I’ve been writing quite a bit about the problem of rankism for some upcoming publications. In the most general sense, rankism is the undue privileging of authority within an organisational hierarchy. Of course, those higher up in an organization are able to “pull rank” as they exercise responsibility (and, hopefully, are accountable for doing so). Many would also accept that it’s fair to give out perks and generous paychecks if the market-value of a person’s labour warrants such remuneration … or if their record of performance means that favourable treatment is reward and recognition for meritorious service. Rankism, in my view, doesn’t relate directly to these things. Instead, rankism is the misuse of privilege—misuse that not only harms individuals but also damages the organisation (directly or indirectly).

Robert Fuller is the one credited with coining the term “rankism”, at least in its modern usage. I read Fuller’s book Somebodies & Nobodies (2003) this morning and discovered that I have a relatively narrow interpretation of rankism in comparison. I’d like to make an argument for my narrower, alternative usage.

Let me start by expressing my disappointment with Fuller’s original book. I knew that Fuller was a victim of rankism in academia, which caused him to write the book with a chip on his shoulder. But I was unprepared by how much the book is a desultory egalitarian polemic against all institutional forms of inequality. It is essentially a political screed about the indignity of hierarchy throughout society and a call for a new political movement (of “dignitarians”). In other words, to counter a new “-ism” he advocates a new group of “-ians”, complete with manifesto. In keeping with this, his follow-up books are called All Rise (2006) and Dignity for All (2008).

I admit that there are some interesting topics in the first book. Fuller talks about abuse, humiliation, and bullying by those in authority. The deluded self-satisfaction of some senior officials is discussed, as is the use of rank as a shield against scrutiny. And the misuse of power for excessive personal gain comes up repeatedly. However, I think these are well documented examples of the excessive use of power, not something that deserves its own term. Moreover, to compare rankism to racism, and to call those at lower levels within an organisation as complete “nobodies”, strikes me as clumsy rhetoric. I was hoping for something analytically sharper.

In my view, rankism is most problematic in the way that it distorts decision-making and the judgement of those higher up within an organization. When an executive accepts advice according to the stature of those giving it, regardless of the merits of the argument, then the executive is giving into fallacious reasoning. When a person’s rank becomes the basis for accepting ideas, organisations become victims to all sorts of conjecture, ill-informed opinion, and half-baked ideas. More importantly, valuable ideas and insights from those without authority are not given due consideration. Thus, rankism is a major impediment to the flow and implementation of good ideas in an organisation. (Indeed, Anthony Downs was writing in the 1960s about how those at the top of the organisation are, in some ways, among the least informed employees because of the inherent limitations of the bureaucratic practice of briefing upwards.)

More to the point, this type of rankism is actually a classic logical fallacy: the appeal to authority. Logic textbooks treat the appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) as a belief that the opinions expressed by experts are infallible and the final word on the subject. Simply by being deemed an expert, somehow the opinions are taken as gospel. Yet, as Douglas Walton points out in his excellent book, Appeal to Expert Opinion (1997), there are actually two very different types of authority potentially involved: the expert (or epistemic) authority and the administrative (or deontic) authority. In Walton’s words, administrative authority is “a right to exercise command or influence, especially concerning ruling on what should be done in certain types of situations based on an invested office, or an official or recognized position of power.” (p. 78) It is an appeal to this type of authority that is the source of pernicious rankism.

Thus, when an executive values the advice of someone else based solely (or largely) on a person’s position, this is a naïve faith in the wisdom bestowed by administrative authority. Likewise, when the executive is automatically assumed to have all the answers by virtue of rank, that too is a fallacious appeal to authority.

My version of rankism is not simply isolated to giving advice, making decisions, and the judgement of executives. I would also argue that other dysfunctional behaviours are also involved. For example, if the reward and recognition is distributed according to stature without consideration of merit, then those who are passed over will likely become demoralized and less motivated to do a good job. These forms of featherbedding and glad-handing can also be thought of as rankism. The same goes for the petty snobberies that some highly placed officials indulge in. In all of these cases, not only are worthy employees given short shrift, but the functioning of the organisation suffers in the process. People are likely to feel less engaged in their work and invest themselves for the betterment of the common good.

This version of rankism can be recognized as a problem by everyone, regardless of their position on the political spectrum. Those on the far left who think that inequality of all kinds is inherently unjust may prefer Walton’s notion. Yet, those on both the left and right can agree that the rankism described here is a problem. Moreover, my version of rankism doesn’t assume the impossibility of creating a meritorious organisation, something which Walton does. I acknowledge that the workplace is full of politics, rankism being one example. But I think that this particular problem can be removed from the workplace (or heavily curtailed) because it can wind up hurting the more powerful as much as the less powerful in the long run.

By Peter Stoyko

UPDATE (25.08.08)

I’ve just browsed through Dignity for All (2008) and found that Fuller and his coauthor have stretched the notion of rankism to an absurd extent. When Fuller claims that rankism includes inter-species relations and is the root of all prejudice, he’s missed the point of coining a new concept.

REFERENCES