Research Institute of Hawzah and University; (Hawzah wa Dāneshgāh Research Institute) Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities 1608-7070 32 127 2026 06 22 Ontology and Epistemology of Organizational and Management Theories from the Perspective of the “Post-Postmodern Condition” Ontology and Epistemology of Organizational and Management Theories from the Perspective of the “Post-Postmodern Condition” 65 106 2447 10.30471/mssh.2025.10917.2636 FA Reza Delavari Assistant Professor, Department of management, Faculty of humanities, ToloueMehr University, Qom, Iran. 0009-0007-1436-4031 Abolfazl Gaeini Faculty of Research, University of Tehran 0000-0002-8648-7854 Journal Article 2025 04 26 Introduction and Objectives: Intellectual developments at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century indicate that postmodernism, despite its important critical role in challenging modernist certainties and exposing the interrelations of power and knowledge, has gradually encountered significant theoretical and practical limitations. Excessive emphasis on relativism, the rejection of grand narratives, and the reduction of organizations to texts or discourses have weakened the explanatory capacity of organizational theories when confronted with the concrete complexities of contemporary organizations—particularly industrial, technological, and network-based organizations. Within this context, since the early 2000s, a range of theoretical approaches and alternative nomenclatures have emerged with the aim of moving beyond the impasses of postmodernism. These approaches can be broadly conceptualized under the heading of the “post-postmodern condition.” This new condition does not imply a simple return to classical modernity, nor does it represent a straightforward continuation of postmodernism. Rather, it constitutes an effort to rethink fundamental concepts such as truth, rationality, agency, structure, ethics, and meaning, while acknowledging complexity, multilayered reality, and the necessity of theoretical integration. Organizational and management theories are inevitably subject to this rethinking, as digital transformation, globalization, cultural diversity, intensified uncertainty, and ethical and environmental crises have rendered single-dimensional and reductionist frameworks inadequate. The primary objective of this article is to analyze the ontological and epistemological foundations of organizational and management theories within the post-postmodern condition. The article seeks to demonstrate how alternative philosophical approaches—such as critical realism, structuration theory, genetic structuralism, late pragmatism, discourse ethics, and interpretive interactionism—can overcome the limitations of postmodernism and open new horizons for organizational theorizing. The central question addressed is what kind of theoretical combination or integration can provide a valid and effective foundation for understanding contemporary organizations. Method: This study adopts a qualitative, conceptual, and critical research design and is conducted through a library-based and documentary approach. Given that the aim of the research is not the empirical testing of hypotheses, but rather the clarification of theoretical and philosophical transformations and the assessment of alternative frameworks for organizational theory, a methodology appropriate to philosophical and theoretical analysis has been employed. In the first stage, conceptual analysis is used to examine the ontological and epistemological foundations of modern, postmodern, and post-postmodern approaches. This analysis is grounded in classical and contemporary texts in the philosophy of science, theoretical sociology, and organizational theory. In the second stage, a comparative analysis is conducted to identify similarities and differences among selected approaches—namely Bhaskar’s critical realism, Giddens’s structuration theory, Bourdieu’s genetic structuralism, Rorty’s pragmatism, Habermas’s discourse ethics, and Brian Fay’s interpretive interactionism—in their treatment of key concepts such as reality, knowledge, agency, structure, and power. This comparison enables an evaluation of the analytical capacity of each approach for organizational analysis. In the third stage, critical discourse analysis is employed to examine how concepts such as knowledge, truth, power, and organization are represented in postmodern and post-postmodern theoretical texts. This approach helps clarify the epistemological and normative implications of each perspective for organizational theory and practice. Overall, the research methodology integrates conceptual, comparative, and critical analyses with the aim of proposing a multi-foundational framework for organizational theory in the post-postmodern condition. Results: The findings of the study indicate that postmodernism, despite its critical achievements, tends at the ontological level to negate or weaken the notion of objective reality, and at the epistemological level to promote radical relativism. In organizational theory, this orientation has led to the marginalization of structural analysis, power relations, and causal mechanisms. In contrast, post-postmodern approaches emphasize the acceptance of a complex, multilayered reality that exists independently of the human mind, even though it can only be known in partial and context-dependent ways. Critical realism provides the conceptual tools to distinguish between empirical, actual, and deep levels of organizational reality, demonstrating that unobservable structures and mechanisms play a decisive role in organizational action. Giddens’s structuration theory and Bourdieu’s genetic structuralism integrate agency and structure, conceptualizing the organization as a dynamic process of reproduction and transformation rather than as a static or purely discursive entity. Rorty’s pragmatism emphasizes action and the functional character of knowledge, bringing organizational theory closer to problem-solving and lived experience. Habermas’s discourse ethics highlights that organizational legitimacy and cohesion depend on communicative rationality, free dialogue, and