That's a very western lens still. Hierarchy doesn't mean you view those under you with contempt. The entire concept of a team, on a micro scale, is that it has a leader who is invested in the group's success and people who choose to follow them because they think the leader respects them and can provide the necessary coordination.

Toxic individualism doesn't get things done, nor does it encourage excellence. A hierarchy with mutual respect does, though it must be fair and tempered with reasonable mobility.

I think this was the needle Kant was trying to thread with the categorical imperative.

Hierarchies are efficient and necessary, but ethically dubious and subject to abuse. Ergo, a hierarchy where everyone acts as though their position in it may be randomly swapped at any time is the optimal configuration.

My understand is it's more complicated than that: while inequitable, there's also a corresponding expectation of duty to those below one.

E.g. jobs for life