Genesis
The thread opened on 22 February 2026 with a question about whether organisational theory has a tectonic-subduction concept where surface processes actively bury deeper concerns rather than passively neglecting them. The geological metaphor was specific: not erosion (continuous removal), not sedimentation (passive accumulation), not drift (gradual movement), but subduction (one plate forced beneath another by the ongoing operational energy of the surface).
A literature scan established that no existing theory captures the active-burial dynamic precisely. Several concepts come close at different levels of analysis, but none combines the active forcing-under, the structural continuity, the awareness-suppressing surface energy, and the pressure accumulation that the tectonic metaphor implies. The combination is what the paper would contribute.
Core Concept
Subduction names a mechanism distinct from passive sedimentation or layering. The driving force is the ongoing operational energy of the surface processes themselves. Burial is structural and continuous, not episodic or strategic. The accumulated pressure of buried concerns creates conditions for eventual catastrophic eruption that no single moment of the burial process registers as the cause. Applied to organisations: proxy-confirming processes do not just compete with accountable criteria for attention. They convert their own operational momentum into a force that drives accountable criteria beneath the surface where the proxy operates.
The framing matters because it specifies what kind of intervention would and would not work. A theory of passive neglect implies that attention can be redirected. A theory of active subduction implies that the proxy machinery itself has to be slowed or restructured because as long as it runs at operational velocity, the burial continues regardless of whether anyone is paying attention.
Closest Existing Concepts
Surrogation (Choi, Hecht, and Tayler)
Cognitive-level analog. Decision-makers come to treat the metric as the underlying construct, losing the conceptual distinction between proxy and criterion. Closest existing match for the seduction layer of PSF, but operates at the individual cognitive level rather than the structural organisational level.
Normalisation of deviance (Vaughan, Snook)
Safety-science analog. Routine operations gradually accommodate small departures from safety thresholds until the cumulative drift produces catastrophic failure. Closest existing model of active, structural, incremental burial of critical concerns. Differs from subduction in that physical signals eventually intrude (the rocket explodes, the tank crashes). Accountable criteria buried by engagement metrics may never generate an unambiguous crisis signal.
Means-ends decoupling (Bromley and Powell)
Institutional analog. Organisations adopt practices that remain disconnected from outcomes. Names the symptom (decoupling) rather than the mechanism (active burial). Subduction would specify what does the decoupling and how the decoupling sustains itself against surface evidence of misalignment.
Strathern's visibility-concealment paradox
Most elegant single formulation of the core insight: making something visible can be the mechanism by which something else gets concealed. Subduction would extend this from a paradox to a continuous mechanism with operational energetics.
Sedimentation (Cooper et al.) and layering (Streeck and Thelen)
Existing geological metaphors in organisation and institutional theory. Both describe accumulation rather than active forcing-under. Subduction would specifically distinguish itself from these by specifying that the driving force is operational energy at the surface, not depositional accumulation over time.
Relationship to PSF
Subduction is more general than PSF. PSF is the engagement-shaped variant. The paper would argue that AI engagement supplies an unusually energetic surface process (the technology operates on the same substrate as evaluation, produces output mimicry across an enormous range of functions, and is engaged at high pace), and that the high energy of the surface process is what makes the subduction visible in the AI case where it has been less visible in earlier technologies. Other surface processes (compliance regimes, performance management, audit cultures) may produce subduction at lower energy levels.
Two ways to write the paper. As a generalisation that names PSF as the AI variant of a broader mechanism, with the contribution being the broader mechanism. Or as a metaphorical sharpening that adds tectonic precision to the PSF mechanism without making the broader claim. The first is more ambitious and longer. The second sits as a section within an existing PSF paper rather than a standalone publication.
Possible Venues
Academy of Management Review
If the paper is positioned as the broader mechanism. Theory contribution would be the active-burial dynamic with subduction as the metaphor. High bar, long lead time.
Administrative Science Quarterly
Alternative for the broader-mechanism version. Stronger fit if the empirical anchor is mature (financial regulation, safety science, audit cultures) rather than AI.
Organization Theory
Open access, faster turnaround, friendlier to genuinely new theoretical concepts. Probably the right home if the paper is solo and the metaphor is the contribution.
Section within PSF papers
Default option if the standalone paper does not get prioritised. The metaphor adds precision to PSF mechanism description without requiring its own venue.
Sequencing Contingencies
The idea sits in the queue without an active hand. Two conditions would activate it. First, a reviewer or interlocutor pulls on the geological metaphor in a way that suggests the standalone paper has audience pull. Second, the empirical phase surfaces a case where the active-burial dynamic is observable in a way that PSF's existing vocabulary does not capture.
Risk to manage: artificial novelty. Subduction must add real analytic specificity over the existing concepts (surrogation, normalisation of deviance, decoupling, Strathern). If it is mostly metaphor, it should stay as a section within PSF papers rather than become its own paper.
Open Questions
- Does the active-burial mechanism require an empirical case where the buried concern eventually erupts, or can the paper be developed analytically with cases of buried concerns that have not yet surfaced? The first is more compelling. The second is more honest about what is currently observable.
- Is the paper a generalisation of PSF (one variant of subduction) or a metaphorical sharpening (subduction as a description tool inside PSF)? The choice is not cosmetic. It determines whether the paper makes a contribution beyond PSF or stays inside it.
- Does the paper engage with the safety-science tradition (Vaughan, Snook, Perrow) at length, or treat it as adjacent prior art? Engagement raises the contribution bar but also opens cross-disciplinary positioning.