non-coercive participation. Brian Fay’s interpretive interactionism underscores the multicultural and interpretive nature of knowledge, emphasizing the necessity of context-sensitive understanding. Taken together, the results show that no single approach provides sufficient explanatory power on its own; however, their integration can yield a rich and flexible framework for organizational theory. Discussion and Conclusion: The discussion demonstrates that the post-postmodern condition should be understood not as a single coherent paradigm, but as an open horizon for critical theoretical integration. Contemporary organizations are characterized by complexity, uncertainty, conflicting interests, technological acceleration, and cultural diversity. An adequate analysis of such organizations requires frameworks that attend simultaneously to material and structural realities, as well as to meaning, agency, and ethics. From this perspective, postmodernism’s one-sided focus on discourse proves insufficient. The main conclusion of the article is that the most appropriate framework for organizational theory in the post-postmodern condition is a multi-foundational and integrative approach. This approach combines elements of critical realism (to explain structures and causal mechanisms), structuration theory and genetic structuralism (to understand the dialectic of structure and agency), and Habermas’s discourse ethics (to address normative concerns and legitimacy), alongside pragmatic action-orientation and interpretive sensitivity. Such a framework enables reflective, interdisciplinary, and practically relevant theorizing, capable of addressing both the theoretical and practical demands of management and organization in the contemporary world. The integration of these approaches is possible because each operates at a different level of analysis, making them complementary rather than conflicting. Critical realism operates at the ontological level, revealing that organizations have deep layers, real structures, and causal mechanisms. Structuration theory operates at the socio-behavioral level, explaining how these structures are reproduced or transformed through the daily actions of human agents. Habermas’s theory of communicative action operates at the normative-ethical level, specifying criteria for legitimacy, understanding, dialogue, and fair decision-making. Since none of these approaches claims total explanatory exclusivity, their combination does not imply paradigmatic confusion, but rather an intelligent coexistence within a post-postmodern framework that accepts multilayeredness, complexity, and the multi-sourced nature of knowledge. Contemporary organizations, for a more accurate understanding, require models that simultaneously perceive real structure, recognize the role of agents, and incorporate criteria of justice and legitimacy in decision-making. Practical Implications for Management and Organizations: Management must identify and reform hidden organizational structures. Change management should analyze employee behavior not based on “individual traits,” but on the “structure-agency interaction.” Organizations must establish mechanisms for genuine participation in decision-making. Management should distance itself from postmodern relativism and confusion, while accepting plurality. Ultimately, organizational theory must become multi-foundational and transdisciplinary. Introduction and Objectives: Intellectual developments at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century indicate that postmodernism, despite its important critical role in challenging modernist certainties and exposing the interrelations of power and knowledge, has gradually encountered significant theoretical and practical limitations. Excessive emphasis on relativism, the rejection of grand narratives, and the reduction of organizations to texts or discourses have weakened the explanatory capacity of organizational theories when confronted with the concrete complexities of contemporary organizations—particularly industrial, technological, and network-based organizations. Within this context, since the early 2000s, a range of theoretical approaches and alternative nomenclatures have emerged with the aim of moving beyond the impasses of postmodernism. These approaches can be broadly conceptualized under the heading of the “post-postmodern condition.” This new condition does not imply a simple return to classical modernity, nor does it represent a straightforward continuation of postmodernism. Rather, it constitutes an effort to rethink fundamental concepts such as truth, rationality, agency, structure, ethics, and meaning, while acknowledging complexity, multilayered reality, and the necessity of theoretical integration. Organizational and management theories are inevitably subject to this rethinking, as digital transformation, globalization, cultural diversity, intensified uncertainty, and ethical and environmental crises have rendered single-dimensional and reductionist frameworks inadequate. The primary objective of this article is to analyze the ontological and epistemological foundations of organizational and management theories within the post-postmodern condition. The article seeks to demonstrate how alternative philosophical approaches—such as critical realism, structuration theory, genetic structuralism, late pragmatism, discourse ethics, and interpretive interactionism—can overcome the limitations of postmodernism and open new horizons for organizational theorizing. The central question addressed is what kind of theoretical combination or integration can provide a valid and effective foundation for understanding contemporary organizations. Method: This study adopts a qualitative, conceptual, and critical research design and is conducted through a library-based and documentary approach. Given that the aim of the research is not the empirical testing of hypotheses, but rather the clarification of theoretical and philosophical transformations and the assessment of alternative frameworks for organizational theory, a methodology appropriate to philosophical and theoretical analysis has been employed. In the first stage, conceptual