Tweet This
Having worked in or around corporate America for more than 25 years, I can’t help but ask if there’s a tacit corporate “caste system” of sorts. Many professionals have experienced dysfunctional corporate cultures emblematic of that Animal Farm mantra “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” During my years in corporate America, I had difficulty reconciling lofty value statements and diversity pledges dripping with promises of equity with the obvious disparate treatment I noticed in how different employees seemed to be valued, listened to, and/or supported. The tragic and costly impact all too often is a resulting anti-collaborative, authoritarian-leaning, toxic organizational culture that doesn’t produce its best results or fully leverage its talent.
How did the corporate “caste system” develop? In many ways, I think the corporate “caste system” is a byproduct of the broader tacit societal “caste system.” Of course, American society steeped in democratic and capitalistic principles outwardly rejects the “caste system” concept, but most of us are fully aware that glaring inequities in treatment and opportunities often persist. Arguably, the caste system includes five levels with celebrities and the wealthy at the top and those with little access to power or wealth at the bottom – most of us falling somewhere in between, actively scrambling to climb up to the next level.
Some might consider the overwhelming public outrage at the recent college admissions cheating scandal as a rebuke of this societal “caste system” phenomenon. While many commentators acknowledged this as just another example of the fact that our society is indeed “rigged” to favor celebrities and the wealthy, this scandal seemed particularly egregious. CNN’s Don Lemon was just one of many journalists exploring the broader societal implications of the scandal. President Trump’s meteoric rise from a political neophyte (barely taken seriously during the early primary season) to the eventual victor seemed to be another prime example of the overwhelming impact of celebrity over other more rational factors like experience, intellect, judgment and ability.
Furthermore, our celebrity and wealth-obsessed culture often seems to require so much less of some and so much more of others to achieve even reasonably comparable levels of success. This same mentality, unfortunately, seems embedded in the DNA of many corporate hierarchies. These levels seem to be defined based on a variety of potential factors like gender, race, age, alma mater, proclivity towards technology, academic background, and of course level, title, and hierarchical position—all translating into wildly different levels of power, influence and even respect.
How does this “caste system” manifest in the workplace? Most professionals have experienced the “caste system” culture at some point in their career. While I can recall many personal experiences, one example is most prominent. As an MBA candidate in my 20s, I worked for a major telecommunications company during the notorious long distance price wars of the mid-1990s. One day I substituted for my manager during a key meeting. As the discussion roared on about our company’s strategic decision to maintain a pricier business model (and a higher price point) against lower-priced competitors during the height of the long distance rate wars, I couldn’t help but ask why we felt the need to hold on to more expensive, complicated switching technology when we likely couldn’t charge more for the final product. Unfortunately, I blurted out my thought bubble – “Isn’t dial tone a commodity really? When you pick up the phone – either it works or it doesn’t. Customers aren’t going to pay more for our branded dial tone are they?” While that might seem like a perfectly logical point of view now since pay per minute landline long distance service seems almost anachronistic, I promise at that moment it was a very unpopular opinion - particularly unpopular coming from me – a 20 something non-technical, southern, black female employee with only a couple years of service. In that moment as I fielded angry eye rolls and frustrated sighs, I couldn’t help but think that if I had held a different station in the corporate “caste system” that my comments would have instead been received as a brilliant, innovative perspective.
What is the impact of a “caste system” driven corporate culture? While it might be tempting to dismiss this “caste system” phenomenon as a tangential “diversity issue,” the dynamic that it creates is powerful, pervasive and consequential. Too often I find leaders making questionable or ill-informed decisions because “lower level” employees are hesitant to speak up, share information, or dare question/push back on a senior leader’s idea. In the project management community, we often ask the question “Who is willing to tell the boss they have an ugly baby?” as a bit of a check on the organization’s level of candor. Virtually anyone who has participated in business meetings or conference calls knows that oftentimes participants don’t have the opportunity for equal influence or contribution—some comments, suggestions, and ideas are taken seriously and drive the team’s focus and subsequent decisions while others are often ignored, devalued, or even mocked. In my experience, the difference is oftentimes not just the efficacy of the idea but also (sometimes moreso) the power station of the messenger.
While it might seem like this is another “kumbaya” treat everyone nice morale issue, this important disparate treatment element is just the tip of the iceberg when assessing the overall impact. Some would argue that the more substantial impact is diminished business results, organizational ineffectiveness, and process inefficiencies. Furthermore, this disparate treatment can significantly impact how an organization identifies, develops, and promotes its high potential professionals which in turn has a systemic ongoing impact on business performance. In my case as a young professional, I distinctly remember hearing through the grapevine about the “promotable list.” When I asked whether I was on it, I was met with a condescending glare and perfunctory response “If you don’t know you’re on it, you’re not!” Indeed, organizations suffer missed improvement opportunities, lost ideas, and decreased innovation when those at the bottom of the corporate food chain clam up instead of speaking up and sharing their brilliant ideas for fear of overstepping, saying the wrong thing, or upstaging a senior leader.
While the disparate treatment often disadvantages and undervalues those at the bottom of the food chain, it can similarly overvalue and inordinately advantage those at the top of the food chain. Some might consider this a “Trumpian” like effect where those in higher power stations seem to reap the benefits of their perch atop the food chain - whether it’s their significant influence during discussions, accolades and rewards that may not seem deserved or the achievement of a role for which they may not be qualified. While there are many executives who have earned their positions and are quite deserving of their senior roles, many others are woefully inept and their buffoonery and poor decision making is often dismissed or ignored if not rewarded. Lawrence O’Donnell recently highlighted freshman congresswoman Katie Porter’s tense interaction with Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Kathy Kraninger where she seemed to expose this top official’s inability to calculate an APR (annual percentage rate) during a House Financial Services Committee meeting. Embarrassingly, Representative Porter later tweeted about the exchange including an explanation of APR calculation.
I'm so excited that so many people have been trying to figure out the calculation I asked @CFPBDirector to do, I thought I'd walk you through it. pic.twitter.com/Xw3DUc3BeW
— Rep. Katie Porter (@RepKatiePorter) March 12, 2019
This phenomenon of questionably qualified individuals being promoted to senior levels within an organization can lead to a dangerous “Emperor Has No Clothes” type culture which doesn’t just create an insufferable work environment in many cases but also often yields disastrous business results.
Let me be clear—I am not demonizing hierarchy or organizational reporting structures overall. In most cases they’re a necessary tool for structuring and defining roles and responsibilities within a complex corporate ecosystem. However, when those valid hierarchical structures (intended to provide needed clarity around roles/responsibilities, functional distinctions, and reporting relationships) encourage a mentality that those at the top of the food chain are all knowing, perfect decision makers who should be valued, lauded (and sometimes easily excused) while those at the bottom should be quiet and passive while simply waiting to follow directions, the work environment oftentimes becomes toxic and dysfunctional.
Indeed, the most successful organizations have found a way to equally value thoughts and ideas and embrace true collaboration. They insist that different doesn’t mean better (or worse). They reject the “caste system” mentality and replace it with a much more collaborative one. They know that success requires managing up, down, and sideways and seek to promote the best ideas from everyone.
Stay tuned for my next article “Five Levels Of Organizational Influence: Where Are You?” Understanding these five levels equips professionals to better understand where they might fit on the influence scale and then use that knowledge to inform their career planning and strategizing.
