Hierarchy vs networks

An important aspect to be considered in comparing hierarchies and networks is the critical size. Hierarchical organizations have a maximum size, above which they become fragile entities and highly inefficient. Before the advent of computers and communication technology, the limiting factor of growth of any productive organization was logistics and communication. Nowadays, the weakest point is something inherent to human organizations, tribalism, the emergence of sub-group identities and of internal competition. As organizations grow above a critical size, the subordinacy starts to break down, as different parts of the organization begin to manifest a tendency towards more autonomy. Large corporations have learned to cope with this problem by fabricating corporate cultures, which can pull these groups together. Although these measures are somewhat effective in keeping together the institution, they are not sufficient, and certainly not infinitely scalable. In the case of networks, the relation linking together different parts of the structure is not one of subordination. What holds an open network together is a shared system of values, common interests, sharing, ongoing cooperation and collaboration interests, etc. (see the open value network model in the economical domain). An open network is an organic structure. It is not created through central planning, with a pre-defined structure, role, or function within the larger organization. A network grows according to the needs of the already existing structure and of the joining element. Some productive networks, like the GNU/Linux project for example, cannot exist under a critical mass. It seams that the relationship to the critical mass is inverted in their case. The stability of the organization actually increases above its mass. The value of its output follows the same trend. Wikipedia, for example, can only guarantee the stability and the quality of its content if a very large number of individuals contribute to it. The quality of its content, which feeds back as an incentive to participate to this project, is in fact a statistical effect, coupled to the fact that there are statistically more well-intended individuals in this society than vandals. These systems seem to have no upper limit, the larger they get, the more stable they become. We have to mention though that the technological infrastructure on which these productive and almost flat organizations are built is also highly scalable.

In our opinion, the new technology makes open networks, which can also contain small hierarchical organizations, superior in terms of creativity and productivity. An open network allows dynamic scaling depending on environmental factors (see for example the Discovery Network). The hierarchy is less modular and more rigid/bureaucratic. Networks are far more flexible and adaptable than hierarchies.

Advantages of a network in a open conflict with the power

Decision-making tends to be more distributed in a network-type organization. Moreover, these type of organizations can include higher level of redundancy. This makes it more difficult for the opponent to eliminate the network by using brute force. They have no clear target that they can eliminate and by the same token deactivate the entire network. Moreover, networks have a tendency to regenerate faster than hierarchic organizations.

According to Ko Kuwabara (2000) the Linux community has succeeded because it can face the complexity of the project without reducing it, through its own intrinsic complexity.

On leadership