Rising organizational complexity shifts power toward subordinates.

Evidence

If one does not relate these points to increases in production, as research in organizational sociology does, but rather to increases in power, one can then ask whose power really profits from increasing reciprocities. How do power opportunities between superiors and subordinates change under such conditions, if the complexity of their possible relationships increases? Obviously the ability of the superior to absorb complexity is narrowly limited. Since precisely this is the source of the subordinate’s power, one must suppose that each increase in complexity alters the power relationship in favour of the subordinate, with the result that the more complex an organizational system, the less susceptible it is to leadership. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 799

Categorization

• XREF: Directly connects to the reader’s Luhmann-Giddens-Ishiguro argument: Stevens’s total devotion correlates with a low-complexity, hierarchy-bound household, whereas Luhmann predicts complexity favors the subordinate. — connects to: Authority rests on learned competence within a division of labor, not grace — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 217; Socially constructed action categories generate increased social complexity; Power catalyzes action chains that reduce the complexity of coordinating many parties (+8 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: A paradigm-shifting inversion: complexity management, not command, is the real seat of power — so the superior’s limited absorptive capacity is structurally the subordinate’s lever.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 799

Broader Connections

• Rising subordinate power shifts superiors into moderating conflicts between subordinates. #expands (0.70)
• Rationalized personnel systems may become too complex for superiors to exploit. #corroborates (0.55)