critical essay wicked problems in the age of uncertainty

Search Menu
Advance Articles
Author Guidelines
Open Access Policy
Self-Archiving Policy
About Significance
About The Royal Statistical Society
Editorial Board
Advertising & Corporate Services
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

The age of belief, the age of science, the age of probability, the age of quantum, the age of chaos, the age of synthesis.

< Previous

Six Ages of Uncertainty

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Ian Stewart, Six Ages of Uncertainty, Significance , Volume 16, Issue 6, December 2019, Pages 10–11, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2019.01332.x

Permissions Icon Permissions

In his new book, Do Dice Play God? , the mathematician Ian Stewart explores our evolving awareness, understanding and quantification of the things we do and do not know

I f you have ever found yourself worrying about an uncertain future, don't panic. You are not alone. Humans are concerned about the future because we're time-binding animals. We have a strong sense of our location in time, we anticipate future events, and we act now because of those anticipations. Our brains, shaped by both evolution and individual learning, let us choose our actions today to make our lives easier tomorrow. Brains are decision-making machines, making guesses about the future.

Photo by Avril Stewart

To foretell the future, the brain builds simplified internal models of how the world works, or may work, or is presumed to work. It feeds what it knows into the model and observes the outcome. Models of this kind need not be accurate descriptions of how the world works. Instead, they amount to beliefs about how the world works.

Dylan Nolte/Unsplash.com

Over tens of thousands of years, the human brain evolved into a machine that makes decisions based on its beliefs about where those decisions will lead. It's therefore no surprise that one of the earliest ways we learned to cope with uncertainty was to construct systematic beliefs about supernatural beings who were in control of nature. This was the first age of uncertainty.

We knew we weren't in control, but nature constantly surprised us, often unpleasantly, so it seemed reasonable to assume that some inhuman entities – spirits, ghosts, gods, goddesses – were in control. Soon a special class of people came into being, who claimed they could intercede with the gods to help us mortals achieve our aims. People who could foretell the future – prophets, seers, fortune-tellers, oracles – became especially valued members of the community.

Eventually, humanity began to explore a different way of thinking about the world, based on logical inference supported (or denied) by observational evidence. This was science.

Science showed us that nature can be less uncertain than we think. There are natural laws; we can discover them and use them to predict what will happen. The uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty gave way to the belief that most things would be explicable if we could tease out the underlying laws. Science also forced us to find an effective way to quantify how certain or uncertain an event is: probability.

Probability theory grew from the needs and experiences of two very different groups of people: gamblers and astronomers. Gamblers wanted a better grasp of “the odds”, astronomers wanted to obtain accurate observations from imperfect telescopes. As the ideas of probability theory sank into human consciousness, the subject escaped its original confines, informing us not just about dice games and the orbits of asteroids, but about fundamental physical principles.

Probability theory next entered the world of human affairs: births, deaths, divorces, suicides, crime, height, weight, politics. The applied arm of probability theory, statistics, was born.

The fourth age of uncertainty arrived with a bang, at the start of the twentieth century. Until then, all forms of uncertainty that we had encountered had a common feature: uncertainty reflected human ignorance. If we were uncertain about something, it was because we didn't have the information needed to predict it.

New discoveries in fundamental physics forced us to revise that view. Sometimes the information we need simply isn't available, because even nature doesn't know it. Such is the case in the quantum world, where a particle isn't a particle at all, just a fuzzy cloud of probabilities.

While physics went down the quantum route, mathematics blazed its own new trail. We used to think that the opposite of a random process is a deterministic one: given the present, only one future is possible. The fifth age of uncertainty emerged when mathematicians, and a few scientists, realised that a deterministic system can be unpredictable. This is chaos theory, the media's name for nonlinear dynamics. It teaches us that even when we understand how things work, in considerable detail, we may have no idea what will happen next week, next year, or next century.

The sixth age of uncertainty, our current period in history, is characterised by the realisation that uncertainty comes in many forms, each being comprehensible to some extent.

We now possess an extensive mathematical toolkit to help us make sensible choices in a world that's still horribly uncertain. Fast, powerful computers let us analyse huge amounts of data quickly and accurately. “Big data” is all the rage, although right now we're better at collecting it than we are at doing anything useful with it. Our mental models can be augmented with computational ones. We can perform more calculations in a second than all the mathematicians in history managed with pen and paper.

By combining our mathematical understanding of the different forms that uncertainty can take, with intricate algorithms to tease out patterns and structures, or just to quantify how uncertain we are, we can to some extent tame our uncertain world.

Author notes

Email alerts, citing articles via.

Recommend to Your Librarian
Advertising & Corporate Services
Journals Career Network

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1740-9713
Print ISSN 1740-9705
Copyright © 2024 Royal Statistical Society
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Decision Making in the Age of Uncertainty: a Sociological Analysis

This essay presents an analysis of the structural and cultural characteristics of postmodern society’s new capitalism, underscoring the fact that uncertainty, flexibility, mobility and risk are the latest categories of contemporary life, with which we need to interact and communicate constantly. It is necessary to aim at governing uncertainty by activating a new logic of the diffused empowerment of people aimed at promoting value for all the stakeholders by sharing objectives, development plans and the joint redesign of technologies, structures and processes. This is a perspective which places the person at the centre of strategic action, relaunches a New Humanism, invests in the cultural dimension, enhances that of value with a view to surpassing theutilitarian and technocentric paradigm while asserting a new anthropocentric.

Related Papers

Geopolitical, Social Security and Freedom Journal

Antonio Cocozza

Social Change Review

Wolfgang Bonß

People have always lived under conditions of uncertainty. But how to deal with uncertainty and how security is produced varies depending on the social formation. This paper deals with the handling of uncertainty in modern societies. Modern societies always try to conceptualize uncertainties as action-related, responsible and calculable/predictable ‘risks’. This was a quite successful approach for a long time. However, under the conditions of ‘risk society’, this approach is increasingly difficult to work. Especially in the case of ‘new risks’, the attempt to conceptualize any uncertainty as a predictable and cumulatively controllable risk, can hardly be realized. That's why modern societies must ask for and reflect on a ‘new culture of uncertainty’.

Sociological Research Online

Peter Taylor-Gooby

Jacquinet, Marc

Marc Jacquinet

Societies are still, now, indubitably, in the middle of a major sanitary and health crisis, all over. If April 2020 was a time of local lockdown in Asia, Europe and the Americas, it is expanding globally, and countries that are unable or unwilling to manage the spread of the disease are putting their health system as well as their social and economic activities under pressure, without ignoring the heavy toll on human populations. The impact of the Sars-CoV-2 and the resulting disease for humans is already tremendous, above 3 percent of GDP for the first quarter of 2020 and above 15 or 20 percent for the whole current year. According to the World Trade Organization (WTO 2020) the decline of global trade is reckoned between 13 and 32 % (OECD 2020). As in any big social change, people's subjective experience of time has changed; remembrance of the recent past (late 2019 or early 2020) seems so long ago; whilst some distant memories are springing in the day-today mental wandering about what is happening now, and what is the meaning of all that in the present, and the consequences for the future, for society, local groups and humanity and how should people behave. The change is not just subjective. It touches objective dimensions of people's lives and worlds, close or faraway. What about the spread of Covid-19, overwhelmed health care systems, panic, stock market turbulence, foreclosures, sudden spike in unemployment, business closures, and reorganization of corporate activities and policy orientation? All could be associated to a sudden and unforeseen change. Three considerations are worth brief discussion: (1) the dimension of risk in the current crisis; (2) the question of change and its necessity, namely in relation to management practice and sustainability, and, finally, (3) the question of method in management, at different levels. Fist, the dimension of risk, in the current meltdown, is central for rethinking the problems, the difficulties experienced by corporations and workers and to design new solutions, especially for tackling climate change and sustainability. That is what social scientists call uncertainty and it encompasses risks. Uncertainty is an overarching concept and reality which includes the other complementary notion of risk. In a way, what Ulrich Beck (1992, 2013) called the risk society is the self-reflection of society and sociology on the unveiling of human activities related to errors, mistakes, ignorance and complexity. This dimension of risk, how it is defined, managed, shared (in terms of costs and opportunities) and used (for imposing order or compensation). This dimension is pervasive and is related to several dimensions of social life, one is the knowledge or ignorance that characterizes the interaction of agents and group. It is crucial for democratic processes and the capacity to adapt to unexpected challenges. The second consideration has to do with the question of sustainability and the difficulties of changing the path taken up until now. A central feature of the current Covid-19 crisis is the resistance of the unquantified, the invisible, the social respect, the relationships to other(s) and the stranger(s), the disease, the fear of the disease, and the loss of habits, friends and family members, the gathering and social interaction. This could be called the unquantified self, in contradistinction to what Deborah Lupton (2016) characterized as the quantified self. The latter

Changing Societie & Personalities

Changing Societies & Personalities

Given the negative consequences that excessive confrontation with uncertainty can have, its positive dimension is often forgotten. The aim of this article is to show that the uncertainty associated with work, working conditions and the context in which working relationships are formed can be considered as a positive value. This will be shown through four themes. The first theme concerns the economic system. It is important to show that a certain degree of insecurity is necessary not only for individual freedom in society, but also for society as a whole, as there is a relationship between economic and political freedom. The second theme concerns entrepreneurship. In this respect, the article reminds us that uncertainty is a prerequisite for entrepreneurial activity. The third area deals with employment. Uncertainty and the life experience associated with it is an opportunity for personal development and the search for innovative ways of coping and solving problems, moreover, it is related to a sense of freedom. The fourth theme deals with the positive role of uncertainty in the context of the current crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this positive value will only emerge if human health is protected. KEYWORDS freedom, risk and uncertainty, sociology of work, value of uncertainty, work uncertainty ACKNOWLEDGMENT This article was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic within the project IGA_FF_2020_012 "Qualitative research of critical moments of managerial practice" of Palacký University Olomouc.

cambridge Journal of Economics

David Dequech

Thematic Roundtable on Migration and Dislocation, Children’s Rights at a Crossroads. A Global Conference on Research and Child Rights, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 30 Nov.-2 Diciembre 2009 childwatch.uio.no

Norma Del Rio

Following the aphorism employed by a well known anthropologist: “if you don’t know the answer discuss the question”, I intend to reflect on the complexity of the mobile and circulating ways of life of a thousand million of people (PNUD, 2009) as a bidirectional phenomena of contrasting scenarios that emerge from the growing inequity that goes along with the globalization process. I comment on some strategies that families and their members display in order to maintain their agency in the face of exclusionary processes that dissociate instrumentality from identity at high costs of their well being. The continuous process of “moving on” (in different spaces and times) places emphasis on processes that reconstruct and redefine realities, leaving behind rigid institutional structures on which policies seem to be based. In this case, instead of classifying those phenomena as problematic and maintained in separate and parallel worlds, with defensive and reactive policies, there is urgent need of stretching the gap by recognizing them as social actors and unique persons, with community actions that build on social networks to promote the free use of their capabilities, so that everyone may be not just with others but among others.

Rolf Lidskog

Gerda Reith

This article examines the ways in which understand-ings of uncertainty have evolved during the development of modern-ity, and in particular, how they are expressed in the notion of 'risk'. It demonstrates how this concept is embedded in socioeconomic contexts and grounded in particular temporal orientations, specifically as expressed in notions of determinism and indeterminism. It suggests that, although the concept of risk initially embodied an orientation to the future as something that was predictable and open to human intervention, transformations in the structure of capitalism mean that its utility is now to be found in its role as a guide for action in late modern societies, in which the future has 'collapsed' into an indeterminate present. KEY WORDS • determinism • indeterminism • modernity • risk • temporality

Journal of Environmental Management

Suzanne Benn

Key concepts of Risk Society as elaborated by Ulrich Beck and others (Beck, U., 1992 (trans. Mark Ritter). The Risk Society. Sage Publications, London. Beck, U., 1995, Ecological Politics in the Age of Risk. Polity Press, Cambridge. Beck, U., 1999, World Risk Society. Polity Press, Cambridge. Giddens, A., 1994, Beyond Left and Right. Polity Press, Oxford. Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S., 1994, Reflexive Modernisation: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Beck, U., Bonss, W. and Lau, C., 2003, Theory, Culture & Society 2003, Sage, London, 20(2), pp. 1–33.) are illuminated though a case study of managed environmental risk, namely the hexachlorobenzene (HCB) controversy at Botany, a southeast suburb of Sydney. We observe the way multiple stakeholder decision-making plays out a number of Risk Society themes, including the emergence of ‘unbounded risk’ and of highly ‘individualised’ and ‘reflexive’ risk communities. Across several decades, the events of the HCB story support Risk Society predictions of legitimacy problems faced by corporations as they harness technoscientific support for innovation in their products and industrial processes without due recognition of social and environmental risk. Tensions involving identity, trust and access to expert knowledge advance our understanding of democratic ‘sub-political’ decision-making and ways of distributing environmental risk.

Moving graduate and professional education forward to develop leaders equipped to effectively address wicked problems

Eric k. kaufman.

1 Department of Agricultural, Leadership and Community Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg Virginia, USA

Nicole LP Stedman

2 Graduate School, University of Florida, Gainesville Florida, USA

The modern era's wicked problems create an impending need to develop leaders through graduate education, professional degree programs, and campus‐wide efforts. Shifts to leadership‐as‐practice and an eco‐leadership discourse may help transform leadership education and surface new signature pedagogies for the professions. How might the current reality drive leadership educators toward collaborative learning that aligns with these frameworks?

INTRODUCTION

Cassuto's ( 2015 ) Graduate School Mess challenged higher education professionals to reassess the purpose of graduate education. Are graduate education programs only preparing future faculty, or are there other career paths? This question is a point of contention for many graduate faculty and others around the world (Elliot et al., 2020 ; Yudkevich et al., 2020 ). To understand why, it is helpful to consider graduate education enrollment trends, professional aspirations, and the expanding role in professionalizing leadership.

TRENDS IN GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

In recent years, academic institutions have dealt with recessions, job market fluctuations, and a global pandemic (Sage & Matteucci, 2022 ). The recession of the early 2000s brought challenges to the job market, which surfaced questions about the value of graduate and professional degrees. If the goal is to ensure graduates have jobs, and there are no jobs, what purpose remains? However, amidst difficult times, higher education has pushed back and broadened access, opportunity, and pathways to pursue an advanced degree. As a result, the number of students applying to and enrolling in graduate programs has increased significantly (June, 2022 ). Following the 2008 recession, the number of students pursuing a PhD across the United States increased by nearly 40,000 students (Statista, 2020 ). Fundamental to this process, though, is the bounds that tradition sets on student expectations. Reflecting on the past century, Cassuto ( 2015 ) remarked that little—if anything—has changed in the “familiar structure of graduate education” (p. 132). Even still, the varying criteria for what equals a dissertation among the disciplines has only further extended the criticism of graduate education (Loss & Ryan, 2017 ).

In The Formation of Scholars , Walker et al. ( 2009 ) proposed that graduate educators rely on a more progressive strategy for development, integration, and collaboration—words faculty often recognize in higher education but have difficulty putting into action. Additionally, they argue for a community‐based model of graduate education, whereby students are exposed to and taught by several faculty instead of the traditional model of a singular faculty influence. These emerging and innovative strategies are already being demonstrated in many programs around the world (Boyd et al., 2019 ). However, even as new models of leadership education are implemented, the same kinds of questions still exist: What does it mean to develop an individual's leadership capacity, and how does that translate into academic and scholarly pursuits?

PREPARING GRADUATES FOR LEADERSHIP

In Professionalizing Leadership , Kellerman ( 2018 ) admonishes the “leadership industry” for failing to produce or prepare leaders for the societal challenges of today. Adding to the concern, higher education programs often fail to inspire the lifelong learning needed to meet the challenges of tomorrow (Weise, 2020 ). Indeed, the professional learning strategies required to address emerging challenges must leap beyond traditional, teacher‐centered approaches. When disciplines use reality as a context for learning, they create space for adult learning through expertise, experience, and embeddedness (Kellerman, 2018 ). Furthermore, there is growing evidence that practices like team science are the future for developing collaborative work environments (Hall et al., 2018 ). How might faculty and administrators move such leadership learning into transformative graduate education?

The traditional view of academic work for the sake of advancing knowledge no longer holds; there are growing calls for what Hoffman ( 2021 ) has identified as The Engaged Scholar . The shift from status to impact has influenced many of the ways that scholars are developed today, including more attention to the transformative doctoral education model (Patterson et al., 2019 ). While leadership educators have long worked to transform society's workplaces, schools, and communities; they must reclaim higher education's purpose in leadership development (Guthrie & Osteen, 2016 ). Furthermore, what has worked in the context of undergraduate leadership development “may not cleanly translate to a graduate leadership program model” (Georges & Breen, 2016 , p. 49). For many leadership educators, working with graduate and professional students presents a new challenge, in part because they must recognize and account for the developmental experiences of the learners. Werner explores this topic further within her article in this issue.

