 1995), and as a manager of
meaning (Smircich & Morgan, 1982) rather than as supervisor or boss.
The literature discussed above seems to suggest that there is a shift away from the vertical or
bureaucratic organization. Nevertheless, as some commentators have pointed out, this post-
bureaucratic argument should not be exaggerated (Alvesson & Thompson, 2004). Many scholars have
argued that hierarchies are a universal feature of all human groups, including organizations (Leavitt,
2005; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Van Vugt et al., 2008). Leavitt (2005) argued that if different forms
of social organization were more advantageous, groups would have adopted them a long time ago. As
Jaques (1976) observed many years ago ³«EXUHDXFUDWLFhierarchies are the only type of human
organization so far discovered for bringing large numbers of people to work together in one united
HQWHUSULVH« ́(p.127). The pervasiveness of hierarchies alone seems to be evidence of their efficacy.
With a certain size, hierarchy is almost impossible to avoid (Lundholm et al., 2012). It is argued that
the formal chain of command is a necessary means to maintain clarity and effectiveness in the
organization and while hierarchy may appear in a different shape today than it used to, most
researchers agree that it is a persistent feature of contemporary organizations (Diefenbach & Sillince,
2011; Hales, 2002; Hoepfl, 2006). In 2010, 2¶7RROH DQG 0HLHU ZURWHa study of the efficacy of
bureaucratic structure in difficult economic times which was called ³,Q 'HIHQVH RI %XUHDXFUDF\ ́
(2010). The authors concluded that traditional managers in authority positions have the capacity to
minimize performance declines when faced with significant budgetary shocks. The condemnation of
bureaucracy is short-sighted, they argue, because the existing structure allows organizations to
respond to problems as they occur.
Bureaucracy can however, and often has led to organizational dysfunctions including inadequate
communication between levels of hierarchy and a magnification of status differences among
organizational members to the extent that the value of contributions was not based on merit, but on
organizational level. Too often the different organizational levels have come to represent the
maintenance of parallel groups of people who work in the same physical and organizational setting ±
and yet have different perspectives, norms and organizational languages. These layered groups