-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
1/44
1
Mnchner betriebswirtschaftliche Beitrge
Munich Business Research
Organisational Interactions in Luhmanns Theory of Social
Systems
David Seidl
# 2003-9
LMU
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt Mnchen
Munich School of Management
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
2/44
2
Organisational Interactions in Luhmanns Theory of
Social Systems
David Seidl
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt Munich
Institute of Organization
Abstract:
This paper explores the form and function of organisational interactions from the perspectiveof Luhmanns Theory of Social Systems. After a short recapitulation of Luhmanns conceptof organisation and interaction a suggestion on the conceptualisation of organisationalinteractions will be made. Organisational interactions are interactions that describe themselvesas organisational and that select their own operations with regard to their implications forthe organisational reproduction. A particular kind of organisational interaction is thedeciding interaction in which decisions for the organisation are produced. The relationbetween organisation and deciding interaction is described as one of interpenetration. Thismeans that organisations can make use of the interactional complexity for their ownreproduction. Three functions of organisational interactions will be discussed: (1) complexityreduction, (2) deparadoxification and (3) memory. It follows a discussion of possibilities fororganisations of conditioning interactions for their puroses. The paper concludes with a briefreflection on the advantages of the proposed conceptualisation of organisational interactions.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
3/44
3
1. Introduction
Luhmann distinguishes in his theory three types of social systems: society, organisation and
interaction. While the functioning of each of the systems (as autopoietic systems) has been
described fairly well1, the relation between the systems has received comparatively little
attention. Particularly unclear remains the relation between organisation and interaction.
Apart from a few remarks here and there (e.g. Luhmann 2000, pp. 25, 255, 373) Luhmann
himself hasnt written anything on that issue. The only serious contribution comes from
Andr Kieserling (1994; 1999: chapter 11), who isn't however very explicit on how to
conceptualise the relation in the 'technical' terms of Luhmann's theory.
Luhmann's systems theoretical perspective initially seems to oppose the idea of organisational
interactions: organisation and interaction are conceptualised as two systems that are
operatively closed with regard to each other; i.e. they cannot take part in the autopoiesis of
each other - as they for example take part in the autopoiesis of society. Thus, what can be
observed empirically - that there are interactions that make organisational decisions and in
this way contribute to the reproduction of the organisation seems (at first) theoretically
impossible. While the theory indeed excludes the possibility of interactions becoming part of
the organisation, there are other more complex - ways of conceptualising the contribution of
interactions to the organisational reproduction in terms of Luhmann's theory, which will be
explored in this paper.
In the following we will first explain Luhmann's concepts of organisation and interaction as
two autopoietic systems that reproduce themselves on the basis of different operations. We
will then explore ways of conceptualising organisational interactions using the concepts of re-
1 See for society e.g. Luhmann (1997; 1993b: part II; 1995: chapter10), for organisations e.g.Luhmann (2000; 1993b: part III; 1993c; 1992) and for interactions e.g. Luhmann (1995: 405-436;1999) or Kieserling (1999).
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
4/44
4
entry and interpenetration. This will be followed by an exploration of functions that
interactions might serve in organisations and the ways in which organisation can condition
interactions for their purposes. We will close with a brief reflection on the advantages of the
proposed conceptualisation of organisational interactions.
2. Organisation and interaction as two types of social systems
According to Luhmann's theory organisations and interactions can be conceptualised as two
types of social systems that reproduce themselves on the basis of different types of
communication. Organisations on the basis of decision communications and interactions on
the basis of communications among people present. Both systems are perceived as operatively
closed in the sense that they can only operate in the context of their own operations (Luhmann
2000: 51-52): organisations can only reproduce themselves through (their own) decisions and
interactions only through (their own) communications among people present.
Organisations are conceptualised as autopoietic "systems that consist of decisions and that
themselves produce the decisions of which they consist through decisions of which they
consist" (Luhmann, 1992b: 166; my translation). Three concepts are central to this
understanding of organisation: the concept of decision, the concept of decision premise and
the concept of uncertainty absorption.
Decisions constitute the elements of the organisation. They are a specific kind of
communication2: they are communications that communicate their own contingency3
(Luhmann 1993e: 339). That is, they communicate the decision as such and the alternatives to
the decision. In this sense decisions are paradoxical communications: Every decision
2 For Luhmann decisions in organisations are communicative events. He thus contradicts theclassical notion of a distinction between decision making and the communication of that decision.(Luhmann, 2000: 141-145).
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
5/44
5
communicates that there are alternatives to the decision - otherwise it wouldn't be a decision
and it simultaneously communicates that there are no alternatives since the decision has been
made otherwise it wouldn't be a decision (Luhmann, 2000: 142). Because of their
paradoxical nature decision communications at first may appear as extremely improbable
phenomena - they call for their own deconstruction (Luhmann, 2000: 142). Empirically
however one can observe that decision communications do succeed, in fact in organisations
decision communications are normality. How does the organisation prevent the constant
deconstruction of its decisions? Firstly this happens through the totalisation of decision
expectation (Luhmann 2000: 145; Kieserling 1999: 352). Any communication reproducing
the organisation is forced into the form of a decision. Thus even the deconstruction of a
decision would itself have to take the form of a decision. Secondly, organisational decisions
take place in the context of other decisions which it refers to in order stabilise itself as
decision. In other words every decision communicates also a meta-communication which
says that the decision maker had the right, authority or other good reasons for deciding the
way he did. (Luhmann 2000: 142). In general terms, decisions are stabilised through reference
to organisational structures.
With the concept of decision premise4 Luhmann captures the structural aspect of
organisations. Every decision constitutes a decision premise for later decisions as it defines
the structural conditions for it. Decision premises here serve a double function as both
creating and restricting the decision. They create the decision situation in the first place.
Without decision premises there is no occasion for decision making. At the same time,
decision premises restrict the decision situation by restricting the decision possibilities.
Decisions dont only serve as decision premises for immediately following decisions, but they
3 Contingency here in the modal sense of also possible otherwise.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
6/44
6
can also decide on decision premises which are binding for a multitude of later decisions.
Luhmann distinguishes between three types of such far-reaching decision premises:
programmes, communication channels and personnel (Luhmann 2000; 1993; 1992).5
With the concept of uncertainty absorption6 Luhmann captures the processual aspect of
organisations; the question of how one decision leads to further decisions and thus to a
reproduction of the organisation. That is, uncertainty absorption describes the autopoiesis of
the organisation (Luhmann: 1993c: 308). In the transition form one decision to the next one
the uncertainty involved in the original decision disappears. In other words a connecting
decision takes the result of a preceding decision as given (the decision was made!) and uses
this result as premise for itself. One could also say, the first decision in-forms the following
decision only about the result of the original decision but not about the uncertainty involved in
the decision making. To bring the two concepts together one can define: uncertainty
absorption takes place when earlier decisions are accepted as decision premises for later
decisions (Luhmann 1993: 299; 2000: 193).
The system of face-to-face interaction, in contrast to the system of organisation, does not
consist of decision communications but on communications that are based on reflexive
perception of the physical presence of its participants. Analogously to the communications of
organisations interactional communications contain a meta-communication communicating
4 The concept originally was introduced by Herbert Simon (1957: 201) and Simon et. al (1950: 57ff.).
5 In fact Luhmann (2000; 1993, 1992) suggests to use the term decision premise only with regard tosuch decided decision premises. One could also distinguish between decision premises in anarrow sense and decision premises in a wider sense.
6 The concept originally was introduced by March and Simon (1958: 165): Uncertaintyabsorption, they write, takes place when inferences are drawn from a body of evidence and theinferences, instead of the evidence itself, are then communicated.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
7/44
7
that it is a communication amongst people present (Kieserling, 1999:67). 7 In other words the
communications carry the code presence/absence. With this code interactions refer to their
system/environment distinction. Whoever is considered present is treated as participant in the
communications (if not as speaker then as listener) and whoever is considered as absent is
treated as environment. (Luhmann 1997: 815). The difference of presence and absence in this
sense marks the difference of self-reference and hetero-reference for the operations of the
system (Luhmann, 1997: 815-816). Like all social systems interactions are complex systems,
which means that they are forced to make selections. Luhmann (1995: 415) distinguishes
between factual, temporal and social structures:8 interactions usually produce topics for the
communication; they place communications in a sequence and particularly also take the end
of the interaction into account; they develop rules for turn taking in the communication - in
particular when somebody speaks the others have to remain quiet. Analogously to the
organisational reproduction, where every decision creates the necessity for further decisions,
every interactional communication necessitates further interactional communications.
Reflexive perception in the interaction enforces a continuation of the communication. It is
almost impossible to evade communication in an interaction. As Luhmann writes: Even the
communication of not wanting to communicate is communication. [] In practice, one
cannot not communicate in an interaction system; one must withdraw if one wants to avoid
communication. (Luhmann, 1997: 413; original emphasis)
In interaction systems the person9 plays a very prominent role. While in organisations
decisions are largely justified by reference to earlier decision premises mostly decisions are
presented as a direct consequence of earlier decisions in interactions communications are
7 Who is considered present is determined by the interaction itself. In this sense presence is itself asocial construct of the interaction.
8 On these three dimensions of meaning generally see Luhmann (1995: 76-81).9 Defined as a bundle of social expectations (Luhmann 1995d).
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
8/44
8
primarily attributed to persons; the reasons for particular communications are primarily
sought in the person and his particular intentions. More than in organisations in interactions
the person as such is held responsible for what is communicated. 10 Ensuing communications
take the personal aspect of earlier communications into account and very often address that
personal aspect explicitly; organisational decision communications, in contrast, tend to focus
on the result of the decision and only in exceptional cases address the particular (personal)
circumstances of the earlier decision situation.
3. Conceptualising organisational interactions
Organisation and interaction are two types of social systems reproducing theselves in very
different ways. Nevertheless the (theoretical and empirical) literature speaks of interactions
taking place within organisations. How is one to conceptualise the relation of organisation
and interaction in such cases. Within first of all could be meant in a local sense, e.g.
meetings take place in the offices, two workers at the conveyer-belt talk about the new
working hours. From a Luhmannian perspective the locality of the interaction wouldnt
matter. Organisation and interaction are two different systems that constitute environment for
each other, i.e. the systems are operatively closed against each other. The solution however
isnt that easy taking into account that such interactions might produce decisions for the
organisation; that is to say interactions seem to play a role in the organisational reproduction -
and in this sense could seem to contradict the idea of operational closure.
An alternative solution to this problem could be to conceptualise the relation between
organisation and interaction analogously to that between society and organisation or society
10 We are only speaking of social constructions, not of any causal connection between psychicsystem and communication in an ontological sense (cf. Kieserling 1997: 67).
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
9/44
9
and interaction. Society constitutes the all encompassing system of communication in which
organisation and interaction differentiate themselves on the basis of specific communications
(Luhmann 1997). Thus organisation and interaction reproduce with every operation - decision
communication and interactional communication respectively - both themselves as it
constitutes a decision communication or interactional communication and the society as
decision communication and interactional communication are communications. Society thus
can be found both inside and outside of the organisation or interaction (Luhmann 2000: 59;
383; Luhmann 1995: 405 ff.). Analogously one might try to conceptualise organisational
interactions as social systems that take place in organisations in the sense that they reproduce
themselves by interactional decision communications; i.e. they would reproduce themselves
by a specific kind of decision communications. In this sense they would reproduce both
themselves and the organisation simultaneously. Such a conceptualisation, however, wouldnt
be compatible with the empirical observation that decision communications within
organisational interactions are relatively rare. Most communications even in formal
meetings are non-decision communications. In fact, it is particularly the non-decision
communication that is typical for (organisational) interactions; decisions constitute a kind of
foreign matter to the interaction. 11 Often no decisions are made at all in such interactions.
Furthermore, sometimes part of an interaction is organisation-related while other parts have
nothing to do with the organisation. A business meeting ends in bed; during a board meeting
some members of the board discuss the latest results of the Football World Cup; after their
coffee break together colleagues make their way back into a meeting 12. In all these cases it is
not that one interaction is terminated and a new interaction is started but it is one and the same
interaction. Thus the relation between organisation and organisational interaction has to be
conceptualised differently from one of inclusion.
11 Cf. Kieserling (1999): 355 ff.; Kieserling (1994a).
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
10/44
10
Before we try a conceptualisation of organisational interactions in terms of Luhmanns
theory we will first give a short overview of the different empirically observable forms of
interactions in organisations. Firstly there are deciding interactions in which decisions for
the organisation are made; one might think of board meetings, strategy meetings etc. Secondly
there are decision-preparatory interactions in which the conditions for later decisions are
laid. That is to say in the interaction itself no decisions are made but later decisions are
prepared for; e.g. interactions in which relevant information for later decisions is exchanged,
the participants deliberate later decisions without making decisions. Thirdly there are semi-
detached interactions with a merely loose relation to decision making; that is interactions
which communicate about decisions without direct focus on influencing decision making.
One might think of informal interactions between members of an organisation gossiping about
organisational issues.13 Fourthly there are organisation unrelated interactions in which
topics that are unrelated to the organisation are communicated about; e.g. members of an
organisation talk during their work about their night out together. These different forms of
interaction differ in the degree to which they contribute to the organisational reproduction:
from a direct involvement in decision making to a complete detachment from the
organisation.
To start with we can exclude the fourth type of interaction from the list of possible forms of
organisational interactions. It can be treated as a normal interaction in the environment of
the organisation (cf. Kieserling 1997: 360). Their location within the physical boundaries of
the organisation and the involvement of members alone doesnt grant them a specific status
with regard to the organisational reproduction. The other three forms of interaction however
have an organisational significance.
12 See the analysis in Atkinson et al. (1978).
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
11/44
11
If one cant conceptualise the relation between organisation and organisational interaction as
one of inclusion there remains only the possibility of treating it as a special kind of structural
coupling; i.e. the structures of two systems are adjusted to each other in a way that allows
mutual influences on their respective reproductions.14 Organisational interactions reproduce
themselves on the basis of their interactional communications but they take the organisational
operations into account. That is organisational interactions allow for a conditioning of their
own operations through the organisation in social, factual and temporal respects. In other
words interactional communications orient themselves not only according to their
interactional structures but also according to organisational structures, i.e. its environment. In
terms of systems theory this has to be conceptualised as a re-entry (Spencer Brown 1979) of
the interaction/organisation distinction (as the system/environment distinction) into the
interaction (as system). The interaction observes its own communications with regard to their
significance for the interaction and for the organisation. The interaction can of course only
observe this distinction according to its own logic; its own construction.15 This for example
means that the distinction is reconstructed with regard to the interacting persons16: as a
distinction between their organisational roles (and generally: membership) and interactional
roles.17 In other words the interactional communications take into account that the persons
involved in the interaction have other roles outside the interaction in the organisation and that
these roles have to be taken into account in the interactional communications. Or put the other
way around, the interaction treats the difference between interactional and organisational roles
13 On such forms of communication see e.g. Cf. March and Sevn (1989), Drew and Heritage(1992), Boden (1994), Fuchs (1995), Kurland and Pelled (2000).
14 Structural coupling constitutes a complementary concept to that of operative closure; it allowsconceptualising the influence of systems in the environment on the autopoiesis of a system inquestion (Baecker, 2001: 219; Luhmann 1995b).
15 The re-entered distinction isnt, of course, the original distinction it is mark and not cross asSpencer Brown (1979) would have it.
16 Since interactional communications generally are primarily oriented according to the interactingpersons.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
12/44
12
of its participants as its distinction with the organisation. Interactional communications in this
sense can be observed with regard to interactional roles and with regard organisational roles.
In terms of Heinz von Foerster (1981: 304-305; 1993) the interaction uses the (re-entered)
interaction/environment distinction in the form of a difference in roles as programme.
The re-entry of the organisation into the interaction doesnt however mean that organisational
structures the organisational logic are introduced into the interaction. First of all due to the
different forms of reproduction organisational structures cannot serve as interactional
structures they belong to different domains. The interaction, however, can reconstruct the
structures in interactional terms. For example the hierarchical structure of decision
communications can be translated into a stratified order of respect with regard to persons in
different positions, a differential treatment of persons with regard to their contributions to the
communication, e.g. with regard to turn-taking, granted speaking time, or with regard to
possibilities of criticism. Apart from that the re-entry doesnt mean that the interaction is
trying to translate the organisational structures into interactional structures trying a
representation of the organisation. Even the opposite could be the case the interaction could
counter the organisational structures, e.g. by an (explicit) suspension of the hierarchical order
of positions. The important point however is that the interactional structures, whether
imitating or contrasting the organisational structures, refer to the organisational structures.
Without explicit reference to the organisation the interaction couldnt be treated as
organisational.
Although the re-entry of the organisation into the interaction is accomplished through the
reference to the participating persons and thus the social dimension is ultimately central
17 On the consideration of organisational roles in the interaction see Kieserling (1999): 360 ff.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
13/44
13
the organisation can be reflected into the interaction in all three dimensions of meaning18. In
the social dimension as already addressed above the interaction takes the participants
personal experiences and actions as organisational members (which largely result from their
organisational roles) into account. In the factual dimension the interaction structures its
communications according to organisational themes, e.g. the interaction might communicate
about new strategies for the organisation or the official organisational self-description. Again,
this doesnt mean that the themes have to be dealt with in the same way as they are dealt with
in the organisation. The participants might treat the theme cynically, i.e. communicate about
the other side19 of the theme; that which the official version of the theme disguises (cf.
Luhmann 2000: 430 ff). What organisational themes are dealt with and how depends on the
participating persons. As with all interactions the personal relation to the topic is decisive and
contributions to a topic are attributed personally.
In the temporal dimension the interactional communications might reflect the temporal
structures of the organisation for example by scheduling the interaction as to coincide with
external organisational events. The interaction might be terminated because the participants
are needed elsewhere in the organisation, the participants in a meeting might wait for a late-
comer who is held up in another meeting, an important topic on the top of the agenda might
be moved to the end in order to allow for additional information to be provided by the
organisation, e.g. the results of a parallel meeting; or vice versa a topic might be dealt with
early in a meeting in order for its result to be available to other organisational
communications. An interaction might also be intentionally protracted in order to obstruct
certain organisational processes. Again, more than anything else the reflection of temporal
structures of the organisation into the interaction is accomplished through the focus on the
18 On the three dimensions of meaning see Luhmann (1995): 75-81.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
14/44
14
participating persons and their organisational roles. The structuring of the interaction is very
much oriented according to the time available to the participants; the participants can bring
the interaction to an end by referring to other organisational obligations that temporally
coincide. In contrast, the reference to extra-organisational obligations e.g. one has to pick up
ones children from the kindergarten is only in exceptional cases accepted as an orientation
for the temporal structuring of the interaction (cf. Kieserling, 1999: 360). Of course, the
organisational interaction to the extent that it takes place during working hours can
count on the exemption of its participants from any other extra-organisational obligations for
the time being; i.e. the availability of the participants is guaranteed by the organisation and
only organisational obligations can thus count as reasons for terminating ones presence.20
Even if the temporal structuring isnt oriented directly according to the temporal availability
of its participants temporal structures of the organisation are still transported into the
organisational interaction through the participating persons. An agreement has to be reached
until a certain time because it was promised by somebody, or because the personal career of
one of the participants depends on it, or because it would make it easier for the participants to
continue their ordinary work. Or an informal meeting on the corridor is terminated because
the participants have to get back to their desks in order not to get sacked for laziness.
So far we have described some features of organisational interactions, in particular the re-
entry of the organisation into the interaction. One could also say the re-entry of the
19 In Spencer Browns (1979) terms the unmarked state. In fact, cynical communication constitutes are-entry.
20 In the case of after-hour meetings the situation is somewhat different. Whether or not one canclaim other obligations depends very much on the organisational arrangements. In manycontemporary organisations, for example consultancy firms, working hours are not really pre-defined but depend on the particular tasks at issue. In other words, members are expected almostalways to be available for the organisation. This doesnt mean that they will always be available,but that reasons for their non-availability have to be formulated as organisational reasons e.g.one has to take a weekend off to keep a clear head for an important meeting on Monday.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
15/44
15
organisation into the interaction is the defining criterion21: to the extent that such a re-entry
takes place it is an organisational interaction. But how can this re-entry be explained? Why
would an interaction orient itself according to an organisation? An easy but somewhat
unsatisfactory answer would be that an interaction as autonomous22 system is free to select its
own structures and if it, thus, selects its structures with regard to an organisation then it does
so - it is its own selection; and if it doesnt, it doesnt. In this sense only the interaction itself
can determine whether or not it orients itself according to the organisation; in particular the
organisational roles of its participants.23 It is the interaction itself that sees itself as
organisational. It has to be understood as a self-attribution (Kieserling, 1999: 79; see also
Luhmann 1999:64) of the interaction to the organisation. In order to ascertain whether an
interaction attributes itself to the organisation one has to observe the interactional
communications whether or not the interaction/organisation distinction serves as a guiding
difference for the communications.
What is of specific interest here is how the interaction describes itself, i.e. what self-
descriptions it uses in its communications. Interactions, in contrast to organisations (Luhmann
2000: chapter 14; Seidl: 2002a; 2002b) or societies (Luhmann 1997: chapter 5), usually do not
possess very elaborate self-descriptions. Nevertheless some (at least rudimentary) self-
descriptions can always be found. An interaction might describes itself as strategy review,
crisis meeting, board meeting or as chance encounter, flirt, class reunion etc.24 The
21 A re-entry pertaining to the interactional structures and not its autopoiesis (cf. Kieserling 1999:79).
22 Autopoiesis implies autonomy (Luhmann 2000: 51)23 Or put the other way around, to disregard any extra-organisational roles of its participants.
Alternatively the interaction could for example include all other roles of its participants in thatway creating an intimate interaction (cf. Luhmann 1995: 224 ff.) - not an organisational one.
24 Often such self-descriptions are merely implicit, i.e. implied in the communication but could bemade explicit if the members were asked about them.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
16/44
16
self-attribution of an interaction to an organisation would normally be reflected in the self-
description, as is evident in several of the above examples.25
The interactional self-attribution to an organisation as we indicated above neednt refer to
the entire interaction.26 Interactions can in the course of their communication processes
change their focus. An interaction might start as organisational and end as intimate (cf.
Kieserling 1999: 162). Any change of self-attribution - this cant be emphasised enough is
the interactions own decision.27 This however means that interaction first has to free itself
from the organisation-related structures (from its guiding difference interaction / organisation)
before it can switch to the structures of intimacy.28 Or an organisational interaction might
suspend its organisational self-attribution for a tea- or lunch-break (during which the
participants stay together) and resume its organisation-related communications afterwards (cf.
Atkinson, Cuff and Lee, 1978).
Beyond the mere establishment that an interaction attributes itself to an organisation, we can
also try to answer why an interaction might attribute itself to an organisation. One reason is
that for many interactions the reference to the organisation is close at hand.29 Often
25 One can also find explicit dissociations from the organisations in interactional self-descriptions This is not a business meeting - where the vicinity (in physical or temporal respects) otherwisewould suggest a self-attribution to the organisation.
26 See analogously the change of self-attribution of interactions to functional systems of society(Kieserling, 1999: 80 ff). There is however a difference in that in the case of a self-attribution to a
functional system of society through specification of structures the interaction also uses thefunction-specific code as guiding difference for its communications; i.e. the interactionalcommunications (partly) take place in the functional system of society. In the case of theorganisational interaction, in contrast, the organisation remains environment for the interaction.
27 This is not to say that there might not be external factors supporting a switch.28 One of the greatest obstacles to such a switch is the co-ordination of the change of structures. The
change-over of structures has to take place simultaneously (in order to avoid a conflict betweenstructures) if a break-down of the interaction and thus the end of its reproduction is to be avoided.In order to accomplish the switch the interactional communications might have to use theirreference to the organisation; for example one might refer to the end working hours connectedwith the suggestion of having a drink together in a nearby pub.
29 In terms of Goffman (1975) the organisation offers a frame for the interaction.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
17/44
17
participants of an interaction know each other only as members of an organisation. They
might even just know that the other person is a member of the same organisation. As such the
orientation according to the organisational roles of the participants might be close at hand.
This provides the interaction with a point of reference for establishing its structures. Most
importantly it provides the interaction with topics of communication.30 Where participants
who hardly know each other otherwise would struggle to find topics for communication, the
orientation according to the organisational roles might provide an almost unlimited source of
possible themes.31 In this sense the self-attribution to the organisation might serve as a
facilitation of the reproduction of the interaction. In interactions among people who only
know each other as members of the same organisation this self-attribution to the organisation
might even serve as a kind safety-net to get hold on when no other topics are close at hand.32
Often interactions form as a response to organisation-related situations of double
contingency. For example, two workers having to co-ordinate their interdependent tasks might
instead of asking their superior resort to a mutual interaction as a means of co-ordination.. In
such cases the reason for the interaction seems to precede the interaction. While it ultimately
depends on the interaction (as autonomous, autopoietic system33) whether it forms at all34 and
30 Topics for interactional communication are mostly not only interactional topics but organisationalor generally societal topics. The concrete definition of the topic, however, is interaction-specific
(cf. Kieserling 1999: 181; 205).31 Organisational interactions, however, mostly would present the situation as if the topic was the
reason for the interaction even where it were the other way around, i.e. that the interaction wasfirst and had to look for a topic (cf. Kieserling 1997: 195)
32 One might start to speak about the weather but after a while this topic might be exhausted and noother topic close at hand as one doesnt know the other person. In this case the commonorganisation (i.e. the respective memberships) might serve as orientation for the continuation ofthe communication (e.g. What do you think about the new CEO?)
33 Interactions are no trivial machines in terms of Heinz von Foerster (e.g. 1984) which could bedetermined from outside.
34 This is a paradoxical formulation (i.e. the interaction determines its own existence) for the factthat interactions are emergent phenomena.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
18/44
18
what structures, in particular: what themes of communication, it selects.35 Nevertheless, the
organisation almost forces itself onto the interaction. The self-attribution to the organisation is
so close at hand that the interaction almost couldnt ignore it and would have to justify not
focussing on the organisation. What one could rather find is that such interactions would start
as organisational, i.e. attribute themselves to the organisation, and then later maybe change
their self-attribution to something else with the difficulties described above.
4. Deciding interactions
In the following we want to focus on one of the forms of organisational interactions
described above: the deciding interaction. The important point about such interactions is that
they produce interactional communications that can be treated by the organisation as
(organisational) decisions. That is the deciding interaction can contribute to the organisational
reproduction. A particularly pressing question in this context is how to conceptualise the
status of these communications with regard to interaction and organisation respectively. Are
these communications elements of both systems, in the same way as interactional
communications are also communications in the societal system (Luhmann 1995: chapter 10);
or are they something completely different in both systems, as for example one and the
same36 communication constitutes a legal communication (as contract) in the legal
subsystem and a payment-related communication (as transaction) in the economic subsystem
of society (Luhmann 1993a; Lieckweg, 2001). In order to answer this and other related
questions we will apply the concept of interpenetration, that Luhmann (1995: chapt. 6; 1995c)
35 If an interaction forms the participants could ignore the organisation and talk about football knowing each other as football fans.
36 To speak of one and the same communication in this context is in fact not entirely correct as itimplies an ontological meaning which cant be meant here. See in this respect Luhmann (1995):215.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
19/44
19
used for describing the relation between social and psychic system 37, to the relation between
organisation and deciding interaction.38
Luhmann speaks of interpenetration between (autopoietic)39 systems, if the systems
reciprocally presuppose the complex achievements of the autopoiesis of the respective other
system and treat them as part of the own system (Luhmann 1995d: 153). That is to say, when
systems reciprocally make their own complexity (and with it indeterminacy, contingency,
and the pressure to select) available for constructing [the] other system (Luhmann 1995:
213; original emphasis). Luhmanns classical example is the relationship between psychic and
social system: social systems can rely on psychic systems to be stimulated by communication
and to process parallel psychic operations that allow them to irritate the social systems in
suitable moments in order to trigger further communications reproducing the social
system.40 Vice versa the psychic system presupposes complex achievements of social
systems.41 Important in this respect is that both systems are operatively closed with regard to
each other. It is not that the systems overlap in any way psychic operations cannot become
part of social systems and vice versa. As Luhmann writes: This means that the complexity
each system makes available is an incomprehensible complexity [] that is, disorder for the
receiving system. (Luhmann 1995a: 214). In this sense social systems can presuppose the
37 A part from that he described also the relation between organism and psychic system, brain and
the nervous system (e.g. Luhmann, 1995: 214, endnote 7), but not the relation between socialsystems.38 Another concept for analysing the relation between organisation and organisational interaction is
that of medium and form by Fritz Heider (1959) instead of form he speaks of thing. For anapplication see Seidl (2001) and for applications to the relation between social and psychic systemsee Luhmann (1995c), Baecker (1992).
39 The concept of interpenetration applies only to autopoietic systems (Luhmann 1995: 218).40 One of the most important achievements that the social system presupposes the psychic system to
accomplish is perception in particular the perception of uttered sounds (Luhmann 1995a:chapter 6).
41 But it is somewhat less dependent on social systems as it can also reproduce itself for a certaintime at least without social systems (Luhmann 1995c: 39)
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
20/44
20
contributions of the psychic system to its autopoiesis without comprehending the functioning
of the psychic system and vice versa.
