Names, not titles, for a free flow of ideas?

Sirs and madams. Titles are very useful in organisations where hierarchy is all-important. The armed forces, for instance, holds this principle dear since they operate on the 'chain of command' model. If individuals start thinking for themselves, the whole unit may be in jeopardy. Despite it being hard for most civilians to figure out where the naib risaldar or major general stands in relation to the subedar, or lieutenant general, what would be considered a culture of 'yes men' in civilian organisations works for those in the defence and law and order businesses.

But what about places where there is much talk of being hierarchy-less? Where a mid-level employee can take on board a suggestion by a junior colleague and gives her or him due credit? Where the CEO gives a direct ear to, say, an engineer who has a plan to make hybrid air conditioners a saleable option? Would stripping of titles, a borrowing from feudal structures, be a genuinely good push for the actual churning and throwing up of ideas where 'speaking out of turn' and 'too junior to suggest' are things put aside? Will anarchic chaos - a big bogeyman, especially for many in Indian society and organisations, including government - really ensue? Companies serious about being innovative could use only people's given names and not their titles. It's an innovation worth trying.