Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lord Quantumapproachtime 2015
Lord Quantumapproachtime 2015
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Review
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
® Academy of Management Review
2015. Vol. 40, No. 2, 26&-290.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0273
ROBERT G. LORD
JESSICA E. DINH
Durham University
ERNEST L. HOFFMAN
University of Akron
Prevailing perspectives on time and change often emphasize the forward movement
of time and the relative stability of attributes, an emphasis that fosters theories of
organizational evolution as a linear progression of a past that moves to the present
that moves to the future. While useful in many respects, this perspective obscures the
uncertainty of emerging organizational phenomena, and it offers little insight into the
rare and unpredictable events that change the course of history. To address these
concerns, we draw on quantum mechanics and quantum probability theories to
present a quantum approach to time and change as a framework for understanding
organizational complexity and the common decision-making errors that lead to orga-
nizational failures within uncertain environments. This perspective also explains how
organizations (or societies) can experience unforeseen potentialities that radically
change their development by conceptualizing the future as existing in a state of
potentiality that collapses to form the present based on the dynamics of system
constraints. Our theory has broad implications for organizational theory and research,
as well as management practice.
You can never plan the future by the past Time can be measured objectively, but it is the
(Edmund Burke).
subjective and intuitive aspects of time that may
Learn from the past, set vivid, detailed goals for be most critical in understanding how time relates
the future, and live in the only moment of time to organizational processes. Subjective time is
over which you have any control: now (Denis
central to individual sensemaking (Hemes & Mait-
Waitley).
lis, 2010) and cultural sensemaking (Zerubavel,
In the last two decades organizational schol- 2003), which use both cognitive and emotional
ars have recognized the importance of time in schema to connect (or separate) even the distant
understanding organizational processes (An- past to (from) the present and create anticipated
cona, Goodman, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001). In trajectories leading to the future. Intuitive pro-
fact, the ability to control various aspects of cesses provide a basis for understanding the flow
time, such as the structure of time, the subjective of time as a feed-forward process, where the past
experience of time, how one thinks about time, flows into the present and then into the future.
and the entrainment of events through time This conceptualization of time is a generalization
(Bluedorn & Jaussi, 2008; Sonnentag, 2012), is
from how one physically moves through one's
thought to underlie effective leadership, group,
physical environments, such as moving forward
and organizational dynamics. However, per-
from one's present location to another location. It
haps the most important issue for individuals
also reflects the structure of human memory sys-
and organizations is to devise ways to control
tems, which use remembered experiences (i.e., ep-
their future, and this is related to how we con-
isodic memory) as a basis for projecting into the
ceptualize and use time.
future (Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013; Suddendorf &
Corballis, 2007).
Because we understand change and adapta-
We thank Jerome Busemeyer, Mark Hall, Paul Hanges,
tion in terms of a subjective flow from the past to
Gerald Hodgkinson, Julian Marewski, Aron Polos, and three
anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous the present, we naturally conceptualize the fu-
drafts of this manuscript. ture as an extension of ongoing longitudinal
263
Copyright oí the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright
holder's express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
264 Academy of Management Review April
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2Ū15 Lord, Dinh, and Hoffman 265
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
266 Academy of Management Review April
thatThis
spective of the future. create a sense of consistency (Hemes
tendency also & has b
reinforced by social-cultural
Maitlis, 2010; Zerubavel,development
2003). For example, in- an
learning (i.e., the future as moving
dividual cognitive, forward
emotional, and physical
Boroditsky & Ramscar, 2002),
states and
all have inherent it is
rhythms andadynamics
trend t
is central to many of that
today
vary acrosss time
organizational
and context (e.g., hunger, the
ries and research paradigms.
