Amazing, isn't it? All these advocates of the "Female Management Style" conveniently forget that the male, hierarchical, authoritarian model has a proven track record. I guess some generations who forget the lessons of the past are bound to repeat the mistakes anew.
Proof is in the pudding, as they say.
I work in management in the biotech field and put quite a lot of thought into leadership philosophy. One thing I note form your post is the use of the term "authoritarian." I'm not sure if you're intending a different meaning or not, but I'd say the most effective style is not authoritarian, but authoritative. Authoritarian leadership is leadership where power emanates mainly from position -- I'm the boss so this is how it is.
Authoritative leadership which is I believe much more powerful derives authority from technical competence and what I call a philosophy of "service" to the people who work for you -- ie you look out for their interests and you hold your position as an effective leader mainly through their approval and trust in you.
One thing I've observed is that very often women choose the authoritarian model -- usually without realizing it -- and alienate the groups that work for them. They end up kind of like a short guy with a Napoleon complex. They blame and point fingers when someone fucks up rather than march into the VP's office and take responsibility for someone else's mistakes. While the latter approach may be more risky, in the end you'll gain more respect all around and will advance ahead of the authoritarian.
I will abolutely agree with you, though that hierarchy -- or chain of command -- is extremely important and not for why the feminists will claim. Usually you hear about power in arguing why it's a negative way to run things. But it's really about responsibility. Everyone needs to know what their roles are and what's expected of them. As I said above, in a good command structure, the leader works more to "serve" those who work for him or her.