Research in the Sociology of OrganizationsEmerald Book Chapter: Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary WorkSusanne E. Lundholm, Jens Rennstam, Mats Alvesson

Article information:To cite this document: Susanne E. Lundholm, Jens Rennstam, Mats Alvesson, (2012),"Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work", Thomas Diefenbach, Rune Todnem By, in (ed.) Reinventing Hierarchy and Bureaucracy - from the Bureau to Network Organizations (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 35), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 113 - 140Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2012)0000035007Downloaded on: 22-11-2012

References: This document contains references to 40 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by CORNELL UNIVERSITY

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

UNDERSTANDING HIERARCHY IN

verticalization and horizontalization loose coupling, translation, andKeywords: Hierarchy; postbureaucracy; knowledge work; vertical andhorizontal practices; managers; subordinates

Reinventing Hierarchy and Bureaucracy from the Bureau to Network Organizations

Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 35, 113140

Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reservedintegration are identied and illustrated, drawing on three ethnogra-phically inspired studies of knowledge work. Through these threedynamics, the chapter casts light on and provides nuances to the currentdiscussion in the literature on postbureaucracy.CONTEMPORARY WORK

Susanne E. Lundholm, Jens Rennstam and

Mats Alvesson1

ABSTRACT

The chapter aims to bring out the dynamic nature or hierarchy inorganizations and presents a conceptual framework for making sense ofhierarchy in contemporary work. We describe hierarchy as the result of acontradictory dynamic that incorporates both vertical and horizontalpractices of organizing. The vertical practice, verticalization, draws onand reproduces the formal organization, whereas the horizontal practice,horizontalization, orders people on the basis of their knowledge andinitiatives. The dynamic between these two practices varies, we argue,depending on the social and epistemic distance of formal managersfrom the operative work process. Three different dynamics betweenISSN: 0733-558X/doi:10.1108/S0733-558X(2012)0000035007

113

INTRODUCTION

Organizational hierarchy is generally understood as the formal, documentedsystem according to which people in an organization are ranked in termsof authority along a vertical axis. The role and nature of hierarchy has beenwidely debated in recent decades, not least in terms of its positive andnegative effect on organizational success and employee motivation. Thosewho are skeptical of hierarchy point out its connection to oppression andinjustice, the lack of discretion, initiative, and exibility, and the fact thathierarchy tends to be perceived as a demotivating force in the organization(McGregor, 1960). This is particularly the case in the expanding sector ofknowledge work where creativity and workers initiative are central to thesuccess of the rm (Alvesson, 2004; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).In response to such views, others argue that the formal chain of command isa necessary means to maintain clarity and effectiveness in the organization(e.g., Abrahamsson, 2007; Weber, 1947), and while hierarchy may appear ina different shape today than it used to, most researchers agree that it is apersistent feature of contemporary organizations (e.g., Courpasson, 2000;Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Hales, 2002; Hop, 2006). With a certain size,hierarchy is almost impossible to avoid.We agree with those who claim the persistence of hierarchy in organi-

zations, although we argue that the nature and dynamic of hierarchy incontemporary organizations and work are poorly understood. For example,we know that formal hierarchy or at least a strong adherence to it maydamage creativity, but we know less about how hierarchy is achieved insituations where creativity plays a central role. Similarly, we know thatexpert authority may or even should take the place of formal authority inthese contexts (Pearce & Conger, 2003), but if so, how does the relationshipbetween formal and expert authority play out in practice? To answer thesequestions we need to go beyond either/or conceptions of hierarchy, and seeka more nuanced understanding. That is what we intend to do in this chapter.More specically, we outline a conceptual framework that describes howhierarchy is accomplished in everyday work contexts, where vertical (formalauthority) and horizontal (expert authority) aspects of organization meet.Our agenda, as specied above, requires that we abandon a reied and

static understanding of hierarchy, and instead look at how hierarchy isconstructed and negotiated in social interaction. The idea that hierarchy isconstructed is not new to the eld of organization studies (see McPhee &

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.114Poole, 2001). Nevertheless, its potential is yet to be unleashed by a fullerunderstanding of how this happens. In this text, we suggest that hierarchy is

bfbgfhResaltado

bfbgfhResaltado

bfbgfhResaltado

bfbgfhResaltado

bfbgfhResaltado

bfbgfhResaltado

horizontalization (the undoing of formal hierarchy). Hierarchy is thus seen

as a dynamic that incorporates contradictory organizing principles, and so,we can conceptualize hierarchy by describing this dynamic. In this chapterwe identify three versions of the verticalhorizontal dynamics that we termloose coupling, translation, and integration. Each of these categories whichmake up our conceptual framework displays a specic type of interfacebetween the vertical and the horizontal. This interface, in turn, appears tofollow from the managers position. Or to be more exact, it depends onthe distance of the manager from the operative work process, both in asocial and epistemic sense.The focus of this chapter lies consequently not on broader organizational

arrangements structural or cultural associated with large-scale organiza-tions as wholes, spanning over several hierarchical levels and incorporatingthe larger picture of vertical division of labor. Instead, focus is on the relationsbetween managers and their (formal) subordinates. (Whether the subordi-nates really are subordinated, or when and how they become subordinated,are key questions.) Our view is very much a micro view, based on a close-upperspective of howpeople are doing or undoing hierarchy in local practices.To esh out the categories of our conceptual framework, the chapter

draws on empirical material from three ethnographically inspired studies ofSwedish business rms: one bank, one IT consulting rm, and one high-tech/engineering company. From these studies we extract different episodes thatwill serve as illustrations of our theoretical points, allowingus tomake sense ofloose coupling, translation, and integration.The chapter unfolds by rst, briey, reviewing the literature on hierarchy

in organizations, arguing for a view of hierarchy as constructed in everydaypractice. Following this, we present and discuss our conceptual framework,including the concepts of horizontalization and verticalization. After that,we account for the methodological aspects of our work, followed by someempirical examples that illustrate the categories of our conceptual frame-work. Finally, we discuss theoretical implications and how our ndings helpus to make sense of hierarchy in contemporary work.

ON HIERARCHYproduced in the meeting between two seemingly contradictory practices thatwe shall call verticalization (the doing of formal hierarchy/authority) and

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 115Hierarchy is a central theme in the classical debate between scienticmanagement/Taylorism and the human relations movement. Under the

bfbgfhResaltado

paradigm of scientic management, hierarchy was seen as necessary forpreventing soldiering, dening work tasks, and supervising workersperformance. Taylor was very explicit about this, pointing out that the taskof supervisors was to make sure that every workman knows in detail thetask which he is to accomplish (Taylor, 1911/1998, p. 17). The humanrelations school thought quite differently of hierarchy. Not in the sense thatthere should not be any, but if displayed too explicitly, it was considered as apotential obstacle to informal communication betweenworkers, which in turnwas a necessary prerequisite for effective collaboration (Roethlisberger &Dickson, 1939, p. 559). So instead of directing the tasks of workers,supervisors were instructed to enable good teamwork and to invite employeesinto processes of decision-making, thus distancing management somewhatfrom the immediate work process.A skeptical attitude toward hierarchy is largely prevalent today, and if

any of the classical paradigms has won the battle it is the human relationsapproach. Explicit advocacy of hierarchy is indeed rare these days theargument being that hierarchy sits badly with current trends in contempor-ary society toward more complex forms of work, which are difcult tocontrol by hierarchical means, such as direct supervision or formal rules.Firms today are instead claimed to be complex, contested social systems(Kuhn, 2008) characterized by distributed/collective leadership (Fairhurst,2008; Gronn, 2002), increasingly intent on creating worker participation(Stohl & Cheney, 2001), teamwork (Cohen & Bailey, 1997), and empower-ment (Styhre, 2001). This characterization is particularly relevant withrespect to so-called knowledge work, which tends to be nonroutinized,thus relying heavily on the expertise and creativity of the employees (e.g.,Alvesson, 2004; Starbuck, 1992). In this type of work, hierarchicalmanagement is seen as counter-productive, and new forms of managementare suggested that acknowledge complex rather than hierarchical interactionwith employees (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). The manager, in turn, is seen as acoach, teacher, and servant (Senge, 2004), as a social integrator (Alvesson,1995), and as a manager of meaning (Smircich & Morgan, 1982) rather thansupervisor or boss.The literature discussed above seems to suggest that we are moving

away from a vertical or bureaucratic organization. Nevertheless, as somecommentators have pointed out, this postbureaucratic argument should notbe exaggerated (Alvesson & Thompson, 2004). Rather, we are in need of amore nuanced understanding of the matter. In response to such calls for

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.116nuances, scholars have used terms such as bureaucracy-lite (Hales, 2002),and soft bureaucracy (Courpasson, 2000) to describe a more moderate

how such decisions translate into the work of the ostensibly empowered

employees.The concepts of soft and lite bureaucracy, then, suggest that hier-

archy is an ambiguous phenomenon. It is seldom completely obvious orxed, but rather, hierarchy is played out in various issue-specic ways, and avariety of circumstances tend to support, weaken, or bypass hierarchy,including competence and status-based (a) symmetries between people ondifferent hierarchical levels.Accounts that reect critically on the notion of postbureaucracy thus

attempt to nuance the idea that the world of organizations has gone througha radical change, with new forms of organizing as a result. Instead theyargue for the persistence of a moderated vertical order. However, it is notentirely clear what this moderated order looks like and there is presumablyenormous empirical variation. The notions of soft and lite bureaucracygive you some idea of what postbureaucracy may be. However, suchconcepts are not very illuminating, in terms of their everyday implications.This is a blank that we intend to ll with this chapter, andmore specically wewill describe hierarchy as a dynamic that occurs when vertical and horizontalordering processes meet and interact. In particular, we will examine how amanagerial order coexists and interacts in practice with a regime based on theinitiatives of qualied individuals, often superior to their managers in termsof operational knowledge.

The Constructed Hierarchy

The perspective of this chapter thus goes beyond the common idea oforganizations as either hierarchies, where managers rule, or the opposite,with the organization being viewed as a at, democratic collective (cf. Blaug,2009; Lundholm, 2011; Rennstam, 2007). Instead we assume the coexistenceof and interaction between managerial and knowledge-based authority, andversion of the traditional bureaucratic ideal type. In this lite bureaucracy,there are on the one hand fewer vertical layers and employees areempowered in terms of increased discretion over tasks. But on the otherhand, the formal hierarchy is maintained when it comes to traditionalmanagerial privileges such as formulation of goals, strategies, reorganiza-tions, and performance measurement principles (Sennett, 1998). Keydecisions are thus still in the hands of top managers, although it is unclear

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 117we view hierarchy as an emergent phenomenon, constructed in organiza-tional practice. The idea implies a focus on processes of organizing rather

interpretive patterns (Schatzki, 2001; Thevenot, 2001).

The term interpretive patterns indicates a connection between the

notion of practice and that of culture. Practice theory is indeed a culturaltheory in the sense that it pays attention to how social order is maintainedand how shared meanings are located and stabilized, with particularattention to practices (Reckwitz, 2002). Cultural theory is frequently drawnupon in the study of organizations, and in relation to hierarchy, scholarshave shown how artifacts, rituals, and other symbolic means are used toreinforce or balance the formal structure (e.g., Rosen, 1989). These areimportant aspects of hierarchy in organizations, but a symbolic/ritual focustends to assume that meaning is external to practice. In contrast, followingpractice theory, we argue that formal structures should not be assigned an apriori meaning external to everyday organizational activity. Insteadstructure is enacted in practices, which are building blocks in which socialorder resides (Schatzki, 2001). At the core of this practice approach toorganization is the contrasting of formal representations of organizationwith accounts of actual activities (Brown & Duguid, 1991, p. 41), becausewhile formal denitions of work relations do exist on paper, the meaningand relevance of such denitions are always a matter of practice. Morespecically, such understandings are negotiated in instances of livedculture, for example, when a subordinate discusses work solutions withher/his manager, or when this is done among peers.

Verticalization and Horizontalization

While all organizations exhibit some degree of formal hierarchy, they alsoentail a horizontal dimension with people interacting as peers, based onthe principle of equality. In these situations, employees still inuence eachother, but not on the basis of formal authority. Instead, inuence is basedon ideas and arguments, which reect a knowledge or creativity that is notthan organization (McPhee & Poole, 2001). In consequence, instead of takingthe organization and its existence for granted, an emergent perspective onhierarchy commands us to examine how hierarchy is done and sometimesundone or at least softened in everyday practice. Our approach doesnot imply a chaotic understanding of hierarchy, however. Instead, we arguethat hierarchy resides and emerges in practices, and by practices we meaneveryday activities that display a certain regularity and that invoke certain

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.118tightly associated with the persons formal position in the organizationalscheme. In organizations, this horizontal interaction almost always takes

are better equipped to control work. But the formal organization remains

even under these conditions, and it is likely to be drawn upon to variousdegrees as a legitimate way of making sense of work relations. When people,explicitly or implicitly, call upon the formal organization to place themselvesin a formally superior or subordinate position, thus doing the formalhierarchy, we refer to this as verticalization.Reasonably, all organizations entail both the doing and undoing of

hierarchy in the sense that there is a collective ability to both verticalize(using formal hierarchy) and horizontalize (bracketing the formal hier-archy). The organization will then be able to maintain a sense of order andaccountability without scarifying the knowledge, ideas, and initiatives ofindividuals. In this chapter we present a framework that details how thishappens in practice and how the processes of verticalization and horizon-talization interact and coexist in everyday work. The task is warranted, webelieve, as the coexistence of verticalization and horizontalization cannot betaken for granted. Verticalization and horizontalization exist in a tenserelationship, as contradictory modes of organizing, and their relationshipneeds to be explained. In particular, there is a need to explain how a regimethat gives uncontested power to formally appointed managers coexists withone that grants authority to knowledgeable individuals (regardless of theirformal position). Instead of considering organization as either hierarchical ornot, we consider verticalization and horizontalization as coexisting modesof organizing in a contradictory dynamic, which, we believe, is a fruitfulway of conceptualizing hierarchy in contemporary work.2

A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Dynamics of Hierarchy

In the following we attempt to conceptualize the contradictory dynamic thatoccurs when processes of verticalization and horizontalization meet byconstructing a framework. We shall present three hierarchical dynamics loose coupling, translation, and integration which each represent differentplace in light of a formal hierarchy, and we may talk about horizontalizationwhen the horizontal interaction involves bypassing or marginalizing theformal hierarchy. In short, horizontalization is about undoing the formalhierarchy.Horizontalization is likely to be more common when the work process

displays a certain complexity and/or, for some other reason, subordinates

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 119relationships between verticalization and horizontalization. These relation-ships, in turn, are informed by what we term managerial distance, that is the

social as well as epistemic distance of formal management from theoperative work process.The rst dynamic is loose coupling. As operative activities are increasingly

in the hands of employees that enjoy a great deal of discretion on basis oftheir knowledge, managerial activities tend to transpire further away fromthe operative work process. When management cannot inuence theoperative work directly, which is especially the case in knowledge work,they will often try to inuence it indirectly by articulating strategies, culturalmessages, organizational identities, and overarching visions (e.g., Alvesson,2004). Thus, managers attempt to impact employees by inuencing otheraspects of organizational life than the actual work, hoping to increase thelikelihood of beneciary actions on part of employees.The picture painted above implies that operative work, these days, is often

managed horizontally among peers, on the basis of superior knowledge ofthe work process, and that these horizontal processes are touched only froma distance, indirectly, and occasionally by vertical interventions. For thisreason, we may talk about a loose coupling between verticalization andhorizontalization (cf. Weick, 1976). Loose coupling is generally an effect ofcomplexity. The typical example would be a senior manager in a relativelycomplex workeld. The manager will then be distant from work, bothsocially and epistemically, because on the higher level where seniormanagement acts, there is little concern or contact with the details of work(social distance). And if the work process is complex, the manager is likelyto have only a shallow understanding of it (epistemic distance). Thus, whenwork gets complex, the distance between management and the work processincreases both in a physical and epistemic sense and managers will try totarget the work process through means that are only indirectly related to thework process.Translation is the second verticalhorizontal dynamic in our framework,

and it is a category that describes how hierarchy may be constructed whenmanagement is somewhat engaged in (and thereby closer to) the operativework process. The typical case here is a middle manager that meets withthe operative core of the workforce on a daily basis, though without beingpart of such operations him-/herself. The manager will then have someunderstanding of the technical aspects of work, as well as the goings-on at theoperative level. We may characterize this as medium distance, both epis-temically and socially. This means that the manager is able to ask questionsabout work, formulate goals, concerns, and directions, but in order for these

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.120directions to make sense in practice, they need to be translated into operativework by subordinates. The effect of managerial involvement is thus largely

dependent on how it is made sense of and effectuated by employees whoperform the actual work.In light of the above, we may say that the vertical process is translated

into a horizontal process. In this process of undoing the formal hierarchy,employees practice-related and esoteric knowledge is important, becauseultimately, this knowledge is what enables employee discretion to translatemanagerial interventions (the process of verticalization).3 Indeed, even ifsubordinates do not mean for it to happen, the managerial intention oftengets lost as it travels through the process of translation, and there may notbe much the manager can do about it. In many cases though, translationdoes not pose a true challenge to managerial agendas. Instead it seems as ifemployees, in the process of translation, step in and take on the role ofmanagers, and their practical and esoteric knowledge then becomes a meansto managerial ends. This last point is often made by critical managementscholars who are skeptical of contemporary talk of employee discretion andempowerment. Our category of translation takes a middle road with regardto this question, allowing both for translations that complete and redirectmanagerial intentions.The third and nal dynamic of our framework is termed integration.

Integration happens when processes of verticalization and horizontalizationmerge and become intertwined to the extent that it becomes difcult to makea meaningful distinction between the two. In practice, this occurs when themanager is also the most or one of the most procient experts in theoperative work. An example could be a really small rm where those whowork at the operative level also own and manage the rm. In such casesthere is a lack of a salient formal structure, and consequently it will be hardto dene people as either managers or subordinates. Yet another example iswhen the formal position of manager is directly linked with expertcompetence in a eld of practice. For instance, in research, the title asprofessor is awarded to a person with a great academic track record, but as aprofessor one will often also act as manager for more junior researchers.When the professor directs the work of a junior researcher, for example aspart of a coauthored paper, it may be hard to tell if this is because she/heenjoys a superior, formal position, or if it is because the professor hassuperior knowledge. Most likely it is both, and it is difcult to separate thesetwo bases of authority. Consequently, we may talk about integrationbetween the vertical and horizontal in an actual practice of work.In the context of integration, managerial distance is thus low or non-

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 121existent, meaning that the manager is as engaged in and knowledgeable ofthe operative work as anyone else. She/he holds a similar understanding

Building a framework based on the notion of managerial distance is a

means to accomplish an overall ambition with this chapter, that is, tomediate between deterministic and uid conceptions of hierarchy. A focuson managerial distance constitutes an explicit recognition of formalstructure, implying that it must be taken into account, by researchers andpractitioners alike. However, in the vein of avoiding either/or as well asstatic conceptions of hierarchy, we likewise recognize the existence ofdifferent forms of horizontalization that undo the formal structure. Whatthis undoing amounts to varies, and arguably, it varies with the managerialdistance. In the case of loose coupling, horizontalization may take a varietyof shapes from ignorance and cynicism to individual reconstruction or theactual adoption of managerial initiatives in light of general conditions ofwork provided by senior management. In the dynamic of translation, inturn, when managers are closer to work, undoing requires the ability tomake sense of and translate a given instruction, goal, or concern intooperative practice, which may to varying degrees lead to changes in thedirection intended by management. Finally, when management is so closethat it becomes integrated in the operative work, instructions tosubordinates will be quite specic and thus hard to avoid or redirect. Atthe same time, because the horizontalvertical order is intertwined here,such instructions can be interpreted as expert based, and thus, there is aspace for the undoing of formal hierarchy.

METHOD

The chapter draws on a number of ethnographic studies of organizations inthe context of professional and knowledge intensive work: an IT consultancyrm, a bank, and an engineering rm. These organizations have been studiedin depth, each study including a large number of interviews and observationsof a variety of situations. The studies differ in scope and focus, but all includeof the work process as subordinates, and is updated on recent events anddetails of daily operations. Taken together, these conditions enable themanager to hold an informed conversation with subordinates about work,and through such conversations she/he is able to control the operativeprocess in detail. The manager may be seen as having dual memberships, inthe vertical as well as horizontal regime, which enables her/him to movebetween the regimes and knowledgeably handle situations in both.

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.122rich material for addressing issues of hierarchy, and how it is (un)done inpractices. One study of the IT consultancy rm is broader and mainly

addresses understandings and meanings on a general level: how theorganization is structured and how claims to be nonhierarchical stands inan ambiguous relation to various forms of vertical differentiation. The othertwo studies focus more strongly on situated practices, observed and describedin depth.The IT consultancy case involved the entire rm, with 500 employees, and

addressed organizational culture, including issues around community andthe role of managers in managing values and meanings and accomplishingsocial integration in a business with employees working at client sites,leading to a risk of organizational fragmentation and weak identication.The study included about 40 interviews and some observations of organizedsocial events.The bank study was conducted at local branches in Sweden during a

period of 18 months, focusing specically on everyday interactions betweenformally superior managers and their subordinates. These interactions weresometimes audio recorded (if occurring in meetings), and on other occasions(mostly in everyday work) the researcher relied on detailed eld notes(scribbled down on spot as the interaction was occurring). As a supplementto these observations, the researcher conducted around 30 interviews withmanagers and employees.The engineering study was done in a branch of a large global producer of

telecommunication technology. The study focused on the operative work ofthe engineers, including ongoing production such as laboratory work as wellas interactions between superiors and subordinates. Seventy-six interviewswere conducted and interactions at 20 work meetings were recorded andtranscribed, whereas data from every day, ad-hoc interactions was gatheredthough shadowing or general hanging out with the engineers, taking notesas interesting interactions occurred.4

These three studies arguably give a good empirical grounding fordeveloping knowledge regarding the nature of hierarchy, at least in partsof contemporary economy and work life. Consequently, we will use thesestudies to illustrate and esh out the content of our conceptual framework.The result that we intend is a less abstract way of understanding theambiguous nature of hierarchy, previously described using terms such aslite and soft. Specically, we conceptualize the (ambiguous) hierarchyas a dynamic that simultaneously incorporates vertical and horizontalmodes of organizing.To make our point we will draw on a number of empirical episodes

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 123describing how superiors and subordinates interact in the course of dailywork. These examples allow us to show in some detail the process whereby

employees, indicating that there is a desire to preserve a certain degree of

equality and downplay formal structure (cf. Kanter, 1977). Some traditionalforms of hierarchical symbolism are avoided. Top management is, forexample, located at the rst oor, close to the reception, and their ofceshave like everybody elses glass doors. On the top oor, space isdesignated for recreational, community-building purposes, with jacuzzi,kitchen, piano bar, etc. At the same time, there are clear indications ofhierarchy in practice, including activities for the manager group under-Hierarchy in Three Organizations: An Ambiguous Construct

The IT consultancy rm is in many ways an example of a at, nonhier-archical organization, almost exemplary from the point of view of advocatesof the postbureaucracy (and posthierarchy) thesis. Managers and employeesoften say that there are only three hierarchical levels: managing director ofrm, subsidiary manager, and consultant. The rm is organized in terms ofsubsidiaries with a maximum of 50 employees in order to maintain a senseof small size and with minimal demand for hierarchy. Management makes apoint of this in annual reports, interviews, and introductory courses for newhierarchy is done and undone. Or in different words, they illustrate theintersection between the vertical and the horizontal. And although episodesmay seem very specic, we think they can be used to capture and illustrate aphenomenon of broader interest. More specically, they provide insightsinto the ambiguity of hierarchy, in that they qualify the character andcomponents of this ambiguity.

UNPACKING THE ORGANIZATIONAL HIERARCHY

In this section, we will illustrate empirically some of the complexitiesaround hierarchy in contemporary organizations. We start by offering abrief description of our case companies, showing that, upon closer obser-vation, it is often difcult to dene organizations as either hierarchical ornonhierarchical. Rather, hierarchy is an ambiguous phenomenon. Follow-ing this, we attempt to bring some clarity to this ambiguity by elaboratingon the character of the relationship between processes of verticalization andhorizontalization.

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.124scoring their signicance compared to the rest. Managers state that informalhierarchy is unavoidable because new employees cannot take the same

responsibility as more experienced ones. Also, although the subsidiaries onlyhave one manager according to the formal organization chart, there isalways a second person that in practice acts as deputy, and one or twoadditional persons who are included in a so-called management team. So inthe end, it seems, subsidiaries do have additional hierarchical layers,although these are not publicly acknowledged. In the rm, there is muchjuggling between hierarchy-reinforcing and hierarchy-reducing/avoidingpractices.In the engineering case there is a similar ambiguity in terms of how

hierarchy is constructed. The engineering rm is a large multinationalcorporation, but the branch studied only has about 800 employees. At arst glance, the branch looks like a traditional hierarchical organization, withve formal levels of hierarchy. Some employees experience this hierarchyand complain about top management making unrealistic decisions, inparticular in terms of time. But other statements, from managers andengineers alike, complicate the picture and indicate that the line of commandis not always followed. For example, one lower level manager points out thattheres nobody telling us what to do, by which he means that his group notonly has to nd out new productive operative solutions for themselves, butalso take initiative to long-term strategic changes. A project manager in thegroup also stresses this, stating that they have to construct their own goals,since nobody gives any directives from above, and an experienced engineerreveals how the content of deadlines is often manipulated when topmanagement makes unrealistic decisions. Last, observations of work in theorganization do indeed indicate that much of the work is organized basedon collegial feedback rather than top-down directives.Finally, if we consider the bank case, perhaps quite surprisingly, it too

displays hierarchical ambiguity. Banks are often thought of as ideal-typebureaucracies, with their vertical shape and the many policies/regulationsthat guide work. Nevertheless, with the deregulation of nancial markets,banks have become market driven with emphasis on customization anddecentralization. In practice, this means more decisional power to ordinaryemployees in their dealings with customers. Both employees and managersstress this discretion of employees, arguing that such autonomy begetsmotivation, but they also point at gains in terms of efciency. The customerdoes not have to wait long for the promise of a loan, and in addition, thesubordinate often has more in-depth knowledge of customers and thetechnicalities of work, at least when it comes to more complex cases. For this

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 125reason, it makes sense that it is them, and not managers, who make mostdecisions about work. At the same time, hierarchy is an inevitable aspect of

employees largely rely on horizontal interaction to decide what to do. Thus,

the formal, overall organizational arrangements do not necessarily say muchabout specic managersubordinate interactions. In the following we shallgo beyond the statement that hierarchy is ambiguous, and instead look atthe nature and components of this ambiguity. We achieve this by lookinginto how hierarchy is constructed in practice.

Illustrations: The VerticalHorizontal Dynamics in Practice

The above discussion centers on the notion of hierarchical ambiguity.Ambiguity indicates that something is opaque or hard to make sense of inclear and simple terms. In the case of hierarchy, this is because it appears asif contradictory principles organize work relations. One way to disentanglethe notion of hierarchy and hierarchical ambiguity would thus be toelaborate on the dynamic between contradictory forces. This is what we willdo next in trying to make further sense of the relationship betweenverticalization and horizontalization. In particular, we will discuss andillustrate the three dynamics that make up our conceptual framework: loosecoupling, translation, and integration.

