Advertisement

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

  • Ricarda Scheele
  • Norman M. Kearney
  • Jude H. Kurniawan
  • Vanessa J. Schweizer

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.

Notes

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.

References

  1. Adam, Barbara. 2004. Memory of Futures. KronoScope 42: 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahlqvist, Toni, and Martin Rhisiart. 2015. Emerging Pathways for Critical Futures Research: Changing Contexts and Impacts of Social Theory. Futures 71: 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amer, Muhammad, Tugrul Daim, and Antonie Jetter. 2013. A Review of Scenario Planning. Futures 46: 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S. Baratz. 1962. Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckert, Jens. 2013. Capitalism as a System of Expectations. Politics & Society 41 (3): 323–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, Nik, Brian Rappert, and Andrew Webster. 2000. Contested Futures. A Sociology of Prospective Techno-science. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Calas, M., and L. Smircich. 1999. Past Postmodernism? Reflections and Tentative Directions. Academy of Management Review 24 (4): 649–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahl, Robert. 1957. “The Concept of Power.” Systems Research and Behavioural. Science 2 (3): 201–215.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foucault, Michel. 1977. Truth and Power. In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings (1972–77), ed. C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Helmer, Olaf. 1981. Reassessment of Cross-Impact Analysis. Futures 13: 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hetherington, Stephen. 2001. Good Knowledge, Bad Knowledge. On Two Dogmas of Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hibbard, K.A., et al. 2007. A Strategy for Climate Change Stabilization Experiments. Eos 88 (20): 217–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hodgkinson, Gerard, and George Wright. 2002. Confronting Strategic Inertia in a Top Management Team: Learning from Failure. Organization Science 23 (6): 949–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Inayatullah, Sohail. 1990. Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Future: Predictive, Cultural and Critical Epistemology. Futures 22 (2): 116–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 1998a. Causal Layered Analysis: Poststructuralism as Method. Futures 30 (8): 815–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 1998b. Listening to Non-western Perspectives. In World Yearbook of Education 1998, ed. R. Slaughter and D. Hicks. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  20. Kemp-Benedict, Eric. 2012. Telling Better Stories: Strengthening the Story in Story and Simulation. Environmental Research Letters 7 (4): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kilduff, Martin, and Ajay Mehra. 1997. Postmodernism and Organizational Research. Academy of Management Review 22 (2): 453–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koch, Jochen, Hannes Krämer, Andreas Reckwitz, and Matthias Wenzel. 2016. Zum Umgang mit Zukunft in Organisationen – eine praxistheoretische Perspektive. Managementforschung 26 (1): 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Lahsen, Myanna. 2005. Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models. Social Studies of Science 35 (6): 895–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lloyd, Elisabeth A., and Vanessa J. Schweizer. 2014. Objectivity and a Comparison of Methodological Scenario Approaches for Climate Change Research. Synthese 191: 2049–2088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. March, J.G. 1995. The Future, Disposable Organizations and the Rigidities of Imagination. Organization 2 (3/4): 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKinlay, Alan, and Ken Starkey. 1998. Foucault, Management and Organization Theory: From Panopticon to Technologies of Self. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Morgan, Gareth. 1986. Images of Organization. Beverly Hills: SAGE.Google Scholar
  29. Nakicenovic, Nebojsa, et al. 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Pielke, Roger, Tom Wigley, and Christopher Green. 2008. Dangerous Assumptions. Nature 452 (3): 531–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rosenau, Pauline. 1992. Postmodernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rounsevell, Mark, and Marc Metzger. 2010. Developing Qualitative Storylines for Environmental Change Assessment. WIREs Climate Change 1: 606–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schweizer, Vanessa J., and Elmar Kriegler. 2012. Improving Environmental Change Research with Systematic Techniques for Qualitative Scenarios. Environmental Research Letters 7: 044011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Slaughter, Richard. 2002a. From Forecasting and Scenarios to Social Construction: Changing Methodological Paradigms in Future Studies. Foresight 4 (3): 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ———. 2002b. Beyond the Mundane: Reconciling Breadth and Depth in Futures Enquiry. Futures 34: 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Spee, Andreas, and Paula Jarzabkowski. 2009. Strategy Tools as Boundary Objects. Strategic Organization 7 (2): 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van der Heijden, Kees. 2005. Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  40. Wack, Pierre. 1985. Scenarios: Shooting the Rapids. Harvard Business Review, November–December.Google Scholar
  41. Weimer-Jehle, Wolfgang. 2006. Cross-Impact Balances: A System-Theoretical Approach to Cross-Impact Analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73 (4): 334–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weiss, Richard M. 2000. Taking Science Out of Organization Science: How Would Postmodernism Reconstruct the Analysis of Organizations? Organization Science 11 (6): 709–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zwicky, Fritz. 1969. Discovery, Invention, Research Through the Morphological Approach. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricarda Scheele
    • 1
  • Norman M. Kearney
    • 2
  • Jude H. Kurniawan
    • 3
  • Vanessa J. Schweizer
    • 4
  1. 1.Stuttgart Research Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies (ZIRIUS)University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.School of Environment, Resources, and SustainabilityUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.Department of Geography and Environmental ManagementUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  4. 4.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations