The transformation of organizations is currently challenged by extraordinary developments and processes such as the COVID-19 pandemic, growing social polarization and the limits of both the temporality and the possibility of transformation in a context of “multiple crises” (Demirović et al 2011). Being confronted with social, economic, political and technological transformations, resulting from a tremendous acceleration and profit maximization, organizations are developing strategies to cope with scenarios of an inevitable growth limit (Herrington 2021). Those strategies have transformed organizations as well as societies at large, including ways of exchange and interactions. As the regime analysis, which investigates within governmental practices effective principles and norms of dominance and power shows, based on the commitment to “community capitalism” (Haubner & van Dyk 2021) “we” have become an individualized society leading an “imperial mode of living” (Brand & Wissen 2021) in “liquid times” (Bauman 2017). Therefore, knowledge, flexibility and creativity are described as central for what is thought of an imaginary future. Promises range from the innovative, i.e. the creative ‘entrepreneurial self, via successful multi-cultural co-existence and social integration to competitive advantage in global markets (Peters & Weber 2019).

The symposium argues that currently the narrative of “desirable futures” within organizations have to be reinterpreted (Csereklye & Czejkowska 2020). Corresponding to education, the notion of ‘time’ is becoming of the essence. This will be illustrated by examples of selected forms of organizations – from institutional learning (schools) to self-directed peer learning (commons). An educational theory of organizational change (Engel, Göhlich & Höhne 2015) focusses on the limitations of both societal development and the ability of educational approaches to organize transformations within organizations. It emphasizes time as timeliness and temporalities: In order to achieve productive educational interventions, a concrete outline of a better future is necessary and entails “pedagogical authority” (Niggemann 2022). However, there is a palpable tension within the narrative of a desirable future posed by the limitations of natural, human and societal resources which seem limitless for a few, but indeed are limited for all (Lorey 2015). This impedes any passionate hope for a better future but also to history itself, claiming both history and future as indispensable perspectives of possible and desirable developments as well as their pedagogical dimension. Indicators such as rankings, standards and growth rates are still dominant factors for decision-making in organizations while at the same time ignoring the evident social fragility (Bayramoğlu & Castro Varela 2021). The educational sphere doesn’t seem to be different: you may be dreaming of a future not yet written, whilst sitting in a wrecked car in the dead end of a street called progress.

To organize change means to change organizations and that means to work towards a transformation of their idea of what a ‘desirable’ future could be shaped and used as a progress narrative. Paradoxically the future is now. Hanging on to the idea of linearity of time – past, present, future – has always been a stretch. This can be seen in the non-linearity of learning, teaching and comprehending, which finds itself in direct opposition to an accelerated outcome-oriented education. The organization of institutions is dealing with the ambiguity of being forced to stay ‘contemporary’ and to take responsibility for anticipated future developments. Conflicts will deepen between the ethic of protecting the non-linearity of learning – that also goes for organizations – versus the cutting of time in a standardized, economically-driven, outcome-oriented way as described above. 

Bauman, Z. (2007): Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge. Bayramoğlu, Y. & Castro Varela, M. d. M. (2021): Post/pandemisches Leben. Eine neue Theorie der Fragilität. transcript, Bielefeld. Brand, U.& Wissen, M. (2021): The Imperial Mode of Living. Verso, London. Demirovic et al. (Ed.) (2011): VielfachKrise im finanzmarktdominierten Kapitalismus. VSA, Hamburg. Csereklye, E. & Czejkowska, A. (2020): Recognition and sustainability: A circular approach to international mobility of teacher education students In: Seong, S.-H. (Ed.): Multicultural Education - Place, Progress and Pathways Forward. Seoul, Dél- Korea: Korean Association for Multicultural Education, pp. 100-101. Engel, N., Göhlich, M. & Höhne, T. (2015): Organizational Learning and the Transnationalization of Further Education. Pedagogical Research on Cross-Border Organizations. In: European Education 46/4, Routledge, pp. 43–60. Haubner, T. & van Dyk, S. (2021): Community-Kapitalismus. Hamburger Edition, Hamburg. Herrington, G. (2021): Update to limits to growth: Comparing the world3 model with empirical data. In: Journal of Industrial Ecology 25, pp. 614– 626, Lorey, I. (2015): State of insecurity. Government of the precarious. Verso, London. Niggemann, J. (2022): Der diskrete Charme der Autorität? Beltz Juventa, Wiesbaden. Peters, M. & Weber, S.M. (Ed.) (2019): Organization and Newness. Discourses and Ecologies of Innovation in the Creative University, Brill, Leiden.