Loose CouplingThe consultancy rm provides a good starting point for a discussion thatbanking. It is expected from the larger public, especially in times like these ofnancial turbulence. Add to that, the many regulations monitored bynancial authorities that demand clear lines of responsibility and authority.Thus, a bank cannot do away with a formal hierarchy, it seems, and in the endthere will have to be amix between verticality and horizontality. The nature ofthis dynamic though, cannot be settled once and for all. Instead there is anongoing negotiation regarding the boundaries of managers command andemployees discretion. And observations of work do conrm that this isthe case.Thus, all cases discussed above display hierarchical ambiguity. The

consultancy is formally relatively at, and the organizational rhetoricunderscores this, but there are signs of neo-formal hierarchies, whereasthe engineering rm and the bank may look quite hierarchical on thesurface, but trends of customization (in the Bank) and the complexity of thework push important decisions down to lower levels where specialized

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.126centers on the notion of loose coupling. In the consultancy rm, there arerelatively few hierarchical layers, with each subsidiary manager overseeing

a quite large number of employees, who function autonomously in the courseof daily operations. Because of the large number of employees under eachmanager, there will inevitably be little direct contact between subordinate andsuperior in matters that concern operative work. Management then becomesdistant or detached from the core processes of work. However, managementstill maintains a loosely coupled link to this core through overarchingdecisions regarding assignments, wage setting, and the evaluation of perfor-mance. In addition, there is the careful work of trying to inuence values andsense-making in the rm, and such attempts by management, to dene andreproduce an organizational culture and identity, emerge from a clearhierarchical position.To give the reader a more concrete sense of how this culture work plays

out, we can take the example of a manager that was observed in the morningserving coffee to his subordinates, a very symbolic act as it conveys thenotion that we are all equals here, which, as the reader may recall, is oneof the professed values of the rm. The activity of serving coffee then is atypical example of culture work, and in addition, it makes clear ourargument here that there is a loose coupling between the vertical and thehorizontal. Because when the manager serves coffee, he aims, not directly atthe work behaviors of subordinates, but instead at their perception of workby providing value-laden and symbolic cues. Such cues, in turn, willarguably be taken into account by subordinates as they engage in operativework, implying an indirect effect of managerial interventions. So in thisspecic case, what could be the effect?One message here, as noted above, is obviously the notion of equality.

Nevertheless, another message embedded in this activity can be found inhow the manager described his practice. Because when asked about it, themanager said that his time, unlike that of the consultants, is nonbillable, andhence, it makes sense that he, not the consultants, provides this supportiveservice. Taking this comment into account, we may interpret the practice ofserving coffee differently. More specically, we may read it as a token of aperformance-oriented culture, because the manager seems to be saying thatthere is nothing more important than billing your hours. In fact, it is soimportant that it makes more sense to have a manager serving coffee than tohave a subordinate not producing billable time. Obviously, this message isnot said out loud. Instead it is conveyed in and through symbolic behaviorsthat feed into subordinates conception of their work. And in the end, suchsymbolic practices will affect how subordinates perform their work; they

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 127may not be overly respectful toward their superiors, but they will make sureto bill their hours. Or will they?

In the management-centered literature, that dominates contemporarythinking, it is often assumed thatmanagerial interventions have their intendedeffect (Grey, 1999). To us though, as indicated in our framework, such anassumption seems problematic, given that managers presence in the work isbecoming less salient, and as managers become more and more distant fromoperative processes, they also become more and more peripheral to theeveryday existence of employees. Chances are then that subordinates will notbe as susceptible to managers attempts to inuence them, which may lead toa weakening of the already loose connection between the vertical and thehorizontal.To add esh to the idea that subordinates may ignore or counter mana-

gerial control attempts in the loosely coupled conguration, let us consider anepisode from the bank case. Here a superior is observed in a meeting as he istrying to target subordinates and their autonomous work at a distance, byinstructing the 35 people present to share their success stories from work withone another. Arguably, there is a symbolic aspect to this exercise in that themanager seeks to create a sense of success and competition among thosepresent (in line with the new market orientation of banks). Subordinates,however, are not very responsive to themanagers intervention. They insist ontelling bad stories. As we enter the episode below, one employee has begun tofollow the managers exercise, by telling something that resembles a successstory. She then goes on to say:

Should I give you the bad stuff as well? Albert (the manager) ignores this comment,

and instead he asks if there is someone else who would like to share something. When the

room goes quiet, Albert continues: We havent had a meeting for a long time now, so

there must be plenty of things to share. A quite young man speaks up telling those

present that one of their customers has sued the bank, and that he has been to court

giving a testimony, and most likely the matter will be taken to the next legal instance.

Albert does not comment on this piece of information. Instead he repeats the question, if

anyone has anything to share. Once again the room goes quiet, and the next moment

Albert gets started on the rst item on his agenda, and from there the meeting continues

for an hour without much interaction.

When a manager has 35 people under him/her, like in the example above, itis difcult to be close to the work that people do and engage in their everydayissues. Therefore, the manager must manage at a distance. In this case, themanager does so by trying to create an upbeat atmosphere, asking people fortheir success stories, stories that he hopes will spur competition and in theend branch performance. Employees resist participation in this practice,

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.128however, and the reason, perhaps, might be that the verticalization attemptclashes with their view of (horizontal) work.

As we enter the episode below, Christian, a project manager, is following

up the work of a subordinate engineer. As the formally superior person,Christian is expected to make sure work is completed on time, and inpractice this often means making sure that people commit to deadlines. Aswe shall see in the episode below though, the formal position as managerdoes not seem to help Christian much in this respect. Instead, the technicalknowledge of an experienced engineer steps in, and it translates thevertical order into practical work.

Christian (project manager) follows up Isacs (engineer) work. Isac says he is not

done, whereby Christian asks about his status and receives a very technical report.

After a short technical discussion in which Alex (experienced engineer) is also involved,

Christian asks: When do you think...[you can be nished]? Isac replies evasively,

looking at Alex: Well, I mean, I can do it on the blocks we have today, but now we

added some extra stuff soy Christian is about to say something when Alex chimes in:I guess its rather little, at least its still the same interface. Isac asks Alex a question

about the power. Alex explains. Then Isac says: Well, sure, I guess Ill have to add thoseThe example above shows how and why the connection between thevertical and the horizontal may be characterized as loose. This is not to saythat there is no link between these processes at all, because although themanagers attempt at creating an air of competition seems to fail, themeeting in itself can be seen as a verticalizing practice. To be sure, the factthat there is a meeting reminds employees that their work is subordinated toa vertical logic. Thus, through the recurring event, that is the meeting, theconnection between the vertical and horizontal processes is in a wayconrmed, even if the coupling can be characterized as loose.In sum, the above illustrates loose coupling as a way of describing an

ongoing process where managers try to latch onto the horizontal from adistance, through indirect vertical interventions, and where subordinatesmay counter such attempts, thus weakening an already loose connectionbetween the vertical and the horizontal.

TranslationThe next verticalhorizontal dynamic to be discussed is translation. Asnoted, translation may or may not follow the managerial intention, and toillustrate this variation, we shall start with an episode from the engineeringcase that shows how the process of horizontalization may complete thevertical intervention. After that we discuss a case, where the horizontalseemingly redirects the vertical.

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 129things. Christian then asks again when this will happen. Next week in that case, says

Isac. Alex chimes in again, suggesting a way of taking care of the issue so that Isac will be

able to send off the document already on Monday morning. Isac seems to think that

sounds ok: Ill try to do it tomorrow then, he says. Good, says Alex.

