We learn from our mistakes

From hierarchy to heterarchy: rethinking power in complex organisations

The most complex system we know, the human brain, is not organised like a decision-making pyramid: cognitive functions emerge from the dynamic interaction of distributed networks, which take on different roles depending on the task, the context, the conditions. An excellent model for good management

by Alessandro Cravera*

8 January 2026

5' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

5' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

We have always treated the hierarchy as a dogma, an obvious, almost natural truth. Organisations 'work' if someone is above and someone below, if decisions go up and instructions come down, if control is centralised and responsibility clearly allocated. In management, hierarchy is not just an organisational model: it has become an implicit belief, rarely questioned.

This belief is often justified by appealing to the 'nature of things'. But if we look closely at natural systems, the first example that should make us doubt this is the human brain. The most complex system we know is not organised like a decision-making pyramid. There is no one area that always commands the others. Cognitive functions emerge from the dynamic interaction of distributed networks, which assume different roles depending on the task, the context, the conditions. Authority is local, temporary, reversible. In other words: the brain functions heterarchically and self-organising.

If the most sophisticated system ever produced by evolution does not rely on a stable chain of command, why do we continue to think that human organisations can only function like this?

We live today in an environment marked by structural uncertainty, growing interdependence, technological acceleration and continuous transformation. The problems that organisations face are no longer simply complicated, but complex: they cannot be broken down, they do not have optimal solutions, they cannot be solved once and for all. In these contexts, the idea that a top management can gather the relevant information, interpret it correctly and decide for everyone is, at best, naïve; at worst, a strategic risk.

Hierarchy works when the world is relatively stable and cause-effect relationships are clear. But in complex contexts it often produces decision-making delays, oversimplifications and loss of contact with operational reality. Weak signals - those that anticipate change - rarely reach the top in time. And when they do arrive, they have often already been filtered out, normalised, rendered harmless.

This logic is inscribed in the very etymology of the term hierarchy, which derives from the Greek hierós (sacred) and arché (command): 'sacred command'. A separate, superior, non-negotiable authority. A principle that is imposed, not disputed. A form of order that presupposes distance, asymmetry and obedience.

If the command is plural

Heterarchy, on the contrary, stems from héteros (different, other) and arché: 'command of the other, plural command'. Already contained in the term is a radical provocation for traditional management: the idea that order can arise from a plurality of centres, that authority can be distributed, mobile, contextual. Not a top that decides everything, but leaderships that emerge and reconfigure themselves according to the problems to be addressed.

The brain is no exception. Natural ecosystems also function without a command centre. There is no 'head' of the ecosystem: equilibrium emerges from relationships of interdependence, feedback, cooperation and competition that are continually reorganised. Dominance dynamics, where present, do not constitute stable hierarchies, but temporary configurations linked to environmental conditions.

Nature, in short, does not eliminate hierarchy, but subordinates it to deeper logics of adaptation, relationship and self-organisation. Exactly what many organisations lack today.

It is important to clarify a point that is often taken for granted. Heterarchy and self-organisation do not coincide. Heterarchy describes the structure of the system: how power, authority and decision-making capacity are distributed. Self-organisation, on the other hand, describes the process through which, within that structure, order emerges from the interaction between the parts.

Without a heterarchical structure - without real autonomy, plurality of decision-making centres and the possibility of mutual influence - self-organisation is not possible, or degenerates into chaos. It is heterarchy that creates the conditions for self-organisation to take place. Heterarchy is what is planned. Self-organisation is what happens, if the planning is done well. The quest of many managers to increase people's autonomy and empowerment tends to confuse cause with effect. Leaders should not foster autonomy and self-organisation. This strategy often leads to confusion, anxiety, ambiguity. Their aim is to design heterarchical structures and models that make this autonomy possible and effective.

A new paradigm of power management

All this requires a profound paradigm shift. Power does not disappear, but changes in nature. It is no longer primarily power to decide in the place of others, but power to enable quality decisions. Not control of action, but governance of conditions. Not reduction of complexity, but the ability to inhabit it.

The quality of strategic decisions no longer depends only on the intelligence of the decision-maker, but on the quality of the decision-making system. The risk for top management is not to decide poorly, but to decide alone what would require collective intelligence. The real governance challenge is not to choose between centralisation and autonomy, but to design organisational architectures that make self-organisation possible without losing strategic coherence.

Of course, heterarchy and self-organisation are not panaceas. They require trust, competence, accountability, cultural maturity. But even hierarchy, in the absence of these conditions, degenerates into defensive bureaucracy and decisions disconnected from reality.

The point, then, is not to choose ideologically between hierarchy and heterarchy. The point is to stop considering hierarchy as some sort of law of nature. Effective organisations in the complex world will increasingly be hybrid systems, capable of modulating centralisation and distribution according to the challenges they face.

The real question, then, is not whether organisations can afford to go beyond the hierarchy. The question is whether they can afford not to.

To continue to run an organisation as if power coincided with the right to decide everything is to expose oneself to decisions that are formally correct, but substantially disconnected from reality. It means confusing control with leadership and authority with competence.

Towards greater strategic maturity

Thinking about heterarchical models is not an act of managerial weakness. It is, on the contrary, an act of strategic maturity. It means recognising that, in complex contexts, value does not arise from the centralisation of decisions, but from the quality of interactions. Not from the reduction of variety, but from the ability to absorb it and transform it into learning.

The real challenge for top management today is not to decide better than others, but to build systems that make better decisions than any single decision maker. Create contexts in which distributed intelligence can emerge, coordinate, correct itself. To govern without claiming to control everything.

The hierarchy will not disappear. But to stop considering it a law of nature is the first step to finally making it a tool, and not a cage. In the complex world, commanding less does not mean counting less. It means counting differently.

*Partner of Newton Spa