From Defuturization to Futurization and Back Again? A System-Theoretical Perspective to Analyse Decision-Making

  • Victoria von Groddeck


This chapter aims to increase our understanding of the ways in which forms of organizing the future can be observed and interpreted. In a first step, it outlines a system-theoretical perspective that provides a starting point to analyse how organizations refer to time by making decisions. Organizing is conceptualized as decision-making and decisions as present operations that split past and future with the ambition to affect the future. In a second step, this theoretical perspective is illustrated by an analysis of the historic discourse on decision-making with the aim to shed light on the modes of how decision-making and the production of time are intertwined in organizations. Whereas at the beginning of the last century, the concentration of past information was important for decision-making, the following decades have been more future-oriented. Today, an extreme concentration on future potential along with a ‘feel’ for the present becomes important.


  1. Ackoff, Russell L. 1970. A Concept of Corporate Planning. Long Range Planning 3: 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahrne, Göran, Nils Brunsson, and David Seidl. 2016. Resurrecting Organization by Going Beyond Organizations. European Management Journal 34: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Åkerstrøm Andersen, Niels. 2003. Discursive Analytical Strategies: Understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 2011. Conceptual History and the Diagnostics of the Present. Management & Organizational History 6: 248–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Åkerstrøm Andersen, Niels, and Justine Grønbæk Pors. 2017. On the History of the Form of Administrative Decisions: How Decisions Begin to Desire Uncertainty. Management & Organizational History 12: 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Apelt, Maja, Cristina Besio, Giancarlo Corsi, Victoria v Groddeck, Michael Grothe-Hammer, and Veronika Tacke. 2017. Resurrecting Organization Without Renouncing Society: A Response to Ahrne, Brunsson and Seidl. European Management Journal 35: 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atzeni, Gina, and Victoria von Groddeck. 2015. Normality, Crisis and Recovery of Narrating Medical Professionalism. Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry 13: 25–40.Google Scholar
  8. Bakker, Rene M., Robert DeFillippi, Andreas Schwab, and Jörg Sydow. 2016. Temporary Organizing: Promises, Processes, Problems. Organization Studies 37: 1703–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blaschke, Steffen, Dennis Schoeneborn, and David Seidl. 2012. Organizations as Networks of Communication Episodes: Turning the Network Perspective Inside Out. Organization Studies 33: 879–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brunsson, Nils. 1982. The Irrationality of Action and Action Rationality: Decisions, Ideologies and Organizational Actions. Journal of Management Studies 19: 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchanan, Leigh, and Andrew O’Connell. 2006. A Brief History of Decision Making. Harvard Business Review 84: 32–41.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johann P. Olson. 1990. A Garbage Can Model Organizational Choice. In Decisions and Organizations, ed. James G. March, 294–334. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Cyert, Richard M., and G. James. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Day, George, and Paul Schoemaker. 2016. Adapting to Fast-Changing Markets and Technologies. California Management Review 58: 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donham, Wallace B. 1922. Essential Groundwork for a Broad Executive Theory. Harvard Business Review 1: 1–10.Google Scholar
  16. Durkheim, Emile. 1984. Preface to the Second Edition. In The Division of Labour in Society, ed. Emile Durkheim, xxxi–xlix. New York: The Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Esposito, Elena. 2013. The Structures of Uncertainty: Performativity and Unpredictability in Economic Operations. Economy and Society 42: 102–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henkel, Anna. 2013. Geneaology of the Pharmacon: New Conditions for the Social Management of the Extraordinary. Management & Organizational History 8: 262–276.Google Scholar
  19. Hernes, Tor. 2007. Understanding Organization as Process: Theory for a Tangeld World. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knudsen, Morten. 2005. Displacing the Paradox of Decision Making. In Niklas Luhmann and Organization Studies, ed. David Seidl and Kai Helge Becker, 107–126. Malmö: Liber andCopenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  21. Koselleck, Reinhard. 1982. Begriffsgeschichte and Social History. Economy and Society 11 (4): 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 2004. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Liebl, Franz, and Jan O. Schwarz. 2010. Normality of the Future: Trend Diagnosis for Strategic Foresight. Futures 42 (4): 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. The Science of ‘Mudling Through’. Public Administration Review 19: 79–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luhmann, Niklas. 1964. Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 1976. The Future Cannot Begin: Temporal Structure in Modern Society. Social Research. An International Quarterly of the Social Sciences 43: 130–152.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 1995. Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2000. Organisation und Entscheidung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ———. 2004. Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik 1: Studien zur Wissenssoziologie der modernen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2005a. The Concept of Autopoiesis. In Niklas Luhmann and Organization Studies, ed. David Seidl and Kai Helge Becker, 54–63. Malmö: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2005b. The Paradox of Decision Making. In Niklas Luhmann and Organization Studies, ed. David Seidl and Kai Helge Becker, 85–106. Malmö: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  32. March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. 1959. Organizations. New York/London/Sydney: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Nassehi, Armin. 2005. Organizations as Decision Machines: Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Organized Social Systems. In Contemporary Organization Theory, ed. Campell Jones and Rolland Munro, 178–191. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Rennison, Betina. 2007. Historical Discourses of Public Management in Denmark: Past Emergence and Present Challenge. Management & Organizational History 2: 2–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schoeneborn, Dennis, Steffen Blaschke, Francois Cooren, Robert D. McPhee, David Seidl, and James R. Taylor. 2014. The Three Schools of CCO Thinking: Interactive Dialogue and Systematic Comparison. Management Communication Quarterly 28 (2): 285–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schultz, George P. 1952. Decision Making: A Case Study in Industrial Relations. Harvard Business Review 30: 105–113.Google Scholar
  37. Scott, W. Richard. 2004. Reflections on a Half-Century of Organizational Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simon, Herbert. 1959. Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science. The American Economic Review XLIX (3): 253–283.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 1961. Administrative Behavior. A Study of Decision-Making in Administrative Organization. 2nd ed. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  40. Teece, David, Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal 18: 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tsoukas, Haridimos, and Robert Chia. 2002. On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change. Organization Science 13: 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. von Foerster, Heinz. 1992. Ethics and Second-Order Cybernetics. Cybernatics & Human Knowing 1: 9–19.Google Scholar
  43. von Groddeck, Victoria, Jasmin Siri, and Katharina Mayr. 2016. Die Entscheidungsvergessenheit der Organisationsforschung. Ein Plädoyer für eine operative Entscheidungsforschung. Soziale Systeme 20: 167–192.Google Scholar
  44. Wack, Pierre. 1985. Scenarios. Uncharted Waters Ahead. Harvard Business Review 63: 73–89.Google Scholar
  45. Weber, Max. 1958. The Three Types of Legitimate Rule. Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions 4: 1–11.Google Scholar
  46. Wrapp, H. Edward. 1957. Organization for Long-Range Planing. Harvard Business Review 35: 37–47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victoria von Groddeck
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Sociology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU)MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations