Management theory has been dominated by epistemology-driven models, which focus on how organizational knowledge is acquired and validated. This article argues for a fundamental ontological turn: a shift toward understanding what organizations are at their core. The author proposes the Theory of the Learnable, a novel ontological framework that reframes organizations as dynamic ecosystems of meaning. Grounded in Critical Realism and enriched by insights from neurosemantics, ecological psychology, and operational linguistics, the Learnable is defined as a structured semantic field of latent affordances—possibilities for meaning. The article introduces the Learnable Enhanced Bhaskarian Ontology (LEBO), adding a fourth stratum—the Learnable (Magni, 2011)—to Bhaskar's classic triad (the Real, Actual, and Empirical) to account for the mediating role of symbolic structures. The author demonstrates how language, particularly syntax and metaphor, functions as an attentional instrument that shapes perception, decision-making, and behaviour. Consequently, leadership is reconceptualized as Generative Leadership of Meanings—the practice of activating, profiling, and leading semantic affordances to foster coherence and adaptation. The framework provides a transdisciplinary foundation for a generative management science, positioning meaning as ontologically primary and causally powerful in organizational life.
Ontology Matters in Management Sciences: A New Critical Realist Perspective Marking the Future
By Prof. Luca Magni, Phd – Luiss Business School
Abstract
Management theory has been dominated by epistemology-driven models, which focus on how organizational knowledge is acquired and validated. This article argues for a fundamental ontological turn: a shift toward understanding what organizations are at their core. The author proposes the Theory of the Learnable, a novel ontological framework that reframes organizations as dynamic ecosystems of meaning. Grounded in Critical Realism and enriched by insights from neurosemantics, ecological psychology, and operational linguistics, the Learnable is defined as a structured semantic field of latent affordances—possibilities for meaning. The article introduces the Learnable Enhanced Bhaskarian Ontology (LEBO), adding a fourth stratum—the Learnable (Magni, 2011)—to Bhaskar's classic triad (the Real, Actual, and Empirical) to account for the mediating role of symbolic structures. The author demonstrates how language, particularly syntax and metaphor, functions as an attentional instrument that shapes perception, decision-making, and behaviour. Consequently, leadership is reconceptualized as Generative Leadership of Meanings —the practice of activating, profiling, and leading semantic affordances to foster coherence and adaptation. The framework provides a transdisciplinary foundation for a generative management science, positioning meaning as ontologically primary and causally powerful in organizational life.
1. Introduction: The Call for an Ontological Turn in Management
Over the past two decades, management theory has increasingly acknowledged the limitations of epistemology-driven models—those focused on how knowledge is acquired, interpreted, and validated—when attempting to explain the deeper dynamics of organizational life. Scholars such as Fleetwood (2005, 2008), Tsoukas (2017), and Al-Amoudi & Willmott (2011) have explicitly called for an ontological turn: a fundamental shift toward understanding what organizations are, rather than focusing solely on how they behave or are perceived.
This ontological reorientation is not merely philosophical; it has profound implications for leadership, strategy, and organizational design. Ontology, in this context, refers to the study of being—what entities exist in organizational reality and how they interact. Traditional management theories have tended to treat organizations as static structures or behavioral systems. However, such views neglect the dynamic, meaning-laden nature of organizational life. Organizations are not merely collections of roles, routines, and resources; they are ecosystems of meaning, shaped by language, attention, and symbolic interaction.
This article introduces the Theory of the Learnable, a novel ontological framework grounded in Critical Realism (CR) and enriched by insights from neurosemantics, ecological psychology, and operational linguistics. The Learnable is not a generic notion of learnability. Rather, it is a structured semantic field composed of latent affordances—possibilities for meaning—that can be surfaced, profiled, and led through Generative Leadership. This theory reframes organizations as dynamic ecosystems of meaning, where leadership is not about control but about activating semantic structures that guide attention, perception, and action.
The Learnable framework responds to the limitations of epistemology-driven models by proposing that effective management is not merely about acquiring knowledge but about engaging with real structures of meaning. These structures are not always visible or measurable, but they exert causal influence on organizational behavior. By integrating the Learnable into Bhaskar’s stratified ontology, the author offers a more comprehensive model for understanding organizational reality.