analysis is used to examine the ontological and epistemological foundations of modern, postmodern, and post-postmodern approaches. This analysis is grounded in classical and contemporary texts in the philosophy of science, theoretical sociology, and organizational theory. In the second stage, a comparative analysis is conducted to identify similarities and differences among selected approaches—namely Bhaskar’s critical realism, Giddens’s structuration theory, Bourdieu’s genetic structuralism, Rorty’s pragmatism, Habermas’s discourse ethics, and Brian Fay’s interpretive interactionism—in their treatment of key concepts such as reality, knowledge, agency, structure, and power. This comparison enables an evaluation of the analytical capacity of each approach for organizational analysis. In the third stage, critical discourse analysis is employed to examine how concepts such as knowledge, truth, power, and organization are represented in postmodern and post-postmodern theoretical texts. This approach helps clarify the epistemological and normative implications of each perspective for organizational theory and practice. Overall, the research methodology integrates conceptual, comparative, and critical analyses with the aim of proposing a multi-foundational framework for organizational theory in the post-postmodern condition. Results: The findings of the study indicate that postmodernism, despite its critical achievements, tends at the ontological level to negate or weaken the notion of objective reality, and at the epistemological level to promote radical relativism. In organizational theory, this orientation has led to the marginalization of structural analysis, power relations, and causal mechanisms. In contrast, post-postmodern approaches emphasize the acceptance of a complex, multilayered reality that exists independently of the human mind, even though it can only be known in partial and context-dependent ways. Critical realism provides the conceptual tools to distinguish between empirical, actual, and deep levels of organizational reality, demonstrating that unobservable structures and mechanisms play a decisive role in organizational action. Giddens’s structuration theory and Bourdieu’s genetic structuralism integrate agency and structure, conceptualizing the organization as a dynamic process of reproduction and transformation rather than as a static or purely discursive entity. Rorty’s pragmatism emphasizes action and the functional character of knowledge, bringing organizational theory closer to problem-solving and lived experience. Habermas’s discourse ethics highlights that organizational legitimacy and cohesion depend on communicative rationality, free dialogue, and non-coercive participation. Brian Fay’s interpretive interactionism underscores the multicultural and interpretive nature of knowledge, emphasizing the necessity of context-sensitive understanding. Taken together, the results show that no single approach provides sufficient explanatory power on its own; however, their integration can yield a rich and flexible framework for organizational theory. Discussion and Conclusion: The discussion demonstrates that the post-postmodern condition should be understood not as a single coherent paradigm, but as an open horizon for critical theoretical integration. Contemporary organizations are characterized by complexity, uncertainty, conflicting interests, technological acceleration, and cultural diversity. An adequate analysis of such organizations requires frameworks that attend simultaneously to material and structural realities, as well as to meaning, agency, and ethics. From this perspective, postmodernism’s one-sided focus on discourse proves insufficient. The main conclusion of the article is that the most appropriate framework for organizational theory in the post-postmodern condition is a multi-foundational and integrative approach. This approach combines elements of critical realism (to explain structures and causal mechanisms), structuration theory and genetic structuralism (to understand the dialectic of structure and agency), and Habermas’s discourse ethics (to address normative concerns and legitimacy), alongside pragmatic action-orientation and interpretive sensitivity. Such a framework enables reflective, interdisciplinary, and practically relevant theorizing, capable of addressing both the theoretical and practical demands of management and organization in the contemporary world. The integration of these approaches is possible because each operates at a different level of analysis, making them complementary rather than conflicting. Critical realism operates at the ontological level, revealing that organizations have deep layers, real structures, and causal mechanisms. Structuration theory operates at the socio-behavioral level, explaining how these structures are reproduced or transformed through the daily actions of human agents. Habermas’s theory of communicative action operates at the normative-ethical level, specifying criteria for legitimacy, understanding, dialogue, and fair decision-making. Since none of these approaches claims total explanatory exclusivity, their combination does not imply paradigmatic confusion, but rather an intelligent coexistence within a post-postmodern framework that accepts multilayeredness, complexity, and the multi-sourced nature of knowledge. Contemporary organizations, for a more accurate understanding, require models that simultaneously perceive real structure, recognize the role of agents, and incorporate criteria of justice and legitimacy in decision-making. Practical Implications for Management and Organizations: Management must identify and reform hidden organizational structures. Change management should analyze employee behavior not based on “individual traits,” but on the “structure-agency interaction.” Organizations must establish mechanisms for genuine participation in decision-making. Management should distance itself from postmodern relativism and confusion, while accepting plurality. Ultimately, organizational theory must become multi-foundational and transdisciplinary.

https://method.rihu.ac.ir/article_2447_750c0292b342ee0762a4ed59c29fcebf.pdf