An Analysis of Hidden Organizational Interdependencies in the Public Sector Based on Quantum Entanglement Logic

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Candidate, Department of Business Management, Aras International Campus, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Prof., Department of Management, Faculty of Business Management, College of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Prof., Department of Media Communication and Business Management, Faculty of Business Management, University of Tehran, College of Management, Tehran, Iran.

4 Associate Prof., Department of Future Studies, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Imam Khomeini (RA) International University, Qazvin, Iran.

5 Associate Prof., CIICESI, ESTG, Polytechnic of Porto, 4610 Felgueiras, Portugal.

Abstract

Objective
This study aims to develop an innovative approach for analyzing inter-unit interactions and uncovering hidden relational structures within public sector organizations. In many governmental bodies, the apparent coordination—or lack thereof—among departments reflects only a partial and surface-level representation of multi-layered and complex decision-making. Numerous organizational decisions are made such that, even in the absence of formal coordination, a kind of informal and structural alignment emerges among different units. This phenomenon, which is rarely documented in official reports or organizational charts, plays a critical role in policy implementation effectiveness. Given rising complexity, institutional pressures, environmental uncertainty, and inter-unit interdependencies, identifying and analyzing these hidden relationships has become a strategic necessity for managers and policymakers.
Methods
Grounded in the theoretical foundations of complex systems and emerging approaches in decision analysis, this study develops a behavioral simulation model that enables managers to identify hidden patterns of interaction between organizational units. In the model, two major organizational departments are treated as independent decision-makers. Their behavioral responses to various environmental scenarios—such as budget fluctuations, political pressures, and shifting operational priorities—are analyzed. By adjusting these external variables and monitoring how both units respond, patterns of alignment or divergence in their decision-making are revealed. Unlike traditional tools that focus solely on decision outcomes, this model delves into the underlying process and logic, capturing deeper, often unseen, layers of inter-organizational behavior. The core objective is to identify fundamental structural dependencies that, while not visible on the surface, are critical to organizational functioning.
Results
The simulation results demonstrate that decisions made by different units are often structurally aligned, even in the absence of formal communication or explicit coordination. For example, under environmental stress or resource constraints, two departments (such as Human Resources and Planning) independently made complementary decisions. This finding suggests that inter-unit alignment may stem from latent mechanisms such as shared institutional understanding, organizational memory, or prior informal interactions, rather than from formal directives or hierarchical structures. Additionally, the results indicate that environmental fluctuations can amplify or diminish the degree of this hidden alignment or latent conflict. Consequently, continuously monitoring these relationships and analyzing their depth is essential for preventing future tensions and discovering synergistic opportunities.
Conclusion
In today’s complex governance landscapeو characterized by institutional fragmentation, ambiguous decision-making, and multilevel interdependence traditional organizational analysis tools are insufficient. The model proposed in this study addresses this gap conceptually and practically. It enables managers to develop a nuanced understanding of internal interactions, identify hidden alignment capacities, and design structures that leverage synergies while mitigating internal friction. Furthermore, this analytical approach shifts the focus from superficial statistical relationships to deeper, contextual, and structural organizational dynamics. The model can thus serve as a strategic decision-support tool, particularly during crises or periods of rapid change. It is recommended that senior public sector managers integrate this model into structural analyses, performance evaluations, and policy design. Such integration fosters a fresh perspective on internal relationships, supporting smarter, more integrated, and forward-looking decisions.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

