I would like to ask more to comment on my "Are there any known rules or finding on who defines the number of the hierarchy levels in the team?" question. I really do not understand why it was put near immediately on hold. Have I hit some wasp nest by chance?
I expected to get a summary of reasons, why multiple layers of the hierarchy are in some cases worse of better. It is also important for me to understand the reasons why does the elite layer forms: is this something necessary or at least good for the group, company or just beneficial for the elite members.
These seem fully legitimate questions for me, with quite short and clear answers possible.
The example of the expected answers could be:
There are many different ways to structure a company, from flat to hierarchical, and everything in between or on a completely different scale. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and there's always lots of debate in the business world about which is best. There are multiple different opinions on this topic (copy/pasted from the answer below).
Normally many levels of the hierarchy are used in the teams where a moderately good decision taken quickly is better than ideal decision taken too late (somewhat military).
Normally levels of the hierarchy mean that many important skills required for this profession may only be acquired during long years of practice, standard education is not sufficient, so younger members with just standard education take the junior role. The longer the time to acquire all skills, the more levels of the hierarchy would be needed (somewhat medical).
While flat hierarchy or single leader is often more or equally efficient, older team members have more influence so they achieve the formation of the elite layer (somewhat anarchistic).
Ok, without any sources all this is opinion based. But maybe there are sources? Studies? Some references could be given?
Why such answers are not possible and the question should instead be closed?