This episode illustrates a managers attempt at verticalization making anemployee commit to a deadline and how this intervention is subsequentlytranslated into the horizontal practice of solving technical problems.Christian fails to make Isac commit to a deadline, whereas Alex, with hisesoteric expertise (Starbuck, 1992) and practical understanding of thework process, intervenes and does precisely that which Christian is formallyassigned to do, only by horizontal means.This type of episode, where an employee steps in for the manager, offers

insights into the practical effectuation of what the literature refers to asempowerment and participation, something that is arguably necessary forcomplex work to be accomplished. Christians attempt to verticalize isundone by Alex intervention, translated, and turned into a horizontalpractice. Thus, in this case, the translation functions as it should from amanagerial perspective. The horizontal takes over from the vertical, butdoes not resist it. Instead the horizontal afrms the vertical order byassuming that its general requirements are legitimate. Or put differently, itcompletes the vertical ow of control by stepping in and performing thatwhich is beyond the reach of the formally appointed manager.The above episode may thus be used to conrm the idea put forth by

critical scholarship, that even if control in organizations is decentralized,this does not necessarily mean a shift in the overall ideology of control it isstill managerial control, only exerted by unobtrusive means that makeemployees act in the interest of the organization (e.g., Barker, 1999). Ournext episode, however, indicates that translation does not necessarily lead tocompletion of the vertical ow, but may also redirect the managers agenda.As we enter the episode below, Robert, a bank manager, is asking the

employees present at the meeting to come up with ideas that will turn thesales statistics that is the result of stock-market turbulence. Robert believesthat customers get scared whenever there is a dip in the market, and hewonders how they can prevent them from selling off their portfolios whenthis happens in the future. I leave the question completely open, he says,and after this people start discussing the issue suggested by the manager.Quite soon though, subordinates have translated and redirected themanagers initial contention that customers should be encouraged not tosell off their portfolios.

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.130Peter, the stock-market expert at the branch, suggests that they should tell people to

have a long-term perspective on their investment, which would then prevent them from

selling off in times of turbulence. People around the table seem to agree, when Ann all of

a sudden says: The scary thing isyI mean its very difcult, because you only knowwhats happened historically. Sometimes you give the advice to remove your money

and it continues to go down. [y] [and] why be in for the whole down-turn, when you canstep out and then you get back in. Ann receives support from other employees around

the table, with one person saying: I would never say that to anyone, Dont do it [sell]

yI had a guy with almost 900 000 in prot. At this point, Robert steps in: We mustalso consider what the bank recommends, and it always comes back to the fact that it is

the banks view that should decide what advice we give out. Its not really our own

[view] [y] It was more one of those questions thrown out there, he adds. Followingthis comment, Peter steps in and ends the discussion: But to wrap things up, its very

important really, this thing that Ann points out. That you shouldnt just sit there

through up and down turns. You should obviously sell if you feel thaty but that meansthat the customer has to have, not just a certain air, but a certain interest at least. So

you dont wake up six months later. It takes continuity on their part as well. Were not

the only ones who should be following the stock-market.

Due to his institutionalized position as chair of the meeting, the managerin the example above is able to set the agenda. This agenda is subsequentlytranslated through a horizontal process that, at rst, appears to completethe vertical process, because what Peter is suggesting initially would satisfythe managers aim of preventing people from selling. However, as Ann getsinvolved, the process of translation takes another turn; it redirects theagenda by making a point that runs counter to the managers. Ann is sayingthat people should get out if they can identify an upcoming dip in themarket. This also seems to be the conclusion as the discussion closes withPeters nal comment.The above example shows an interaction between the horizontal and the

vertical that contests the common notion in the management literature, thatthe vertical somehow determines or controls the horizontal. Because even ifthe manager is referencing his position as a formal authority in thebeginning and toward the end of the episode, he is not treated as such bythose present. Instead, it is Peter that is placed in a position of (expert)authority, as he breaks in and summarizes the discussion, without beingcontested by anyone (not even the manager). Moreover, Peter concludes thediscussion in a fashion that is contrary to the managers intention. Orin different words, Peter here steps in for the manger, but instead ofcompleting his inuence attempt, Peter redirects it. And he achieves this, byreferencing his operative knowledge, and concrete experience of the practiceof banking.Translation thus shows how vertical instructions from a manager who

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 131acts from a medium distance are made sense of and effectuated in practiceon the basis of employees, often superior, understanding of work. This

horizontal process may complete or redirect the vertical, but either waythere is an element of undoing hierarchy. Indeed, in both cases discussedabove, an employee rather than a manager holds the initiative. In the case ofcompletion though, the overall managerial agenda is not challenged, and inthese cases it may therefore be suspected that there is an indirect form ofcontrol at play, as described through the dynamic of loose coupling.5 Thepoint we wish to make here though is that when management is at a mediumdistance from the work process, being able to give general but not detailedinstructions, the vertical relies on the horizontal for its translation. In muchcomplex work, this is necessarily so, since managers are seldom involvedin or comprehend the operative work to the extent that their subordinatesdo. It happens, however, that managers have profound knowledge of theoperative work, which takes us to the next dynamic that we refer to asintegration.

IntegrationThe two preceding examples show instances when managers are partly oralmost fully distant from operative work processes. In certain contexts,however, it will be the case that a manager is also among the most procientexperts, acting very close to subordinates work. Another example from theengineering case will illustrate this. The episode that is depicted below playsout in a work meeting where Carl (manager) follows up on the work of anengineer (Eddie). The setting is thus similar to that presented earlier withChristian, Alex, and Isac. In this case though, the manager, Carl (in contrastto Christian), makes ample use of both his practical understanding of thework and his formally superior position.

Carl asks Eddie how his work is proceeding. Eddie says that he checked the results after

they made some modications, but doesnt seem quite satised with them. Carl asks:

Have you looked through this thing with [technical term]? Eddie replies that he hasnt,

but he is going to measure it. Have you started?, asks Carl. Eddie says that he has

started but he cant really make it work. Carl then suggests that it could be the classic

thaty [he explains what the classic means]. Mmy it could bey, says Eddie.They discuss for a short while, then Carl says I think this is a bit too slow, and adds

that we have had this action since we got the test results [y] we have put what we calla C1 on this, so it is a stopper,

Here we have an example where it is difcult to separate the process ofverticalization from that of horizontalization. Carl operates in thehorizontal realm because he inserts himself in the horizontal interaction

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.132that is normally conducted among the engineers. He talks to Eddie in asimilar way as Alex talked to Isac in the earlier example of engineering

work, that is, he talks to him as an engineer, and more specically as anexperienced engineer. This is best illustrated by his use of the term classic.Classic does not only mean that something is old but that it is remarkableand typical of a certain problem. Talking about Eddies problem as a classicdenes Carl as more experienced, and Eddie as a newcomer who lacksexperience. Otherwise Eddie would know about the classic and alreadyhave checked if it is causing the problem. All this takes place by drawing onpractical understanding of work, and not on the formal vertical order.Nevertheless, Carl also draws on vertical resources. When he labels the

problem what we call a C1, and a stopper, he departs from theconstruction of Eddie as a peer in need of advice and shifts to emphasizinghow Eddie is on the bottom of the ow of production: if he does not x this,the whole project will come to a standstill, and Carl knows this because hehas the overview that a manager has. Carls superior position in the chain ofcommand is also underlined his reference to action. An action in thisorganization basically means task or problem. When you have anaction, you are responsible for solving it, and although Carl is saying thatwe have had the action for a while, it is clear that Eddie is heldaccountable for the fact that it is still there.Carl thus translates the vertical into the horizontal by drawing on

practical understanding of work. However, he also enacts the vertical in amore traditional chain of command fashion, showing that he masters thepractice of engineering as well as management. Thus, he is able to bothmove close to the operative work and to back off and distance himself. Thisintegration of practices tends to produce a rather inuential force. Carlseems to have dual memberships and is both a manager and an engineer. Hisinsights into the intricacies of engineering work, combined with the fact thathe is indeed a manager, makes him into something more than a peer, aprimus inter pares (Rennstam, 2007). As such, he has special abilities totranslate the vertical into the horizontal and back again, by himselfrepresenting both aspects at once.The effect of integration may seem like the dream of every business leader,

and it is true that the combination of formal and expert power is potentiallymuch stronger than if you practice just one of the two. Nevertheless, thevertical and horizontal ingredients may also undermine each other. Anexample from the bank will testify to this. Here the researcher was able toobserve the struggling of those that were promoted managers on the basis oftheir expert competence. In this new role, the expert-manager often used

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 133operative knowledge to promote his/her managerial agenda. But this did notalways afford him/her a strengthened position. Instead, the mixing of logics

UNDERSTANDING HIERARCHY INCONTEMPORARY WORK

The present chapter has taken an approach to studying organizationalhierarchy that helps us go beyond either/or conceptions that dominate theliterature. That is, the tendency in the literature to claim either the persistenceof a vertical hierarchy, or to deny its relevance completely (Lundholm, 2011).By looking at the dynamics between contrasting organizing principles, wehave examined how hierarchy is constructed in and through socialinteraction. Instead of assuming verticality or horizontality, we havelooked at how the vertical and the horizontal coexist and interact in theconstruction of work relations. The result is a view of hierarchy as a strugglebetween vertical and horizontal forces.On the basis of our approach, we are able to elaborate on previous attempts

to describe moderate forms of hierarchy (Courpasson, 2000; Hales, 2002).Our framework proposes that the lite and soft versions of hierarchy that are typical for the era we live in are the result of practices that display aresulted in drawn-out discussions, where neither the expert nor the formalauthority of the manager was accepted. So instead of being both expert andmanager, the formally superior person ended up being none of the two.It is easy to see how different forms of authority can undermine one

another, because when a manager engages in technical talk, employees willcome to think that they are participating in a horizontal process, wherecompetence rules. Consequently, they may not accept or even be aware ofthe switch to a vertical order. This may happen if the manager is notsuccessful in convincing subordinates of his/her expert authority. Likewise,the formal position as manager may undermine the establishment of ahorizontal order. For example, a manager may try to engage subordinates inan open discussion, in order to promote multiple perspectives and richinput. But such a process will be hampered if subordinates are too aware ofthe formal order, because every attempt by the manager to exert inuencewill then be treated as an act of formal authority, killing the discussion.Thus, integration is not necessarily the most superior way of reconciling thepostdilemma of hierarchy and nonhierarchy. Balancing between thehorizontal and the vertical is a sensitive and problematic act.

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.134dynamic between verticalization and horizontalization. This dynamic, inturn, can be described using the terms loose coupling, translation, or

integration, depending on how distant the manager is from operative work.Managerial distance is the greatest in the case of loose coupling, withmanagers limiting themselves to indirect and often sporadic attempts toinuence work. In translation, the managers distance to the operative workprocess is smaller, but managers are still dependent here on knowledgeableemployees, who translate managers attempts to inuence the pace andcontent of work. Finally, in the case of integration, there is little distancebetween themanager and the operative, since managers here are participatingas experts next to their role as managers. Thus, loose coupling, translation,and integration describe how hierarchy is made soft: by either staying faraway, relying on translation, or on actors that understand the language ofboth verticality and horizontality, the impression is produced that hierarchyis soft.Softness or liteness in hierarchy can be seen as an effect of unobtrusive

vertical practices that to a large extent invite horizontal practices toparticipate. This idea is not entirely new to organization studies. However,most previous accounts in this eld seem to assume that the softness, orunobtrusive control, emanates from managers, as indicated by the commonfocus in the literature on managers and their choices/personalities/styles thatlead them to adopt a certain form of governance. The present account, incontrast, pays attention to everyday practices, where the softness comesacross, not so much an effect of managers choices, as an outcome ofeveryday negotiations between managers and employees, where the latterparty often has leverage, due to his/her superior understanding of work.The present account thus aligns with those who suggest the importance

of soft bureaucracy and unobtrusive forms of control. However, we haveslightly shifted the focus away from managers, distributing the agency, bytrying to show how the origin of these new versions of control resides indynamics between verticalization and horizontalization. Interestinglyenough, refraining from an exclusive focus on managers enables us toreect on the role of managers in contemporary knowledge work. If we startwith the notion of loose coupling, it appears to conrm the common imageof superiors in the literature, as managers of meaning, who control workindirectly, and at a distance, by engaging in cultural management and normsetting practices (e.g., Kunda, 1992; Ouchi, 1980). The dynamics that weterm translation and integration, in contrast, depart from this view ofmanagers, displaying them instead as actors that navigate operative workprocesses. We have shown, for instance, how managers may use their

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 135operative knowledge to set in motion productive processes of translation, orwhen really close to the operative process, they may jump between

vertical and horizontal positions. Our framework thus suggests a broaderspectrum of managerial inuence in knowledge work than what is common,a proposition that has been made possible by paying attention to managerialactivity at varying distances from the work process.In light of the above, we can contend that studying hierarchy in

contemporary organizations requires new tools, which we aim to providehere. Our framework enables a deeper study of hierarchy and hierarchiza-tion in organizational settings where the conception and execution of workhave merged. They enable insight into what managers do as well as whatemployees do. Hierarchy has previously been understood as precedingpractice, which is potentially why we have focused so much more on whatmanagers do, without taking seriously the activities of employees. As a result,research has reproduced the idea that grandiosemanagerial activities such asvisionary leadership, culture management, and other distant initiatives are the guiding forces in work. A focus on practice indicates that there areother activities, such as translation and integration, which enable hierarchy topersist despite its sometimes bad t with knowledge work.Our illustrations paint a dynamic portrait of the relationship between

the vertical and horizontal. They show how the managerial initiative (a) maybe backgrounded despite the existence of organizational policy, (b) may bedependent on the translation of expert authority, or (c) may becomeintertwined with expert authority. It thus seems clear to us that the verticalorder, as it is made present in and through everyday interaction, cannot standon its own. This interdependency though, between the vertical and thehorizontal, is rarely recognized, nor is it reected in how organizationsallocate status and pay. But if we can show that there is such a dependency,then, maybe, this calls into question the legitimacy ofmanagerial prerogatives(see, e.g., Parker, 2002). In any event, we can contend that a practice approachto hierarchy allows us to see things differently, and to reect on the manager-centered ideology that dominates much of the existing literature.Our discussion is thus an attempt to theorize formal hierarchy while

departing from the ideological understanding that assumes managerialagency as omnipresent. However, our case also aims to prevent falling trapto the other danger the opposite of assuming that managerial control isinsignicant. Instead, we have tried an alternative route of looking at both/and rather than either/or, and we have considered how both vertical andhorizontal orders constantly struggle to institute their own precedence, indynamics that we have labeled loose coupling, translation, and integration.

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.136Last, we should stress once again that we here are zooming in the inter-actional practices of managers and subordinates. There are also, of course,

postbureaucratic turn, (Alvesson & Thompson, 2004), we may suggest thatsome of its key characteristics are: (a) demands for horizontalization and

(b) exible movement between vertical and horizontal practices. At the sametime, the postbureaucratic turn also seems to be characterized by looselycoupled and often ambiguous verticalization practices (e.g., managersmanagerial practices that may operate hierarchically in a more xed way,such as top-management decisions about strategies, the hiring, promotion,and ring of employees, new management control systems, etc.

CONCLUSION

Looking at our study from a broader perspective, we are able to make somecomments regarding the nature of postbureaucracy and contemporaryknowledge work. Our study partly concurs through the notion of loosecoupling with the often stated claim that traditional hierarchical processesof organizing t badly with knowledge work. Instead, such work is oftenmanaged indirectly, and at a distance, that is, through efforts to lead byvalues and meanings and output control, rather than supervision of work.Nevertheless, we also go beyond this claim by showing that managersdistance to work varies. In addition by considering our three dynamicsbetween verticalization and horizontalization in a historical light we mayposit that there has been a change in the nature of the managerial distanceover time. In the bureaucratic era, social distance did not exclude epistemicproximity. On the contrary, it was quite typical that distant managersdesigned work tasks in detail. Today, in settings where work tasks havebecome more complex and require nonroutine problem solving, socialdistance tends to produce epistemic distance. This is arguably why thevertical has to interact with the horizontal through loosely coupledarrangements, processes of translation by knowledgeable workers, or primusinter pares who are able to navigate in both vertical and horizontal regimes.Our conceptual framework furthermore suggests that the boundary betweenthe vertical and the horizontal often is blurred, especially in the case oftranslation and integration where it often takes careful observation andthoughtful interpretation to claim that organizational members participatein verticalization or horizontalization.So, to the extent then that we nd it reasonable to take seriously a

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 137serving coffee to subordinates), through which the vertical approaches andinteracts with the horizontal.

participation in a verticalhorizontal dynamic requires tolerance forambiguity and unclarity in work. This tolerance in turn may be achievedNOTES

1. First authorship is shared between Lundholm and Rennstam.2. This means that an organization can be said to be hierarchical because of the

extent to which its members are engaged in verticalization. One could also talk abouta high verticalization/horizontalization ratio.3. It should be noted that translation may also work the other way around, when

management makes sense of input from the operative core by translating it into theirbroader view of a situation.4. For methodological and other details about the IT consultancy rm study, see

Alvesson (1995); for the engineering study, see Rennstam (2007); and for the bank,see Lundholm (2011).5. This also tells us that an empirical episode may bear traces of different

hierarchy dynamics. That is, the dynamics we present here are not mutually exclusivein practice, although there is a point in separating them analytically.

REFERENCESthrough identication, that is by picking up organizational or occupationalidentities, which then provide the individual with meaning, therebyfunctioning as a distraction from the ambiguities of work. But tolerancemay also be achieved through knowledgeable engagement in translationprocesses, undoing the vertical, which we have seen examples of in the bankand the engineering rm. This involves being knowledgeable of the workprocess to an extent that enables disambiguation and clarication through asense of craftsmanship, a sense of knowing what one is doing.The good organization thus demands people that are capable of

producing shifting and situationally sensitive work relations, so that therecan be a exible interplay between contrasting organizing principles. Anincreasing number of organizational members are thus involved in horizontalas well as vertical practices. Future research will hopefully reveal more aboutthe consequences of such demands, for organizations and for people.The blurring of boundaries and increased unclarity also has consequencesfor practitioners of knowledge work. For example, skilful and meaningful

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.138Abrahamsson, B. (2007). Hierarki: om ordning, makt och kristallisering (1st ed.). Malmo: Liber.

Alvesson, M. (1995). Management of knowledge intensive companies. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work 139Alvesson, M. (2004). Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive rms. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Alvesson, M., & Thompson, P. (2004). Post-bureaucracy? In S. Ackroyd, R. Batt,

P. Thompson & P. Tolbert (Eds.), Oxford handbook of work and organization.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barker, J. R. (1999). The discipline of teamwork. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Blaug, R. (2009). Why is there hierarchy? Democracy and the question of organisational form.

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 12(1), 8599.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice:

Toward a unied view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1),

4057.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes team work: Group effectiveness research

from the shop oor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239291.

[Special Issue]

Courpasson, D. (2000). Managerial strategies of domination: Power in soft bureaucracies.

Organization Studies, 21(1), 141161.

Diefenbach, T., & Sillince, J. (2011). Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of

organizations. Organization Studies, 32(11), 15151537.

Fairhurst, G. (2008). Discursive leadership: A communication alternative to leadership

psychology. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 510521.

Grey, C. (1999). We are all managers now; We always were: On the development and demise

of management. Journal of Management Studies, 36(5), 561585.

Gronn, P. (2002).Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis.LeadershipQuarterly, 13(4), 423451.

Hales, C. (2002). Bureaucracy-lite and continuities in managerial work. British Journal of

Management, 13(1), 5166.

Hop, H. M. (2006). Post-bureaucracy and Webers modern bureaucrat. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 19(1), 821.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic

books.

Kuhn, T. (2008). A communicative theory of the rm: Developing an alternative perspective on

intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 28(08/

09), 12271254.

Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation.

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Lundholm, S. (2011). Meta-managing: A study on how superiors and subordinates manage their

relationship in everyday work. Lund: Lund Business Press.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

McPhee, R. D., & Poole, M. S. (2001). Organizational structures and congurations. In

F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational

communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 503543). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,

129141.

Parker, M. (2002). Against management: Organization in the age of managerialism. Cambridge:

Polity.Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of

leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices A development in culturalist

theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243263.

Rennstam, J. (2007). Engineering work: On peer reviewing as a method of horizontal control.

Lund: Lund Business Press.

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1947). Management and the worker. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Rosen, M. (1989). Breakfast at Spiros. Journal of Management, 11(2), 3148.

Schatzki, T. (2001). Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina & E. von Savigny

SUSANNE E. LUNDHOLM ET AL.140(Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 114). London: Routledge.

Senge, P. (2004). The leaders new work: Building learning organizations. In K. Starkey,

S. Tempest & A. McKinlay (Eds.), How organizations learn: Managing the search for

knowledge (2nd ed.). London: Thomson Learning.

Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new

capitalism. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 257274.

Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning by knowledge intensive rms. Journal of Management

Studies, 29, 713740.

Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communication

and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly,

14(3), 349407.

Styhre, A. (2001). Kaizen, ethics, and the care of the operations: Management after

empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6), 795810.

Taylor, F. W. (1911/1998). The principles of scientic management. New York, NY: Harper &

Brother.

Thevenot, L. (2001). Pragmatic regimes governing the engagement with the world. In

T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina & E. v. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in

contemporary theory (pp. 5673). London: Routledge.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting

leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership Quarterly, 18(4),

298318.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: Free Press.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 21(March), 119.