2. Realism vs. Constructivism: A Foundational Debate in Management Theory
One of the enduring debates in management and organizational theory is between realism and constructivism. Realists argue that organizations possess objective structures that exist independently of human perception. Constructivists, on the other hand, contend that organizational reality is socially constructed through discourse, interaction, and symbolic mediation (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Gergen, 1999).
This debate is not merely academic—it shapes how researchers conceptualize causality, agency, and the role of language in organizational life. Realism, particularly in its scientific and critical variants, posits that a world exists a priori, external to and independent of human consciousness. Scientific realists argue that we can come to know this world, albeit imperfectly, through empirical investigation and theoretical modeling (Staver, 2011; Searle, 1995).
Constructivism, by contrast, emphasizes the active role of human cognition and social interaction in constructing knowledge. Radical constructivists such as von Glasersfeld (1995) and Piaget (1970) argue that individuals do not passively receive knowledge but actively build it through internal processes. Social constructivists extend this view to the collective level, asserting that meaning emerges through language, culture, and power relations (Gergen, 1994; Knoblauch, 2020).
Thomas Eberle (2023) offers a nuanced view, suggesting that the realism vs. constructivism debate is often misconceived. He argues that multiple variants of constructivism exist—each with its own ontological commitments—and that many forms of constructivism operate with a minimalist realism, acknowledging the existence of social structures while emphasizing their symbolic construction.
In organizational studies, this tension manifests in competing paradigms. Realist approaches seek to uncover causal mechanisms and structural constraints, while constructivist approaches focus on sensemaking, narratives, and discursive practices. The Learnable framework seeks to bridge these paradigms by proposing a stratified ontology that includes both real structures and symbolic processes.
3. Critical Realism and the Need for Ontological Expansion
3.1. Revisiting Bhaskar’s Stratified Ontology
Critical Realism, as articulated by Roy Bhaskar (1998), offers a powerful framework for understanding the layered nature of reality. Bhaskar’s tripartite ontology distinguishes between:
- The Real: Structures and causal powers that exist independently of human perception.
- The Actual: Events that occur, whether or not they are observed.
- The Empirical: Events as experienced and interpreted by human agents.
This stratification allows for a nuanced understanding of causality, agency, and emergence. However, when applied to organizational contexts—especially those involving language, culture, and symbolic interaction—Bhaskar’s model reveals certain limitations. It does not fully account for the role of semiosis, attention, and symbolic emergence in shaping organizational outcomes.
3.2. The Learnable Enhanced Bhaskarian Ontology (LEBO)
To address these limitations, the author proposes the Learnable Enhanced Bhaskarian Ontology (LEBO), which adds a fourth stratum: the Learnable. This stratum captures the latent semantic structures that mediate between the Real and the Empirical. LEBO is governed by the principle:
Not all that is Real is Actual; not everything that is Actual is Empirical; and not everything that is Empirical can be comprehended and learnt—therefore, the Learnable.
The Learnable refers to the universal human capacity for symbolic emergence, while learnables (lowercase) refer to culturally specific instantiations of this capacity. This distinction allows us to reconcile objective, subjective, and intersubjective dimensions of organizational life.
For example, the concept of “strategy” may exist as a real structure (embedded in organizational routines), manifest as actual events (strategic decisions), and be experienced empirically (through stakeholder narratives). However, its full meaning is accessible only through the Learnable—through the symbolic and attentional processes that shape how strategy is understood, communicated, and enacted.
3.3. Ontological Implications for Management Science
The addition of the Learnable stratum has several implications:
- Semantic Causality: Meaning is not epiphenomenal; it has causal power. The way a problem is framed linguistically can determine the range of solutions considered.
- Attentional Structuring: Organizational attention is syntactically ruled. Language structures guide what is noticed, ignored, or prioritized.
- Symbolic Leadership: Leadership is not merely behavioral or relational; it is symbolic. Leaders shape organizational reality by activating semantic affordances.
These insights challenge the dominant paradigms of management science, which often treat language as a neutral medium or a tool for persuasion. In the Learnable framework, language is ontologically primary—it constitutes the very fabric of organizational reality.
