Book: Getting Things Done. Hierarchy, Heterarchy and Responsible Autonomy. By Gerard Fairtlough. Triarchy Press.
At the P2P Foundation, we often stress the importance of the difference between a decentralized network format (devolution of a power center into many), and distributed networks (bottom-up peer to peer networks, where hubs are voluntary). There is a interesting book, aimed at people working within organizations, that offers a threefold typology of management systems, that seems to correspond to the hierarchical, decentralized, and distributed network models. I’ve read it, it’s an easy read, well-done, and very clear on teasing out the differences between management models, and where they apply for optimal benefit.
For more information, see http://www.triarchypress.com
Here’s an excerpt explaining the three modes:
Hierarchy
I believe that in organizations there are three, and only three, fundamental ways of getting things done: hierarchy, heterarchy and responsible autonomy. Hierarchy starts with a single supreme ruler at the top, whose will is supposed to control the whole of an organization. The supreme ruler passes authority on to a series of lesser rulers, and so on down the pyramid of the organization. Because it starts with a single ruler we can call hierarchy ‘single rule’.
Monotheistic religions support the idea of a single ruler – Thou shalt have none other God but me. Authoritarian politics also emphasises a single leader – One Country, one People, one Leader. The patriarchal family has a single Head of the Family. As noted earlier, the very idea of hierarchy has a sacred origin. In organizations the idea of single rule retains its power. Much of the time, Max Weber’s writings are open-minded and exploratory. When it comes to the need for a hierarchy, however, he becomes dogmatic, stating categorically that whether or not an organization (a corporate group) exists depends entirely on the presence of a person in authority and on the presence of persons who can be counted on to carry out the orders of the one in authority.
But in religion, politics and the family, the idea of single rule has usually been qualified. Greece and Rome had pantheons of gods, most of whose members acted pretty independently. Milton’s Satan was a rebel angel. Christianity has a Trinity. In Latin America, dictatorship often meant a Junta. Businesses have boards of directors. Even in the traditional family, mother was often the Chief Operating Officer.
Heterarchy
Heterarchy means ‘multiple rule’, a balance of powers rather than the single rule of hierarchy. It is a much less familiar term than hierarchy, although the general idea of shared rule has actually been around for a very long time. James Ogilvy introduced the term ‘heterarchy’ into the study of organizations.
Here are several examples of heterarchy: The first example is a trivial one: the children’s game of rock, scissors and paper. In this game rock blunts scissors, scissors cut paper, paper wraps rock. None of the three is dominant. The relation between them is heterarchical. * Partnerships, like those in law or accountancy firms, are partly heterarchical. At least in small firms, all partners are of roughly equal status, although they may elect a managing partner, thereby introducing an element of hierarchy. There is also hierarchy in the relation between the partners and the other people working in the firm – non-partner lawyers and support staff. Nevertheless, the key decisions remain heterarchical. A partner who wants to do something novel must convince his or her peers that the proposal will be good for the firm.
Heterarchical relations are possible between units within organizations. Units like finance and human resources have authority over the way other units operate, at least for specific matters. For example, a human resources department can insist that recruitment of staff is carried out in certain way. But the HR department is accountable to other departments for the effectiveness of the services it provides to them. This can be regarded as a separation of powers between the staff and line functions of the organization. Both HR and an operating department could ultimately be responsible to a common boss, and it could then be argued that this is an example of hierarchy, not heterarchy. But that doesn’t alter the fact that the relationship between HR and the operating department is heterarchical.
Strategic alliances between businesses are now quite usual. For instance, when a small biotechnology company discovers a promising drug, but does not have the resources for later-stage development and marketing, it usually seeks a partnership with a major pharmaceutical company. The relationship between the businesses is heterarchical, since each exerts an influence on the other and, at least in theory, neither party dominates the other.
Heterarchy is the concept behind the trias politicas (or separation of powers) of political theory, for instance the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers in the United States constitution. * Although in the geopolitical sphere, some states are more powerful, militarily or economically, than other states, there is a degree of mutual control between them – in other words, they have a heterarchical interrelation. Diplomacy is a practice used to manage this interrelation.
Responsible Autonomy
The third way of getting things done is Responsible Autonomy. In this way, an individual or a group has autonomy to decide what to do, but is accountable for the outcome of the decision. It might be called ‘no rule’, or rather, no external rule. The existence of accountability distinguishes responsible autonomy from anarchy. Autonomy requires clearly defined boundaries at which external direction stops.
Here are some examples:
* Adam Smith described the operation of autonomy in the economic sphere, where the actions of autonomous firms combine to generate the ‘invisible hand’ of the market. The need to generate enough cash to survive provides the necessary accountability. Financially successful firms survive and grow; unsuccessful ones do not. The invention of limited liability as a form of legal incorporation provided an important boundary between a company and its shareholders.
* Basic scientific research, in academe and in research institutes, is largely conducted by autonomous groups, which are led by principal investigators. These groups develop their reputations by publishing reports in peer-reviewed journals. Principal investigators apply for research grants from various funding bodies. Grants are given subject to the novelty and significance of the grant application and the reputation of the group. The principal investigator’s freedom to choose research topics and to recruit people provides autonomy. The group’s continued existence depends on it continuing to publish good science – this provides accountability.
* Investment management institutions usually give individual fund managers a lot of autonomy. If a fund does well, relative to the sector or to the market as a whole, its manager may be given a larger fund and will attract more clients. Autonomy is provided by the internal policies of the investment institution. Accountability is provided by the performance of the fund.
For more information, see http://www.triarchypress.com