The hierarchical instinct
Social animals self-organise into dominance structures. Humans are no exception.
Most social animals form dominance hierarchies. Chickens have pecking orders. Wolves have alpha-beta-omega structures. Humans do the same, though we elaborately deny it. Status, rank, and dominance are pervasive in human groups, including ones that explicitly reject them.
The bias is what makes office politics universal. People are constantly tracking who's up, who's down, who's gaining influence, who's losing it. The behaviour is automatic and doesn't require conscious endorsement.
For operators, the lesson is to design for the hierarchical instinct rather than against it. Companies that pretend hierarchy doesn't exist still have one, just an unspoken and often dysfunctional one. The explicit version (clear roles, clear seniority, clear promotion criteria) usually produces better outcomes than the denied version.
Examples in the wild
Flat organisations almost always re-develop hidden hierarchies based on tenure, charisma, or proximity to the founder. The hierarchy returns; it's just no longer designed.
Status hierarchies among investors (who's at the top fund, who's not) shape investment decisions more than the financial logic alone would predict. Many bad investments are status decisions in disguise.
Family hierarchies, friend group hierarchies, even casual sports group hierarchies all exist. Naming them isn't rude. Pretending they don't exist usually makes them worse.
The hierarchical instinct is one of the mental models we apply through real cases inside the Pareto MBA — a part-time program for professionals who want to think clearly about business.