How claimmakers, contingency, and path dependency shape the stage of organizational reality.
In everyday organizational life, problems often appear as objective facts – as disturbances that seemingly impose themselves and demand solutions. But this impression is deceptive.
Problems are not neutral defects but claims put into the world by actors with particular interests, perspectives, and resources. They are reflections of those who formulate them, and expressions of the social, political, and historical constellations in which they arise.
Whoever Defines a Problem Sets the Agenda
In organizations, it is not the problem itself that determines its visibility, but the person who asserts it – the so-called claimmaker. Sociologist Donileen Loseke (2003) described this process precisely with her "Social Problem Formula Story": for a problem to be recognized as such, it needs a compelling narrative.
This narrative follows a clear dramaturgy: there is a victim, a villain, a cause, and a solution that appears to be without alternative. Only when this story is told convincingly and accepted by relevant observers does a mere deviation from the norm become a "social problem" that generates attention, resources, and pressure to act. What ultimately emerges is followership – ostensibly for the claimmaker, but really for the narrative itself.
The role of the claimmaker is central. Whoever is able to formulate a problem and provide it with the right story takes interpretive authority and determines what the organization focuses on.
Other perspectives, alternative problem narratives, or competing interpretations often remain invisible – not because they are less relevant, but because they lack the necessary stage. In organizations, there is a constant struggle for attention, precisely because the number of these stages is finite.
It Could Always Have Been Otherwise
The construction of problems is always contingent. What counts as an urgent problem today was routine yesterday and may be forgotten tomorrow. And what is one person's problem is, as the saying goes, another's solution. Or, in the words of management scholar Günther Ortmann (2009):
“…because contingency in one respect at one point implies necessity and impossibility in another respect, at another point. Contingency refers to the openness of history – to the multitude of possible developments…”
In organizational contexts, this contingency is often overlooked. Routines, standards, and "best practices" suggest that problems and solutions are clearly recognizable and unambiguously assignable.
In reality, however, every problem definition is the result of a social negotiation process in which coincidences, shifts in power, and situational constellations play a decisive role. The question is not which problem "really" exists, but why precisely this problem is becoming visible now – and not another one.
The Past Determines Which Problems Become Visible
Organizations are not empty vessels but historically grown systems, and their past constrains which problems can even appear as relevant. Earlier decisions, entrenched routines, and established power structures influence which problems surface – and which solutions are considered conceivable. Once a path has been taken, the space of possibility narrows, making it difficult to allow alternative problem interpretations or innovative solutions.
Path dependency becomes particularly evident when organizations repeatedly resort to the same problem formulas and solution recipes – even when these have long since lost their effectiveness. Old stories are retold, familiar patterns reproduced. The organization becomes a prisoner of its own past.
Problems Are Not Discovered but Narrated
Sociologist Donileen Loseke's (2003) concept of the "Social Problem Formula Story" makes clear that problems are not simply discovered but narrated. The formula is remarkably stable:
- There is an identifiable victim ("We are suffering from…")
- A clear villain ("The cause lies with…")
- A dramatic cause ("The problem arose from…")
- And a seemingly compelling solution ("Therefore we must…")
This narrative structure generates connectivity because it provides orientation and creates pressure to act. It lends authority to the claimmaker and makes it difficult for others to introduce alternative perspectives. Whoever masters the formula can set problems – and deliver solutions along with them.
Understanding Problems Requires Asking Who Benefits
Anyone who wants to understand what "problems" in everyday organizational life are really about should ask not only about the "what" but above all about the "who" and "how":
- Who claims that a condition is problematic?
- With which Social Problem Formula Story is the problem staged?
- Which alternative problem narratives were bypassed – and why?
- Which path dependencies and experiences of contingency shape what even becomes visible as a problem?
A productive approach to problems begins where organizations acknowledge the contingency and path dependency of their problem constructions and allow a diversity of observers.
Only when different claimmakers with their narratives encounter each other does it become visible how much problems are mirrors of power, chance, and history – and how much freedom in dealing with them would actually be possible.
Whoever opens this stage creates room for the new – and exposes many an apparent necessity for what it is: the result of a successful claim.