Bah, I've never done lunch.

Are you now saying democracy is no better than authoritarianism, because democracy tolerates the hierarchy of the winners of votes?

That is not what I am saying.  What you seem to have done is demonized this thing called "hierarchy."  Look at what these people did as CEOs (along with their VPs and CFOs, COOs, and CKOs) to their workers and the country.  They operated in a system in which can labeled a hierarchy - therefore anything that can be said to be hierarchical must be bad.  And any system that moves toward greater flatness, must be better to the extent it eliminates any facets related to a hierarchical system.

Using this reasoning, one would say a committee will run more efficiently and effectively if it eliminates a chairperson, and allows all decisions related to the development and implementation of the agenda be placed to the committee.  Now, you can toss out that claiming that having a chairperson who can override any particular person as related to the rules of order (agreed upon by all of the participants of the committee) is the same as claiming that authoritarianism is as good as democracy as a means of governing a community, but that would be just tossing out loaded words to ignore the subject at hand.

Now one topic that has not been fully addressed given all this is effectiveness in achieving the company objectives.  Of course we have plenty examples of executive teams and outside financial entities running companies into the ground in the effort to achieve some short term gain for themselves and/or their shareholders.  At the same time, we need to recognize the company, if it is operating in some form of market, capitalist or otherwise, needs to effectively produce whatever product and/or service it has been deemed within the scope of its mission.

Just as a chairperson will in general increase the likelihood that the committee meeting will be more effective, all things being equal, than not having a chairperson, a company will in general be more effective in achieving its mission if ultimate decision making is made by a single mind, rather than the mind of the collective.

The reality is that great CEOs (or leaders in any endeavor, including the military or government) realize they do not have all the answers nor do they even know what the full extent of the problems are.  In responding to this reality, they turn to an assembled team of those who do know the answers to these dilemmas.

The evidence clearly points out that, say, in a factory assembly line, a CEO would be an idiot not to empower the workers in the process of where the company can modify the way the company does business.  Just as he or she would be an idiot to ignore the IT VP about the data network and make the decision based on their limited knowledge of computers and IT networks. 

Such knowledge of this dynamic leads along one thread that it is in the company's interest to retain employees at all levels of the organization because of their knowledge and expertise, and to increase not only the empowerment of the employees, but also their morale, so that they are more willing to stick around and be willing participants in the growth of the organization.

This retention and morale opportunity is directly related to compensation - whether it financial, benefits, work environment, or informal relations between various departments and levels of the organization within the hierarchy.

And this is where the issue of bad blood comes into play.  The minority within a company who believe they have disempowered by the majority are less likely to be retained, and if they remain with the company, their morale will begin to plummet.  Individuals who need to go the extra mile in order to achieve the objectives of the company just may not go that extra mile - try to retain a disgruntled customer, report a machine not functioning at full capacity, etc etc.

In the end, having a hierarchy in a company doesn't exclude the possibility of everyone in a company to actually debate how people should be compensated, just as having a representative form of government doesn't exclude people in a broader society to debate such things as how people should be taxed.  The question is who actually makes the final decision after all of the intense disagreement.  If the CEO does have a view of maintianing long-term sustainability of the company, he or she will truly listen to details of those debates, balance all the disagreements, consult with those who need to be consulted.

The assumption you are making it seems is that you believe that majority will naturally come to decisions that are in the best short and long term sustainability of the company, in such a way that it will benefit all the employees, and not seek short-term gains and benefits that will ultimately lead to the common ungood.

So it isn't that a hierarchy is bad or good, it is how it is used to achieve the agreed upon objectives.  The problem these days is that many at the top have the wrong objectives, and this leads to utilization of the system in a way that leads to the common ungood.