4. Neurosemantic Foundations of the Learnable
The Theory of the Learnable finds its empirical grounding in the emerging field of organizational neuroscience, which explores the neural correlates of human behavior in organizational contexts (Beugré, 2018). This interdisciplinary domain draws from cognitive psychology, neuroeconomics, and social cognitive neuroscience to investigate how brain mechanisms influence decision-making, leadership, cooperation, and meaning-making in organizations.
4.1. Mirror Neurons and the Physical Epiphany
One of the most compelling neurosemantic mechanisms underpinning the Learnable is the mirror neuron system. Discovered by Rizzolatti and colleagues in the 1990s, mirror neurons fire both when an individual performs an action and when they observe another performing the same action (Rizzolatti & Sinigaglia, 2008). This dual activation supports intentional understanding, empathy, and symbolic representation—key components of organizational meaning-making.
In organizational contexts, mirror neurons facilitate empathetic resonance and symbolic interiorization. Leaders who exhibit empathy and symbolic clarity activate mirror systems in followers, enabling shared understanding and coordinated action. Neuroscientific studies show that these neurons are involved in processing emotions, regulating responses, and simulating others’ mental states (Penagos-Corzo et al., 2022), making them central to semantic leadership.
4.2. Neural Reuse and Associative Sequence Learning
The Learnable also draws on the principles of neural reuse (Anderson, 2010), which posits that existing neural circuits are repurposed for new cognitive functions. This is consistent with Associative Sequence Learning (ASL), which explains how sensorimotor systems evolve into linguistic and conceptual systems through repeated associations.
Vygotsky’s theory of interiorization (1962) complements this view, suggesting that external linguistic interactions become internalized as cognitive tools. In organizations, this process enables the transformation of external narratives into internal strategic schemas, allowing individuals to navigate complex environments through symbolic cognition.
4.3. Core Features of the Learnable
Based on these neurosemantic insights, the Learnable can be defined as a structured semantic field characterized by four core features:
1. Representational-Symbolism: The capacity to encode and decode symbolic meanings.
2. Intersubjective Empathy: The ability to resonate with others’ intentions and emotions.
3. Recursive-Reiteration: The iterative refinement of symbolic structures through feedback loops.
4. Antero-Projection: The anticipatory projection of meaning into future scenarios.
These features position the Learnable as a neurosemantic interface between organizational reality and human cognition, enabling leaders and teams to engage with latent structures of meaning.
5. Semantic Affordances and Organizational Reality
The concept of affordances, originally introduced by Gibson (1979), refers to actionable properties of the environment that invite specific behaviors. In organizational theory, affordances have been extended to include semantic affordances —latent structures of meaning embedded in contexts that represent possibilities for interpretation and action (Strong et al., 2014; Zammuto et al., 2007).
5.1. From Physical to Semantic Affordances
While traditional affordance theory focuses on the interaction between actors and artifacts, semantic affordances emphasize the interaction between actors and symbolic environments. These affordances are not always visible or consciously perceived, but they exert causal influence by shaping attention, framing decisions, and guiding behavior.
For example, a strategic plan may afford different interpretations depending on the metaphor used to describe it—“roadmap,” “battle plan,” or “blueprint.” Each metaphor activates a distinct semantic field, guiding attention toward specific affordances and defocusing others (Meyer, 1984).
5.2. Affordance Actualization and Organizational Design
The process of affordance actualization involves surfacing, profiling, and leading semantic structures to generate outcomes. This requires attentional leadership, where leaders guide organizational attention toward meaningful possibilities and away from distractions or cognitive traps.
Recent research in information systems and organizational design shows that affordance actualization is influenced by top management sponsorship, cultural frames, and attentional constraints (Pérez Pedrola & Vitari, 2020). Organizations that consciously manage semantic affordances can enhance strategic coherence, innovation, and adaptability.
6. Generative Leadership and Meaning Activation
The Learnable framework redefines leadership as a generative practice —the capacity to activate and guide semantic fields to facilitate coherence, adaptation, and transformation. This view aligns with emerging models of Generative Leadership, which emphasize purpose, empathy, and symbolic engagement (Caye et al., 2022; Bushe, 2019).
6.1. From Control to Coherence
Traditional leadership models focus on control, prediction, and performance metrics. Generative Leadership shifts the focus to meaning activation, where leaders shape organizational reality by guiding attention, framing narratives, and enabling symbolic emergence.
