Hierarchy is inherent to Indian ethos and has been internalized over ages. While the kings and chieftains of yore ordained select few with special rank and authority, ranked officers of the state discharged administration of the state. This afforded delegation of work and responsibility to various heads. A related concept is that of ‘hierocracy’ i.e. priestly rule practiced by Christian religious states. Indian ‘varna’ system of division of labour can also be linked to the system of hierarchy in terms of defined social relations. How this division of labour got social sanction and permeated every aspect of Indian society is another story altogether. Hierarchy is sanctioned within joint families wherein either a patriarch or matriarch wields control. This is passed on to nuclear families as well where even though the elders might not be present but the traditional idiom persists as the father is perceived as the decision-maker.

Moving on to the present day professional setting, there are clear cut, well-established ranks maintained by most of the organizations, primarily to curtail ambiguity in functioning. But at times, it proves counter productive with irrelevant ranks and disproportionate powers given to few and denied to others. Arguments for maintaining hierarchical systems at workplace range from clarity in job description to effective delegation of work. Counter arguments could be disproportionate control and access, lack of participation and excessive monitoring. While there is a move from monitoring to mentoring in several leading professional concerns (e.g. Infosys) it might be interesting to understand if hierarchical systems at workplace benefit or curtail.