Skip to main content

What Scenarios Are You Missing? Poststructuralism for Deconstructing and Reconstructing Organizational Futures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
How Organizations Manage the Future

Abstract

For organizations, the main rationale for exploring possible future developments is the imperative to sustain achievements and further progress towards organizational objectives. Deep uncertainty about the future, however, means that those hypothetical future developments are products of organizations’ sense-making processes. Much effort in organizational and methodological research is focused on questions that look into the future, to explore the possible future contextual environment for organizations (scenarios) and to draw out implications. However, less attention is often paid to how methodological choices for developing scenarios influence the way organizations make sense of their future.

This chapter presents a research methodology for critically examining organizations’ sense-making processes that also points to a more reflexive way of exploring organizations’ scenarios. Here, the responsibility of both researchers and practitioners is not only to ask how concrete future developments may affect an organization but also to inquire how the notion of a particular possible development made its way into an organizational scenario, how a set of alternative scenarios would look without it and what other possible developments have been excluded. Such critical reflections on the assumptions and practices that have shaped the development of alternative scenarios are common under poststructuralist thinking, which has often been derided as ‘impractical’ in that its critiques exclude actual scenario development processes. However, we argue that investigating organizational futures from a poststructural perspective is of practical relevance: the methodologies that an organization uses to make sense of the future ultimately shape the kinds of scenarios that an organization accepts as plausible and actively prepares for.

To bridge the gap between the worlds of scenario development and poststructural critique, we introduce Cross-Impact Balance Analysis (CIB), a method of inquiry that not only has the potential to operationalize critical, poststructuralist reflections, but is also capable of integrating those reflections back into organizations’ scenario development processes to improve how organizations address the deep uncertainty about their future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Foucault (1977) describes this relationship as giving rise to ‘regimes of truth’ that are reproduced by societal or organizational practices , shaping what is accepted as true and thereby influencing what is done. Inayatullah’s ‘politics of the real’ is closely related to this concept.

  2. 2.

    As a fifth concept, Inayatullah proposes ‘genealogy’, which suggests a more ‘historic’ perspective on paradigms, trends and categorizations. Due to word constraints, this concept is not elaborated in our chapter.

  3. 3.

    Early hints of the potential for a poststructuralist methodology can be seen in Zwicky’s principle of ‘negation and construction’, which parallels our pairing of deconstruction with reconstruction.

  4. 4.

    Intuitive Logics can be applied deductively and/or inductively (van der Heijden 2005). In the deductive approach, one or multiple axes are used to explore contrasting future possibilities, whereas the inductive approach develops networks of factors from which scenarios can emerge. Further enhancements of Intuitive Logics are reviewed by Wright et al. (2013a).

  5. 5.

    See Nakicenovic et al. (2000, Figure 1–4).

References

  • Adam, Barbara. 2004. Memory of Futures. KronoScope 42: 297–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlqvist, Toni, and Martin Rhisiart. 2015. Emerging Pathways for Critical Futures Research: Changing Contexts and Impacts of Social Theory. Futures 71: 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amer, Muhammad, Tugrul Daim, and Antonie Jetter. 2013. A Review of Scenario Planning. Futures 46: 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S. Baratz. 1962. Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckert, Jens. 2013. Capitalism as a System of Expectations. Politics & Society 41 (3): 323–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradfield, Ron, George Wright, Georg Burt, George Cairns, and Kees van der Heijden. 2005. The Origins and Evolution of Scenario Techniques in Long Range Business Planning. Futures 37: 795–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Nik, Brian Rappert, and Andrew Webster. 2000. Contested Futures. A Sociology of Prospective Techno-science. Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calas, M., and L. Smircich. 1999. Past Postmodernism? Reflections and Tentative Directions. Academy of Management Review 24 (4): 649–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert. 1957. “The Concept of Power.” Systems Research and Behavioural. Science 2 (3): 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezzamel, Mahmoud, and Hugh Willmott. 2010. Strategy and Strategizing: A Poststructuralist Perspective. In The Globalization of Strategy Research, Advances in Strategic Management, ed. Joel A.C. Baum and Joseph Lampel, 75–109. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, Michel. 1977. Truth and Power. In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings (1972–77), ed. C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, Armin. 2013. Modes of Orientation Provided by Futures Studies: Making Sense of Diversity and Divergence. European Journal of Futures Research 15 (30): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmer, Olaf. 1981. Reassessment of Cross-Impact Analysis. Futures 13: 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, Stephen. 2001. Good Knowledge, Bad Knowledge. On Two Dogmas of Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbard, K.A., et al. 2007. A Strategy for Climate Change Stabilization Experiments. Eos 88 (20): 217–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson, Gerard, and George Wright. 2002. Confronting Strategic Inertia in a Top Management Team: Learning from Failure. Organization Science 23 (6): 949–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inayatullah, Sohail. 1990. Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Future: Predictive, Cultural and Critical Epistemology. Futures 22 (2): 116–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998a. Causal Layered Analysis: Poststructuralism as Method. Futures 30 (8): 815–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998b. Listening to Non-western Perspectives. In World Yearbook of Education 1998, ed. R. Slaughter and D. Hicks. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp-Benedict, Eric. 2012. Telling Better Stories: Strengthening the Story in Story and Simulation. Environmental Research Letters 7 (4): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, Martin, and Ajay Mehra. 1997. Postmodernism and Organizational Research. Academy of Management Review 22 (2): 453–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, Jochen, Hannes Krämer, Andreas Reckwitz, and Matthias Wenzel. 2016. Zum Umgang mit Zukunft in Organisationen – eine praxistheoretische Perspektive. Managementforschung 26 (1): 161–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosow, Hannah. 2016. The Best of Both Worlds?: An Exploratory Study on Forms and Effects of New Qualitative-Quantitative Scenario Methodologies. PhD Dissertation, University of Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahsen, Myanna. 2005. Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models. Social Studies of Science 35 (6): 895–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, Elisabeth A., and Vanessa J. Schweizer. 2014. Objectivity and a Comparison of Methodological Scenario Approaches for Climate Change Research. Synthese 191: 2049–2088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. 1995. The Future, Disposable Organizations and the Rigidities of Imagination. Organization 2 (3/4): 427–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinlay, Alan, and Ken Starkey. 1998. Foucault, Management and Organization Theory: From Panopticon to Technologies of Self. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Gareth. 1986. Images of Organization. Beverly Hills: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakicenovic, Nebojsa, et al. 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, Roger, Tom Wigley, and Christopher Green. 2008. Dangerous Assumptions. Nature 452 (3): 531–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raupach, Michael, Gregg Marland, Philippe Ciais, Corinne Le Quere, Josep Canadell, Gernot Klepper, and Christopher Field. 2007. Global and Regional Drivers of Accelerating CO2 Emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 10288–10293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenau, Pauline. 1992. Postmodernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rounsevell, Mark, and Marc Metzger. 2010. Developing Qualitative Storylines for Environmental Change Assessment. WIREs Climate Change 1: 606–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, Vanessa J., and Elmar Kriegler. 2012. Improving Environmental Change Research with Systematic Techniques for Qualitative Scenarios. Environmental Research Letters 7: 044011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, Vanessa J., and Brian C. O’Neill. 2014. Systematic Construction of Global Socioeconomic Pathways Using Internally Consistent Element Combinations. Climatic Change 122: 431–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, Richard. 2002a. From Forecasting and Scenarios to Social Construction: Changing Methodological Paradigms in Future Studies. Foresight 4 (3): 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002b. Beyond the Mundane: Reconciling Breadth and Depth in Futures Enquiry. Futures 34: 493–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spee, Andreas, and Paula Jarzabkowski. 2009. Strategy Tools as Boundary Objects. Strategic Organization 7 (2): 223–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heijden, Kees. 2005. Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wack, Pierre. 1985. Scenarios: Shooting the Rapids. Harvard Business Review, November–December.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang. 2006. Cross-Impact Balances: A System-Theoretical Approach to Cross-Impact Analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73 (4): 334–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, Richard M. 2000. Taking Science Out of Organization Science: How Would Postmodernism Reconstruct the Analysis of Organizations? Organization Science 11 (6): 709–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, George, Ron Bradfield, and George Cairns. 2013a. Does the Intuitive Logics Method – And Its Recent Enhancements – Produce “Effective” Scenarios? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (4): 631–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, George, George Cairns, and Ron Bradfield. 2013b. Scenario Methodology: New Developments in Theory and Practice. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (4): 561–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwicky, Fritz. 1969. Discovery, Invention, Research Through the Morphological Approach. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank one anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an early draft of the chapter. RS and JHK first discussed collaborating on this topic at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, where JHK was supported by travel grants provided by the Society for Risk Analysis and University of Waterloo Graduate Studies Office. RS contribution to the chapter was made possible through the German Research Foundation (DFG) and its financial support within the Cluster of Excellence Simulation Technology (EXC 310/2) at the University of Stuttgart. NMK was supported by the Dean’s Doctoral Initiative within the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. JHK was supported by an Energy Policy Research Fellowship awarded by the Energy Council of Canada and a University of Waterloo SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council) Institutional Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scheele, R., Kearney, N.M., Kurniawan, J.H., Schweizer, V.J. (2018). What Scenarios Are You Missing? Poststructuralism for Deconstructing and Reconstructing Organizational Futures. In: Krämer, H., Wenzel, M. (eds) How Organizations Manage the Future. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74506-0_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics