A heterarchy is a network of elements sharing common goals in which each element shares the same "horizontal" position of power and authority, each having an equal vote. A heterarchy may be independent or at some level in a hierarchy. Each level in a hierarchical system is composed of a heterarchy which contains its constituent elements.

Both a hierarchy and a heterarchy are systems in which multiple dynamic power structures govern the actions of the system. They represent different types of network structures that allow differing degrees of connectivity. In a hierarchy every node is connected to at most one parent node and zero or more child nodes. In a heterarchy, however, a node can be connected to any of its surrounding nodes without needing to go through or get permission from some other node.

Socially, a heterarchy distributes privilege and decision-making among participants, while a hierarchy assigns more power and privilege to the members high in the structure.

A heterarchical structure processes more information more effectively than hierarchical design. An example of the potential effectiveness of heterarchy would be the rapid growth of the heterarchical Wikipedia project in comparison with the failed growth of the Nupedia project. Heterarchy increasingly trumps hierarchy as complexity and rate of change increase.

A heterarchical network could be used to describe neuron connections or democracy, although there are clearly hierarchical elements in both.

The term heterarchy is used in conjunction with the concepts of holons and holarchy to describe individual systems at each level of a holarchy.

Heterarchy can be defined as an organizational form somewhere between hierarchy and network that provides horizontal links that permit different elements of an organization to cooperate whilst individually optimizing different success criteria. In an organizational context its beauty is the way in which it permits the legitimate valuation of multiple skills, types of knowledge or working styles without privileging one over the other. In an organizational context, heterarchy, responsible autonomy and hierarchy are combined under the umbrella term Triarchy.

This concept has also been applied to the field of archaeology, where it has enabled researchers to better understand social complexity. For further reading see the works of Carole Crumley.

In the study of organizations and how they work, it is often suggested that there are only three ways of "getting things done": hierarchy, heterarchy and responsible autonomy[citation needed]. This theory is called triarchy theory. In a management or organizational system based on responsible autonomy, 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. Responsible 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.

skenow wrote:
This is an excellent example of leadership and vision!