The fallacy of the ‘chain of command’
The chain of command is an old and dated way of running a company, most companies have a chain of command, an organisational structure that puts managers above floor workers and CEOs above managers. This is to enforce boundaries and the roles of the workers within that company. However, as evident by this source[1] the ones that speak for support of this structure are the ones enforcing said structure and a lack of mention of those on the bottom tier. In that sense what is the difference between a feudal system and a chain of command as pictured below:
I would argue here the main differences are that people are given more respected names, and that a chain of command is spilt to make managing people easier than into broad groups. But the key takeaway is that it still denotes you at the bottom, that like the feudal system there will be someone above you. My question is that why do we need someone above someone else at all times? Why not have a level of accountability for everyone, and the same level of power instead of creating this over competitive space for people to compete over job titles and money? Would it not be a better idea to treat everyone as equal and pay people the same amount of money to work together? If we have learnt anything from this pandemic is that we should be working together, because despite how much money and power we have, we’re all susceptible to a virus. There are companies that have a flat team structure, such as Motion Twin which is a “anarcho syndicalism workers cooperative.”[4] This means they pay their workers the same, and everyone contributes the same as well, they’re not actively competitively against each other because there’s no need to. It’s worth noting that this is a small company that is made of 11 people, so it’s easier to implement. Though valve, a massive company supports the same political theory of anarcho- syndicalism[5] and even better has this quote before the employee handbook; “A fearless adventure in knowing what to do when no one’s there telling you what to do”[6].
There are several other companies that support this as well, this lack of manager and bosses. Clearly, it’s possible to do this and create a less toxic workplace, as while a workplace will claim it’s toxic. A workplace created from the chain of command method will always be vaguely toxic, as fear and resentment will creep in as people are promoted and favoured above other people.[7]
Whereas an Anarcho-syndicate corporation will foster creativity and freedom and remove them vague toxins from the workplace. As the feudal was designed to put people in their place, so was the chain of command and I think the future would benefit from anarcho-syndicate corporation being the default rather than the alterative, as the chain of command is outdated and has been used for too long. If we want to change society from an system that notoriously favours the wealthy and powerfully, then we start with the workplaces and implement this anarcho-syndicalism in them and see the influence that is has on the society around us, as our society is tailored to this work/life balance.
To summarize, it is believed in this article that the best way forward to make social change would one to follow the example that other companies and corporations are implementing and see the influence that it has on society as a whole, as the work/life balance is a crucial part of how our society is tailored.
[1] https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/15825-chain-of-command-importance.html Date accessedcessed 22/10/2020 [2] https://sites.google.com/site/year7medievaleurope/2-feudal-system [3] https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/464011567853403272/ [4] https://kotaku.com/game-studio-with-no-bosses-pays-everyone-the-same-1827872972 accese dated 22/10/2020 [5] https://www.happy.co.uk/blogs/8-companies-that-dont-have-managers/ Date accessed 22/10/2020 [6] https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/publication [7] I’m the source in this case.