Independence. Why can’t everyone be free? Certainly, everyone deserves to be free; after all, freedom is widely recognized as a fundamental human right. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) declares, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Freedom, therefore, is not merely a political aspiration—it is intrinsic to human dignity.
Yet, as Isaiah Berlin famously argued in his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, there is a distinction between “negative liberty” (freedom from interference) and “positive liberty” (the capacity to act upon one’s free will).
Absolute independence—freedom without limitation—is neither attainable nor necessarily desirable. Humans exist within social, moral, and economic systems; as Aristotle observed in Politics, “Man is by nature a political animal.” We are interdependent beings. What we truly seek is not isolation, but meaningful autonomy within community.
The quest for this autonomy fueled the wave of independence movements across Africa in the 1950s and 1960s. Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s first president, declared, “We prefer self-government with danger to servitude in tranquility.” That statement captures the psychological dimension of independence: the willingness to embrace risk in exchange for self-determination.
Political scientist Crawford Young of the University of Wisconsin notes that African independence movements were driven not only by economic grievances but by a “profound moral claim to dignity and self-rule.” Since then, many African nations commemorate their independence annually—not simply as a historical milestone but as an affirmation of identity and agency.
Nature itself offers a compelling metaphor. In the animal kingdom, birds nurture their hatchlings with remarkable instinct and precision. Biologists have long observed that fledging—the stage at which young birds leave the nest—is essential to survival.
According to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, fledging is a “critical developmental milestone that strengthens muscle coordination and survival skills.” If parent birds were to indefinitely prevent their young from attempting flight, they would undermine their very survival. Dependence has its season; so does release.
Similarly, developmental psychology affirms that the desire for independence in adolescence is natural and necessary. Erik Erikson, in his theory of psychosocial development, describes adolescence as the stage of “identity versus role confusion,” where individuals must explore autonomy to develop a stable sense of self.
The American Psychological Association notes that granting age-appropriate autonomy supports higher self-esteem, better decision-making skills, and stronger social responsibility. What may appear as rebellion is often a developmental signal—an innate push toward maturity.
Thus, when properly guided, youthful independence does not lead to chaos but to competence. Research from the Harvard Center on the Developing Child emphasizes that supportive autonomy—where guidance and independence coexist—produces adults who are resilient, innovative, and socially responsible. Independence without structure can be destabilizing; structure without independence can be stifling.
From nature and human development alike, we see that properly cultivated independence yields enormous benefits. It allows systems—families, societies, nations—to renew themselves. In this sense, independence truly contributes to “making the world go round.”
The same principle applies to organizations. Modern management theory increasingly challenges the centralized “head office” model that dominated industrial-era corporations. Frederick Taylor’s scientific management emphasized control and standardization, which were effective in predictable, assembly-line environments.
However, contemporary organizational scholars argue that excessive centralization suppresses initiative. Peter Drucker warned decades ago that “knowledge workers must manage themselves.” Likewise, Harvard Business School professor Gary Hamel argues that innovation flourishes when authority is distributed rather than hoarded at the top.
Economist Friedrich Hayek, in The Use of Knowledge in Society, observed that information in organizations is dispersed and localized. Central authorities cannot possibly possess all the knowledge required to make optimal decisions. When decision-making is concentrated exclusively at headquarters, organizations risk bureaucratic rigidity—a condition Max Weber described as the “iron cage” of rationalization.
What once worked efficiently for coordination in an industrial age may now resemble what I describe metaphorically as “multiple sclerosis”—a system where communication signals are slow, distorted, or blocked. The antidote is not chaos, but structured autonomy: empowering teams with decision rights, encouraging innovation at the periphery, and trusting competence over proximity to the head office.
Independence, therefore, is neither absolute nor anarchic. It is a calibrated release of authority aligned with responsibility. Whether in nations, families, or corporations, independence—when properly guided—becomes not a threat to order but a catalyst for vitality, creativity, and growth.
In Headquarters We Trust: Because Surely the Periphery Knows Nothing
The head office (or headquarters) concept of organization rests on a deeply rooted managerial philosophy: that strategic insight is concentrated at the top. The board, as the “sovereign,” is presumed to possess superior judgment about what is best for the firm. This thinking is consistent with classical management theory.
Henri Fayol, one of the pioneers of modern management, emphasized “unity of command” and “scalar chain” as foundational principles for effective administration. Similarly, Max Weber’s model of bureaucracy stressed hierarchy, formal authority, and clearly defined roles as essential for rational and efficient organizations. In an era dominated by industrial production, these assumptions made sense. Standardization, repetition, and centralized oversight produced scale and predictability.
Frederick Winslow Taylor’s scientific management further reinforced this architecture. Taylor argued that management’s role was to determine the “one best way” to perform a task and to ensure workers executed it precisely. As he wrote in The Principles of Scientific Management (1911):
“The managers assume…the burden of gathering together all of the traditional knowledge which in the past has been possessed by the workmen.”
Knowledge, in this model, flows upward; authority flows downward. Middle managers become the operational lieutenants translating executive strategy into repeatable routines. Efficiency becomes the highest virtue.
The second premise—chain of command—likewise reflects longstanding institutional wisdom. Order, reporting structures, and centralized supervision were historically necessary to coordinate complex enterprises.
The U.S. Army’s command structures, for example, influenced early corporate hierarchies. Organizational theorist Alfred Chandler famously observed in Strategy and Structure (1962) that “structure follows strategy,” and during the rise of large industrial firms, centralized control enabled coordination across expanding markets. For much of the 20th century, this model produced stability and economic growth.
Yet scholars increasingly question whether the very assumptions that once generated strength now generate stagnation. Economist Friedrich Hayek warned in “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (1945) that knowledge is dispersed across individuals and contexts; no central authority can possess all the information necessary for optimal decision-making.
In today’s knowledge economy, innovation often emerges from the periphery rather than the center. Harvard professor Clayton Christensen demonstrated in The Innovator’s Dilemma that large, centrally managed firms frequently fail not because they lack intelligence, but because their structures prevent them from responding to disruptive change. Organizational inertia—the tendency to preserve existing routines even when they no longer serve the environment—becomes a liability.
The concern about educational reinforcement of hierarchy is not unfounded. Business education has historically emphasized case-method learning based on established corporate models. Henry Mintzberg, in Managers Not MBAs, criticizes traditional MBA programs for producing graduates trained in analysis and control rather than reflection and adaptation.
He argues that management education often “abstracts managers from the context in which they function,” encouraging preservation of systems rather than thoughtful transformation. Similarly, Harvard Business School professor Gary Hamel contends that modern management practices are still largely rooted in early 20th-century industrial logic, even though the landscape has shifted toward creativity and speed.
This misalignment can breed what scholars call structural inertia. Sociologists Michael Hannan and John Freeman describe inertia as the resistance to change embedded in established routines, hierarchies, and cultural norms.
Large organizations, by design, prioritize reliability over flexibility. However, in rapidly evolving markets characterized by digital transformation, globalization, and decentralized knowledge flows, excessive centralization can slow responsiveness and dampen innovation.
None of this suggests that hierarchy or structure is inherently flawed. As Weber noted, bureaucracy’s strength lies in its predictability and clarity. The question is one of proportionality and relevance. The head office model served an industrial age defined by uniform tasks and stable markets. Today’s environment rewards agility, cross-functional collaboration, and distributed intelligence.
As Peter Drucker observed, “The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence—it is to act with yesterday’s logic.”
The challenge, therefore, is not to abolish order, but to rethink sovereignty. When authority is concentrated solely at the center, organizations risk becoming custodians of the past rather than architects of the future.
Please let’s interact: +1 (914) 259-0242
The author is a dynamic entrepreneur and the Founder and Group CEO of Groupe Soleil Vision, made up of Soleil Consults (US), LLC, NubianBiz.com and Soleil Publications. He has an extensive background In Strategy, Management, Entrepreneurship, Premium Audit Advisory, And Web Consulting. With professional experiences spanning both Ghana and the United States, Jules has developed a reputation as a thought leader in fields such as corporate governance, leadership, e-commerce, and customer service. His publications explore a variety of topics, including economics, information technology, marketing and branding, making him a prominent voice in discussions on development and business innovation across Africa. Through NubianBiz.com, he actively champions intra-African trade and technology-driven growth to empower SMEs across the continent
Post Views: 1
Discover more from The Business & Financial Times
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
