it depends what we mean by 'traditional hierarchical ordering'. We may be at cross purposes here? I'm not so much looking at who handles the money and the title they get, but more at who gets to say 'jump' with interpretation of doctrine, if that makes sense?
There's several instances of gnostics being condemned from the 'orthodoxy' for not respecting hierarchy, even that of the traditional apostolic authority. They certainly seem to be an interesting bunch in terms of authority. The main thrust of several arguments against them is that they claim apostolic authority via personal revelation (which is what Paul did) which they then used to justify doctrinal changes. In contrast to that, 'orthodox' christianity became much more rigid, much more authoritarian, in its approach to doctrine with the development of ideas such as a rigid canon of 'holy scripture' and the idea of apostolic succession (Peter the first pope etc.).
eg Tertullian, Against Heretics
"Differences of theology are of no
concern to them as long as they are all agreed in attacking
the truth. They are all puffed up, they all promise knowledge.
Their catechumens are perfect before they are fully instructed.
As for the women of the heretics, how forward they are! They
have the impudence to teach, to argue, to perform exorcisms,
to promise cures, perhaps even to baptize. Their ordinations
are hasty, irresponsible and unstable. Sometimes they appoint
novices, Sometimes men tied to secular office, sometimes
renegades from us, hoping to bind them by ambition as they
cannot bind them by the truth. Nowhere can you get quicker
promotion than in the camp of the rebels, where your mere
presence is a merit. So one man is bishop today, another
tomorrow. The deacon of today is tomorrow's reader, the
priest of today is tomorrow a layman. For they impose priestly
functions even upon laymen."