If you only take one thing away from the following article, let it be this: never tie your self-worth to your rank.
Multiple organisations use a hierarchical system wherein individuals are assigned ranks. Most notably, those that wear a uniform. To understand where another sits on the hierarchy, one can simply look at how many chevrons, stripes, pips, loops or crowns they possess. If not, there is often an organisational chart picturing who sits above who. Nothing is wrong with levels of command and control in and of themselves. Designating authority and responsibility to certain members of an organisation, and expecting others to cooperate with their decisions and directions, avoids complete chaos. It would be extremely difficult to control soldiers on a battlefield without reverence or obedience to rank. But, the question needs to be asked: can we operate more effectively without rank systems?
Given the tiered ascension of rank structures, there is a natural tendency to assume the higher the rank, the greater the experience. We also tend to believe those in the upper echelons have greater power to fix or change things:
I want to speak to your boss!
Get me the manager!
Who’s in charge around here?!?
However, the individual with the highest insignia is not always the most knowledgeable. Nor the most truthful. Or empathic. And there are multiple historical instances demonstrating that adherence to a rank system can be detrimental.
Of particular note, studies into aircraft disasters found that pilots often ignored critical information coming from subordinate ranks; yet, heeded information when it came from those equal or higher in rank.
It may be difficult to fathom anyone ignoring a crew member screaming impending doom; however, flight recordings sadly provide the evidence. Research also shows that obtaining and experiencing power causes many individuals to undervalue, or relegate, those ‘below‘ them. To see them, not only as subordinate in rank, but subordinate in knowledge and nature:
I am above, and you are below. Thus, I can, and you cannot. I know, but you do not.
But it is not only pilots whose egos get the better of them. Scout Leaders, Pro Golfers, Executive Chefs – all of us are just as susceptible.
Humans are a biased species. To help us navigate through life, we use heuristics – mental shortcuts that help us make decisions quickly. During our cave dwelling days, if we spent too much time determining the safety of something, we risked harm. We learnt to categorise things as good or bad, safe or unsafe, okay or not okay, right or wrong.
Modern day schooling is no better in turning us away from dichotomous thinking. As children, we recite our opposites with aplomb, and discover many questions have only one correct answer. Arriving at adulthood, few of us actively take the time to reflect upon these flaws in our thinking; to question our biases, or the beliefs we have adopted. Throw power into the mix, and a culture that heralds leadership, and one is far more likely to stereotype and dehumanise others.
To be frank, many of us have, at some time or other, coveted being the alpha. We have desired to be above, rather than below; to be in front, rather than behind. We have desired control. It does not help that in Western culture, leadership and power are romanticised; advertised as ‘better’. Followers, subordinates, enlisted personnel, the lower ranks – they conversely get brushed with an air of inferiority. They are the sheep. The bottom feeders. Unoriginal.
Even if the dialogue around followers is not scornful, is it really complimentary to be called ‘dutiful’?
Society’s provision of who and what leaders should look like, and the traits they should exhibit, is readily accepted by our categorising loving brains. The more visible demographic differences are, the far quicker we are able to categorise. And this is what the display of rank does. Our brains quickly assign a whole host of thoughts and beliefs to the individual based on a small, rectangular piece of material. An instantaneous measure of value. An answer to: who trumps who?
Of course, what is true for some, is not true for all. There are many senior and highly ranked individuals who do not buy into the ‘higher rank = better person’ construct. They understand that power does not occur in a vacuum. It is reliant on others agreeing to the distribution of power. After all, hierarchy and rank are human social constructs that only work if every one accepts them as valid. My military rank may have some bearing in a military context, but absolutely no meaning in a hospital operating theatre, or amongst the Maasai of Kenya. And any Fashion Designers would likely just baulk at how big the uniform makes my bum look.
The problem is, individuals can buy into these social agreements and accept them as absolute truths. Moreover, the very action of pinning rank on an individual can change their narrative – the stories they start to tell themselves about their ‘self’; and their degree of importance and worth as a human being. They can start to create false truths about who they are.
Those with a heightened sense of self and power will dominate interactions. The added inclination to listen less causes subordinate members to feel their contributions are valued less. And if consistently made to feel less, their narrative may very well become ‘I am less’.
A study conducted by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson in 1968 demonstrated that the performance of others can be positively or negatively influenced based on the expectations of others regarding their performance. Treating individuals as though they are a high performers, can see their performance increase. Conversely, treating high performers and speaking to them as though they are low performers, typically sees their performance decline.
We live up to expectations.
When airs of superiority and inferiority arise, it creates a barrier to effective collaboration. There is little gain in putting together those who are hesitant to speak up with those less likely to listen. But, in an increasingly VUCA world (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous), we need to embrace collaboration and equal participation.
The sum of our intelligence is far greater than any one individual alone.
Acknowledging that hierarchical rank systems are human in origin, and only have meaning amongst those who accept it, means we can change the narrative. We can remove rank systems which divide, and reframe our understanding of power as a shared resource. That those trusted to make decisions have a focus on serving and supporting those in their care. That rather than using a command and control system, appointed leaders guide and inspire the group towards a shared vision.
In our upcoming article, The Guild will delve further into collaborative leadership and shared power. So please stay tuned!
Key Take Aways:
- Rank is a human construct, and only holds meaning amongst those who accept it
- Tying one’s self-worth to a rank or position is detrimental
- Our biased brains attach narratives to roles and positions, which we then reflect onto the individual
- The treatment of others influences their behaviour. Treat someone as though they are a valuable contributor and they will become a valuable contributor
- Rather than distribute power unequally, we should ensure equal empowerment
- No one individual is more intelligence, powerful, or innovative, than our combined minds and experiences
The Warrior-Womxn's Guild 