The term familiarity was used by N. Luhmann to describe a state within a social system, which finds itself in a ‘known’ world. Such worlds are distinguished by the fact that the future is very similar to the past (little is new), the fluctuation of the communication partners is small (one knows, who one is …
In the terminology of system-theory, guiding processes are schematics. Schematics are simplifications. Simplifications assist in finding one’s way in a world full of open, selectable possibilities, which require interpretation. What simplifications one utilises is, however, one’s own choice. The selection of eight psycho-dynamic, six team dynamic and nine organisational dynamic guiding processes is actually a …
Familiarity (Luhmann) is necessary for all system types. If tomorrow everything, absolutely everything, were different, no system could survive. It would no longer be possible to connect to its environment. That, which in the future is like the past, is familiar: tomorrow, too, the apple falls from top to bottom, the cars drive on the …
Mistrust is not bad, although some think so. What is the function of mistrust? Mistrust, just like trust, reduces complexity. Those who mistrust, know where they stand and what must be done. They must be prepared to watch around the clock, to be ready for conflict; they need alternatives or must accept that the other …
For organisations, trust and rules are interconnected in an interesting way. The guiding process social complexity and handling the present influence each other simultaneously. If you trust, you assume that the other party will adhere to the (agreed) rules and that, if exceptions were necessary, he would give support (even if you knew nothing about …
Social complexity arises from the fact that people are unpredictable. As soon as one has to deal with people, everything can, from that moment on, be different than one expected. This is why social structures are always distinguished by their attempts to secure themselves against surprising and unfavourable behaviours of individuals: friend-enemy schemes, family-clan loyalty …
Organisations are dependent upon the fact that they can be trusted. If it were customary to say: “Hello, Tax Inspector, I would first like to check if you are even competent!”, the tax control process would collapse. As we assume that the exams for becoming a tax inspector function, we can save carrying out our …
Wherever and whenever an organisation operates with trust, it (also) needs to control this trust. Otherwise trust becomes blind: wherever you invest trust, it would be risk-free to use it or to misuse it (imagine there were never any speed restrictions, doping tests, or tax controls…). For this reason, great significance is attached to the …
Control, in organisations, is initially ‘only’ a way of processing social complexity. However, on the psychological level of the superior and the employee, control is mostly also coupled to affects. Here, four variants with regard to dysfunctional consequences are particularly significant: • Frequently, control is coupled with mistrust. Here, it is relevant whether a specific …
Luhmann describes very clearly that organisations cannot form from personal trust, i.e. from trust between people. This works in teams and families, which is why a break of trust or a particularly well-developed climate of trust have such an impact. Not least for this reason organisations differ very much from teams or small businesses. In …