Analogously the relationship between organisation and deciding interaction can be described
as one between two operatively closed systems, in which the interaction makes its own
complexity available to the organisation and vice versa. That is the organisation can rely on
its interactions to fulfil tasks necessary for the organisational reproduction, although the
organisation cannot comprehend the logic of the interactional reproduction. Luhmann for
example writes: Work processes that cannot be technisized, for example lessons at school
or preaching in church, [] force the organisation to displace its performance conditions into
interaction among people present and to entrust it to inscrutable processes. (Luhmann 2000:
373; my emphasis; my translation)42
In order to fully understand the concept of interpenetration in this context we have to have a
closer look at the decision communications that come about in the course of deciding
interactions. These communications (in some way) take place in both systems - they are
elements in the interactional communications to the extent that further interactional
communications connect to them and they are organisational communications to the extent
that they serve as decision premises for further decisions. Luhmann writes about
interpenetration in general:
To be sure, interpenetrating systems converge in individual elements that is,
they use the same ones but they give each of them a different selectivity and
connectivity, different pasts and futures. Because temporalized elements (events)
are involved, the convergence is possible only in the present. The elements signify
42 Beyond un-technisizible work processes there are of course many other occasions in which theorganisation has to rely on its interactions (see below).
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
21/44
21
different things in the participating systems, although they are identical as events:
they select among different possibilities and lead to different consequences. Not
least, this means that the convergence to occur next is once again selection, that
the difference of the systems is reproduced in the process of interpenetration.
(Luhmann 1995: 215; original emphasis)43
If we look at decisions in organisational interactions this is exactly the case. We have one
communication that is used in both systems, but has a different meaning in each. In the
interaction it has to be understood in the context of other interactional communications in
reaction to what other interactional communications did the communication come about, what
other interactional communications can follow. In the interaction one is interested in who said
what, in response to whom, with what reactions of the others. In this sense the content of the
decision might be only of secondary importance. For the organisation the communication has
a very different meaning. It has to be understood in the context of other decisions, which
might even lie outside the interaction: earlier decisions that served as decision premises and
later decisions for which this decision serves as decision premise. For the organisation the
meaning of this communication results from its implications for connecting decisions, while
for the interaction it results from the meaning for further interactional communications to
connect to it.44 A concrete example might illustrate this idea. A university has decided to
create a new position and in a later staff meeting a particular candidate is chosen for it. For the
organisation the decision on the candidate connects directly to the earlier decision to create
the position. In order to understand the relevance of the decision for the organisation it is
43 Luhmann speaks of interpenetrating systems also as systems that are operatively coupled incontrast to a mere structural coupling (Luhmann 1995c: 41).
44 For Luhmann the elements of a system are only defined through their integration into the system,i.e. their relation to other elements (Luhmann 1995a: 20ff.). In this sense the samecommunication is for interaction and organisation a different one as it relates to other elements ofthe respective systems in different ways.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
22/44
22
enough to relate it to this decision as its decision premise (and of course other decision
premises, e.g. who has the authority to decide what etc.). For the continuation of the decision
process (e.g. further decisions on concrete curricula etc.) it is only relevant which candidate
has been chosen (and which ones havent). It is completely irrelevant who was for or against
the candidate (for what personal reasons), how long it took the participants to reach the
decision etc. What counts for the further decision process is the decided alternative, the
process to the decision and the uncertainty involved in it are irrelevant or absorbed (cf.
Luhmann 2000: 193). For the interaction, in contrast, it is exactly these personal aspects of
the communication that are important and in the continuation of the interactional
communication this personal aspect will be referred to (cf. Kieserling 1999: 385-386).
The autopoiesis of organisations - as we explained above can be described with the concept
of uncertainty absorption. In the transition from one decision to the next decision the original
uncertainty of the initial decision is absorbed the ensuing decision only orients itself
according to the chosen alternative. With regard to our argument above this means that the
interactional circumstances - the pros and cons, the doubts etc which represent very much
of the uncertainty involved in the decision making are left out in the ensuing decision
communication. In other words the decision does not in-form later decision about these
issues these issues to speak with Bateson (1972: 315) do not constitute differences that
make a difference for the further reproduction of the organisation. Within the interaction in
contrast these issues are the differences that make a difference. The interactional
communication of a decision does in-form ensuing interactional communications in these
respects. Thus in the interactional context such interactional decision communications
(usually) do not absorb the uncertainty involved in the decision making. Even if the decision
is not openly challenged the particular circumstances under which the decision was made will
have a great influence on further communications.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
23/44
23
We have to distinguish between two different foci of interactional decisions. Interactional
decisions can refer exclusively to the organisation outside the interaction; for example a
decision on a new strategy. Or they can refer to the interaction itself, i.e. concern the
structures of the interactional communication; for example decisions about the topics on the
agenda and their order, decisions to close or interrupt a meeting. In the first case the content
of the decision communication (i.e. the chosen alternative) does not have any implications for
the interaction. What is important for the interaction is that the decision has been made, but
not what decision has been made. In such interactions, as Kieserling (1999: 372) writes, the
decision is declared an output category that has to be delivered to the interactions
environment. In the second case the interaction treats its own communication processes
(partly) as decision processes. The communications are stylised as decisions and other
communications connect to them as ifthey treated them as decision premises. The interaction
however cannot but take the personal aspects of the communication into account as it is the
basis of its autopoiesis. Thus, even where the interaction presents its communications as
decision processes the communication in reality is reproduced differently. Thus, in order to
understand the interactional communications one has to understand the interactional
meanings behind the faade of decision communications.45 For example who decided what
against whom and how does he react to it. The interaction puts its own communications into a
(for the interaction) artificial form (Kieserling 1999: 373), but this artificial form is only the
surface behind which different information is latently processed.46 Apart from that
interactions can never present all their communications as decisions. A great part of the
45 See in this respect also Goffmans (1959) distinction between front and back stage.46 This doesnt mean that the interactional communication is more than the decision
communications, i.e. decision communication plus the interaction-specific communication. Ratheras we said before the reproduction of decisions follows a different logic than the interactionalcommunications. Or as Kieserling (1999: 358) puts it, between organisation and its interactionsthere exist considerable differences in information.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
24/44
24
communications resists being put in the form of decisions, e.g. the expression of surprise
about particular opinions etc. (cf. Kieserling 1999: 355-358; Luhmann 2000: 255).
Interactions stylise (some of) their own communications as decisions in order for the
organisation to integrate them into the organisational decision process. That is to say the
interaction observes its own operations with regard to its implications both for the
interactional process and with regard to the organisation. This also means that the interaction
can to a certain extent regulate what kind of communications become available to the
organisation and what dont; or in other words the interaction can (to some extent) influence
the organisational boundaries. In order to understand the influence of organisational
interactions on the organisation it is important to understand how the boundaries of interaction
and organisation relate to each other. Luhmann writes about the boundaries of interpenetrating
systems referring in particular to the relationship of social and psychic system, which can
however analogously be applied to our question:
Decisively, boundaries of one system can be included in the operational domain of
the other. Thus the boundaries of social systems [analogously: organisations] fall
within the consciousness of psychic systems [analogously: the communications of
interaction]. Consciousness [analogously: interactional communication]
intervenes and thereby acquires the possibility of drawing boundaries for social
systems [analogously: organisations] precisely because these boundaries arent, at
the same time, boundaries of consciousness [analogously: interactions]. The same
holds conversely: the boundaries of psychic systems [analogously: interactions]
fall within the communicative domain of social systems [analogously:
organisations]. In the course of orienting itself, communication [analogously:
decision communication] is constantly forced to use what psychic systems
[analogously: interactions] have already assimilated in their consciousness
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
25/44
25
[analogously: interactional communications] and what they have not. This is
possible because the boundaries of psychic systems [analogously: interactions] are
not also boundaries of communicative [analogously: decisional] possibilities. (Luhmann
1995: 217; original emphasis)47
Organisational interactions can deal with the organisational boundaries in a differentiated
manner. Not everything that is communicated in the interaction has to be put in decision form
and thus made available to the organisation. On the contrary, interactions very often
intentionally withhold communications from being interpreted as organisational decisions. In
this way interactions often distinguish between official communications (that are presented as
decisions) and unofficial communications which often (explicitly) are kept from being
interpreted as decision. The organisational boundary often becomes an explicit topic of
interactional communication: what is to be made available to the organisation and what not
this communication is itself, of course, not intended to become an official communication.
The boundary is often even drawn retrospectively; initially official (decision) communications
are retrospectively withdrawn as illegitimate contribution this is usual practice in courts for
example (see Kieserling 1999: 373). Apart from interactions offering communications as
decisions to the organisation there is also the possibility of the organisation interpreting
communications as decisions although they werent originally intended so. The interaction
can only make suggestions to the organisation but cannot not determine what and how its
communications are observed.48
In any relationship of interpenetration there have to be specific signs that indicate to the
systems (potential) points of coincidence. That is to say the shared elements have to be
47 See analogously on the relationship between interaction and functional subsystems of societyKieserling (1999: 80-81)
48 Because both systems are operatively closed with regard to each other.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
26/44
26
marked in some way in order for the respective other system to be able to recognise them. In
the case of the relationship between psychic and social system this function of coupling is
served in the first place by language (and writing) (Luhmann 1995a: 272; Luhmann
1995c: 41). Articulated communication stands out from mere noise49 and captures the
attention of psychic systems (Luhmann 1995a: 142-143). And the other way around, if a
psychic system wants to contribute to the autopoiesis of a social system it tends to cast its
utterance in linguistic form.50 Such a marker for shared elements can also be found in the
case of the relationship between organisation and organisational interaction. The interaction
can highlight certain culmination points (Luhmann 1993e: 339) in the flow of interactional
communications in order to signal to the organisation possible points of connection. Such
markers could be an explicit declaration of a communication as decision - I thus conclude:
we have reached the decision to One can sometimes find that there exists a specific format
for such declarations, as for example the announcement of a verdict at court or the granting
of a doctorate at university. One of the most prominent markers however is the record51; if a
communication is put on record it is a strong signal for the organisation that the
communication lends itself to a treatment as organisational decision. Many organisations will
only recognise something as organisational decision if it is put on record. For the interaction
this means that it can regulate its relation to the organisation or better: the boundaries of the
organisation by distinguishing between communications on record and off record.52
What is to be put on record and what is to be kept off record often is an explicit point of
discussion in the interaction (Boden 1994: 85, Kieserling 1999: 385). Sometimes specific
points can be even retrospectively erased from the records.
49 Articulated speech disturbs a person who is not addressed more than mere noise. (Luhmann1995a: 142-143).
50 There are, of course, also non-linguistic forms of communication. (Luhmann 1995a: 151)51 On the classical treatment of this point see Weber (1979).
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
27/44
27
5. Functions of organisational interactions
Interactions, as we argued above, can make their complexity available to the organisation and
in this way contribute to the fulfilment of organisational functions. In the following we want
to discuss three functions in particular: complexity reduction, deparadoxification and
memory.
(1) The possibility of a system of resorting to the complexity of another system as is implied
in the concept of interpenetration has implications for the systems handling of its own
complexity. At first on could say that it enables the system to increase its own given
complexity by the complexity that the other system makes available53 - in the sense that more
elements and relations between elements are involved in the processing of information.54
Based on Ashbys (1956: 202 ff.) law of requisite variety55 one could expect organisations
with for them turbulent environments to increase their complexity by enlisting the
complexity of organisational interactions. Thus, the more complexity is required the more
organisational interactions would be initiated by the organisation. One could maybe interpret
the empirical studies by Burns and Stalker (1961) and Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) in that
respect, if by organic structure is meant the use of interactional communications for
coordinating operations. Furthermore, one can find that organisations initiate interactions
when problems arise that cannot be handled on the basis of organisational decision processes
52 The distinction on record / off record is the second order observation according to which itobserves its relation to the organisation.
53 Not: the entire complexity of the other system, as only part of the complexity becomes available.54 See the definition of complexity as defined by the number of possible elements and the possible
relations between the elements in Luhmann (1980).55 Variety can be understood as number of possible system states which is another expression for the
number of elements and possible relations between them.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
28/44
28
(cf. Schwartzman (1986), Schwartzman (1989), Weick (1995): 187, Kirsch (1992): 278). One
could think for example of crisis meetings and similar interactions. However, in order to
understand the mechanism by which the complexity of the organisation is increased through
interpenetration with organisational interactions we have to look at this issue from a slightly
different angle.
Based on the notion of complexity as pressure to select (Luhmann 1995a: 23-28; 1993d)
one can say that the more a system can use the complexity of another system for reducing its
own complexity the less it has to do it itself. 56 That is to say a system that can instrumentalise
the complexity of another system for making selections amongst its possibilities doesnt need
to make the selections itself; or in other words needs less structure. Luhmann in this sense
writes with regard to specific case of interpenetration between social and psychic system:
[A]n empirically proven hypothesis fits these considerations: social systems that
can enlist more complex psychic systems need less structure. They can cope with
greater instabilities and quicker structural change. They can expose themselves to
chance and thereby relieve their internal regulation. This is comprehensible if one
correctly understands complexity and interpenetration, namely, as a pressure to
select that increases with size and as the ability to condition this pressure in an
open way. (Luhmann 1995a: 217; endnote omitted)
This hypothesis can be applied analogously to the relation between organisation and
organisational interaction. The greater the complexity of organisational interactions that an
organisation can enlist the less decision premises it needs. This line of argument finds support
for example in the literature on team coordination in contrast to hierarchical coordination,
which is also inherent in much of the literature on lean management or flat hierarchies, - if we
56 On the necessity of complexity for reducing complexity see Baecker (1999)
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
29/44
29
understand teams as succession of organisational interactions57. The more an organisation can
rely on interactions to guide organisations in their decision making the less the organisation
needs to develop its own decision premises or the less detailed they have to be; e.g. no
elaborate rules about communication procedures, no detailed decision programmes, no
detailed personnel planning. Apart from that one can often find that particularly at the apex of
an organisation in business organisations: amongst the top management team decision
processes are only to a very minor degree pre-structured in the form of formal decision
premises. Instead the organisation mostly relies on organisational interactions for guiding
the organisational decision process.58
On the basis of this second interpretation it becomes clear how the complexity of the
organisation is increased by organisational interactions. The complexity of an organisation
requires the organisation to select decision premises and in this way reduce its complexity.
