Imposing Heterarchy
I was talking recently to the owner/MD of a small (11 staff) design consultancy, who had read The Three Ways of Getting Things Done. He was looking at ways of getting his business to run on more heterarchical lines and aware that his staff might be reluctant to go for this approach. After all, they were used to the present regime; it was comfortable; and why would they want to take responsibility for decisions that he had previously had to make? Why would they want to expose themselves in that way?
The way we were talking, it became clear that one possibility was to "impose" heterarchy as the dying act of the hierarchical regime. But surely that can’t work? The problem reminded me of points raised in an article we recently posted at the Triarchy website on sense/non-sense; hierarchy/heterarchy. Here’s an extract:
What they don’t seem to realise is that their valued embrace of heterarchy is itself a hierarchical judgement. They value heterarchy; they feel it embodies more justice, and compassion, and decency; they contrast it with hierarchical views, which they feel are dominating and denigrating. In other words, they rank these two views, and they feel one is definitely better than the other. That is, they have their own hierarchy, their own value ranking.
But since they consciously deny hierarchy altogether, they must obscure and hide their own. They must pretend their hierarchy is not a hierarchy. Their ranking becomes unacknowledged, hidden, covert. Further, not only is their hierarchy hidden, it is self-contradictory: it is a hierarchy that denies hierarchy. They are presupposing that which they deny; they are consciously disavowing what their actual stance assumes. By refusing even to look at hierarchy, even while making massive hierarchical judgements anyway, they are saddled with a very crude and very poorly-thought-out hierarchy of values. This all too often, and unfortunately, lends an unmistakable air of hypocrisy to their stance. With much righteous indignation, they hierarchically denounce hierarchy. With their left hand they are doing what their right hand despises in everybody else. By hating judgements, and by hiding their own, they convert self-loathing into righteous condemnation of others.
Find the full article here.
I’d be interested to hear any thoughts or experiences that any of you have had around this issue. Have a level day.
The way we were talking, it became clear that one possibility was to "impose" heterarchy as the dying act of the hierarchical regime. But surely that can’t work? The problem reminded me of points raised in an article we recently posted at the Triarchy website on sense/non-sense; hierarchy/heterarchy. Here’s an extract:
…believers of extreme heterarchy, who categorically reject any sort of actual ranking or judgements whatsoever. With very good and often noble reasons... they point out that value ranking is a hierarchical judgement that all too often translates into social oppression and inequality, and that in today’s world the more compassionate and just response is a radically egalitarian or pluralistic system - a heterarchy of equal values. And while some of these critics are, as I said, quite nobly inspired, some of them have become quite rancorous, even vicious, in their vocal condemnation of any sort of value hierarchies. "Higher" has become their all purpose dirty word.
What they don’t seem to realise is that their valued embrace of heterarchy is itself a hierarchical judgement. They value heterarchy; they feel it embodies more justice, and compassion, and decency; they contrast it with hierarchical views, which they feel are dominating and denigrating. In other words, they rank these two views, and they feel one is definitely better than the other. That is, they have their own hierarchy, their own value ranking.
But since they consciously deny hierarchy altogether, they must obscure and hide their own. They must pretend their hierarchy is not a hierarchy. Their ranking becomes unacknowledged, hidden, covert. Further, not only is their hierarchy hidden, it is self-contradictory: it is a hierarchy that denies hierarchy. They are presupposing that which they deny; they are consciously disavowing what their actual stance assumes. By refusing even to look at hierarchy, even while making massive hierarchical judgements anyway, they are saddled with a very crude and very poorly-thought-out hierarchy of values. This all too often, and unfortunately, lends an unmistakable air of hypocrisy to their stance. With much righteous indignation, they hierarchically denounce hierarchy. With their left hand they are doing what their right hand despises in everybody else. By hating judgements, and by hiding their own, they convert self-loathing into righteous condemnation of others.
Find the full article here.
I’d be interested to hear any thoughts or experiences that any of you have had around this issue. Have a level day.
1 Comments:
With the World Cup on people's mind I wonder if you have any thoughts on hierarchy, heterarchy and football? Football is a ground roots' sport, starting with the Apprenctice Boys, and moving into the industrial sites of Britain and then throughout the world. As a game, it would seem to be organised heterarchically. The captain is a leader but the skills of the team operate heterarchically. Of course, what happens beyond the pitch is something else. But the actual game has more to do with self-organisation than hierarchy.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home