Kinship is critical to administrative control in a chiefdom. Typically, a chief's retainers, functionaries, and minor chiefs are close relatives. A chief's relatives have every incentive to cajole, strong-arm, bribe, or shame others to meet a chiefs directives because they directly benefit from his wealth and power. It is worth remembering, however, that family members often fight. Just like siblings and in-laws of family businesses may fight for control of the company at the death of the family patriarch or matriarch, chiefdoms were likely beset with internal competition among related administrators, each with their own host of backers (see chiefly competition also).
Archaeologically, levels of Mississippian administrative control in the American Bottom are measured by differences in the size, types of structures, and types of artifacts found in contemporaneous settlements (see above). The greater the sociopolitical and religious status and power that a particular settlement's elite had, the greater the size and number of mounds, other non-residential structures, prestige goods, etc. found at the settlement. Accordingly, Cahokia must have served as the primary administrative level while sites with multiple large mounds like Lunsford-Pulcer, Mitchell, East St. Louis and St. Louis were secondary administrative units under direction from the Cahokia elite. Smaller villages and hamlets fell into the direct administrative sphere of these lower administrative units. There is no disagreement that Cahokia was the premier site in an American Bottom complex chiefdom with multiple administrative levels. What is at issue, however, is the level of sociopolitical and religious integration and the level of power exercised by the Cahokia elite.