With the selection of structures the variety, i.e. the number of possible relations between
elements, is reduced. Reduction of complexity, however, is necessary in order for the system
to be able to operate otherwise the system wouldnt have enough internal guidance to
make self-reproduction possible (Luhmann 1995a: 283). By relying on organisational
interactions to make the selections, the organisation can do without a pre-selection of possible
relations in the form of decision premises and in this sense allow for a greater variety. In other
words organisational interactions increase the complexity of an organisation by relieving the
organisation of having to reduce its complexity. To go back to our examples above,
organisations with organic structures possess a greater variety as the possibilities of relations
between elements is less restricted by (formal) decision premises. Instead the organisation
57 To be precise, teams may be defined as a succession of organisational interactions with identicalcomposition which are perceived and expected as a unity (cf. Kieserling 1999: 221).
58 See for example Mintzbergs (1973) empirical study on the work of top managers, who spendmost of their time in interactions.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
30/44
30
initially allows for a relatively greater variety of relations, which only in the concrete decision
situation are then limited through interactional processes.
(2) Organisations, more than any other types of social systems, have to deal with paradoxes.59
As explained at the beginning of the paper every single operation of an organisation
constitutes an explicit paradox. In order for a system not to get paralysed by its paradoxes
the paradoxes have to be deparadoxified. The main mechanism of deparadoxification of
ordinary decisions within the organisation is the attribution to a decision maker (Luhmann
2000: 136; 147). The paradox of decision is in that way shifted from the operative level to the
structural level. Instead of the undecidability of the decision (Von Foerster 1992: 14), the
structures entitling the decision maker to make a specific decision come to the fore; instead of
asking about the form of the alternativity of the decision (Luhmann 1993c: 289) one is led
to ask about the decision premises that justify the decision - in particular the hierarchical
orderings of positions (cf. Luhmann 2000: 138). While any such question if consequently
investigated ultimately ends up again at the paradox of decision (i.e. the decision to put
certain structures in place60), usually the organisational complexity inhibits such
investigations as Luhmann (2000: 139; my translation) writes: the paradox is concealed by
complexity. Thus, this basic form of deparadoxification in most cases is enough for
preventing a paralysis.
There are however cases where the shift of the decision complexity onto the level of
structures isnt enough as a means of a deparadoxification; where the shift doesnt prevent the
exposure of the paradox. This could be the case where the structures themselves are
59 Any self-referential system is paradoxically constituted. (Luhmann 1995a: 33)60 and beyond that the ultimate decision creating the organisation in the first place implying the
paradox of its existence before its existence.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
31/44
31
contradictory61, e.g. unclear decision competencies; thus instead of the operative paradox the
organisation would have to deal with a structural paradox.62 It could also be the case where no
clear decision premises exist. For example in connection with decisions on fundamental
decision premises in the context of business organisation one also speaks of policies or
strategies; or during major turbulences in the organisation. Closely related to this is the case
where decisions pertain to the very structures that serve as their decision premises. These are
primarily decisions on fundamental organisational change this could be a change of
fundamental decision premises. In these cases the attribution to decision makers and their
respective positions (as combination of the three general decision premises) cannot serve as a
means of deparadoxification. In these cases organisations often use interactions as a means of
deparadoxification. Decisions arent attributed to individual decision makers but to a
deciding interaction. This could either mean that the interaction is perceived directly as the
decision maker; one could think of a jury at court that announces its (!) verdict or corporate
boards announcing their (!) decision on a new strategy. Alternatively it could also mean that
one decision maker in an interaction is centrally held responsible for a decision but as other
participants have assented the decision ultimately is attributed to the interaction.
The attribution of decisions to interactions can serve as a means of deparadoxification to the
extent that the interactional processes for the organisation are incomprehensible. This
means that the concrete processes leading to the decision making remain in the dark for the
organisation not the interaction. In this sense the decision paradox is shifted onto the
mystery (Luhmann 2000: 135-140) of an interaction: the interaction has decided the
undecidable but from outside one cant say how (cf. Schwartzman (1987), pp. 285-286).
Usually one cant even ask as the interaction, in contrast to individual decision makers, as
61 Structural contradictions or paradoxes for Luhmann (2000: 147) have to be understood asderivatives of paradoxes on the operative level.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
32/44
32
they cannot be addressed as a unity (Kieserling 1999: 383-384).63 Furthermore, interactions
often actively contribute to the mystery by interactions withholding any information on the
concrete processes involved in the decision processes (cf. Kieserling 1999: 382)64. One could
again think for example of juries at court which at most disclose the number of votes for or
against a particular judgement but no concrete reasons; or at corporate boards that might
disclose reasons for a decision but keep their statements so general that they dont really say
anything about the factual decision making. Decisions in this way defy any criticism; they are
stabilised by reference to the incomprehensible complexity of the interaction. The only points
for potential criticism are the (starting) conditions of the interaction: who participated in the
interaction, what was the official agenda etc; in other words, criticism is re-directed toward
the decisions and decision premises involved in setting up the interaction. This again can be
evaded by drawing them as much as possible into the interaction i.e. participants and topics
are chosen from within the interaction - and by presenting the interaction more or less as
spontaneously formed so that the official justification for the initiation of the interaction can
be provided retrospectively from within the interaction.
Organisational interactions dont only serve as a means of deparadoxifying and thus
stabilising decisions after they have been made, but they can also serve such a function in the
decision situations themselves. In other words interactions can provide an orientation in
decision situations where such guidance cannot be provided by the organisation itself. 65 Thus,
where the organisational decision premises are ambiguous or conflicting, or where decisions
pertain exactly to the decision premises that could provide guidance, that interaction can take
over the lead; the decision process is pressed ahead by the dynamic of the interaction.
62 Which again manifests itself in concrete operations.63 The participants can, of course, be asked but every participant might tell a different story.64 Cf. Goffman (1959) on secrets of and in interactions.65 This is just another perspective on the same point as above.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
33/44
33
Decision making in this sense is less oriented according to organisational than interactional
structures. Retrospectively, however, decision premise for the decisions can be and probably
have to be searched for, reconstructed, re-interpreted or even invented. In other words
decisions retrospectively can be presented as if they had been guided by decision premises
decisions are post-rationalised. This line of argument to some extent runs counter to
Kieserlings (1999: 368-359) hypothesis that normally interactions guide the organisational
decision processes while in crisis situations the decision processes guide the interactions. We
would rather say that under crisis situations in particular situations which lead to a
fundamental ambiguity of the organisational structures interactions take the lead.66
(3) Organisational interactions can serve a memory function in the organisation. With
memory Luhmann (2000: 192, passim; 1997: passim)67 refers to the fact that systems
discriminate between forgetting and remembering: the memory selects what to sort out into
forgetting and what to remember.68 In contrast to traditional conceptualisations memory is not
understood as storage of information (Walsh and Ungson 1991: 61) but as a function that
relates present situations to earlier operations of the system. One could say it defines the
system-related reality of the concrete situation. In this sense the organisational memory
determines in every concrete decision situation what earlier decisions to relate. In other words
it remembers other decision situations and interprets the concrete decision situation in their
context. In order to understand why certain situations or aspects of situations are remembered
and others forgotten one has to understand the conditioning of the organisational memory.
Luhmann writes about the organisational memory:
66 Which system takes the lead under normal conditions can be left open here.67 Luhmann here draws on the neurophysilogical and general cybernetic studies of Von Foerster
(1949; 1985: 133-172; 1950; 1969)68 As Luhmann writes, the main achievement of the memory is forgetting; remembering
consequently has to be conceptualised as inhibition of forgetting (Luhmann 2000: 192).
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
34/44
34
When it comes to organizations the memory is linked to the uncertainty
absorption which connects decisions with decisions. It forgets the generally
underlying uncertainty, unless it has become part of the decision in the form of
doubts or reservations. But it forgets also the numerous contributing decisions (the
invitation to a meeting, the unsuccessful attempts at pushing through a request); it
represses also most of what contributes to the autopoiesis of the system. By and
large [] it only retains what later decisions draw upon as decision premises.
(Luhmann 2000: 193, my translation, footnote omitted)
In this sense organisations tend to remember only results of decision processes and to forget
their concrete developments. This radical forgetting although a lot of potentially useful69
references to earlier situations get lost is necessary for the organisation in order not to clog
up its capacity for information processing (Luhmann 2000: 192). One could also say the
memory serves as an important form of complexity reduction.
Organisations cant however dispense completely with all that it forgets. Often it needs to
remember for example information that was gathered in connection with a decision or
concrete developments of a decision process or the concrete arguments for and against
particular decisions by particular members of the organisation.70 Such references might be of
particular importance in cases where the organisation experiences inconsistencies between its
decision premises or where new decision situations are difficult to make sense of. Or it might
just be that such references make specific decision situations easier to handle. In such cases
and it might indeed be in almost all decision situations the interaction can provide the
organisation with an appropriate memory. This is the case because the memory of
(organisational) interactions is conditioned in a different way. The interactional memory in
69 Useful in the sense that they could make later decisions easier.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
35/44
35
contrast to the organisational memory is not connected to the organisational uncertainty
absorption. Kieserling in this sense writes:
The memory of the organisation remembers only decisions and forgets everything
else. The memory of the interaction and its participants, in contrast, is conditioned
in a totally different way. They might remember the process more than the result
and the defeated more than the finally victorious candidates. (Kieserling, 1999:
385-386, my translation)
The interactional memory, thus, seems to be conditioned almost in the opposite way to that of
the organisation. What the one tends to forget the other tends to remember. Because of their
relationship of interpenetration the interaction can make its own memory available to the
organisation. This doesnt of course mean that the organisational memory is enlarged by the
interactional memory; the interactional memory doesnt become part of the organisational
memory in the same way as the interactional complexity doesnt become part of the
organisational complexity, as argued above. The organisation doesnt have direct access to the
memory of the interaction, but it can expose its decisions to the interactional memory by
having decisions take place within interactions. If a decision is discussed within
organisational interactions the participants are likely to draw on past experiences in
connection with similar decision situations, to arguments that they previously might have had
and similar things. Although these communications are inconceivable for the organisation
they have an effect on the communication that ultimately will be interpreted by the
organisation as its own decision and, thus, will have an effect on the organisational
autopoiesis. Organisations might in this sense instrumentalise interactions for remembering
what they themselves have forgotten.
70 And to remember thatit has forgotten what it has forgotten.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
36/44
36
This memory function of organisational interactions can also be described as a form of
complexity reduction to be precise: reduction of temporal complexity. Interactions by
making their memory available to the organisational reproduction serve a function of
complexity reduction for the organisation. Analogously to our argument above we can say
that organisations can use organisational interaction for selecting relations between the
present decision situation and earlier decision situations of the organisation. To the extent that
the organisation can rely on interactions fulfilling this task in concrete decision situations they
dont have to establish structures that pre-select the relations. Apart from the fact that
organisations due to their particular mode of reproduction (i.e. uncertainty absorption) are
always dependent on interactional memory without that they wouldnt be able to reproduce
themselves -, we can find different degrees to which the interactional memory is drawn upon.
Analogously to our argument above we can say the more an organisation can rely on
interactional memory the less elaborate its own memory structures e.g. written
documentation etc. - and vice versa.
Possibilities for conditioning organisational interactions
So far we have discussed functions that organisational interactions might serve for their
organisation. We havent however asked how interactions can be brought to serve these
functions. It probably wouldnt be enough for organisations to rely on interactions to form
spontaneously and by chance in the right moment when they are needed. Rather, although
interactions are operatively closed vis--vis organisations they nevertheless can be
conditioned.71 That is to say organisations can create certain context factors that make it
71 Cf. Luhmann (2000: 373).
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
37/44
37
likely for interactions to reproduce themselves in ways that are of benefit to the organisation.
This conditioning can be temporal, social and factual.
Conditioning in the time dimension is particularly focused on beginning and ending of an
interaction. The organisation can decide to start an interaction and it can also decide on a
certain time limit after which the interaction is to come to an end. For example, a meeting can
be scheduled for a certain time - from three to four o'clock. The organisation could also
decide on a sequence of interactions - every Monday from three to four o'clock (cf.
Luhmann 1997: 818). However, as the organisation has no direct access to the interactional
operations, it cannot directly start or terminate them;72 only the interaction itself can produce
its own beginning and its own ending. Yet, organisations can condition participation and,
thus, indirectly 'stimulate' interactions to produce beginning and ending. That is to say, the
organisation can decide on a certain time span for which members are to come together. The
beginning of the interaction can be conditioned in so far as the organisation can arrange for
members to come into face-to-face contact on the basis of which an interaction is likely to
form.73 The ending can be conditioned through the decision to withdraw the participants after
the time has run out. The interaction can observe this prospect of their participants being
withdrawn after a certain time and in expectation of that produce its own end. When the time
has run out, the participants of the interaction say 'good bye' to each other.
In the social dimension the organisation can condition the interaction by deciding on
participants. That is to say, the organisation can influence the interactional communications
by deciding who is to participate and, thus, what perspectives become available in the
72 Unless the organisation, for example, decided to blow up the interaction with a bomb, in whichcase the interaction would not be terminated by the interaction itself, but by the elimination of its(necessary) environment of psychic systems (cf. Luhmann 1995c: 45)
73 Kirsch (1992), pp. 271 ff., in this sense, speaks of the 'creation of necessary and sufficient initialand contextual conditions' for the emergence of interactions.
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
38/44
38
interaction (cf. Kieserling 1999: 378). Especially important in this context are the perspectives
given through the particular organisational roles of the participants. For example, if the
organisation decided that senior managers are to participate, the interaction is likely to be
different from a meeting between shop floor workers only.
Again, by deciding on the composition of the interaction the organisation can condition it, but
it does not have any direct control over it. It is ultimately left to the interaction to determine
who is treated as present and who as absent. In this sense, even people physically present
might be considered absent by the interaction. Similarly, the formal organisational roles of the
participants might not be referred to by the interactional communications.
Conditioning in the fact dimension concerns the organisation's influence on the selection of
topics. An explicit conditioning in this dimension would be a decision on the agenda of a
forthcoming interaction. The selection of topics can also be indirectly influenced through
decision on participants. For example, if many marketing managers were involved in the
interaction, the communication is likely to focus on marketing issues.74 Another way of
conditioning the selection of topics is to set in advance certain output categories for the
interaction, e.g. certain decision have to be made. An important form of conditioning concerns
the constraining of the range of possible topics. Instead of influencing the interaction in a way
that makes the selection of a specific topic more likely, the organisation can also make the
selection of certain topics more unlikely; for example by withholding information.
Although we have treated the different dimensions of conditioning separately, here, they are
to a large extent interdependent. For example, by starting an interaction for discussing recent
sales figures, the organisation might condition the interaction in all three dimensions. In the
74 One has to be careful not to confuse the social and fact dimension. Here we are speaking ofspecific topics of communication - the sales figures are talked about. When we speak about the
-
7/28/2019 Organisational Interactions in Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.pdf
39/44
39
object dimension t