Power distance refers to the distance that is expected, and preferred, between leaders and followers in a given context.  In a culture with a high power distance, there are strong norms around how to approach and address those in a position of authority.  Access to a leader in this setting would be limited, and formal titles would most certainly be used.

In a culture with a very low power distance, however, it would be completely acceptable, even expected, to interact with a boss or owner in the same way as you would a co-worker.  It becomes more like a peer relationship.

Interestingly, on a global scale, Canada has been shown to have one of the lowest power distances in the world.  A flatter hierarchy in our context would be far more culturally acceptable than in some other parts of the world (this fact highlights the limitations of much of the research on Millennials and Gen Z in the workplace right now – it’s mostly applicable to organizations in Western culture).

A brief history of work

Before we unpack this trend further, it is helpful to have a sense of what we’re shifting away from and how that formed in the first place.

Rewind to the factory system of 18th century Britain and we get a look as to where a lot of our modern management theories began.  This was the time of men like Adam Smith, “the Father of Capitalism and Economics,” who gave us the concept of division of labour (i.e. break up the work into small chunks so that each person only has to do the same repetitive task all day).

According to Taylor, managers are to plan the work, while employees execute the work.  Decisions are made by those at the top, while those on the front lines do what they’re told, no questions asked.

Further cementing the foundation for modern management were Henri Fayol, with his “14 Principles of Management”, and Max Weber, with his definition of the ideal bureaucracy.  Both men advocated for principles such as the unity of command, strict hierarchy, centralization of power and knowledge, and the separation of personal and work lives.

For Weber, bureaucracy wasn’t a bad thing, but the ideal.  It was the perfect expression of rationality and control.  The closer we could make the organization resemble a machine, the better.  Weber goes so far as to say that the perfect bureaucracy would “eliminate  from  official  business  love,  hate,  and  all  the  personal,  irrational,  and  emotional elements  that escape  calculation.”

Essentially, let’s try to remove the human element from our work.

You can understand where they’re coming from, though.  Organizing people can be an incredibly complex undertaking, and the more you can control and predict the outcomes, the better, right?  This was a new era of industry that these early theorists were entering, and the only real examples of organizations that they had to work with were governments, monarchs, and militaries.  The assumption in these models is that the many need to be subordinated and controlled by the few.

One of the ways we accomplished that was through secrecy.  By controlling knowledge and keeping information sequestered at the top, employees were kept in the dark, and the power structure was maintained.

For Weber, this was an explicit goal: “Bureaucratic administration fundamentally  means  the exercise of domination based on knowledge.”

We continue to see this secrecy at the top levels of most organizations today.  Knowledge must be kept behind closed doors and distributed only on a need-to-know basis.  We hoard information under the guise of reducing risk when in reality it’s a way to maintain power.

All of this combined to create a sort of social caste system in the workplace.  We took the inequality of the aristocracy around us and recreated it in our organizations.

The 18th century was by no means the golden age of humanity, yet we persist in keeping the organizational and economic principles from that era.

Evolving Forms

In many ways, we owe our current affluence in the Western world to these traditional principles of organization.

The problem is that culture, technology, the economy, and society in general, have radically changed over the last 250 years.

Globalization, the rise of knowledge workers, a shift towards a service-based economy, social equality movements, AI and machine-learning – the list goes on.  The world is not what it once was.

Thankfully, we’ve begun to question the underlying assumptions behind this style of management.  Forerunners like Maslow, MacGregor, and Drucker cracked the surface in the 20th century, but it is only now in the 21st Century that we’re seeing a radical disruption in how we organize and work.

Rather than centralization, control, and hierarchy, the trend is toward decentralization, transparency, and autonomy.

As the hierarchy blurs, we are struggling to find a new understanding of old concepts such as bosses, managers, and employees.  The definitions are changing.

In some workplaces, the terms are disappearing altogether.

The younger generation’s higher view of themselves actually increases engagement and participation, because they believe their input is valuable.

As the authors of one study wrote:

“Millennials may be driven to make a meaningful contribution because of their narcissism and entitlement rather than in spite of it.”

Not only has this increased their level of ownership at work, but they have also stepped up in areas of volunteering and community engagement.

This heightened sense of self, combined with higher levels of education and increased power in the employment market, all contribute to a leveling of the playing field within organizations.  Managers and bosses no longer have the carte blanche authority to do what they please.  Those that try to flex their positional power will find that their best and brightest are walking out the door.

As a result of this increased desired for ownership, we’ve seen a significant rise in freelancing, entrepreneurship, and the so-called “gig-economy” among younger generations.

40% of Millennials and 53% of Gen Z chose freelance work in the last year rather than the usual 9-5.

Rather than fighting to prove themselves and waiting a decade for real opportunity, an increasing number are choosing a more independent and entrepreneurial route.  Sites like UpWork and Fiverr, as well as business models like Uber, allow them the autonomy and flexibility to choose what type of work they do, when, and for whom.

And they’re not choosing this route because they think it’ll be easier, either.  Despite the stereotype, they’re not lazy.  Gallup, the creator of the StrengthsFinder assessment, has observed that the top strengths of the Millennial generation are achiever and responsibility.

They are driven individuals who want to feel a sense of ownership over their work.

How to make the shift

If you’re ready to tap into the potential of the younger generation and shake off the bureaucratic residue that the Industrial Age has left on our management style, here are a few thoughts to point you in the right direction:

1. Listen

This is a simple, yet powerful first step to take.  People come alive when they feel heard and understood, yet as managers, we often feel as though our role is not to listen but to talk, direct, and convey information to others.  We can easily fall into the trap of believing that those higher up on the org chart have better ideas and greater insights when the truth is that creativity and wisdom are spread throughout the organization.  Give the younger generation a seat at the table and learn to build platforms that give every employee a voice.

2. Test out new methods for decision-making 

If you want to see where power imbalances exist in an organization, pay attention to how decisions are made.  Many teams continue to rely on a centralized model where one person makes the final call.  Unfortunately, this person is not necessarily the most competent or experienced, but simply the one who is highest on the org chart.

Now, this autocratic form of decision-making can be the right option in some cases (e.g. the problem is simple, relevant parties have been consulted, and the right person has been given responsibility), but there are at least seven other decision-making models to choose from.  The next time someone on your team proposes an idea, try a consent-based model and see how it goes.  If you’re really ready to trust your team members, try the advice process.

3. Increase transparency

Providing access to information is a key piece of empowerment, yet this is often an area that trips up managers.  We have convinced ourselves that privacy is a best practice and that information should only be given on a need-to-know basis (and, of course, usually one person decides for another what they need to know).  In the complex world of organizations, who needs to know what is rarely clear.

Try increasing access to information with a “working in public” mindset.  Host internal documents on cloud-based servers or rely more on shared messaging tools like Slack instead of email.  Map out projects with tools like Asana or ClickUp and give access to whiteboard sessions via Miro or Mural. If you want your teams to make better decisions, start by giving them better information.

4. Give them what they need to succeed

If we’re going to turn up the dial on responsibility and authority, you also need to increase available supports and resources.  What tools do they need to succeed? Do they have access to coaching?  What training or education would help them grow and make better decisions?  There are a number of scenarios where empowerment can backfire and create problems, and increasing autonomy without increasing support is one of them.

5. Get really good at alignment

When places like Spotify speak of autonomy, they use the phrase, “aligned autonomy”.  Giving people more agency over their work without ensuring alignment within and between teams can lead to chaos.  Determine what coordination mechanisms are needed to keep everyone moving in the same direction.

Start by clearly articulating your core identity through elements such as purpose, values, and strategy to point people in the same direction.  From there, clarify individual roles and responsibilities and determine what each person needs from other team members in order to accomplish their objectives.  Figure out when you need to meet and how often, but be careful not to create meetings needlessly.  In fact, you may want to start by canceling all recurring meetings and then see what’s missed.  Chances are good that you can find other creative, more effective ways to coordinate without all being in the same room.  With remote and hybrid work on the rise, this will be an increasingly important skill.

6. Consider a flatter hierarchy

A tall, firmly entrenched chain of command can seriously hold back your efforts at empowering younger or less experienced workers.  A formal, centralized structure encourages the sequestering of information and authority to an elite few at the top of the pyramid.

More organizations are now inspired by places like Morning Star in California, or Semco in Brazil, who function with little to no management structure and substitute policies with individual agreements and team charters.  In these settings, influence forms as a result of natural strengths and competencies, rather than title and position.

If you’re new to the world of self-managed team structures, Brave New Work by Aaron Dignan, Reinventing Organizations by Frederick Laloux, and the concepts of Agile/Scrum and Holacracy (a specific framework for self-management) would all be worth exploring.  For an interesting case study, read through Zappos’ story of implementing Holacracy.

7. Rethink compensation and rewards

Traditional pay models are linked to both the hierarchy and the individual, only rewarding someone for their personal performance and ability to climb the ladder.  Wage discussions become a negotiation that pits managers against employees, with one side trying to go up while the other trying to stay low.

Alternatively, organizations that treat their team members like partners tend to reward collective, team performance through methods like profit-sharing or gaining equity in the company.  One company to recently share their experience with profit-sharing is the email-marketing firm, ConvertKit.  Listen to their story here.

8. Be selective in who you bring on the team

If you’re going to treat employees like partners, the ability to bring on team players that you can trust becomes paramount.  Don’t be afraid to be choosy – it conveys value to those who join.

Craft a recruitment and selection process that flows out of your cultural identity and the unique nature of the role/team they’ll be on.  This will take more time, but it’s worth it.  Don’t cut corners on this one.  You will not be able to embrace this shift if you treat workers like a commodity good that can be replaced at will.

9. Reverse mentoring

Former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch, introduced us to this term.  In order to recognize and capitalize on the immense value that younger workers brought into the workplace, Welch set up mentoring relationships where the intention was for the more experienced workers to learn from the younger.  Their familiarity with technology and their fresh perspective helped spark new and innovative directions for teams.  In reality, value flows in both directions in a mentoring relationship, so whatever you call it, this is a worthwhile practice to experiment with.

10. Rethink feedback

One of the consequences of receiving one’s primary feedback from a manager is that the manager’s expectations naturally take precedence.  In a traditional hierarchy, this is what is desired, but it can create a hurdle where teamwork is concerned.  Systems that encourage peer accountability and feedback ensure that everyone is thinking not only of what managers expect but also of what their teammates need from them.

As always, when we look at trends, we’re painting with a broad brush.  The particular Millennial and Gen Z members of your team may or may not fully embrace the shift of partners over employees.  Based on their cultural background and experience, it may even be the opposite in some cases.  People are complex, so take the time to get to know your team personally.  Feel free to forward this series to your younger team members and see what resonates with them.

What’s next?

We’ll continue to explore the shifts taking place at work in the next part of the series, where we look closer at the work-life connection: Integration over Balance.

Let’s keep learning together.

Dan