To think hierarchy doesn't work at work?

The issue isn't hierarchy though. You need someone to be ultimately responsible and someone to make decisions. I've worked in an organisation where "everyone had to agree". It just means that you go round and round in discussions and never get anything done.

Your issue is that your manager micromanages. This is disempowering and frustrating for you. If your manager stopped doing this, but the hierarchy still existed (e.g. your manager still set team priorities but then left you to it; they were an escalation point in case of issues etc.), I suspect you would be quite happy.

I cannot abide micromanagement. We are all adults, let’s get the job done and get on. I am there to support, I’ve neither the time nor the inclination to “remind” everyone I’m in charge every 5 minutes, what would it achieve? Ultimately though, the book stops with me, so if I have it pull rank to get things done, I will. That is rare though and only ever happens with staff who are trying to take the piss.

This screams you have issues with authority to be honest.

you may not like it but any workplace comes with a heirachy as a nice as the management may be they are still management

Is it a local authority@Scarlettjune? I worked at a place like that, no one could actually get on with their job in my department as there was so much asking for and sign off needed. It was shockingly badly managed, morale was on the floor and bullying commonplace. People were routinely managed out if they didn’t fall in to line. You describe the same very old school type of management culture where innovation and initiative is absolutely trampled on in favour of sycophancy and obedience.

I think you’re confusing different issues. Micro management is poor management, hierarchy is necessary generally for appropriate placement of responsibility and decision making.

Just because you have a bad manager doesn’t mean management as a whole is flawed. You can’t have everyone in the workplace doing the same role, seniors are there for accountability and ensuring delivery. They are paid more than you for this reason. I wouldn’t be impressed if a manager of mine down played their role, I am reliant on them, I expect them to do the role assigned to them or I cannot do mine properly.

What is the downside to you of copying her in? It’s her inbox that gets clogged, not yours.

I hate being micromanaged but hierarchy is important especially if something goes wrong.

I think the best bosses enable natural respect from their employees or those that work under them. I agree with others on here, it doesn't need bossing around, enforcing dominance, laying out orders. Real respect comes from respecting your staff and supporting them. Sometimes that support comes from needing to do unpleasant things, like deal with mistakes someone's made or use workplace policy in a disciplinary way. But real workplace loyalty comes from valuing your staff and treating them respectfully and as if you care about them.

Those bosses / managers are unfortunately in the minority. But they are fabulous to work for when you get one and I would posit get much more out of their employees as a result.

Above a certain number of employees you need a hierarchy to channel the strategy down from the top. But what youre describing is a power tripping arse who is taking advantage of that hierarchy to throw her weight around.

You do have power. You can leave.

The army use a model of servant leadership which is supposed to flip the hierarchy. So if you're an officer your job is serving your unit and supporting them.

Even in non-hierarchical organisations a natural hierarchy will form, be it based on experience, confidence, length of service, pay, whatever.

You just have a crap manager.

How does she have the time to to be cc'd in every email and watch you on cctv. Does she actually do anything herself? That is an insane level of micro managing.

What a stifling environment to work in. Autocratic managers only belong in certain work situations, otherwise they destroy team morale. I couldn't work for her.

I am in favour of structure. People are paid differently because they carry a different load in terms of responsibility. I like to think that a surgeon in a hospital theatre is in charge and doesn’t have to have a consensus of agreement with all and sundry while doing the operation. Ditto in the army, or a pilot. Or loads of jobs.
Getting your team to function relies on not being friends but on being task focused. You can have someone who says ‘I’m the same as you’. Except they aren’t. Or their job in the organisation is not. If rubbish hits the fan they should take the flak. If things go well, the team get the praise.

As to micro managing. You have to be sure that it is. Asking someone how is something coming along is probably because you have not kept them up to date. And their boss is asking them how it is coming along.

Someone once said to me that structure doesn’t matter, personalities do. I could not have disagreed with them more. Both matter.

There are some cutures (potentially more respectful than the UK currently) where hierarchy is fundamental and everyone accepts that. My experience of these places is that it takes longer to get stuff done because of all of the management layers needing approvals. I think the UK is moving towards more flattened structures therefore heirarchy is less.
My own experience of micromanagers is that they are usually pretty poor at their job and certainly lack confidence in the role and seem to think they have to make up for it with micromanaging. Or that the person they are micromanaging is lazy (at least in their eyes) and they feel it’s the only way.

However I don’t blame that on heirarchy it’s just individuals being crap

No the concept of hierarchy at work is fine and necessary because someone has to make decisions and be accountable. I've been involved in 2 projects where there was no 'manager' but what was called 'distributed leadership'. The first one appointed a manager after a year of chaos where decisions were changed on a daily basis, the second one is still floundering and achieving nothing.

your problem is your boss is an arse, not the existence of a work structure

Hierarchy isn’t the issue, it’s her. Hierarchy is the only way a workplace can function unless you try out some kind of communist system where everyone has the same level of responsibility and therefore wage. I don’t think profiteering businesses would go for that.

Your manager sounds awful. But that’s not the fault of the hierarchy. That’s because she’s a shit manager. I don’t think you need to stand on ceremony particularly and a hierarchy that is too rigid is not helpful for anyone but there needs to be certain amount of structure for a team to operate well - clear direction from the top, escalation paths, coaching/feedback. It doesn’t mean that you can’t work collaboratively or that the person in the higher role is always right but I think most teams respond well to some kind of formalised structure.

I totally agree with you OP!

Micromanagement leads to unhappy employees and reduced productivity. Eventually either people stop doing anything except the bare minimum, go off sick with stress or leave.

Bosses who treat their employees with respect and like adults get much better results and less staff turnover.

I’d ask her if it’s ok to cc a junior manager 😂

You are confusing hierarchy with bad management. The former is important. The latter is a fault.

I think a lot of people feel problems where the wrong person was given the job as 'boss'.
They don't necessarily have the same level of knowledge as those they are meant to manage.
The workers know the boss doesn't have as much knowledge/skills and the boss knows too. They are insecure about this so then try to micro manage.

The CCTV watching indicates she's a control freak. Same as the needing to be cc'd on everything. Can you put someone else in your organisation as a reference OP?