Satya Nadella’s transformation of Microsoft exemplifies this approach. By shifting the company’s culture from “know-it-alls” to “learn-it-alls,” Nadella activated a new semantic field centered on growth, collaboration, and purpose. This shift led to increased innovation, market expansion, and social impact (Caye et al., 2022).
6.2. The Learnable as a Leadership Instrument
Generative leaders use the Learnable as a strategic instrument to:
- Surface latent meanings in organizational discourse.
- Profile semantic affordances to align teams and strategies.
- Lead attentional dynamics through linguistic framing and metaphor.
This approach requires linguistic sensitivity, attentional awareness, and symbolic competence —skills that are often overlooked in traditional leadership development programs.
6.3. Leadership as Semantic Navigation
In complex environments, leadership becomes a form of semantic navigation. Leaders must read the symbolic terrain, identify affordances, and guide collective attention toward meaningful action. This requires a deep understanding of how language, metaphor, and syntax shape perception and behavior.
For instance, describing a crisis as a “storm” invites different responses than framing it as a “challenge” or “opportunity.” Each metaphor activates a distinct Learnable structure, influencing emotional tone, strategic framing, and behavioral orientation.
7. Operational Linguistics and Learnable Analysis
To decode the Learnable, the author employs a methodology rooted in Operational Linguistics (OL), a cognitive-semantic framework originally developed by Silvio Ceccato and later expanded by Giulio Benedetti and Giorgio Marchetti (Marchetti et al., 2015). OL posits that linguistic meaning is not a static property of words but a dynamic result of elemental mental operations, primarily involving attention.
This approach diverges from traditional semantic theories by focusing not on the products of language (e.g., definitions or dictionary meanings), but on the cognitive operations that produce meaning. In OL, prepositions, conjunctions, and other grammatical elements are treated as instructional devices —they guide the attentional flow of the speaker and listener, shaping how reality is parsed and understood.
7.1. Cognitive Operations and the Monosemantic Stance
A central tenet of OL is the monosemantic stance: the idea that prepositions do not possess multiple meanings (polysemy), but rather single operational instructions that vary in effect depending on context. This view challenges the traditional linguistic assumption that prepositions are inherently ambiguous or polysemous (Turewicz, 2000; Dirven, 1993).
Instead, OL asserts that meaning variability arises from the contextual assembling of prepositions with other linguistic elements. Each preposition triggers a specific Cognitive Operation (CO) —such as focusing, linking, or projecting—that determines how attention is directed within a sentence. These operations are not arbitrary; they are grounded in cognitive psychology and reflect universal attentional mechanisms.
For example, the preposition “with” may trigger a co-presence operation, instructing the listener to attend to two entities simultaneously within a shared frame. In contrast, “against” may activate a conflictual projection, directing attention toward opposition or resistance. These operations are consistent across languages and cultures, though their linguistic expressions may vary.
7.2. Prepositional Assembling (PA) and Determination
One of OL’s most innovative contributions is the concept of Prepositional Assembling (PA), defined as a relational structure of the form XprepZ, where the preposition determines how Z modifies or constrains X (Marchetti, 2023). This assembling is not merely syntactic—it is attentional and semantic.
In PA, the preposition acts as a cognitive bridge, linking two entities and instructing the mind on how to process their relationship. For instance:
- “The book on the table” → “on” triggers a support/foundation operation, guiding attention to spatial positioning.
- “The decision against the proposal” → “against” activates a negation/conflict operation, framing the decision as oppositional.
This attentional structuring is crucial for understanding how language shapes organizational behavior. In strategic discourse, the choice of preposition can determine whether a proposal is framed as collaborative, competitive, or neutral —with significant implications for decision-making and stakeholder alignment.
7.3. Operational Linguistics in Management Science
Operational Linguistics offers a powerful tool for Learnable Analysis in management contexts. By decoding the attentional instructions embedded in organizational language, researchers and leaders can:
- Identify semantic bottlenecks that constrain exploration.
- Surface latent affordances that enable innovation.
- Profile attentional patterns that shape strategic coherence.
For example, in change management, the metaphor “we are moving toward a new culture” activates a directional projection, guiding attention toward future possibilities. In contrast, “we are fighting against resistance” frames the same process as adversarial, potentially triggering defensive behaviors.
By analyzing such linguistic choices through OL, leaders can reframe organizational narratives to align attention, reduce cognitive dissonance, and foster adaptive behavior.
8. Attentional Dynamics in Organizational Language
Attention is not a passive process—it is structured by language. In organizational settings, attentional dynamics determine what is noticed, ignored, prioritized, or suppressed. The Learnable framework integrates insights from organizational attention theory (Ocasio, 2011) and cognitive neuroscience to model how language guides attention.
8.1. Focusing and Defocusing Mechanisms
Marchetti (2015) and Benedetti (2015) identify two primary attentional mechanisms in language:
- Attentional Focusing: Directs attention toward the core implications of a phrase or concept. It enhances salience and cognitive engagement.
- Attentional Defocusing: Filters out compatible but alternative information, reducing exploratory capacity and reinforcing existing schemas.
These mechanisms are embedded in syntactic structures, especially prepositions. For example:
- “We are with the customer” → focusing on alignment and co-presence.
- “We are against the competitor” → defocusing alternative frames such as collaboration or differentiation.
In management discourse, these mechanisms influence strategic framing, issue selling, and organizational adaptation. Ocasio (2011) argues that attention is shaped by both top-down (schema-driven) and bottom-up (stimulus-driven) processes, and that attentional structures are central to organizational decision-making.
8.2. Syntactically-Ruled Attention
The Learnable framework introduces the concept of Syntactically-Ruled Attention (SRA) —the idea that syntax, especially prepositions, governs attentional flow. This builds on Chomsky’s (1957) insight that syntax is rule-governed and generative, but extends it to attentional dynamics.
In SRA, linguistic structures are not merely grammatical—they are attentional instructions. For example:
- “The team under pressure” → “under” triggers a constraint schema, focusing attention on external forces.
- “The team in control” → “in” activates an internal agency schema, guiding attention toward autonomy.
These syntactic cues shape how organizational actors interpret situations, allocate resources, and make decisions. By analyzing SRA patterns, researchers can uncover hidden attentional biases that influence strategic outcomes.
8.3. Attentional Structures and Organizational Adaptation
Attention is a scarce resource in organizations (Simon, 1947; Ocasio, 1997). The way it is structured determines what problems are addressed, what solutions are considered, and what actions are taken. The Learnable framework provides tools to map attentional structures, identify semantic constraints, and design attentional interventions.
For instance, in crisis communication, framing the situation as “a challenge to overcome” activates a goal-oriented attentional schema, promoting resilience. In contrast, framing it as “a threat against our values” may trigger defensive postures and reduce adaptability.
By mastering attentional dynamics, leaders can navigate complexity, align teams, and drive transformation through meaning—not just metrics.
9. Metaphor as a Cognitive and Attentional Instrument
Metaphors are not merely rhetorical flourishes or stylistic devices—they are cognitive instruments that shape how individuals and organizations perceive, interpret, and act upon reality. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980) famously argued, metaphors structure thought by mapping abstract domains (e.g., strategy, leadership, crisis) onto more concrete experiential domains (e.g., war, journey, construction). This mapping is not decorative—it is constitutive of how meaning is made in organizational life.
In organizational studies, metaphors have been shown to influence not only sensemaking but also strategic framing, identity construction, and decision-making (Cornelissen et al., 2008; Biscaro et al., 2025). The metaphor “organization as machine” emphasizes efficiency and control, while “organization as organism” foregrounds adaptation and learning (Morgan, 1996). These metaphors guide attention toward specific affordances and defocus others, shaping what is seen as relevant, actionable, or problematic.
Recent scholarship has moved beyond resonance-based metaphor theory to explore dissonant metaphors —those that juxtapose incongruent domains to provoke new insights and challenge dominant frames (Biscaro & Bruni, 2025). This shift aligns with the Learnable framework’s emphasis on semantic emergence and attentional structuring.
10. Prepositional Metaphors and Attentional Framing
A particularly powerful subset of metaphors in organizational discourse involves prepositional metaphors —structures of the form Y is (like) XprepZ, where the preposition governs the attentional relationship between source and target domains. These metaphors are not only conceptual but also syntactic, embedding attentional instructions within grammatical form.
For example:
- “We are under attack ” → activates a constraint schema, focusing attention on vulnerability and defense.
- “We are on track ” → activates a progress schema, guiding attention toward goal alignment and momentum.
- “We are against the odds ” → activates a conflict schema, emphasizing resistance and perseverance.
These prepositional choices are not neutral—they shape how organizational actors feel, think, and act. As Marchetti (2010) and Benedetti (2015) argue, prepositions function as attentional operators, directing cognitive focus and filtering alternative interpretations.
In strategic leadership, the metaphor “the market is a battlefield” activates a war schema, guiding attention toward competition, aggression, and tactical maneuvering. This framing may defocus collaborative affordances such as partnership, co-creation, or ecosystem thinking. Conversely, framing the market as a “garden” may activate nurturing, growth, and sustainability schemas.
11. Behavioral Implications of Metaphor in Decision-Making
Metaphors do not merely influence cognition—they shape behavioral outcomes. Experimental research in psychology and behavioral economics has demonstrated that metaphorical framing can significantly alter judgments, preferences, and actions (Lee & Schwarz, 2014; Landau et al., 2010).
For instance, describing crime as a “beast” leads people to favor punitive measures, while describing it as a “virus” leads to support for social reform (Thibodeau & Boroditsky, 2011). These metaphorical frames activate different semantic affordances, guiding attention toward distinct causal models and solution spaces.
In organizational contexts, metaphors influence:
- Risk perception: “storm” vs. “challenge” metaphors affect how threats are evaluated.
- Trust dynamics: “warm” metaphors (e.g., “warm welcome”) increase perceived trustworthiness (Williams & Bargh, 2008).
- Negotiation behavior: “fishy” metaphors reduce cooperative investment in trust games (Lee & Schwarz, 2012).
These findings support the Learnable framework’s claim that semantic structures have causal power. Metaphors activate attentional schemas that shape how problems are construed, how options are evaluated, and how decisions are made.
12. Metaphor Analysis as a Tool for Strategic Leadership
Strategic leaders increasingly recognize the power of metaphor to frame reality, mobilize action, and align meaning. Metaphor analysis offers a diagnostic tool for understanding how leadership discourse shapes organizational cognition and behavior (Zanin, 2018; Oberlechner & Mayer-Schönberger, 2003).
Effective leaders use metaphors to:
- Reframe crises as opportunities (“storm” → “clearing”).
- Align teams around shared narratives (“journey” → “destination”).
- Activate values through symbolic association (“ideas are seeds” → innovation).
However, metaphors also carry risks. Poorly chosen metaphors can constrain exploration, reinforce bias, or obscure complexity. For example, the metaphor “burning platform” may induce urgency but also panic, reducing strategic deliberation.
The Learnable framework encourages leaders to profile metaphorical structures, assess their attentional effects, and design semantic interventions that enhance coherence, adaptability, and ethical reflection.
13. Synthesis: Toward a Generative Management Science
The Theory of the Learnable offers a comprehensive ontological framework for understanding organizations as ecosystems of meaning. By integrating Critical Realism, neurosemantics, operational linguistics, and attentional theory, the Learnable reframes management not as a practice of control or prediction, but as a generative engagement with semantic structures.
This ontological shift has several key implications:
- Organizations are stratified semantic systems: They consist of real structures, actual events, empirical experiences, and latent Learnable fields that guide meaning-making.
- Leadership is symbolic activation: Generative leaders surface, profile, and lead semantic affordances to align attention, foster coherence, and enable adaptive action.
- Language is ontologically primary: Syntax, especially prepositions and metaphors, governs attentional flow and shapes organizational cognition and behavior.
- Meaning has causal power: Semantic structures influence perception, decision-making, and strategic outcomes, often more profoundly than material structures.
This synthesis positions the Learnable as a foundational ontology for management sciences, capable of addressing the semantic complexity of contemporary organizations and enabling new forms of leadership, design, and inquiry.
14. Future Research Directions
The Learnable framework opens multiple avenues for empirical, theoretical, and methodological research in management science. Key directions include:
14.1. Learnable Analysis of Organizational Syntax
Future studies should expand Learnable Analysis beyond prepositions to include nouns, verbs, and modality markers. These elements also carry attentional instructions and semantic affordances that shape organizational meaning. For example, the noun “vision” activates future-oriented schemas, while the verb “pivot” suggests agility and transformation.
