Hierarchy Is Not Obsolete

Published: 29 April 2026

What aviation and Swiss company law can teach us about accountability and voice in organisations.

On 15 January 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 took off from New York. Two minutes later, the Airbus A320 struck a flock of Canada geese. Both engines failed. Five minutes after take-off, Captain Sullenberger brought the aircraft down on the Hudson River. All 155 people on board survived.

One of the decisive points is often overlooked. Before take-off, the crew briefing was deliberately open; every observation counted, regardless of rank or experience. After the bird strike, the mode changed. Sullenberger took over with ‘My aircraft’, while Skiles, as first officer, worked through the checklists. Roles, procedures, and callouts made the switch unambiguous.

This leads to a simple thesis: leadership needs two operating modes, and the discipline to name the switch explicitly. In recent years, the idea has taken hold that modern leadership is above all agile, participative, and as hierarchy-free as possible. That falls short. Hierarchy is not the opposite of having a voice. It is the framework within which having a voice is demanded, or within which decisions under time pressure become possible at all.

Which style of leadership fits a given moment depends on at least four factors:

Available time: where time exists, participation improves both the quality of the solution and the buy-in of those involved. Where time is short, clear decisions are needed.
The weight of accountability: when consequences are far-reaching and personally attributable, a decision owner is needed, someone accountable, even if the board and executive team remain collectively responsible for oversight and shared accountability depending on the topic.
Uncertainty in the facts: the more incomplete the information, the more dangerous fast decisions without dissenting voices become. Especially under time pressure, the process must force signals through: risks, objections, alternatives.
Reversibility. Reversible decisions tolerate delegation and experimentation. Irreversible decisions require stricter decision rights and more rigorous scrutiny before the decision is made.

I experience this regularly as a flight instructor. Before take-off, the briefing is open; observations and concerns have room regardless of rank, because they improve safety. In the air, there is usually time for options and task allocation. But once we enter a critical phase, my role becomes very quickly, very clear: ‘My controls.’ From that moment, discussion is not the bottleneck. Unambiguous authority is what matters. This exact, explicit marking is precisely what is missing in many board and executive team meetings, and in other leadership situations as well.

Patterns I recognise in practice:

Hierarchy at the wrong moment: a strategy session is not an emergency. If the chair speaks first and sets the direction, they shut down the room. Better practice is to gather risks and counterarguments first, then discuss options, then take a position.
Participation and consensus-seeking at the wrong moment. A severe crisis at three in the morning is not a workshop. If the CEO opens a free-ranging debate, paralysis or actionism follows. Better practice is to name a decision owner, gather brief input, and set a clear line for decision and communication.
Mode: the switch between modes is not marked. In the cockpit, the transition is unambiguous in language. In meetings, it is more often assumed. That creates uncertainty over whether a contribution is an objection or simply noted for the record.

Hierarchy does not mean silence

Speaking up remains a duty; only its form changes. Detailed in strategy mode, brief and escalatable in crisis mode. In high-performance organisations such as aviation, this speak-up culture is not a nice-to-have add-on. It is a precondition for safety. In practice, simple callouts that name the mode help. In strategy mode, something like ‘We are in exploration mode, risks first, then options.’ In crisis mode, more tersely: ‘We are in decision mode, I decide by 10:30, critical objections only from here.’

Agility is often misunderstood

Agile ways of working are a strong approach, especially in development under uncertainty or in innovative fields, and can also work effectively within a clear delegation and control system in regulated environments. What they are not is a substitute for governance. Swiss company law does not recognise squads. It does not treat accountability as team spirit. It treats it as a duty. Art. 716a OR sets out the board’s non-transferable duties. Art. 716b OR governs the delegation of management. Art. 754 OR addresses the liability of named individuals, and can also reach de facto officers. Agile is a way of working; governance stays monistic. Delegating tasks is possible; accountability and oversight remain with the board.

The same logic applies to co-leadership models. Without clear decision logic, it becomes diffusion of accountability: if everyone is responsible, no one is. With a clear division of tasks, defined escalation and tie-break rules, and active interface monitoring by the board, it can work, but it is considerably more demanding to design and oversee than a single-lead model.

Conclusion

In the end, the question is not whether to lead hierarchically or participatively. Both are necessary and important. Four factors are decisive:

Do we always know which mode we are in?
Do we name the switch, and is it clear to everyone?
Does dissent remain possible in every mode?
Is it clear who decides and who retains the oversight duty?

Delegation is a tool; oversight remains. In a dispute, methods and team formats are no excuse or justification. What matters is organisational design, documentation, and the question of who held which duty. That leads back to the board and the executive team, and to Art. 754 OR, which, in its current form, cannot be overridden by any leadership model in the world.

Sources

National Transportation Safety Board (2010): Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River. Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-10/03.
Edmondson, A. C. (2018): The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Wiley.