Multiplying the Division of Labour: Functional Differentiation of the Next Key Variables in Management Research

Abstract

In this article, we draw on theories of social differentiation to show that functional differentiation is not about the division of work and organization, but rather about a multiplication of horizons for decision‐making. We argue that a systematic management of functional differentiation makes organizations smarter and more flexible. We corroborate this claim by demonstrations of how a functional approach to functional differentiation facilitates the design of new or the further development of well‐established management tools and research agendas in fields such as entrepreneurship, strategy, and human resource management. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

From Added Values to Augmented Realities. Introducing the Special Issue of Management and Functional Differentiation

“…The last article, Multiplying the division of labour: functional differentiation of the next key variables in management research , is written by a multifunctional team consisting of Steffen Roth from Rennes School of Business, Augusto Sales from KPMG Rio de Janeiro, and Jari Kaivo‐oja from University of Turku (). The authors from academia and business demonstrate how functional differentiation can be applied to further develop established or design new management tools.…”

“…Niklas Luhmann's (1977Luhmann's ( , 1982Luhmann's ( , 2013) landmark contributions to the theory of functional differentiation are widely recognized as is the concept's critical significance for self-/descriptions of modern society (Bergthaller and Schinko, 2011;Brier, 2006;Jönhill, 2012;Kjaer, 2010;Leydesdorff, 2002;Luhmann, 1977;Luhmann, 1990;Luhmann, 1997;Schoeneborn, 2011;Seidl, 2005;Tsivacou, 1996;Vanderstraeten, 2005;Wetzel and Van Gorp, 2014;Wolfgang Rennison, 2007), and a more comprehensive presentation of the concept is given elsewhere in this issue (Roth et al, 2017b). Suffice it to mention that functional differentiation refers to the distinction of probably 10 function systems-politics, economy, art, science, religion, legal system, sport, health, education, and mass media (Roth and Schütz, 2015)-and to stress that these function systems are perfectly incommensurable and therefore in principle unrankable, too.…”

From Complexity Reduction to Moral Character: A Deweyian Reading of Luhmann's Social Systems Theory

“…The constrained scope of decision‐making explains why the decision‐making in social systems, such as markets or corporations, is perfectly consistent with the legitimate disappointment of a large number of individual expectations (Roth, ). At the same time, the moral character of corporations will not prevent them from employing strategic management tools that ‘multiply the horizons of decision making’, e.g., by harnessing the potential of functional differentiation (Roth et al, , p. 195). This makes the systems‐theoretic concept of moral character radically different from the premodern traditional values that precluded the existence of any behavioural alternatives (cf.…”

“…A key type of social systems is function systems, such as politics, economy, law, and science, whose coexistence constitutes the regime of functional differentiation as a key feature of modernity (cf. Roth et al, ). An implication of this systems‐theoretic vision is that the task of social integration no longer falls on morality but is instead assumed by function systems structurally coupled to each other.…”

Organization and membership: Introduction to the Special Issue

“…These new concepts have created new analytical possibilities for investigating organizations and their relations to other social phenomena. And therefore, it does not come as a surprise that his newer works have been a great source of inspiration for a broad variety of works in organization studies, for instance, with regard to societal macro‐differentiation (Andersen, 2003; Besio & Meyer, 2015; la Cour & Højlund, 2017; Roth, Sales, & Kaivo‐oja, 2017; Schirmer & Michailakis, 2018; Will, Roth, & Valentinov, 2018), complexities (Schneider, Wickert, & Marti, 2017), markets (Ahrne, Aspers, & Brunsson, 2015), paradoxes (la Cour & Højlund, 2017), strategic management (Rasche & Seidl, 2017), temporary organizing (Grothe‐Hammer & Schoeneborn, 2019), decision‐making (Nassehi, 2005), extreme work hours (Blagoev & Schreyögg, 2019), consulting (Mohe & Seidl, 2011), disaster planning (Grothe‐Hammer & Berthod, 2017), ethics (Besio & Pronzini, 2014) and much more (Cooren & Seidl, 2020; Czarniawska, 2017; Deroy & Clegg, 2015; Grothe‐Hammer & Berthod, 2017; Grothe‐Hammer, 2019b; Schreyögg & Sydow, 2010). Finally, as mentioned above, Luhmann also inspired seminal works that developed and extended the understanding of membership (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2011; Ahrne et al, 2016; Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015; Grothe‐Hammer, 2019a; Schoeneborn & Scherer, 2012)—however, notably, without adopting Luhmann's actual definition of membership.…”