While all aspects of leadership education and leadership development remain important components, the emphasis in graduate education has slowly shifted to teams (Nguyen & Rowe, 2021 ). As noted by Onyura et al. ( 2019 ), “Leadership education needs to evolve to incorporate broader collective capacity building, as well as evidence‐informed strategies for leadership development” (p. 133). Leadership educators cannot transform graduate and professional education without a clear focus on the skills and capacities that will facilitate solving today's most pressing complex and wicked problems (Kawa et al., 2021 ; Onyura et al., 2019 ). Historically, many view science as an individual pursuit, but there is increasing recognition that today's problems cannot be solved with a singular scientific answer, and team science has become a priority for funding agencies. The Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide provides the basics for a scientist to acquaint oneself with teamwork in this context (Bennett et al., 2018 ). For leadership educators, though, the field guide provides a blueprint to create coursework and experiences that emphasize this growing need.

There is a growing trend to bring leadership learning to the forefront of academic programs; the technical skill base is no longer enough. Kellerman ( 2018 ) points to many disciplines that are expanding support to leadership learning, as well as institutions investing significant resources into leadership development programs. However, the caution of these programs—and their anticipation of transformation as a leader—is that this transformation cannot happen quickly or cheaply. Creation of meaningful leadership development experiences requires a long‐term intentional and strategic process, and that task is best curated by professional leadership educators.

Too many times, leadership development is approached through a 2‐day seminar lens. Decades ago, Townsend ( 2002 ) purported those one‐shot programs add awareness but do not meet the standard for true behavior change. Even then, she showcased the value of long and sustained exposure to leadership concepts. The complexity of emotional intelligence, teamwork, and understanding the nuances of different situations requires equally complex instructional methods. Simulations and assessments are not easily conducted or debriefed, and they are often expensive to do well. Guthrie and Jenkins ( 2018 ) outlined the key elements of leadership education in their book, The Role of Leadership Educators: Transforming Learning . What was essential to this work was identifying a framework for leadership learning.

While much has already been written about the value and place of a coordinated and intentional leadership development strategy, the idea of transformative leadership education is still growing and developing. Many institutions are relying upon years of trial and error with leadership learning, which says much about the importance and value of that process. Guthrie and Jenkins ( 2018 ) outlined with great specificity the characteristics of these programs, and the notion was clear that there is something distinctive about quality leadership learning that is truly transformative.

With the growing sentiment that society is in fact in a leadership crisis, it is essential to empower academic programs to engage in leadership learning. Yet, with that empowerment comes the recognition that not all leadership learning is equal; it is not all transformative. If graduate education programs want to make a mark on the future of the professionals they graduate, leadership learning must have a seat at the table, as Gleason and Moss Breen found in the results of their focus group (see their article in this issue). Involving leadership development professionals will change the nature of graduate and professional education, but it will also create significant impacts on the way those graduates approach the work of the world. It is through these transformative leadership experiences that humanity will solve the world's most complex and challenging problems.

TACKLING WICKED PROBLEMS THROUGH LEADERSHIP EDUCATION

“We are, apparently, living in unprecedented times, an Age of Uncertainty, when wicked problems whirl all around” (Grint, 2022 , p. 1). While Grint's elaboration on this observation casts some doubt on the “unprecedented” nature of current circumstances, he does not dispute the need for focused attention on wicked problems. In a typology of problems, power, and authority (Figure 1 ), Grint ( 2008 ) distinguishes between critical, tame, and wicked problems. With increasing uncertainty about the solution to a problem, the problem moves from being categorized as critical, to tame, to wicked. In parallel, Grint ( 2008 ) argues the appropriate response is to shift from coercion (that is, hard power) to more normative and collaborative approaches (that is, soft power). And, it is in the uncertainty and “soft power” where leadership is found.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is YD-2022-9-g001.jpg

A Typology of problems, power, and authority. Note : From “Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: The role of leadership,” by K. Grint, 2008 , Clinical Leader, 1(2), p. 58. Copyright by Keith Grint. Reprinted with permission.

In the context of graduate and professional education, disciplinary knowledge typically falls within the realm of critical and tame problems. For example, when a trained healthcare professional interacts with a patient, they may be asked to eliminate the patient's pain. Acute pain is likely a critical problem that can be addressed with medication, and chronic pain may be a tame problem that can be addressed through therapy. In contrast, though, healthcare professionals must also respond to societal issues, like a global pandemic, which is fraught with wicked problems that are not so easy to solve. The environment is filled with wicked problems. “If humanity truly aspires to address the grand challenges of today and tomorrow, then graduate education must be redesigned” (Kawa et al., 2021 , p. 1).

Regardless of whether someone wants to be identified as a leader and regardless of whether they have a degree in leadership studies, they are going to be asked and expected to engage in leadership—collaborative leadership that is characterized more by questions than answers. That is the inevitable fate of students in graduate and professional schools around the world. As a result, leadership education is needed now more than ever. Furthermore, because command approaches tend to be addictive, extra effort is needed to root leadership education in strategies for “persuading the collective to take responsibility for collective problems” (Grint, 2010 , p. 306).

The 2022 crisis in Ukraine presents an insightful case study for those who may doubt the critical importance of access, opportunity, and necessity of broad engagement in collaborative leadership. At the time we are writing this manuscript, Russia has invaded Ukraine and many outcomes remain unknown. However, the Ukrainian president who rallied his people began that work long before Russian troops crossed the Ukrainian border. In his 2019 inaugural address, President Zelenskyy ( 2019 ) proclaimed: “Each of us is the president…. This is not just mine; this is our common victory. And this is our common chance that we are responsible for together” (para. 1). As the crisis in Ukraine unfolded, people around the world compared “Two Men at War” (presidents Putin and Zelenskyy) and noted a potential shift in the collective understanding of effective leadership (Joseph, 2022 ).

While Zelenskyy's inauguration speech was met with some healthy skepticism, it reflects the sentiments of a modern leadership discourse, one that Western ( 2020 ) calls “eco‐leadership.” Based on a meta‐analysis of leadership from historical, socio‐political, and economic perspectives, Western ( 2019 ) identified four discourses of leadership during the past century: (a) controller, (b) therapist, (c) messiah, and (d) eco‐leadership (Figure 2 ). The discourses name the major shifts in the aggregated understanding of what leadership is, and what a leader should be. The strength of the four discourses is that they offer historical and social context for various conceptualizations of leadership. Considering the potential application to higher education, Redekop and Schleifer ( 2017 ) noted that the eco‐leadership paradigm “lays the groundwork for a general theory of leadership that is suited—and urgently needed—for our time” (p. 27).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is YD-2022-9-g003.jpg

Discourses of leadership over time. Note : From the discourses of leadership by Simon Western ( 2015 ) ( https://en.everybodywiki.com/File:Discourses_of_leadership.png ). In the public domain.

The eco‐leadership discourse holds promise for a wide variety of graduate and professional degree programs. While not every student needs to major in leadership studies, it is difficult to imagine an advanced degree that would not benefit from eco‐leadership's focus on connectivity. In their article in this issue, Gigliotti and Spear share the importance of preparing students for a future of increasing uncertainty. In a poignant article on “Training Wicked Scientists for a World of Wicked Problems,” Kawa et al. ( 2021 ) observed that expertise in a given field is no longer sufficient. Instead, scientists must be adept at collaborating with a broad range of stakeholders. The unique nature of wicked problems requires an adaptive approach, allowing for insight that emerges only through collective inquiry and engagement with the problem at hand (Hull et al., 2021 ). Accordingly, there is increased attention to leadership studies in professional schools, including programs for educating lawyers (Brogan, 2021 ), physicians (Stoller, 2020 ), business professionals (Sowcik & Allen, 2013 ), veterinarians (Elwood, 2021 ), religious professionals (Clark, 2021 ), engineers (Klassen et al., 2020 ), pharmacists (Reed et al., 2019 ), and dental professionals (Grocock, 2020 ). In their article within this issue, Lubker and Petrusa offer timely examples that illuminate how developing leaders in graduate and professional school settings is increasingly vital for the professional student. The common thread across all programs is a recognition of the importance of collaboration and teamwork.

For example, in the context of dentistry, Grocock ( 2020 ) advocated for “shared and collective leadership” in the form of “well‐structured teams” (p. 884). In the context of law schools, Teague ( 2022 ) observed that leadership education “elevates professional formation from a focus on singular client matters to broader societal implications” (p. 17). In short, the task is to prepare these professionals to address wicked problems. And, of course, the work associated with wicked problems is not limited to select professions. According to Hull et al. ( 2021 ), leadership for wicked situations involves an array of professionals working in three key practices: “(1) coordinate the actions of widely dispersed actors who do not have authority over one another; (2) collaborate across widening differences of opinion, expertise, and culture; and (3) manage confounding uncertainties that otherwise cause analysis‐paralysis and fear of failure” (p. 152). With this in mind, the connection between wicked problems and eco‐leadership is clear. It is time for leadership educators to rise to the challenge, working to better meet the needs of graduate and professional education.

CHARTING A PATH FORWARD

A recent column in The Economist outlined “A Guide for Wannabe Leadership Gurus” (Bartleby, 2022 ). The sarcastic advice includes “striking the right note of unreality” (para. 3) and looking for opportunities to “connect dots even (perhaps especially) when there are no dots to join” (para. 6). While such a strategy might produce higher book sales, it is not the formula for tackling wicked problems. Instead, leadership educators must be more intentional with attending to the desired results for leadership (Kellerman, 2018 ).

In the context of graduate and professional education, leadership educators must be pragmatic in their work, drawing upon practical, real‐world experience. “Graduate students flourish through learning experiences that tap into the richness of their lived experience, prior knowledge, and direct application to current endeavors” (Simen & Meyer, 2021 , p. 115). While it is true that the work involves preparing students for positions that may not yet exist (Weise, 2020 ), it is also true that leadership educators can prepare students with skills and cognitive capabilities that are broadly applicable (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021 ). Toward this end, Bloomquist et al. ( 2018 ) propose creation of interdisciplinary leadership graduate programs that embrace andragogy (that is, principles of adult learning) in the development of scholar‐practitioners, and they offer four specific recommendations:

“Structure the learning environment to encourage interdisciplinary interactions,”
“Build reflection directly into each course,”
“Expect students to bring their work and life into the conversation,” and
“Build instructor capacity to be comfortable with ambiguity” (p. 62).

The last point (that is, developing comfort with ambiguity) may be particularly challenging during a time when universities are trying to market the expertise of their faculty. The cultural environment might demand more certainty, especially among the “expert” leadership scholars and professionals. In his article within this issue, Martin elaborates on the many time constraints on those working in higher education. However, institutions of higher education also encourage the generation of new knowledge through active experimentation, and leadership educators can leverage that value in their approach. As an example, consider Pianesi and Hufnagel's ( 2017 ) book, Teachable Moments of Leadership: Case‐in‐Point Resources for Daring Leadership Educators . Importantly, graduate and professional leadership programs must instill an appreciation for experimentation and actively learn within the ambiguity.

Leadership‐as‐practice (LAP) holds particular promise as a framework for leadership education in graduate and professional schools. LAP represents a modern approach to leadership challenges, conceiving of “leadership as occurring as a practice rather than residing in the traits or behaviors of particular individuals” (Raelin, 2016 , p. 3). While some may perceive LAP as a “leaderless” approach, it is actually “leaderful,” characterized by four tenets of leaderful practice.

Collective leadership: Everyone in the group can serve in leadership; the team is not dependent on one individual to take over. The members of the group co‐create the enterprise.
Concurrent leadership: There can be more than one person operating in leadership at the same time. Members contribute to leadership in different and important ways.
Collaborative leadership: Anyone can speak for the entire team. All members commit to each other's learning. Together they engage in a mutual dialog to determine what needs to be done and how to do it.
Compassionate leadership: All participants commit to preserving the dignity of every member of the team, regardless of their background, social standing, level, or point of view (Raelin, 2021 , p. 283).

To study LAP is to be curious about how leadership emerges and unfolds through practical experience (Raelin, 2016 ), and that is a laudable goal for graduate and professional education.

Advancing LAP from an interesting theory of leadership to a useful leadership development approach requires both intentionality and collaboration. Toward that end, Denyer and Turnbull James ( 2016 ) introduced leadership‐as‐practice development (LaPD), which involves four principles:

“Reviewing and renewing the leadership concept held by learners and their organizations” (p. 264),
“Surfacing and working with leadership processes, practices, and interactions” (p. 265),
“Working in the learners’ context on their organizational problems and adaptive challenges” (p. 266), and
“Working with the emotional and political dynamics of leadership in the system” (p. 267).

In short, LaPD “introduces an element of inquiry whereby learners and tutors collectively search for potential solutions to the problem or issue to be addressed” (Denyer & Turnbull James, 2016 , p. 269). While LaPD aligns with interdisciplinary pedagogies and has been used in some professional learning contexts, the opportunity remains for embedding LaPD in graduate and professional education to meet the challenge of wicked problems.

Pedagogically, LaPD can be facilitated through facilitation of collaborative leadership learning groups (CLLGs), which are “anchored in practice, bringing together learners who can identify and work together on the challenges they face collectively” (Denyer & Turnbull James, 2016 , p. 269). In fact, CLLGs may hold promise as a signature pedagogy for graduate and professional education. In the seminal work on “Signature Pedagogies in the Professions,” Shulman ( 2005 ) observed that signature pedagogies have three dimensions: surface structure, deep structure, and implicit structure. The surface structure involves dialogues and interactions entirely under the control of an authoritative professor (for example, lectures and reading assignments); the deep structure is reflected in long‐standing theories and principles associated with the subject matter; and the implicit structure is the expected interactions among individuals, including assumptions about roles and responsibilities. As displayed in Figure 3 , signature pedagogies refer to the ways of teaching that require students “to do, think, and value what practitioners in the field are doing, thinking, and valuing” (Calder, 2006 , p. 1361). So, if graduate and professional education require more attention to teaming, and the eco‐leadership discourse is recognized as an appropriate response to wicked problems, CLLGs may be the signature pedagogy leadership educators need.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is YD-2022-9-g002.jpg

Relationship between signature pedagogies and professional preparation

So, how can leadership educators advance the collaborative learning needed to address wicked problems? An important first step is to promote and facilitate the eco‐leadership discourse, not only with students but also with colleagues and other stakeholders. In essence, we need to be “stewards of the leadership discipline” (Malakyan, 2021 , p. 457). Then, as opportunities arise, leadership educators should encourage application of LaPD and CLLGs in coursework and professional learning forums that extend beyond the traditional reach of social science. Our institutions and our world depend on our success with this effort. In the final article of this issue, Moss Breen and Gleason elaborate on future directions of the leadership field as we progress within graduate and professional school settings.

Biographies

Eric K. Kaufman (he/him) is a professor in the Department of Agricultural, Leadership, and Community Education at Virginia Tech. He researches and promotes best practices for collective leadership, with special emphasis on problem solving and team development.

Nicole LP Stedman (she/her) is associate provost and dean of the Graduate School at the University of Florida. Her scholarship, grounded in critical thinking pedagogy, has driven her collaborative work in developing models of Emotionally Engaged Thinking (EET), which promotes use of emotion as a catalyst for decision‐making.

Kaufman, E. K. , & Stedman, N. L. P. (2022). Moving graduate and professional education forward to develop leaders equipped to effectively address wicked problems . New Directions for Student Leadership , 2022 , 9–18. 10.1002/yd.20526 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Bartleby, (2022 February 19). A wannabe guide for leadership gurus: How aspiring management writers can stand out in a crowded field . The Economist. https://www.economist.com/business/2022/02/19/a‐guide‐for‐wannabe‐leadership‐gurus [ Google Scholar ]
Bennett, L. M. , Gadlin, H. , & Marchand, C. (2018). Collaboration and team science: A field guide (2nd ed.). National Cancer Institute. [ Google Scholar ]
Bloomquist, C. D. , Georges, L. , Ford, D. J. , & Breen, J. M. (2018). Interdisciplinary leadership practices in graduate leadership education programs . Journal of Leadership Studies , 12 ( 2 ), 60–63. 10.1002/jls.21579 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Boyd, B. L. , Getz, C. A. , & Guthrie, K. L. (2019). Preparing the leadership educator through graduate education . New Directions for Student Leadership , 2019 ( 164 ), 105–121. 10.1002/yd.20361 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brogan, D. D. T. (2021). Stories of leadership, good and bad: Another modest proposal for teaching leadership in law schools . Journal of the Legal Profession , 45 ( 2 ), 183–228. 10.2139/ssrn.3784832 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Calder, L. (2006). Uncoverage: Toward a signature pedagogy for the history survey . The Journal of American History , 92 ( 4 ), 1358–1370. 10.2307/4485896 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cassuto, L. (2015). The graduate school mess . Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Cassuto, L. , & Weisbuch, R. (2021). The new PhD: How to build a better graduate education . Johns Hopkins University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Clark, P. A. (2021). The church's leader training challenge: More than one way to address the need . InSights Journal for Global Theological Education , 6 ( 2 ), 72–89. [ Google Scholar ]
Denyer, D. , & Turnbull James, K. (2016). Doing leadership‐as‐practice development. In Raelin J. A. (Ed.), Leadership‐as‐practice: Theory and application (pp. 262–283). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315684123-13 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Elliot, D. L. , Bengtsen, S. S. , Guccione, K. , & Kobayashi, S. (2020). The hidden curriculum in doctoral education . Springer Nature. [ Google Scholar ]
Elwood, C. (2021). Leadership in veterinary medicine . Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
Georges, L. C. , & Breen, J. M. (2016). How can we best teach leadership at the graduate level? An essential dialogue for leadership educators . Proceedings of the Association of Leadership Educators 26th Annual Conference , 47–55.
Grint, K. (2008). Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: The role of leadership . Clinical Leader , 1 ( 2 ), 54–68. [ Google Scholar ]
Grint, K. (2010). The cuckoo clock syndrome: Addicted to command, allergic to leadership . European Management Journal , 28 ( 4 ), 306–313. 10.1016/j.emj.2010.05.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grint, K. (2022). Critical essay: Wicked problems in the age of uncertainty . Human Relations , 75 ( 8 ), 1518–1532. 10.1177/00187267211070770 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grocock, R. (2020). Leadership in dentistry . British Dental Journal , 228 ( 11 ), 882–885. 10.1038/s41415-020-1633-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Guthrie, K. L. , & Jenkins, D. M. (2018). The role of leadership educators: Transforming learning . Information Age Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
Guthrie, K. L. , & Osteen, L. (Eds.). (2016). Reclaiming higher education's purpose in leadership development: New Directions for Higher Education , 174 . Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
Hall, K. L. , Vogel, A. L. , Huang, G. C. , Serrano, K. J. , Rice, E. L. , Tsakraklides, S. P. , & Fiore, S. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science . American Psychologist , 73 ( 4 ), 532–548. 10.1037/amp0000319 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hoffman, A. J. (2021). The engaged scholar: Expanding the impact of academic research in today's world . Stanford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Hull, R. B. , Robertson, D. P. , & Mortimer, M. (2021). Teaching leadership skills to sustainability professionals. In Filho W. L., Salvia A. L., & Frankenberger F. (Eds.), Handbook on teaching and learning for sustainable development (pp. 152–162). Edward Elgar. 10.4337/9781839104657.00017 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Joseph, J. (Executive Producer). (2022, March 6). Two men at war . George Stephanopoulos Productions. [ Google Scholar ]
June, A. W. (2022, April). Higher ed added more than 9,000 Master's‐degree programs in less than a decade . The Chronicle of Higher Education , 68 ( 15 ), 2. https://www.chronicle.com/issue/2022/04-01 [ Google Scholar ]
Kawa, N. C. , Arceño, M. A. , Goeckner, R. , Hunter, C. E. , Rhue, S. J. , Scaggs, S. A. , Biwer, M. E. , Downey, S. S. , Field, J. S. , Gremillion, K. , McCorriston, J. , Willow, A. , Newton, E. , & Moritz, M. (2021). Training wicked scientists for a world of wicked problems . Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , 8 ( 189 ), 1–4. 10.1057/s41599-021-00871-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kellerman, B. (2018). Professionalizing leadership . Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Klassen, M. , Reeve, D. , Evans, G. J. , Rottmann, C. , Sheridan, P. K. , & Simpson, A. (2020). Engineering: Moving leadership from the periphery to the core of an intensely technical curriculum . New Directions for Student Leadership , 2020 ( 165 ), 113–124. 10.1002/yd.20373 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Loss, C. P. , & Ryan, Jr, C. J. (2017). The dissertation dilemma and the challenge of American graduate education . The Good Society , 25 ( 2‐3 ), 313–331. 10.5325/goodsociety.25.2-3.0313 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Malakyan, P. G. (2021). Doctoral leadership programs: Preparing stewards of the leadership discipline. In Tolstikov‐Mast Y., Bieri F., & Walker J. L. (Eds.), Handbook of international and cross‐cultural leadership research processes (pp. 457–484). Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
Nguyen, D. J. , & Rowe, A. K. C. (2021). Developing class consciousness leadership education in graduate and professional schools . New Directions for Student Leadership , 2021 ( 169 ), 111–119. 10.1002/yd.20427 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Onyura, B. , Crann, S. , Tannenbaum, D. , Whittaker, M. K. , Murdoch, S. , & Freeman, R. (2019). Is postgraduate leadership education a match for the wicked problems of health systems leadership? A critical systematic review . Perspectives on Medical Education , 8 ( 3 ), 133–142. 10.1007/s40037-019-0517-2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Patterson, C. A. , Chang, C. N. , Lavadia, C. N. , Pardo, M. L. , Fowler, D. A. , & Butler‐Purry, K. (2019). Transforming doctoral education: preparing multidimensional and adaptive scholars . Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–34. 10.1108/SGPE-03-2019-0029 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pianesi, A. , & Hufnagel, J. (2017). Teachable moments of leadership: Case‐in‐point resources for daring leadership educators . Adriano Pianesi. [ Google Scholar ]
Raelin, J. A. , (Ed.). (2016). Leadership‐as‐practice: Theory and application . Routledge. 10.4324/9781315684123 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Raelin, J. A. (2021). Action learning as a human resource development resource to realize collective leadership . Human Resource Development Review , 20 ( 3 ), 282–288. 10.1177/15344843211022600 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Redekop, B. , & Schleifer, I. (2017). The eco‐leadership paradigm in the classroom and beyond. In Miller V. W. (Ed.), Apocalyptic leadership in education: Facing an unsustainable world from where we stand (pp. 13–32). Information Age Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
Reed, B. N. , Klutts, A. M. , & Mattingly, T. J. (2019). A systematic review of leadership definitions, competencies, and assessment methods in pharmacy education . American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education , 83 ( 9 ). 10.5688/ajpe7520 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sage, R. , & Matteucci, R. (Eds.). (2022). How world events are changing education: Politics, education, social, technology . Brill. [ Google Scholar ]
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions . Daedalus , 134 ( 3 ), 52–59. [ Google Scholar ]
Simen, J. H. , & Meyer, T. (2021). Leadership education in professional and graduate schools . New Directions for Student Leadership , 2021 ( 171 ), 113–122. 10.1002/yd.20461 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sowcik, M. , & Allen, S. J. (2013). Getting down to business: A look at leadership education in business schools . Journal of Leadership Education , 12 ( 3 ), 57–75. 10.12806/V12/I3/TF3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Statista . (2020). Number of doctoral degrees earned in the United States from 1949/50 to 2029/30, by gender . https://www.statista.com/statistics/185167/number‐of‐doctoral‐degrees‐by‐gender‐since‐1950/
Stoller, J. K. (2020). Developing physician leaders: does it work? BMJ Leader , 4 ( 1 ), 1–5. 10.1136/leader-2018-000116 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Teague, L. (2022). Growing number of leadership programs and courses supports professional identity formation . Santa Clara Law Review , 62 ( 1 ), 149–173. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol62/iss1/7 [ Google Scholar ]
Townsend, C. D. (2002). Leadership education: Fantasy or reality . Journal of Leadership Education , 1 ( 1 ), 35–40. 10.12806/V1/I1/RF1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Walker, G. E. , Golde, C. M. , Jones, L. , Bueschel, A. C. , & Hutchings, P. (2009). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty‐first century . Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
Weise, M. R. (2020). Long life learning: Preparing for jobs that don't even exist yet . Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
Western, S. (2015). The Discourses of Leadership . https://en.everybodywiki.com/File:Discourses_of_leadership.png
Western, S. (2019). Leadership: A critical text (3rd ed.). SAGE. [ Google Scholar ]
Western, S. (2020), March 12. A brief guide to eco‐leadership . Social Science Space. https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2020/03/a‐brief‐guide‐to‐eco‐leadership/ [ Google Scholar ]
Yudkevich, M. , Altbach, P. G. , & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (2020). Trends and issues in doctoral education: A global perspective . SAGE. [ Google Scholar ]
Zelenskyy, V. (2019, May 20). Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Inaugural Address . President of Ukraine. https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/inavguracijna‐promova‐prezidenta‐ukrayini‐volodimira‐zelensk‐55489

The Rise of ‘Wicked Problems’—Uncertainty, Complexity and Divergence

Open Access
First Online: 03 March 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

critical essay wicked problems in the age of uncertainty

Brian W. Head 2

22k Accesses

1 Citations

1 Altmetric

Rittel and Webber argued that scientific and technocratic approaches for tackling the difficult issues of social policy and urban planning were bound to be inadequate. A ‘scientific’ approach to understanding the nature of these problems necessarily overlooks the significance of different stakeholder perspectives in the framing or constituting of social problems. Recognising these differences is thus crucial for developing acceptable solutions to the policy challenges. Science and engineering approaches produce reliable knowledge but are appropriate only for technical issues where the key variables are measurable, and optimal solutions can be agreed. These are the ‘tame’ or ‘benign’ problems, with clear boundaries and agreed solutions. By contrast, modern social problems are ‘wicked’ problems, because stakeholders disagree about the nature of these problems, about possible solutions, and about the values or principles that should guide improvements. Hence, policies addressing social problems can never be optimal in the engineering sense, but robust policies could incorporate insights from stakeholder engagement. With the growing popularity of ‘wicked’ terminology, recent scholarly analysts have worried it has become a catchword rather than a critical concept. They have also wished to reconsider the stark contrast between ‘tame’ and ‘wicked’ problems, calling for refinement of the ‘either/or’ dichotomy. And other writers have raised epistemological issues about the respective contributions of scientific, political and stakeholder knowledge for understanding and resolving difficult issues.

You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF

Policy controversies
Tame problems
Wicked problems
Scientific methods
Rational problem-solving
Stakeholder engagement

Introduction

Horst Rittel and Mel Webber’s paper ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’ (1973) introduced the core concept of ‘wicked problems’ to a wide audience of academics and practitioners. This chapter considers the development of their concept, in the context of the 1960s and 1970s literature on policy and planning. The later sections note the subsequent debates about the enduring legacy of the concepts championed by Rittel and Webber, the influence of their approach on policy analysis and policy governance, and some recent criticisms and perceived limitations of their framework. More nuanced approaches to understanding and managing intractable issues are emerging.

The concept of ‘wicked problems’ has now entered the mainstream lexicon of policy discussion. However it took many years to achieve such widespread attention. The term ‘wicked problems’ did not feature in 1973 in either the title or the key words listed in their paper. Indeed, the term itself was not closely analysed or widely cited for more than two decades. After a slow start, the term gradually became more widely known, perhaps driven by emerging concerns with complex, interconnected and contested problems such as social equity and environmental sustainability. The phrase also had to overcome a common mis-perception that ‘wicked’ problems must be about ethical choices and moral values, whereas in actuality they were about unruly and intractable problems:

As you will see, we are calling them ‘wicked’ not because these properties are themselves ethically deplorable. We use the term ‘wicked’ in a meaning akin to that of ‘malignant’ (in contrast to ‘benign’) or ‘vicious’ (like a circle) or ‘tricky’ (like a leprechaun) or ‘aggressive’ (like a lion, in contrast to the docility of a lamb). We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by implying malicious intent. (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 160)

Thirty years later the article was gradually being cited at an accelerating pace, achieving over 100 annual citations (Scopus metrics) for the first time in 2008; and this growth pattern has continued with well over 500 annual citations in recent years. It became the most highly cited paper in Policy Sciences , and by 2021 had achieved over 7000 citations in academic journals (Scopus) and over 17,000 citations in the broader database of Google Scholar. The terminology has attracted a wide cross-disciplinary uptake spanning a broad range of social sciences, especially in environment and sustainability, systems and design, public policy, social policy and urban planning (citations in http://citations.springer.com/item?doi=10.1007/BF01405730&years= ). Some critics thought it had become a fashionable or faddish concept, but devoid of precise meaning. Perhaps ‘wicked’ must inevitably lose its lustre, as often occurs in the ‘hype cycle’ of optimism and disillusion identified in the literature on innovation (Fenn & Raskino, 2008)?

The origins of this 1973 paper, and its links to the academic debates of the late 1960s, have been sketched in several reflections published by the colleagues and students of Rittel and Webber. It is clear that Horst Rittel (1930–1990) was the principal architect of the ‘wicked problem’ conceptualisation (Churchman, 1967; Crowley & Head, 2017a; Protzen & Harris, 2010). A professor of design studies at the Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, Rittel had arrived in the USA in 1963 from a career in Germany, and he maintained close affiliations with Stuttgart and other German universities. While teaching design and architecture, he also had broader interests in planning, engineering and policymaking. As a ‘design planner’ and team leader, he intuitively linked the fields of design and politics, using methods that drew attention to the politics of design and the processes of political argumentation needed to manage wicked problems (Rith & Dubberly, 2007).

Rittel first proposed the notion of wicked problems in a public seminar in 1967, describing wicked problems as ‘that class of social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing’ (Churchman, 1967, B-141). He presented these ideas to students and colleagues in various courses and seminar presentations, including a key paper to the Panel on Policy Sciences at the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) in December 1969, and again in Norway in 1971. He published an important paper in German on planning crises, design methods and wicked problems in 1972 (Rittel, 1972), soon to be followed by the classic co-authored paper in Policy Sciences (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Melvin M. Webber (1920–2006) was a fellow professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Mel Webber had participated in the 1967 seminar, and contributed to the 1969 AAAS conference paper. According to Skaburskis, Webber spent years trying to nudge Rittel into publishing the wicked problems paper in a US journal, leading eventually to finalising the classic article in 1973 (Skaburskis, 2008, p. 277). For a list of Rittel’s writings, see Rith et al. (2007).

Webber had independently concluded that rationality was a comforting myth of scholars and practitioners in the planning profession. As he wrote in two later papers:

The attractiveness of the idea of scientific planning has been hard to resist, for it has held out the promise of right answers, of revealing what we should want, and of saying what we need to do. It seduces with the prospect of certainty, and thus with the prospect of relief from the discomforts of ambiguity and of having to decide things in the face of conflicting evidence and competing wants. (Webber, 1978, p. 152) The classical model of rational planning is fundamentally flawed. It assumes widespread consensus on goals, causal theory sufficiently developed as to permit prediction, and effective instrumental knowledge. None of these conditions pertains…[Central planning should constrain itself]… to constituting the rules for deciding and to promoting open debate. (Webber, 1983, p. 89)

In the late 1950s and early 1960s Rittel had initially joined in developing and refining the orthodox rational approach to design and planning methods utilising a rigorous, scientific, systems-based approach. However, by the late 1960s, he had shifted towards a ‘second generation’ design approach based on social networks, communication and feedback processes (Protzen & Harris, 2010; Rith & Dubberly, 2007). The turbulent US socio-political context of the early 1970s caused many commentators to reflect on the fundamental contradiction between the achievements of technological systems (where rationality, order and control had allowed NASA to put a man on the moon) and the evident social complexities and policy chaos of the USA in the face of relentless social challenges (Nelson, 1974; Wildavsky, 1973). These dilemmas and paradoxes informed the knowledge framework for wicked problems analysis.

The seminar at which Rittel proposed the notion of wicked problems was organised by systems theorist West Churchman (1967), who at that time was exploring ways to transfer any ‘lessons’ from space technology program management into the contrasting ‘world of urban problems’ (Skaburskis, 2008, p. 277). Rittel had listed ten differences between scientific and social problems in his 1967 seminar. With minor adjustments these formed the framework for the complex definition of wicked problems in ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’. The Abstract of the 1973 article announces their core arguments:

The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, because of the nature of these problems. They are ‘wicked’ problems, whereas science has developed to deal with ‘tame’ problems. Policy problems cannot be definitively described. Moreover, in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the undisputable public good; there is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about ‘optimal solutions’ to social problems unless severe qualifications are imposed first. Even worse, there are no ‘solutions’ in the sense of definitive and objective answers. (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 155)

Rittel and Webber became well known for developing these distinctions between significant social problems—especially ‘wicked’ problems characterised by differences in values and perspectives—and more technical problems (typified by contemporary challenges in engineering, operations research and computational science). Whereas wicked problems could only be advanced through stakeholder engagement, technical problems (‘tame’ or ‘benign’ problems) could in most cases be solved by relying on existing forms of knowledge such as the operating logics of engineering and computation. Although Rittel and Webber made contributions to a richer form of systems theory, by emphasising social complexity and social interconnections, their primary intellectual legacy rested upon their characterisation of wicked problems as confounding the rational approach to problem-solving and social improvement.

Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning

Rittel and Webber rejected the suitability of rational-systems (data analysis) approaches to policy development, arguing instead that all the professions concerned with social analysis and planning should focus on understanding the aspirations and values of the people rather than developing expert-led comprehensive plans. A reconsideration of the fundamentals of policy and planning theory and practice had been prompted in the 1960s and 1970s by widespread sources of social dissent—especially the many protest movements that radically disrupted America and Europe. In criticising the rational planning approach, Rittel and Webber argued that:

the classical paradigm of science and engineering – the paradigm that has underlain modern professionalism – is not applicable to the problems of open societal systems….. The kinds of problems that planners deal with – societal problems – are inherently different from the problems that scientists and perhaps some classes of engineers deal with. Planning problems are inherently wicked. (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 160)

While rational-systems theory had been useful as an analytic approach in the 1950s and 1960s, it was clear to Rittel and Webber that analysis should be broadened to account for diverse ‘systemic networks’ that are ‘interacting, open’ and ‘interconnected’ (1973, pp. 156–159). They argued that social problems cannot be successfully addressed by following a traditional computational-engineering approach which assumes that social problems can be defined, dissected and solved as if they were ‘tame’ and ‘benign’. Wicked problems, which include ‘nearly all public policy issues’ (1973, p. 160), are indeed the opposite of being precise and manageable. They are ‘ill-defined’ and ‘malignant’. They cannot be definitively ‘solved’. Instead, they are dependent on ‘elusive political judgment for resolution…over and over again’ (1973, p. 160). Furthermore, social upheavals reflect the politicisation of numerous ‘subpublics’ that pursue ‘a diversity of goals’ inspired by different ‘valuative bases’, thereby representing a shift away from a unitary conception of the ‘American way of life’ towards ‘numerous ways of life that are also American’ (1973, pp. 156, 167–168).

They summed up the distinctive features of wicked problems in ten propositions (see Box).

Wicked Problems Defined

Proposition 1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.

Proposition 2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.

Proposition 3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad.

Proposition 4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.

Proposition 5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one-shot operation’; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.

Proposition 6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or exhaustively desirable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.

Proposition 7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.

Proposition 8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.

Proposition 9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.

Proposition 10. The planner has no right to be wrong.

(Rittel & Webber, 1973, pp. 161–167).

This framework has much to say about the deficiencies of the orthodox ‘scientific’ approach of previous generations and has less to say about alternative methods for addressing wicked problems. They identified the ‘dilemmas’ and paradoxes of scientific social planning but they had few recommendations about alternative ways to manage and reconcile social complexities and political diversity. It is clear, however, that the fundamental principle is to recognise plural perspectives and to work with this pluralism rather than suppress it. Pluralism is seen as an inherent feature of modern societies, and as a positive feature to be celebrated (Webber, 1978, 1983; Rittel & Webber, 1973) rather than an inconvenience to be suppressed through technocracy and scientistic decision-making.

In rejecting ‘rational’ expert planning, they emphasised the need to support processes ‘fostering…multiplicities of potential outcomes compatible with the wants of plural publics’ (Webber, 1983, p. 89). Fischer adds that since the 1960s the technocratic version of social planning and policy analysis, which sought to imitate the physical sciences, had become more oriented to ‘the principles of prediction and control of behavior rather than the values of human dignity, critical reflection, and democratic participation’ (Fischer, 1990, p. 345). Schön argued that the distinction between means and ends is fundamental for understanding these different orientations. Decision-making is quite different when values and objectives are in dispute. Schön noted that ‘technical rationality’ assumes there is agreement on clear goals and ends. In that case, decision-making can treat the problem as an ‘instrumental’ choice about methods or means to achieve the agreed ends.

But when ends are confusing or conflicting, there is as yet no ‘problem’ to solve. A conflict of ends cannot be resolved by the use of techniques derived from applied research. (Schön, 1983, p. 41)

As understood by the students and colleagues of Rittel and Webber, the process of ‘argumentation’ they advocated came to be seen as the main method for managing wicked problems (Rith & Dubberly, 2007, p. 73). Having rejected the more technocratic versions of planning and policymaking, the alternative was stakeholder engagement and dialogue. In short, policy argumentation, through inclusive and trustworthy processes of democratic debate and stakeholder dialogue, seemed the most appropriate way to overcome unproductive dissension and to improve policy outcomes. Webber (1983) argued that ‘decentralised’ decision-making that is ‘pluralistic and responsive’ is more likely to produce ‘acceptable outcomes’ and to permit adaptations to change (Webber, 1983, p. 99). This approach was consistent with the frameworks developed through the 1980s and 1990s by the advocates of participatory policymaking and planning, civic engagement and conflict resolution (e.g. Forester, 1993; Fischer, 1993; Schön & Rein, 1994; Innes, 1995; Healey, 1997, part 3; Conklin, 2006; Innes & Booher, 2010). In recent years, with the development of more sophisticated artificial intelligence systems, planning practitioners have begun experimenting with techniques which can combine participatory discussion of scenarios with digital learning system techniques, thus integrating the benefits of stakeholder inclusion and information science (Geertman & Stilwell, 2020).

The Diffusion of the Concept

Recent research on policy framing and agenda-setting has confirmed there is a wide spectrum of policy challenges. At one end, some relatively straightforward issues can be defined and understood with reasonable clarity, and can be resolved with a reasonable level of agreement. Much of the literature of the late 1960s and early 1970s took computational logic as a yardstick for judging whether problems were well-specified (Simon, 1973). Under those criteria, some problems were seen as ‘ill-structured’. Rittel and Webber, and many other authors, rejected this simple logic-based and rule-based approach to problem structuring in order to focus on the human dimension of entangled and ambiguous problems.

The proposition that some policy problems can be seen as relatively straightforward (‘tame’), while others can be seen as inherently intractable (‘wicked’), proved to be very attractive. Many authors concerned to tackle tough problems developed similar conceptions, but often used such synonyms as ‘unstructured’ or ‘contested’ or ‘unruly’ or ‘fuzzy’ problems. Many took up the challenge of analysing problems whose features and connections were ‘messy’ or ‘turbulent’ (Ackoff, 1974; Ansell et al., 2016; Horn & Weber, 2007; Mason & Mitroff, 1981; Ney, 2009; Roe, 2013). Gradually, the language of ‘wicked’ problems accelerated markedly, as shown by the massive increase in citations of Rittel and Webber’s paper. Fischer (1993), one of the first analysts to apply the wicked problem concept, arguing that ‘wicked’ or ‘intractable’ problems ‘seem only to respond to increased doses of participation’ (p. 172). Fischer aligned wicked problems with ‘recalcitrant’, ‘undisciplined’, ‘uncontrollable’ and ‘unmanageable’ problems (p. 175), and he suggested that collaborative inquiry involving both citizens and experts could hold the key to resolving contemporary policy problems.

There is now a lively scholarly debate about whether the wide diffusion of the concept of wicked problems has made it compelling and persuasive, across a broad sweep of disciplines—economic, social, health and environment. The alternative view, discussed in a later section of this chapter, is that the uncritical usage and generalisation of the concept has undermined its analytical value (Peters, 2017), and that more precise conceptual distinctions are needed. Indeed, wicked problems have been identified and described across a vast range of disciplines and policy domains (business, cybernetics, ecology, agriculture, urban design, energy, transportation, health, socio-economic sciences and political-administrative sciences). In the field of management studies, and business strategy in particular, a vast literature continues to explore how business leaders develop strategies for successfully navigating risk and uncertainty (Cunha & Cunha, 2006; Power, 2007; Raynor, 2007; Stacey, 1992). Here, the language of wicked problems has provided a way for leaders to make sense of rapid changes, disruptive conditions and divergent perspectives, by reflecting on adaptive management scenarios, supported by good information and strong networks:

Wicked problems often crop up when organizations have to face constant change or unprecedented challenges. They occur in a social context; the greater the disagreement among stakeholders, the more wicked the problem. In fact, it is the social complexity of wicked problems as much as their technical difficulties that make them tough to manage. (Camillus, 2008, p. 100)

By the 2000s, the ‘wicked’ context of contemporary social problems was becoming widely acknowledged and appreciated. Constructivist interpretations on problem framing and policy strategies had become well established in the literature (e.g. Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003), paving the way for a new wave of reflective analysis that remains increasingly important today. The debate has intensified between those favouring scientific quantification and those anchored in more contextualist analysis that takes seriously the frames and narratives of stakeholders. As one of the leading critics of scientism has suggested, it is important to develop ‘a social science which effectively deals with public deliberation and praxis, rather than being stranded with a social science that vainly attempts to emulate natural science’ (Flyvbjerg, 2001, p. 129).

Linking Problem Types and Policy Responses

How do the important differences in types of problems impact on the design challenge for developing more effective policy and governance arrangements? Scholars in the policy sciences have developed several typologies for analysing the different dynamics of various policy challenges. Most of these typologies distinguish between various policy actors, their power and resources, specific policy issues within broader policy fields, the choice of relevant policy instruments, different venues for deliberation, and so forth.

Some of this literature has emerged from a practitioner-oriented setting, rather than a technical-experts inquiry process. For example, analysis of problem situations and developing action responses is a common focus of multi-stakeholder workshops facilitated by management consultants; similarly, management education courses on strategic problem-solving often examine case studies and scenarios which challenge practitioners to analyse the underlying issues and design appropriate responses. Two of the best known approaches were developed independently in the Harvard Kennedy School by Ronald Heifetz (1994) and by Mark Moore (1995).

Heifetz proposed that three types of problem situations need to be distinguished. (1) In situations when the nature of the problem and the nature of the solution are both agreed by relevant actors, the work of policy implementation and oversight can be left with the professional managers and relevant holders of expert knowledge. (2) In situations when the nature of the problem is widely agreed but there is uncertainty about the appropriate solution, a wider circle of stakeholders and experts need to be involved to identify effective practical actions and provisional solutions, while allowing for further revision and adaptation as collective learning increases over time. (3) Where both the nature of the problem and the appropriate policy response are uncertain, there needs to be a highly adaptive ongoing approach to clarifying uncertainties, with strong reliance on feedback and continuous discussion among stakeholders and knowledge experts to improve outcomes (Heifetz, 1994, chap. 4). On the other hand, Mark Moore developed executive education courses which encouraged public managers to consider more open and creative processes for developing policy improvement options. Such options should be developed in conjunction with stakeholders and political leaders. The capacity to create ‘public value’ through such developmental exercises depended on three considerations. Firstly, public managers and leaders should ensure that policy proposals are seen as ‘valuable’ (that is, solving a problem effectively and efficiently in the public interest). Secondly, the reform proposals need to be seen as authorised by relevant authorities and consistent with public governance standards. Thirdly, the proposals should be feasible and practicable—that is, within the implementation capacities and resources of public agencies and their partners (Moore, 1995).

When such distinctions are applied to complex and controversial problems and policy responses, these approaches can be summarised as in Table 2.1 which maps three levels of stakeholder complexity against three types of problem complexity.

Thus, rather than persist with the 10-point frame in Rittel and Webber (1973), the more recent literature reviewing wicked problems analysis suggests some broad themes for analysing the distinctive features of ‘wickedness’ or intractability, including levels of agreement about the nature of the problem and about relevant knowledge for improvement. For example, Head (2008) defined wicked problems as those issues featuring high levels of complexity, uncertainty and divergence. This acknowledges that multiple stakeholders are engaged with these issues with varied institutional roles, knowledge levels, expectations, personal interests, values and ideologies, resulting in conflicts and contradictions in preferred solutions. To the extent that robust solutions emerge from their debates, these solutions are likely to be only ‘good enough’, not comprehensive and enduring. Long-term monitoring and evaluation are needed to assess their impacts and improve effectiveness; while poor choices and underperformance can only exacerbate the problem (Head, 2008; see also APSC, 2007; Head & Alford, 2015; Danken et al., 2016; Lönngren & van Poeck, 2021).

Social, economic and political factors are all important in explaining why complex and contested problems are poorly formulated or misaligned. In conceptualising wicked problems as the convergence of uncertainty, complexity and value divergence, Head suggests that failures to adequately respond to wicked problems may be due to several factors, such as:

the ‘problems’ are poorly identified and scoped

the problems themselves may be constantly changing

solutions may be addressing the symptoms instead of the underlying causes

people may disagree so strongly that many solution-options are unworkable

the knowledge base required for effective implementation may be weak, fragmented or contested

some solutions may depend on achieving major shifts in attitudes and behaviours; however, such shifts may be too difficult owing to lack of incentives or points of leverage (Head, 2008, p. 106).

Arguments for a Sliding Scale—Degrees of Intractability

An important debate centres on whether the original distinction between tame and wicked problems is analytically robust. The dichotomy between tame and wicked can become exaggerated and misleading. Critics have commented that the tame/wicked conception has set up a binary choice that is dichotomous. An alternative argument, in contrast to the binary choice of wicked or tame problems, is that the wicked characteristics (complexity, uncertainty and value divergence) can be more-or-less intensive, and that in combination these three characteristics can produce extremely turbulent, intractable and unmanageable policy challenges. In principle, issues can be mapped in terms of low-medium–high levels of complexity, uncertainty and divergence (Head, 2008, p.103; see also Alford & Head, 2017; Newman & Head, 2017a) (and see Fig. 2.1 below).

( Source Head, 2008, p. 104; 2010b, p. 22)

Complexity uncertainty and value divergence dimensions

Instead of the sharp contrast implied by the tame/wicked distinction, there is a case for making the wicked problems framework more nuanced and useful. It is more realistic to propose ‘a continuum upon which all problems can be based, scientific and design alike’ (Farrell & Hooker, 2013, p. 701). Taking this approach, problem analysis could be based on ‘degrees’ of wickedness, or ‘tendencies’ towards wickedness (Daviter, 2017; Head, 2008). Alford and Head (2017, p. 407) proposed a ‘contingency’ approach which recognises that complex problems vary in the extent of their ‘wickedness’. The key dimensions include the cognitive complexity of the problem (the incomplete and contested knowledge base) and the diversity or perhaps irreconcilability of the values and perspectives of key stakeholders and institutional agencies. This contingency approach is arguably consistent with Rittel and Webber’s notion that each problem is unique—owing to the different problem situations or configurations that can emerge across time and place. This approach is also consistent with a focus on analysing how leaders and stakeholders may develop more congruent understandings of a policy problem and consider pathways for improvement. Newman and Head (2017, p. 416) argue in similar fashion that variations in stakeholder perceptions and in their capacity for cooperation give rise to different dynamics in how issues are handled. Therefore the ‘tendencies’ towards wicked intractability are shaped by actors’ behaviour in specific situations as well as shaped by their underlying interests. Standardised solutions cannot deal with the underlying complexities and differences. To the extent that specific types of complexity and diversity can be identified and appreciated, it becomes more feasible to apply specific forms of intervention (or non-intervention) to different parts of the problem.

Hoppe and colleagues, however, argue that introducing a sliding scale does not ‘save’ the concept, and does not remedy the fundamental defect in the concept itself. Hoppe urges scholars to abandon the concept of wicked problems, arguing that the political behaviour of actors is the key variable affecting intractability rather than intractability being a feature of the problem itself. Well-structured problems reflect a higher level of consensus about values and information (Hisschemöller & Hoppe, 1995, p. 44). Drawing on the public policy literature, Hoppe (2010) distinguishes between ‘unstructured’ problems (which are low on knowledge certainty and low on alignment of values and norms) and ‘structured’ problems where there is higher knowledge certainty and higher agreement on norms and values (Hoppe, 2010, pp. 72–77). Tackling policy problems is likely to be much more straightforward in the second instance, and the political process should be about shifting problems towards more structured or manageable forms. Hoppe suggests that the core focus for managing difficult or intractable problems should be on the politics of inclusion and the methods for overcoming partisan distance or gridlock. Policies can be improved through democratic debate leading to iterative and partial solutions (albeit not comprehensive and enduring solutions). Turnbull and Hoppe argue that practitioners can seek to mediate differences and address the policy puzzles through a series of discussions to explore various ‘sub-questions’ that lead to partial ‘answers’ (Turnbull & Hoppe, 2019, p. 315). The key question then becomes whether stakeholder engagement processes are effective in fostering improved levels of mutual learning and better integration of competing representations of the problem (Hoppe, 2010, p. 27).

In conclusion, it would be widely agreed that identifying suitable policy processes to address ‘wicked’ problems has become the most important challenge for public governance in the modern era. Rittel and Webber criticised the tendency for policy and planning professionals to reframe policy problems as ‘tame’ and manageable—as in a game of chess where goals and rules are well-defined, and where solutions can be achieved through applying established knowledge and deductive reasoning. Rittel and Webber accepted that data, logic and expertise were useful and essential, but these were seen as insufficient for understanding wicked problems that are contested by stakeholders. They argued that improvements could only be achieved through participatory engagement processes which recognised the multiple values co-existing in a pluralist society.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Political Science, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia

Brian W. Head

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian W. Head .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Head, B.W. (2022). The Rise of ‘Wicked Problems’—Uncertainty, Complexity and Divergence. In: Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0_2

Published : 03 March 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-94579-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-94580-0

eBook Packages : Political Science and International Studies Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

University Library Library Catalogue Plus