𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐲?

Niklas Luhmann argued that modern society is characterized by an exceptional awareness of contingency – the fact that everything could have been different. Nothing is necessary; even scientific truths and legal norms are changeable. This emphasis on contingency is a hallmark of modern self-description. Society constantly acknowledges its own provisionality, which leads to flexibility but also uncertainty.

Luhmann also analyzed how societies describe the future. In contrast to earlier times, in which the future was seen as a linear completion of nature or divine order, modern society sees the future as open, complex and uncertain. The future is increasingly problematized and thus the subject of decision-making and strategic planning within systems such as politics, economics and science.

Luhmann argued that modern organizations owe their survival precisely to their dealings with not-knowing. Instead of solving problems completely, organizations often leave them in circulation as structurally unsolvable. This has an ecological value: it enables systems to adapt themselves by learning or strategically reorganizing themselves. This also criticizes the classical expectation of rational problem solving.

Organizations are decision systems. In order to continue to function, they have to make choices in situations in which complete knowledge is never available. Not knowing is therefore a system condition: without defining what does not need to be known, an organization cannot act at all. Organizations organize uncertainty in such a way that they can adapt flexibly to changes.

They avoid total knowledge overload by:
-      Abstracting (e.g. policy notions such as safety or quality)
-      Delegating (e.g. assigning risks to protocols or systems)
-      Temporizing (postponing decisions or providing feedback after a period of time)

Instead of solving problems, organizations often learn better to live with unsolvable issues. Think of ethical dilemmas, complex safety issues, integrity, diversity, well-being. These are “parked” internally via reports, procedures or committees, not to solve them directly, but to keep them manageable.
Organizations build confidence in their own functioning by knowing what they do not need to know or solve. They develop strategies to deal with structural ignorance, such as standard procedures, escalation mechanisms and audit cycles.

What can we as professionals take from this?
-      Let go of the idea that ‘more information’ always leads to better decisions.
-      Organize space for doubt, interpretation, and postponing choices, without this feeling like failure.
-      Decide consciously: what do we leave untouched, and why?
-      Don’t see uncertainty as an enemy, but as a necessary byproduct of decision-making power.

Source:
Luhmann, N. (2006), Beobachtungen der Moderne, 2. Auflage, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.