P2P Foundation

Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices


    Admin

    P2P Foundation Sites/Publications

    Worth Reading

    Introductory Essay
    Extensive Essay

    Sponsors

    Interviews

    Video

    - New P2P Video at Pixelace, Helsinki, March 2009

    Podcasts

    - Interview at Open Views by Sundar Raman, 9th March 2007
    - Interview with Richard Poynder

    Resources

    Delicious P2P tags
    P2P Blog Aggregator
    P2P Encyclopedia
    P2P Foundation Wiki
    P2P Meme Map
    P2P Movements
    P2P Podcasts
    P2P Tools
    P2P Topical Index
    P2P Webcasts
    givegetnation

    Visit our archive

  • Books


    Free Software, Free Society

    Community

    Join the P2P Community on Frappr frappr link to our community

    Want to advertise? Click here.

  • Subscribe



  • Donate

    If you value the insight and content of this site, gift us with a contribution.

  • Communities and Networks Connection
  • Recent Comments:

    • rachel: well its true that kens work is great, and some of these critics are downright...
    • Michel Bauwens: This contribution from Jeff Vail, sent by email, is not directly...
    • Michel Bauwens: Commentary by Eric Hunting, via email: Apple has, ironically, always...
    • Michel Bauwens: Feel free to post it as a comment, and we can upgrade it to an article,...
    • laws and liberty: Lol, I wouldn’t have said that personally, but this is a very...

  • Authors

  • Fairthlough on the 3 forms of organizational power

    photo of Michel Bauwens

    Michel Bauwens
    28th June 2009


    This is a repost from January 2006:

    In my presentations on the emergence of the peer to peer mode of production, governance, and property, I always insist on the difference between decentralized and distributed systems, with P2P applying to the latter.

    This differentiation is echoed in the theory of Triarchy, which makes the interesting distinction between three modes of power. Combined with the decentralized/distributed systems distinction this gives an interesting correspondence:

    If hierarchy is the power system of centralized systems, then heterarchical power is the power system of decentralized systems and Responsible Autonomy is the power system of distributed systems.

    This distinction is derived from the work on ‘triarchy’, distinguishing three forms of rule and governance,by Gerard Fairtlough, former CEO of Shell Chemicals UK and founder of biotech firm Celltech.

    “there are three ways of getting things done in organizations and the combination of the three is called triarchy, which means triple rule. The Three Ways of Getting Things Done: Hierarchy, Heterarchy and Responsible Autonomy in Organizations.When I was young I thought hierarchy was the only way to run organizations. Although in those days I’d barely heard of the great sociologist Max Weber, I unknowingly shared his belief that an organization couldn’t exist without a hierarchical chain of authority. Now, after over fifty years working in organizations of many different kinds, I’ve come to realise there are two other, equally important, ways of getting things done and that it’s vital for us to understand these other ways. We also need to understand why hierarchy always seems to trump the others.” (source: http://www.triarchypress.co.uk/pages/triarchy.htm)

    Next to hierarchy, Fairtlough distinguishes:

    “heterarchy” and “responsible autonomy”. ”’Heterarchical systems share power”’–for example, a board that votes to decide issues, or different branches of government that have checks and balances through separation and overlap of power. ”’Responsible autonomy is purer self-organization”’–i.e. it has no inherent structure. It distinguishes itself from anarchy by holding decision-makers responsible for the outcomes of their decisions.

    Leave a Reply

    XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>