This article introduces Luhmann’s theory of social systems as a prominent example of communication as constitutive of organization (CCO) thinking and argues that Luhmann’s perspective contributes to current conceptual debates on how communication constitutes organization. The theory of social systems highlights that organizations are fundamentally grounded in paradox because they are built on communicative events that are contingent by nature. Consequently, organizations are driven by the continuous need to deparadoxify their inherent contingency. In that respect, Luhmann’s approach fruitfully combines a processual, communicative conceptualization of organization with the notion of boundary and self-referentiality. Notwithstanding the merits of Luhmann’s approach, its accessibility tends to be limited due to the hermetic terminology that it employs and the fact that it neglects the role of material agency in the communicative construction of organizations.
AhrneG.BrunssonN. (in press). Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. Organization.
2.
AndersenN. A. (2003). The undecidability of decisions. In HernesT.BakkenT. (Eds.), Autopoietic organization theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s social systems perspective (pp. 235-258). Oslo, Norway: Copenhagen Business School Press.
3.
AshcraftK. L.KuhnT. R.CoorenF. (2009). Constitutional amendments: “Materializing” organizational communication. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 1-64.
4.
AshkenasR.UlrichD.JickT.KerrS. (2002). The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5.
BakkenT.HernesT. (Eds.). (2003). Autopoietic organization theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s social systems perspective. Oslo, Norway: Copenhagen Business School Press.
6.
BiselR. S. (2009). On a growing dualism in organizational discourse research. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(4), 614-638.
7.
BiselR. S. (2010). A communicative ontology of organization? A description, history, and critique of CCO theories for organization science. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 124-131.
8.
BlaschkeS.SchoenebornD. (2006). The forgotten function of forgetting: Revisiting exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Soziale Systeme, 11(2), 99-119.
9.
BlühdornI. (2000). An offer one might prefer to refuse: The systems theoretical legacy of Niklas Luhmann. European Journal of Social Theory, 3(3), 339-354.
10.
BodenD. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
11.
CastorT. R. (2005). Constructing social reality in organizational decision making. Account vocabularies in a diversity discussion. Management Communication Quarterly, 18(4), 479-508.
12.
CastorT. R.CoorenF. (2006). Organizations as hybrid forms of life: The implications of the selection of agency in problem formulation. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(4), 570-600.
13.
CheneyG.ChristensenL. T. (2001). Organizational identity: Linkages between internal and external communication. In JablinF. M.PutnamL. L. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 231-269). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
CoorenF. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11(3), 373-394.
15.
CoorenF. (2006). The organizational world as a plenum of agencies. In CoorenF.TaylorJ. R.van EveryE. J. (Eds.), Communication as organizing. Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversations (pp. 81-100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
CoorenF. (2010). Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
17.
CoorenF.FairhurstG. T. (2008). Dislocation and stabilization: How to scale up from interactions to organization. In PutnamL. L.NicoteraA. M. (Eds.), Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 117-152). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
CoorenF.TaylorJ. R.van EveryE. J. (Eds.). (2006). Communication as organizing. Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
CraigR. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119-161.
20.
CzarniawskaB. (2005). On Gorgon Sisters: Organizational action in the face of paradox. In SeidlD.BeckerK. H. (Eds.), Niklas Luhmann and organization studies (pp. 127-144). Oslo, Norway: Copenhagen Business School Press.
21.
DeetzS. (2005). Critical theory. In MayS.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives (pp. 85-112). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
DerridaJ. (1988). Limited Inc. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
23.
DerridaJ. (2002). Negotiations: Interventions and interviews, 1971-2001. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
EisenbergE. M.RileyP. (2001). Organizational culture. In JablinF.PutnamL. L. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 291-322). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
25.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
26.
HernesT.BakkenT. (2003). Implications of self-reference: Niklas Luhmann’s autopoiesis and organization theory. Organization Studies, 24(9), 1511-1535.
27.
KaplanS. (in press). Strategy and Powerpoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making. Organization Science.
28.
KnudsenM. (2005). Displacing the paradox of decision making. In SeidlD.BeckerK. H. (Eds.), Niklas Luhmann and organization studies (pp. 107-126). Oslo, Norway: Copenhagen Business School Press.
29.
KuhnT. (2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29(8-9), 1227-1254.
30.
LatourB. (1994). On technical mediation: Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29-64.
31.
LawrenceP. R.LorschJ. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1-30.
32.
LuhmannN. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In GeyerF.van der ZouwenJ. (Eds.), Sociocybernetic paradoxes: Observation, control and evolution of self-steering systems (pp. 171-192). London: SAGE.
33.
LuhmannN. (1988). Organisation. In KüpperW.OrtmannG. (Eds.), Mikropolitik. Rationalität, Macht und Spiele in Organisationen (pp. 165-185). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
34.
LuhmannN. (1989). Law as a social system. Northwestern University Law Review, 83(1-2), 136-150.
35.
LuhmannN. (1992). What is communication?Communication Theory, 2(3), 251-259.
36.
LuhmannN. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37.
LuhmannN. (2000). (Trans. Organization and Decision). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
38.
LuhmannN. (2003). Organization. In BakkenT.HernesT. (Eds.), Autopoietic organization theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s social systems perspective (pp. 31-52). Oslo, Norway: Copenhagen Business School Press.
39.
LuhmannN. (2006). System as difference. Organization, 13(1), 37-57.
40.
MarchJ. G.SimonH. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley.
41.
MaturanaH. R.VarelaF. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
42.
McPheeR. D.PooleM. S. (2001). Organizational structures and configurations. In JablinF. M.PutnamL. L. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research and methods (pp. 503-543). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
43.
McPheeR. D.ZaugP. (2008). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. In PutnamL. L.NicoteraA. M. (Eds.), Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 21-48). New York, NY: Routledge.
44.
MoheM.SeidlD. (in press). Theorising the client-consultant relationship from the perspective of social-systems theory. Organization.
45.
MongeP.ContractorN. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
46.
MumbyD. K. (2001). Power and politics. In JablinF.PutnamL. L. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 585-623). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
47.
NassehiA. (2005). Organizations as decision machines: Niklas Luhmann’s theory of organized social systems. Sociological Review, 53(1), 178-191.
48.
NicolaiA. T. (2004). The bridge to the “real world”: Applied science or a “schizophrenic Tour de Force”?Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 951-976.
49.
OrlikowskiW. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.
50.
OrtmannG. (2004). (Trans. As if: Fictions of Organizing). Als ob. Fiktionen des Organisierens. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Research.
51.
PutnamL. L.NicoteraA. M. (Eds.). (2008). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. New York, NY: Routledge.
52.
PutnamL. L.NicoteraA. M. (2010). Communicative constitution of organization is a question: Critical issues for addressing it. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 158-165.
53.
PutnamL. L.PhillipsN.ChapmanP. (1996). Metaphors of communication and organizations. In CleggS. R.NordW. R. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 375-408). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54.
RicœurP. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences: Essays on language, action and interpretation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
RobichaudD.GirouxH.TaylorJ. R. (2004). The metaconversation: The recursive property of language as a key to organizing. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 617-634.
56.
RortyR. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
SchoenebornD. (2008). Alternatives considered but not pursued: The ambiguous role of Power-Point in cross-project learning. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Research.
58.
SchreyöggG.SydowJ. (in press). Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science.
59.
SeidlD. (2005a). The basic concepts of Luhmann’s theory of social systems. In SeidlD.BeckerK. H. (Eds.), Niklas Luhmann and organization studies (pp. 21-53). Oslo, Norway: Copenhagen Business School Press.
60.
SeidlD. (2005b). Organization and interaction. In SeidlD.BeckerK. H. (Eds.), Niklas Luhmann and organization studies (pp. 145-170). Oslo, Norway: Copenhagen Business School Press.
61.
SeidlD. (2007). General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: A systemic-discursive perspective. Organization Studies, 28(2), 197-218.
62.
SeidlD.BeckerK. H. (Eds.). (2005). Niklas Luhmann and organization studies. Oslo, Norway: Copenhagen Business School Press.
63.
SeidlD.BeckerK. H. (2006). Organizations as distinction generating and processing systems: Niklas Luhmann’s contribution to organization studies. Organization, 13(1), 9-35.
64.
SillinceJ. A. A. (2010). Can CCO theory tell us how organizing is distinct from markets, networking, belonging to a community, or supporting a social movement?Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 132-138.
65.
TaylorJ. R. (1993). Rethinking the theory of organizational communication: How to read an organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
66.
TaylorJ. R. (1999). What is “organizational communication”? Communication as a dialogic of text and conversation. Communication Review, 30(1-2), 21-63.
TaylorJ. R. (2001). The “rational” organization reconsidered: An exploration of some of the organizational implications of self-organizing. Communication Theory, 11(2), 137-177.
69.
TaylorJ. R.CoorenF. (1997). What makes communication “organizational”? How the many voices of a collectivity become the one voice of an organization. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(4), 409-438.
70.
TaylorJ. R.CoorenF.GirouxN.RobichaudD. (1996). The communicational basis of organization: Between the conversation and the text. Communication Theory, 6(1), 1-39.
71.
TaylorJ. R.GirouxH. (2005). The role of language in self-organizing. In BarnettG. A.HoustonR. (Eds.), Advances in self-organizing systems (pp. 131-167). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
72.
TaylorJ. R.van EveryE. J. (2000). The emergent organization. Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
73.
TaylorJ. R.van EveryE. J. (2011). The situated organization: Case studies in the pragmatics of communication research. New York, NY: Routledge.
74.
TompkinsP. K.CheneyG. (1983). Account analysis of organizations: Decision making and identification. In PutnamL. L.PacanowskyM. E. (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 123-146). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
75.
TompkinsP. K.CheneyG. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In McPheeR. D.TompkinsP. K. (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 179-210). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
76.
von FoersterH. (1992). Ethics and second-order cybernetics. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 1(1), 9-19.
77.
WeberM. (1958). Bureaucracy. In GerthH. H.MillsC. W. (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 196-244). New York, NY: Galaxy.
78.
WeickK. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
79.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations: Foundations for organizational science. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
80.
YatesJ.OrlikowskiW. J. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 299-326.