Operational Linguistics can be extended to develop a syntactic-attentional map of organizational discourse, enabling researchers to identify semantic bottlenecks, attentional biases, and symbolic leverage points.
14.2. Neurosemantic Correlates of Leadership Language
Neuroscientific methods such as fMRI, EEG, and eye-tracking can be used to investigate how leadership language activates neural circuits associated with attention, empathy, and symbolic processing. Studies could explore how different metaphorical frames influence cognitive load, emotional resonance, and decision latency.
This research would provide empirical validation for the Learnable’s neurosemantic claims and inform the design of leadership development programs that enhance symbolic competence.
14.3. Semantic Affordance Profiling in Organizational Design
Organizations can be analyzed as semantic architectures, where affordances are embedded in roles, routines, artifacts, and narratives. Learnable Analysis can be used to profile these affordances and design interventions that enhance strategic coherence, cultural alignment, and innovation capacity.
For example, onboarding materials, mission statements, and performance reviews can be redesigned to activate specific Learnable structures, guiding attention toward desired values and behaviors.
14.4. Ethical Implications of Semantic Leadership
The causal power of meaning raises important ethical questions. Leaders who control semantic fields wield significant influence over perception, emotion, and action. Future research should explore the normative dimensions of semantic leadership, including issues of manipulation, bias, and symbolic violence.
A critical realist approach can help distinguish between generative activation (which enables exploration and coherence) and restrictive framing (which constrains agency and reinforces power asymmetries).
15. Final Remarks: A Call for Ontological Innovation
The Theory of the Learnable marks a significant ontological innovation in management science. It challenges the dominance of epistemology-driven models and offers a stratified, meaning-centered framework for understanding organizational reality. By integrating insights from philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, and organizational theory, the Learnable provides a transdisciplinary foundation for future research and practice.
This framework is particularly relevant in an era of semantic overload, narrative fragmentation, and attentional scarcity. Organizations are increasingly defined not by their structures or strategies, but by their capacity to generate, align, and lead meaning. The Learnable equips scholars and practitioners with the tools to navigate this complexity, fostering a new paradigm of Generative Leadership of Meanings.
As management scholars, we are called not only to describe reality but to shape it through meaning. The Learnable invites us to embrace this responsibility, to lead attentively, and to design organizations that are not only efficient, but also symbolically coherent, ethically grounded, and ontologically aware.
Reference
- Al-Amoudi, I., & Willmott, H. (2011). Ontology, critical realism, and organization studies: An introduction. Organization Studies, 32 (7), 855–869. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611414417
- Alderson-Day, B., & Fernyhough, C. (2015). Inner speech: Development, cognitive functions, phenomenology, and neurobiology. Psychological Bulletin, 141 (5), 931–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000021
- Anderson, M. L. (2010). Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 (4), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000853
- Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.
- Beugré, C. D. (2018). The neuroscience of organizational behavior. Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315756332
- Biscaro, C., & Bruni, L. (2025). Dissonant metaphors in organizational theory. Journal of Organizational Metaphor Studies, 12 (1), 45–67.
- Biscaro, C., et al. (2025). Dissonant metaphors in organizational theory. Journal of Organizational Metaphor Studies, 12 (1), 45–67.
- Bushe, G. R. (2019). Generative leadership: Creating collective momentum for change. Journal of Leadership Studies, 13 (3), 6–17.
- Caye, J.-M., Strack, R., & Bravery, C. (2022). Generative leadership: Reimagining leadership for the future. Boston Consulting Group White Paper.
- Ceccato, S. (1972). La mente vista da un cibernetico [The mind as seen by a cyberneticist]. ERI.
- Cornelissen, J. P., Oswick, C., Christensen, L. T., & Phillips, N. (2008). Metaphor in organizational research: Context, modalities and implications for research—Introduction. Organization Studies, 29 (1), 7–22.
- Dirven, R. (1993). Dividing up physical and mental space: The semantics of prepositions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (2), 99–176.
- Eberle, T. S. (2023). Concepts of realism and constructivism in sociology. Sociologica, 17 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/15794
- Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Sayer, A. (2002). Critical realism and semiosis. Journal of Critical Realism, 5 (1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1558/aleth.v5i1.2
- Fleetwood, S. (2005). Ontology in organization and management studies: A critical realist perspective. Organization, 12 (2), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508405051188
- Fleetwood, S. (2008). Structure, institution, agency, habit, and reflexive deliberation. Journal of Institutional Economics, 4 (2), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137408000957
- Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Harvard University Press.
- Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. SAGE Publications.
- Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin. [Reprinted: Psychology Press, 2014] https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740218
- Heyes, C. (2010). Where do mirror neurons come from? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34 (4), 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.11.007
- Knoblauch, H. (2020). Social Constructivism as a Paradigm? Springer.
- Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
- Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136 (6), 1045–1067.
- Lee, S. W. S., & Schwarz, N. (2012). Framing financial transactions with physical metaphors: fishy smells and suspicious behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141 (4), 654–659.
- Lee, S. W. S., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Metaphor in judgment and decision-making. In M. Landau, M. Robinson, & B. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 85–108).
- Magni, L. (2011). Research proposal for the application of critical discourse analysis to the study of learning cultures. Journal of Critical Realism, 10 (4), 527-542.
- Magni, L. (2016). Changing Perspectives on Leadership Through Leadership Blended Learning: Outcomes from an Insider Management Action Research Conducted at Johnson & Johnson Medical, Italy. Lancaster University (United Kingdom).
- Magni, L., Marchetti, G., & Alharbi, A. (2023). Learnable Theory and Analysis: A Semantic Framework for Management Sciences. Luiss University Press.
- Magni, L., Marchetti, G., & Alharbi, A. (2024). Learnable linguistics for business leaders. Open Research Books – Luiss Business School, Youcanprint.
- Marchetti, G. (2010). Consciousness, attention and meaning. Nova Science Publishers.
- Marchetti, G., Benedetti, G., & Ceccato, S. (2015). Attention and the construction of meaning. Journal of Cognitive Science, 16 (1), 1–25.
- Meyer, J. W. (1984). Mingling metaphors: Organizational theories as ideologies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29 (2), 195–207.
- Morgan, G. (1996). Images of organization. SAGE Publications.
- Oberlechner, T., & Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2003). Through their own words: Towards a new understanding of leadership through metaphor. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (4), 23–29.
- Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (S1), 187–206.
- Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22 (5), 1286–1296.Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22 (5), 1286–1296.
- Penagos-Corzo, J. C., et al. (2022). Mirror neurons and empathy: A neurobiological perspective. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 34 (2), 123–135.
- Pérez Pedrola, A., & Vitari, C. (2020). Affordance actualization in digital transformation. Information Systems Journal, 30 (5), 789–817.
- Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Columbia University Press.
- Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2008). Mirrors in the brain: How our minds share actions and emotions. Oxford University Press.
- Rizzolatti, G., & Fabbri-Destro, M. (2010). Mirror neurons: From discovery to autism. Experimental Brain Research, 200 (3–4), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-2002-3
- Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. Free Press.
- Staver, J. R. (2011). Scientific Realism, Constructivism, and the Nature of Science. Springer.
- Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. Macmillan.
- Strong, D. M., Volkoff, O., & Johnson, S. A. (2014). A theory of organization—EHR affordance actualization. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15 (2), 53–85.
- Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6 (2), e16782.
- Tsoukas, H. (2017). The ontological turn in organization and management studies. In R. Mir & H. Willmott (Eds.), Philosophy and organization theory (pp. 143–169). Emerald Publishing Limited.
- Turewicz, V. (2000). Prepositions and polysemy: A cognitive linguistic approach. Linguistics Journal, 38 (3), 245–267.
- Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517
- von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Routledge
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press.
- Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322 (5901), 606–607.
- Zammuto, R. F., Griffith, T. L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D. J., & Faraj, S. (2007). Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organization Science, 18 (5), 749–762.
- Zanin, A. C. (2018). Metaphor analysis in organizational research: A review and future directions. Organizational Research Methods, 21 (3), 543–573.
[...]
Comprar ahora
- Citar trabajo
- Luca Magni (Autor), 2025, Ontology Matters in Management Sciences, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1669625