fatigue, boredom, lust, circadian rhythms), and
However, there arethesemany interactingcognitive
systems create differentfallacies
con-
that accompany prospective assessments
texts that allow different thoughts and individ-of th
future (Dane & George,ual behaviors
2014; to Seligman
emerge (Dionysiou &et Tsoukas,
al., 201
They occur as humans form
2013; Read erroneous
et al., 2010). Similarly, complexityassum
tions based on what theories
has have been used to describe
occurred the behav- negle
while
ing what may have occurred. In such
iors of groups and organizations instanc
(Uhl-Bien &
prospective errors canMarion, 2009), which are understood
manifest to fluctuate
as forecasting b
ases that unduly influence rapidly and often decision making
unpredictably (e.g., Crawford an
behavior in ways that & LePine,
fail 2013;
to Klarner & Raisch, 2013;for
account Langley the
certainty and nonlinearity of realistic
et al., 2013) as contexts organi
change and as organiza-
tional events (Arrfelt, tional Wiseman,
processes take on& Huit,
different 2013;
features or Ma
Kay & Chia, 2013). Several examples demonstr forms. Yet variations across time within individ-
this. For example, the ual and organizational systems
bankruptcy are typically ig-
of several Am
ican automobile companies nored because (e.g.,
of theoreticalGeneral
or methodological
Moto
Chrysler) in 2009 illustrates oversights (Kozłowski, theChao, Grand, Braun, &
culmination
global market conditions Kuljanin, 2013;
and Vancouver
the & Weinhardt, 2012),
failure of or
nizational decision makers obscuring theto richness of organizational
forecast phe-
changin
consumer preferences nomena. for Variations
morearefuel-efficient
also ignored because ve
cles. Forecasting biases they are seen as manifest
also errors, rather than resulting
in every
decision-making errors, from such
phenomenaas that in
should be explained
the tendency
make optimistic self-predictions scientifically. with respect
saving money or future However, performance
qualitative research has demon-(Heizer
Dunning, 2012; Koehler, stratedWhite,
the complexity & inherent in organiza-
John, 2012), a
in hindsight biases where tional systemsaccurate
and the need for more adequate
projection
are inhibited because of limitations in one's abil- explanatory systems. For example, Plowman et
ity to objectively remember prior information. al.'s notable study (2007) described how a culmi-
In brief, a wide body of research suggestsnation that of seemingly small events and existing
although there is a biosocially grounded ten- preconditions at a dying institution, Mission
dency for humans to infer the future by extend- Church, helped radically shift the organization's
ing the past, prospective cognitions are suscep- structure and image. Specifically, they de-
tible to processing failures because they are scribed how a small event (i.e., a meeting of five
often based on salient nonrepresentative mem- to six relatively inactive churchgoers to orga-
ories and experiences and are made in abstrac- nize a charity event) initiated a chain of events
tion without reference to context (Dane & that disrupted existing patterns of behavior
George, 2014; Gilbert & Wilson, 2007). Aswithin de- the organization and the community,
scribed in the following section, there arethereby many encouraging innovation and the rein-
advantages in considering an alternative view vention of the church. Importantly, high uncer-
of the flow of time. tainty, defined as the inability to accurately
predict outcomes resulting from the lack of
information (Milliken, 1987), accurately char-
An Alternative Conceptualization of Time and
acterizes Mission Church's change, as well as
Organizational Uncertainty
the change trajectories of many of today's or-
Organizational events and events occurring ganizations (see MacKay & Chia, 2013). In fact,
within individuals manifest very differently at for many organizations the strategic allocation
different points in time (Hoffman & Lord, 2013), of resources to nurture high-potential business
even though there is a tendency for humans and subsidiaries is challenging simply because or-
societies to subjectively represent time in ways ganizational decision makers cannot foresee the
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015 Lord, Dinh, and Hoffman 267
market conditions, economic trends, and soci- seem to have both particle and wave properties
etal factors that may aggregate to impact the (e.g., light and magnetism; Feynman, Leighton,
survival of one subsidiary over another (Arrfelt & Sands, 2010/1965; Rae, 2005). For example, elec-
et al., 2013). Such observations reinforce our ar- trons appear to travel across time and space not
guments that events unfold probabilistically in as specific particles with precise trajectories but
the future in ways that forward-based prospec- as waves that occupy multiple locations. This is
tion cannot explain. because the precise location of an electron is
Meanwhile, for almost a century the field of generally unknown, and it can appear in an
quantum physics and quantum mechanics has infinite number of places in space upon mea-
been able to model the complexity and uncer- surement (Greene, 2004). As such, the movement
tainty in the movement of various entities, in- of an electron through space is better repre-
cluding subatomic particles and the universe, sented by a "smeared" trajectory, rather than a
by using an intensively scrutinized mathemati- single line that would indicate a predictable
cal formalism (Greene, 2004, 2011). We believe trajectory as used in classical probability theory
that this way of thinking and representing pro- (see Figure 1).
cesses can be extended to understanding how More precisely, the variable movement of an
human systems construct the future. In the fol- electron through space can be depicted mathe-
lowing sections we describe our QATC perspec- matically by abstract, algebraically derived
tive, which implies that real-life organizational probability wave functions (i.e., mathematical
processes follow a different logic in the flow of representations of likely possible outcomes),
time, a different set of probability laws, and a shown graphically as waves that indicate
mathematical formalism based on quantum me- where the electron should be at a particular
chanics that can better account for complexities point in time. Such a probability wave is shown
endemic to human and organizational systems.
in Figure 2. In this figure the probability of find-
ing an electron at a particular position in-
ÃQÃTC creases with the height of a particular hill com-
pared to the surrounding plane. Central to this
Quantum Physics and Probability
Wave Functions
figure is that probability waves are character-
ized by a high degree of uncertainty in knowing
Quantum physicists describe a fundamental where an electron will be when it moves
through space. However, when a physicist
property of matter and energy, which is that they
FIGURE 1
Comparison Between (a) Classical Probability Theory and (b) Quantum Probability Theory for
Representing the Predicted Outcomes of Physical and Psychological Phenomena As They Trave
Across Time
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
268 Academy of Management Review April
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015 Lord, Dinh, and Hoffman 269
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
270 Academy of Management Review April
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015 Lord, Dinh, and Hoffman 271
^ Enduring constraints
ally change more slowly than lower-level sys- § ; Formal & informal social connection |
tems, higher-level constraints generally chan- •2 Climate & culture
nel emergent lower-level processes in one S Transitory constraints
direction or another, thereby allowing some po- Collective knowledge & skills
g
J? Collective goals & visions
tentialities to develop while others never mate-O Organizational networking systems i
rialize. However, lower-level systems must ag-
gregate their outputs over multiple cycles to
align with the slower cycling rhythm of higher-
level systems, and this aggregation can some-
i' SS Internal constraints !
Enduring constraint
times move the entire system to new states. For s """ ļ Social network struct
example, individual selective attention pro- ^ I Group heterogeneity & dem
cesses can be constrained by higher-level men- Transitory constraints
Group prototypes & routines
tal schemata, such as goals or social perception Group requisite complexity
categories, but higher-level mental schemata Transactive memory system !
can also be changed by the interaction of bot-
tom-up processing systems like motivations and
emotions. Such dynamics affect one's assess- ,ł 4) f
4) f
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
272 Academy of Management Review April
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015 Lord, Dinh, and Hoffman 273
3 One advantage of a quantum theory perspective is that On a general level, a QATC framework and
probability waves can evolve over time while still in an feed-forward models (FFMs) both share an ap-
indefinite state (Busemeyer & Bruza, 2012), whereas modelspreciation for understanding process, which is
of evolution based on classical probability theory (e.g., evident in qualitative-based research (e.g., Mac-
Markov models) explain evolution in terms of moving from
Kay & Chia, 2013; Plowman et al., 2007). How-
one definite state to another. Thus, quantum theory better
enables the continuous interactions among various con- ever, as a conceptual framework, a QATC
straints as the future approaches the present to change framework provides a counterpoint to the typi-
potentialities that have never been realized. cal FFMs of organizational change and individ-
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
274 Academy of Management Review April
FIGURE 4
Changes in Probability Waves Through Time Beginning in an Indeterminate Superpotentiality
State to a Definite State As the Probability Wave Is Acted Upon by Internal and External
Constraints
ual development because it emphasizes the in- able or consistent. Instead, beginning with an
fluence of unrealized potentialities, which may undefined future recognizes the significance of
be useful in guiding theory generation. Exhibit uncertainty
1 and the existence of future alterna-
provides a comparison of these two models, tive potentialities. This difference can be seen
highlighting the many differences between the easily by comparing the first and last panels of
two perspectives. In the following sections we Figure 4. Here the flow of time from a future to a
use Exhibit 1 as a structure for understanding present acknowledges that constraints them-
the theoretical and methodological implications selves may be dynamic, shaping concepts such
of a QATC framework compared to tradi- as meaning and mental categories "on-the-fly"
tional FFMs. (Barsalou, 1983). Thus, quantum theory's empha-
sis on context and evolving processes can be
particularly helpful, especially when a process
Theoretical Implications of a QATC Framework
like sensemaking is understood as an enacted,
Direction of time and the nature of concepts.ongoing
A endeavor where the meaning attached
QATC framework offers several new grounding to the environment is discovered by and depen-
assumptions for organizational research. First, dent on a person's iterative interactions with his
or her environments (Gabora et al., 2008; Gibson,
it is useful to conceptualize the future as flowing
into the present, which can be represented 1986;
byHemes & Maitlis, 2010; Weick, 1995).
the evolution of probability wave functions Further,
as a transition from an undefined future
various types of constraints are encountered to an experienced present naturally emphasizes
and interact. As does Hemes (2014), a QATC the process of creation by individuals and col-
perspective emphasizes the temporality oflectives, pro- whereas a past and present to future
cesses. By reversing the arrow of time, it implies perspective starts with unit attributes (e.g., or-
that the present is continually created byganizationalthe climate or culture) and examines
conjoining of various constructs where the their
na-effects on processes. Process views and
ture of concepts - including attitudes, emotions, their emphasis on patterns and dynamics are,
beliefs, and group and organizational struc- therefore, more fitting as a theoretical frame-
tures - all reflect the translation of a superpo- work for understanding change than is a focus
tentiality state into a defined state at a particu- on enduring attributes of individuals or systems
lar time and context. (Hemes, 2014; Langley et al., 2013). This is not to
One advantage of beginning with an unde- say that focusing on the enduring attributes of
fined future for understanding how systems individual and organizational entities should be
change is that we do not start with the assump- abandoned, particularly when they exhibit very
tion that organizational processes are predict- little variation as ascertained from longitudinal
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015 Lord, Dinh , and Hoffman 275
EXHIBIT 1
Theoretical, Methodological, and Practical Implications of a QATC and FFM
Theoretical Implications
1. Direction of time and the nature of concepts
A QATC conceptualizes the future as flowing into the present into the past (i.e., F P - > P), whereas an FFM
perspective conceptualizes the past as leading to the present to the future (i.e., P - > P - > F).
2. Representation of event probabilities
A QATC is process focused and recognizes the potentialities available to interacting organizational units, whereas
an FFM perspective emphasizes stable entities and thereby limits potentialities that are considered.
3. Relation among micro and macro multilevel systems
A QATC suggests that the interconnections among multilevel systems are critical to the dynamics of organizational
phenomena. These interconnections also challenge efforts to achieve organizational ambidexterity. An FFM
perspective more often attends to local processes occurring independently in one or another level.
Methodological Implications
1. Alternative possibilities
A QATC implies that methodological approaches based on FFM perspectives that include meta-analyses and those
dependent on a single sampling distribution are limited in predicting future behaviors or adding insight on
dynamic individual, group, and organizational processes.
2. Quantum probability theories
A QATC recognizes that new probability axioms and mathematical formalisms may be needed to better represent the
creative combination of constructs through noncompositional processes involving the entanglement of states and
contexts.
studies (Dinh et al., 2014). However, the recogni-is a critical strategic issue for organizational
tion that unforeseeable processes can create leadership. In contrast, an FFM emphasizes en-
new entities, as well as remain stable over time, tities that describe the past and are expected to
is an advantage of a QATC framework. Thus, a endure into the future.
QATC framework can direct attention to emer- Although beyond the scope of this article, one
gent phenomena like creativity, social capital, technique, provided by Scharmer and Kaufer
and the factors that can catalyze these phenom-(2013), facilitates understanding and influencing
ena, such as leadership (Uhl-Bien & Marion, processes. Consistent with our perspective,
2009), variability in emotional experience (Ble-these scholars argue that one needs to focus on
dow, Rosing, & Frese, 2013), and heterogeneity leading from an emerging future to successfully
among unit members (Page, 2007). Understand- address many contemporary problems. Their
ing and managing these processes, to the extentframework also emphasizes developing one's
that managing emergent processes is possible. listening capacities to foster a more encompass-
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
276 Academy of Management Review April
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015 Lord, Dinh, and Hoffman 211
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
278 Academy of Management Review April
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015 Lord, Dinh , and Hoffman 279
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
280 Academy of Management Review April
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015 Lord, Dinh, and Hoffman 281
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1 tí I ļ *
'g Sc ^ 12í* ®2
S ~ ö ^ « 0a3 -sä ®2
§ļS ♦-
JsS? ~5
-H ö-H
S S «S
řs* ®
0a3 ®oq
oq -säm
8 mm
řm
if 1*1 ! ss § I
I> 5* SM®® ¡ -S « 1 £
> -S £8 o o0)â
-c¿ 0)â gi >> ģ»
> * £ M äö > 0« .5 ft > ^^ «>>
«
'S
®®¿2 o »H äö S1
o »H (D•?flj
(D sU0 öoö •* tí s« ö ö
Ö g U Ö < J3 J3
o oí «t¡ u o fio ® >< î2 î2
aí
>
■ H
03
01
II«.a
o oíw5 S
slï. «t¡o5&Ł
u o&
íi § fio
ä a 15
§>< a
a) -v BB 0 ö
II I î2II
I î2
D
O.
13 «bsßß
toO w 3g>£ .
S- B 8 o 1¿ P S- 2 2
ü * M ® <2 2>- °"S 00
■H O^H MO M W
"S
<D jjl i1t& il 51 J J
D) § ® § g jí .ss s '► II ? .a S
'■§ 8-g ļjt ïgï»
D)
I '■§ s-loi^l! si 8-g »1 ļjt
§ g :§ ^ ! -3 1| ^ p ¡I »1 si
fi
■H
»G
■H
£ o u -2 2, 0 8 ^ w ® ® - « *-> 'S
£ o u -2 ® 2, Ö ®
0 gCQ
Ö8 gCQ
O w ® >BO® «
- 0g
« °£
*-> 2g2fi
0) ^'Cö
ö
^c¡
B i§s>ļjs°.o Si S I essi
w g
¡0| §•! g ®Š § 3 § «'s Uli
ā < ¡se ¡s Ě
gI
OS -ti 2
> u
¡> PQ
-Ū O ®
tí CU 0
Ö >1 W W
Ö ** £ fi o
a¡ g.
rt22
U Ih O]
1ÖI w
w .S
.S §>1
-o
■g ® 8 S
5 -ö 2 Ť3
Uřft
Sog řft*H
*H Ih O]WW
< ® ļj 6 S u. .s ®
g* ® í O a ®
<H®aj w "o ■§ a) "5 •£
D) Tí
m o
waj0Ç-C
^ "o igŁ6 a a) "5 & g •£ o
-ri 71 y 8 S
(1) fi
•9-o-ri c 71 -2 S y s 8 § S
li fe I
xi
ta
ta
c
_
y
m $ a) 0)
I _ I m
fi
■S O
1
'n B
■S d
■S
a)g_
d0_
&0^ ® g
® fc ö g
^0 °^ ao
^>?
2
2 2
^ fc
° M
3 ^ p-H5 ö 2Q>
fifi
a)
Ih ^ S
E ^ai čí M M ci) (I
(IuuJ3 u Ä
u
H 5 O J3 'S ¿fi ö ® ® čí
® -Sm ai ^3 M Ö.jhmmw
o ^ 'S
u S
ö Ö
a>
i-j
s - 8
3 ^ ^<¿'S'S& ss iS..S
S) -S
« S-S
2
•4H
s ®. a I J2 8 s « S S
S ®. S a « 8 J2 ^ a s S B B
O
0 Om £ U < <
S
03
■H
fH
g Tļ Tļ
£ T3 2 -th O, m ° CC
Ití - m ° ö ö
fi® Ö>1 O W
Ö>1 c> So £ S £
£ ööMW
BS
S
fi ® 2®e20e2S'®
••s 'g a£-& g S-gS S'
g 2. 'S 2 ®B
g s s
fi s Ö sí ^ 55 S BSS ßo o
Ö
fi s 'a®
a ' 5- Öö)^05®2S S
^ S »-So"?
P o- pö-Sa ö) S 8^ I 8^Sã pö-Sa
O a ß
O Ti 'a® "'S01ö 1ö ®C -S®^® ® .2°ö P o- ď § fi 'S fa fi «
ö ®C
Ti -S a) 01 "îro^î®
a .5" ®o gSíí "îro^î® í &3> -ä 2 u 'S Su fi
■H a ^ ®o ? u gSíí 2S^® &3> ®ll
g - a S o »-g g g ®|ß
t ?OJi
W ^^ O
0U0a
.y.yU
ö öS
Uli
s w
to ~
»-g
Ö S ^2S
°S"S5
2 bH I1s1S
ö ®ö"
fi Œ o ö (U ö Q)
■3 ö tì-2 ö> ^ ö ß .SJi ö fi< ö ü (U ^ Q) b
■3 2 0®^M ö öft ß oö ^ „.-Ū Öl» ö S-O-O ü b
1 I i -s®•§güMB
2 S®ÄS SggSāMSsf-SJtJ
g« ® ® S ® > ¡sí g > o> 0 „.-Ū S
■ãg2 g ®ftw^
S®ÄS ®ftw^ il S| fioa
lit fioa gü güBöBfia^o^^
i g« g-s ® ® B-a| gl > s¡g g ¡g ¡
g» ft < < ft< < ftcu Ū*
O pç tf PC
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015 Lord, Dinh , and Hoffman 283
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
284 Academy of Management Review April
FIGURE 5
Hilbert Space and Probability Wave Representations of a Superpotentiality State and a
Collapsed State
Vector representation of a state in Vector representation of a collapsed state in
superposition in a Hilbert space a specific context
I P>
ik
(a) (b)
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015 Lord, Dińh, and Hoffman 285
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
286 Academy of Management Review April
agement Review , 26: 645-663. Dane, E., & George, J. M. 2014. Unpacking affective forecast-
Arkes, H. R., Faust, D., Gulimette, T. J., & Hart, K. 1988. Elim- ing and its ties to project work in organizations. Acad-
inating the hindsight bias. Journal of Applied Psychol- emy of Management Review, 39: 181-201.
ogy , 73: 305-307. Davison, R. B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Barnes, C. M., Sleesman,
Arrfelt, M., Wiseman, R. M., & Huit, G. T. M. 2013. Looking D. J., & Ilgen, D. R. 2012. Coordinated action in multiteam
backward instead of aspiration-driven influences on the systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 808-824.
capital allocation process. Academy of Management DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. 2010. Who will lead and who will
Journal 56: 1081-1103.
follow? A social process of leadership identity construc-
Bakken, T., & Hemes, T. 2006. Organizing is both a verb and tion in organizations. Academy of Management Reviewé
a noun: Weick meets Whitehead. Organization Studies , 35: 627-647.
27: 1599-1616.
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. 2005. A motivated action
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. 1996. Automaticity of theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied
social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and ste- Psychology, 90: 1096-1127.
reotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. 2012. Implications of dispositional
Socia/ Psychology, 71: 230-244. and process views of traits for individual difference
Barsalou, L. W. 1983. Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition ,research in leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 23: 651-
11: 211-227. 669.
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015 Lord, Dinh, and Hoffman 287
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35: 1646- Hampton, J. A. 2014. Conceptual combination: Extension and
1660.
intension. Commentary on Aerts, Gabora, and Sozzo.
Eliasmith, C. 2013. How to build a brain: A neural architec- Topics in Cognitive Science, 6: 53-57.
ture for biological cognitionģ Oxford: Oxford University
Hanges, P. J., Lord, R. G., & Dickson, M. W. 2000. An informa-
Press.
tion processing perspective on leadership and culture. A
Epperson, M. 2004. Quantum mechanics and the philosophy case for connectionist architecture. Applied Psychology:
of Alfred North Whitehead. New York: Fordham Univer- An International Review, 49: 133-161.
sity. Hanges, P. J., Lord, R. G., Godfrey, E. G., & Raver, J. L. 2002.
Feldman, I. M., & Lynch, J. G. 1988. Self-generated validity Modeling nonlinear relationships: Neural networks and
and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, catastrophe analysis. In S. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of
intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology , research methods in industrial/organizational psychol-
73: 421-433. ogy: 431-455. Oxford: Blackwell.
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing Hannah, S. L., Lord, R. G., & Pearce, C. L. 2011. Leadership
organizational routines as a source of flexibility and and collective requisite complexity. Organizational Psy-
change. Administrative Science Quarterly , 48: 94-118. chology Review, 1: 215-238.
Fernandez, A. J., Cotta, C., & Ceballos, R. C. 2008. Generating Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. 1996. Structural proper-
emergent team strategies in football simulation video- ties and psychometric qualities or organizational self-
games via genetic algorithms. Paper presented at the reports: Field tests of connections predicted by cognitive
GAMEON'2008 conference, Valencia, Spain. theory. Journal of Management, 22: 313-338.
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. 2010. (First Hazy, J. K. 2008. Leadership or luck? The system dynamics of
Intel's shift to microprocessors in the 1970s and 1980s. In
published in 1965.) The Feynman lectures on physics.
Volume III: Quantum mechanics. New York: Basic Books. M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion (Eds), Complexity and leader-
ship. Part I: Conceptual foundations: 379-415. Charlotte,
Fleeson, W. 2001. Toward a structure- and process-integrated NC: Information Age.
view of personality: Traits as density distributions of
Heizer, E. G., & Dunning, D. 2012. Why and when peer pre-
states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80:
1011-1027. diction is superior to self-prediction: The weight given to
future aspiration versus past achievement. Journal of
Freeman, I. B., & Ambady, N. 2011. A dynamic interactive Personality and Sociai Psychology, .103: 38-53.
theory of person construal. Psychological Review, 118:
247-279.
Hemes, T. 2014. A process theory of organizations. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gabora, L., & Aerts, D. 2002. Contextualizing concepts using
Hemes, T., & Maitlis, S. 2010. Process, sensemaking, and
a mathematical generalization of the quantum formal-
organizing: An introduction. In T. Hemes & S. Maitlis
ism. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial
(Eds.), Process, sensemaking, & organizing: 27-37. Ox-
Intelligence, 14: 327-358.
ford: Oxford University Press.
Gabora, L., Rosch, E., & Aerts, D. 2008. Toward an ecological
Hirsh, J. B., Mar, R. A., & Peterson, J. B. 2012. Psychological
theory of concepts. Ecological Psychology, 20: 84-116.
entropy: A framework for understanding uncertainty-
Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. 2000. Looking forward and look- related anxiety. Psychological Review, 119: 304-320.
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
288 Äcademy of Management Review April
categorization
Hoffman, E. L., & Lord, R. G. 2013.theory: Internal structure, information
A taxonomy of event-le
dimensions: Implications processing, for and understanding leadersh
leadership perceptions. Organizational
processes, behavior, and performance. Leadership Behavior and Human Performance , 34: 343-378.
Quarterly , 24: 558-571.
Lord, R. G., Hannah, S. T., & Jennings, P. L. 2011. A framework
Hughes, I. G. 1989. The structure and interpretation of quan- for understanding leadership and individual requisite
tum mechanics . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University complexity. Organizational Psychology Review, 1: 104 -
Press. 127.
Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2013. Temporal work in strat- March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organiza-
egy making. Organization Science , 24: 965-995. tional learning. Organization Science , 2: 71-87.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organi- McClelland, J. L., McNaughton, B. L., & O'Reilly, R. C. 1995.
zations. New York: Wiley.
Why there are complementary learning systems in the
Klarner, P., & Raisch, S. 2013. Move to the beat - Rhythm of hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the suc-
change and firm performance. Academy of Management cesses and failures of connectionist models of learning
Journal 56: 160-184. and memory. Psychological Review , 102: 419-457.
Koehler, D. J., White, R. J., & John, L. K. 2012. Good intentions, Mead, G. H. 1932. The philosophy of the present. Chicago:
optimistic self-predictions, and missed opportunities. Open Court Publishing.
Social Psychology and Personality Science , 2: 90-96.
Milliken, F. J. 1987. Three types of perceived uncertainty
Kozłowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., & about the environment: State, effect, and response un-
Kuljanin, G. 2013. Advancing multilevel research de- certainty. Academy of Management Review , 12: 33-143.
sign: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organiza-
tional Research Methods , 16: 581-615.
Neal, D. T., Wood, W., Wu, M., & Kurlander, D. 2011. The pull
of the past: When do habits persist despite conflict with
Kozłowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach motives? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 37:
to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, 1428-1437.
temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein &
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. 2013. Organizational ambi-
S. W. J. Kozłowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory . research . and
dexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Man-
methods in organizations: Foundations . extensions . and
new directions: 3-90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. agement Perspectives , 27: 324-338.
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. Page, S. W. 2007. The difference: How the power of diversity
2013. Process studies of change in organization and creates better groups . firms , schools , and societies.
management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Academy of Management Journal 56: 1-13. Plowman, D. A., Baker, T. E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T., &
Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. 2010. Introducing, "perspectives Travis, D. V. 2007. Radical change accidentally: The
on process organization studies." In T. Hemes & S. Mait- emergence and amplification of small change. Acad-
lis (Eds.), Process , sensemaking. & organizing: 1-26. Ox- emy of Management Journal 80: 515-545.
ford: Oxford University Press. Pope, C., & Mays, N. 1995. Qualitative research: Reaching the
Lee, J. Y., Bachrach, D. G., & Lewis, K. 2014. Social network parts other methods cannot reach: An introduction to
ties, transactive memory, and performance in groups. qualitative methods in health and health services re-
Organization Science , 25: 1-17. search. bmj. 311: 42-45.
Lok, J., & De Rond, M. 2013. On the plasticity of institutions:Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. 2013. Can quantum proba-
Containing and restoring practice breakdowns at the bility provide a new direction for cognitive modeling?
Cambridge University Boat Club. Academy of Manage- Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 36: 255-327.
ment Journal 56: 188-207. Purser, R. E., & Petranker, J. 2005. Unfreezing the future:
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. 2001. Exploring the dynamics of time in organizational
Contextual constraints on prototype generation and change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 41: 182-
their multi-level consequences for leadership percep- 203.
tions. Leadership Quarterly , 12: 311-338. Rae, A. I. M. 2005. Quantum physics: A beginners guide.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. 1984. A test of leadership Oxford: Oneworld.
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015 Lord, Dinh, and Hoffman 289
Seligman, M. E. P., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, Wang, Z., Busemeyer, I. R., Atmanspacher, H., & Pothos, E. M.
C. 2013. Navigating into the iuture or driven by the past. 2013. The potential of using quantum theory to build
Perpsectives on Psychological Science . 8: 119-141. models of cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science# 5: 672-
688.
Sherover, C. M. 2003. Are we in time? And other essays on
Weick, K. E. 1976. Educational organizations as loosely cou-
time and temporality. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Uni-
pled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly , 21:
versity Press.
1-19.
Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2009. Conceptu-
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand
alization and measurement oí temporal iocus: The sub-
Oaks, CA: Sage.
jective experience oí the past, present, and iuture. Or-
ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes . Weick, K. E. 2010. The poetics of process: Theorizing the
110: 1-22. ineffable in organization studies. In T. Hemes & S. Mait-
lis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking. & organizing: 102-111.
Simon, H. E. 1981. The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Whitehead, A. N. 1978. Process and reality. New York: Free
Smith-Ientsch, K. A., Kraiger, K., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Press.
Salas, E. 2009. Do íamiliar teammates request and ac-
cept more backup? Transactive memory in air trafficWiltbank, R., Dew, N., Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. 2006.
control. Human Factors . 51: 181-192. What to do next: The case for nonpredictive strategy.
Strategic Management Journal. 27: 981-998.
Sonnentag, S. 2012. Time in organizational research:
Zaccaro, S. J., Marks, M. A., & DeChurch, L. A. 2012. Multiteam
Catching up on a long neglected topic in order to
systems: An introduction. In S. J. Zaccaro, M. A. Marks, &
improve theory. Organizational Psychology Review . 2:
361-368. L. A. DeChurch (Eds.), Multiteam systems: An organiza-
tion form for dynamic and complex environments: 3-31.
Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Trank, C. Q. 2010. Rhetorical New York: Routledge.
history as a source of competitive advantage. Advances
Zerubavel, E. 2003. Time maps: Collective memory and the
in Strategic Management 27: 147-173.
social shape of the past. Chicago: University of Chicago
Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. 2007. The evolution of Press.
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
290 Academy oí Management Review April
This content downloaded from 193.2.82.196 on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:54:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms