Absurdism is the belief that existence is fundamentally absurd and lacks inherent meaning or purpose. This philosophy suggests that the world is not fully intelligible through reason and that there is a discrepancy between the two. The term “absurd” in this context refers to the conflict between the rational human and an irrational universe, between intent and outcome. The conflict at the heart of absurdism is characterised by the individual’s struggle to find meaning in a meaningless world, and the inability of reason to fully understand reality.

One of the biggest problems with strategic management is that it uses a rational mode of thinking to describe and exploit uncertainty in a reality that, as evident, in no way is behaving rationally. Where a part of the problem is that decision makers and decision maker culture doesn’t think about the way they are thinking about things, how that lack of meta-perspective affects the course of action and the impact of their choices.

But what would strategy look like through the looking glass of absurdism? Let us for a moment pretend that absurdism wasn’t a philosophy but instead was written as a strategy. Let us move the search for meaning of life (and its implications for an individual) to the raison d’être for a company.

First some context: Absurdism is a reaction to existentialism, which is a reaction to nihilism, which in turn is a distancing from the (church) religions’ idea of that there is an inherent purpose to life.

Let’s pretend that Nietzsche (Nihilism) was a strategist. God is dead, there is no inherent meaning to companies. Nothing matters, you are on your own. See this truth, make your own rules, exploit the weak who haven’t, and thrive off them as Übermenschgeschäft. Profit!

Sartre and Simone de Beauvoirs (Extensialism) replies; Yes, the case might be that no purpose is given, that you are on your own, and that there are no adults in the room. But companies are what we make of them. Even if there is no inherent purpose to them you can still choose to define your and others morality by how they act. Therefore following and acting of the values of your company will serve as your “true north” and in relation to others create a meaning. There can still be a quality of your brand defined by morality. You can not do what ever you want, we will not let you.

Albert Camus (Absurdism) enters the chat; Sure, we are abandoned to freedom. The problem is that we also are hardwired to search for meaning and purpose in the unfolding of a reality that is unpredictable and apathetic to our intentions. Creating your own rationality will only serve as a mental comfort blanket. Subscribing to this reality proposes three courses of action:

1. Refuse to play the game and by that also end the company.

2. Use the blanky, take a leap of faith and stick to whatever rationality you feel being the right one. Long term planning, goal setting theory, value based strategy, charismatic leaders or whatever. It does not matter. Whichever strategy you choose, this is more or less the same as alternative one with the exception that you will remain in your physical form. A zombie company.

3. Absurdism! Acknowledge and accept the absurdity of life and the fact that we may never attain absolute truth or purpose. Instead of giving into nihilism, this philosophy strategy advocates for managing in spite of this absurdity and rejecting meaninglessness itself. This involves a revolt against the purposelessness of life, becoming absolutely free and making one’s existence an act of rebellion. It is not meaninglessness that causes pain, but rather the contradiction of wanting meaning and not finding it, especially our inability to let go of this contradiction and the consequences of our actions while doing so is at best meaningless, at worst self harm.

Instead of capitulating to hopelessness, you should deal with the unfolding of reality by embracing passion, freedom, and revolt. This means living intensely and pursuing joy for its own sake, having the freedom to make choices and create hope within oneself, and rebelling against the strangeness of existence. It involves embracing the unknown and living in the paradox of not knowing the ultimate purpose of life, but still carrying on and being kinder and weirder in the face of this mystery. Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the ability to confront and overcome it. Similarly, absurdism is not a solution to the mysteries of life, but rather an acceptance of the possibility that we may never fully understand them and a decision to not only live with, but embrace this uncertainty.

In terms of strategic management implications, this would probably lead to a more skeptical approach to the current methods of decision making. It will be hard to have faith in the efficacy of long term planning, abilities of achieving grand goals, the meaning of value based management or any other way that legitimates power; in turn leading to focus on short-term tactical optionality rather than strategic objectives.

It would also affect the view of the individual in the organisation. There may be less of a sense of personal accountability, resulting in a more laissez-faire approach to management and its power structures, flattening of organisational structures and a decentralisation of decision making power. 

Finally, absurdism could also have an impact on the way in which organisations interact with their external environment. If one believes that the universe is fundamentally irrational, then it may be difficult to have faith in the predictability of external events or in the possibility of influencing them. This could lead to a more reactive, defensive approach to external challenges rather than the current proactive, offensive one.

All this would allow a plattform for the company to act with passion, freedom, and revolt – however that expression manifests itself.

Nihilsm, existensialism and absurdism is all categorised under modernism. Its naïve optimism and silver bullet mind set is caracterised by the first half of the 20th century. Absurdism wasn’t really a strong movment as existensialism really became the most dominant mode of thinking.

Since then the world have moved on to post modernism and now meta moderism. More on that and how it affects strategy later.

I liked the excercise to think of strategies as mirrors of contemporary philosophy. Modes of thinking, the course of action and the impact of those choses results in are interlinked. It was not intentional but wile doing so it was not hard to categorise known companies as nihilistic, existenisalistic or absurd. A lot strategic management that is in use now was formulated mind 20th centrury and it is reasonable to think that they are influenced by philosophy.