A very interesting trend has emerged in internal communication circles over the last several years. It’s the formation of a group of professional communicators who are ardently anti-hierarchical in their thinking and philosophy. For the most part their position has been shaped by the politics and viewpoint of Internet bloggers, who believe that organizations will only thrive to the extent that they become more democratic in their thinking and functioning. And who see the validity of one’s opinions based not on position in a hierarchy or seniority but rather on logic, careful reasoning and independent thinking. With more than a little legitimacy, they claim that the bureaucratic business model, topped by a hierarchy of senior leaders and line managers in descending order of position power, is obsolete in a fast-paced economy.

Their faith is in the wisdom of teams and the good intentions of corporate citizens. But to put it bluntly, many of them also seem to have an authority hang-up, a not uncommon perspective in Western countries with well-developed economies and long histories of relative prosperity. It’s also not surprising that well-educated workers with other options would chaff a bit under arbitrary decision-making by people who are used to having their directives obeyed and their privileges reserved.

But in the end, the hard truth is that someone has to be in charge and take responsibility for results. That makes some degree of hierarchy, regardless of how we soften it or label it, inevitable. The debate—if we can call it that—between corporate democracy and corporate hierarchy is cast in terms that are too black and white, too much ‘the good guys versus the bad guys.’

In an earlier version of this debate some years ago, there was a school of thought that argued that internal communication professionals should be permitted to play the role of investigative journalists in their organizations. The idea was that they would be given the democratic freedom to report events as they saw them, without review and with as much objectivity as their brothers and sisters in the public media. Not surprisingly, there were few, if any, senior leaders willing to fund a free press within their walls. So that particular discussion went nowhere although it did open things up a bit and make people more self-conscious about obvious spin in their communications.

No doubt the dialogue that is pervasive on the Internet and that is being advocated as healthy in the context of corporate social media will tend to influence more candid and more inclusive internal communication. But as the corporate autocrats used to complain as they contemplated, first, participative management, and later, employee engagement, “You think we’re going to sit around and take a vote on every decision?” The hard truth is that it’s highly unlikely any of us will ever see that day. More inclusion? Yes. More consultation? Yes. But outright corporate democracy and the end of hierarchy?  I wouldn’t put any money on it.