 
Aerts, D. & Sozzo, S. (2022). Contextuality and entanglement in quantum cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 107, 102617.
Aerts, D., Arguëlles, J. A., Beltran, L., Geriente, S. & Sozzo, S. (2023). Entanglement in cognition violating Bell inequalities beyond Cirel’son’s bound. In The quantum-like revolution: A festschrift for andrei khrennikov (pp. 299-326). Cham: Springer International Publishing.‏
Aerts, D., Beltran, L., Geriente, S. (2021). Quantum-Theoretic Modeling in Computer Science. Int J Theor Phys, 60, 710–726 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-019-04155-y
Aerts, D., Sozzo, S. & Veloz, T. (2021). On the conceptuality interpretation of quantum theory: A possible explanatory framework for quantum cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 561199.
Alvani, S. M., Pourezzat, A. A. & Nejabat, A. (2015). Investigating the causes of Iran’s policy making system performance inefficiency regarding poverty eradication (Case study: Poverty eradication bill in Islamic Republic of Iran). Journal of Public Administration, 7(1), 1-18. doi: 10.22059/jipa.2015.52082 (in Persian)
Alves, G. P., Gigena, N. & Kaniewski, J. Ä. (2024). Machine learning meets the CHSH scenario. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14396.‏
Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232.
Ansell, C. & Geyer, R. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis: A new kind of complexity in public policy? Policy & Politics, 48(4), 409–426.
Ansell, C., Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? Public Management Review, 23(7), 1041–1067.
Aven, T. & Renn, O. (2020). Risk, uncertainty and complexity in decision-making. Springer.
Bagarello, F., Haven, E. & Khrennikov, A. (2020). Quantum social science. Cambridge University Press.
Beer, M. (2000). High commitment, high performance: How to build a resilient organization for sustained advantage. Jossey-Bass.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C. & Bloomberg, L. (2018). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 763–773.
Busemeyer, J. R. & Bruza, P. D. (2012). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press.
Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M. & Trueblood, J. S. (2023). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 511–538.
Cairney, P. & Geyer, R. (2017). A critical discussion of complexity theory: How does ‘complexity thinking’ improve our understanding of politics and policymaking? Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 47(1), 89-110.
Christensen, T., Lægreid, P. & Rykkja, L. H. (2016). Organizing for crisis management: Building governance capacity and legitimacy. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 887–897.
Diker, F. (2023). The CHSH Test is Sufficient to Observe the KCBS-Type Quantum Contextuality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12868.‏
Dooley, K. (2002). Organizational complexity. International Encyclopedia of Business and Management, 5(3), 5013–5022.
Fujikawa, K. (2012). Does CHSH inequality test the model of local hidden variables? Progress of theoretical physics, 127(6), 975-987.‏
Geurdes, J. F. (2008). On the violation of the CHSH network model inequality. arXiv preprint arXiv:0811.1746.‏
Geyer, R. & Cairney, P. (2015). Handbook on complexity and public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Guston, D. H., Sarewitz, D. & Miller, C. A. (2021). Science, uncertainty, and policy. In The politics of science (pp. 103–123). Routledge.
Haven, E. & Khrennikov, A. (2021). Quantum social science. Cambridge University Press.
Henderson, J. C. & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 4–16.
Khrennikov, A. (2022). Quantum-like modeling of complex decision making: Contextual probability approach. Entropy, 24(7), 905.
Klijn, E. H. & Koppenjan, J. (2016). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge.
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S. & Auld, G. (2021). Learning and change in complex policy environments. Policy and Society, 40(1), 104-122.
Mahdian Kiasari, R., Rabiee Mandajin, M. & Alvani, S.M. (2025). Design of a Knowledge Management Model for Leveraging Evaluative Data Generated by Regulatory Bodies Overseeing Public Policies in Iran. Journal of Public Administration, 17(3), 583 – 612. https://doi.org/10.22059/JIPA.2024.384467.3596 (in Persian)
Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press.
Mohammad Hosseini, B., Hadizadeh, M. & Ghafelebashi, S.F. (2021). The Drivers of Sustainable Cyber Service Offer in the Government with an Emphasis on Maintaining Security Using Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Iran Futures Studies, 5(2), 35-65.
(in Persian)
Mohammadhosseini, B., Hadizadeh, M. & Saki, Y. (2022). Possible scenarios for the future of medical devices in iran with an emphasis on modern information technologies and the effects of corona virus. Journal of Iran Futures Studies, 7(2), 203-234.‏
Pironio, S. (2014). All Clauser–Horne–Shimony–Holt polytopes. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47(42), 424020.‏
Pothos, E. M. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2022). Quantum cognition: A new theoretical approach to decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(1), 65–70.
Raisch, S., Krakowski, S. & Haefliger, S. (2018). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 43(4), 590–610.
Room, G. (2016). Complexity, institutions and public policy: Agile decision-making in a turbulent world. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Roshandel Arbatani, T. (2015). Essential research in the field of theoretical concepts of media policy. Journal of Public Administration, 7(3), 481-504. doi: 10.22059/jipa.2015.56990 (in Persian)
Salamzadeh, A., Dana, L. P., Ebrahimi, P., Hadizadeh, M. & Mortazavi, S. (2024). Technological barriers to creating regional resilience in digital platform‐based firms: Compound of performance sensitivity analysis and BIRCH algorithm. Thunderbird International Business Review, 66(2), 135-149.‏
Salamzadeh, A., Dana, L. P., Rastgoo, N., Hadizadeh, M. & Mortazavi, S. M. (2024). The Role of Coopetition in Fostering Innovation and Growth in New Technology-based Firms: A Game Theory Approach. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 21, e230097.‏
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Stacey, R. D. (2012). Tools and techniques of leadership and management: Meeting the challenge of complexity. Routledge.
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill.
Vandré, L. & Terra Cunha, M. (2022). Quantum sets of the multicolored-graph approach to contextuality. Physical Review A, 106(6), 062210.‏
Yukalov, V. I. & Sornette, D. (2021). Quantum decision theory: A new framework for modeling decision making under uncertainty. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 379(2194), 20200390.
Journal of Public Administration
Volume 18, Issue 1
2026
Pages 234-262

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics