This paper presents the elements of a radical humanist critique that suggests the discipline of organization theory has been imprisoned by its metaphors, and aims to stimulate an awareness through which it can begin to set itself free. It explores the relationship among paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving, showing how organization theory and research are constructed upon a network of assumptions that are taken for granted. The metaphorical nature of theory and the implications of metaphor for theory construction are examined. A theoretical and methodological pluralism is suggested, allowing the development of new perspectives for organizational analysis. While orthodoxy is based on a few metaphors characteristic of the functionalist paradigm, metaphors characteristic of other paradigms, which challenge the fundamental assumptions of orthodoxy, are shown to have much to offer. The paper discusses the role of paradigms as alternative realities, arguing that social science theories, including organization theory, can be analyzed in terms of four broad worldviews reflected in different meta-theoretical assumptions about the nature of science, the subjective-objective dimension, and the nature of society, the regulatory-change dimension. Each of these four paradigms—functionalist, interpretivist, radical humanist, and structuralist radical—reflects a network of related schools of thought, differentiated in approach and perspective, but sharing fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality they address. The functionalist paradigm assumes that society has a concrete and real existence, characterized by a systemic orientation towards producing an ordered and regulated social system. It encourages an approach to social theory that focuses on understanding the role of humans in society. Behavior is always seen as something demarcated by context in a tangible world of social relationships. Ontological assumptions encourage the belief in the possibility of an objective and value-free social science, where the scientist distances themselves from the scene they analyze through the rigor and techniques of scientific methods. The interpretivist paradigm is based on the view that social reality is ontologically doubtful and that what is considered real social reality does not exist in any concrete sense but is a product of subjective and intersubjective experiences of individuals. Society is understood from the perspective of the participant in action, rather than the observer. The interpretivist social theorist tries to understand the processes by which shared multiple realities emerge, sustain, and change. Like the functionalist approach, the interpretative approach is based on the assumption and belief that there is an implicit pattern and order in the social system; however, the interpretative theorist sees the functionalist attempt to establish an objective social science as an unattainable end. The radical humanist paradigm, like the interpretivist, emphasizes how reality is socially constructed and sustained, but links its analysis to the interest in what can be described as the pathology of consciousness, through which humans become trapped in the limits of reality they themselves create and sustain. This perspective is based on the view that the process of creating reality can be influenced by physical and social processes that channel, restrict, and controlThis paper presents the elements of a radical humanist critique that suggests the discipline of organization theory has been imprisoned by its metaphors, and aims to stimulate an awareness through which it can begin to set itself free. It explores the relationship among paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving, showing how organization theory and research are constructed upon a network of assumptions that are taken for granted. The metaphorical nature of theory and the implications of metaphor for theory construction are examined. A theoretical and methodological pluralism is suggested, allowing the development of new perspectives for organizational analysis. While orthodoxy is based on a few metaphors characteristic of the functionalist paradigm, metaphors characteristic of other paradigms, which challenge the fundamental assumptions of orthodoxy, are shown to have much to offer. The paper discusses the role of paradigms as alternative realities, arguing that social science theories, including organization theory, can be analyzed in terms of four broad worldviews reflected in different meta-theoretical assumptions about the nature of science, the subjective-objective dimension, and the nature of society, the regulatory-change dimension. Each of these four paradigms—functionalist, interpretivist, radical humanist, and structuralist radical—reflects a network of related schools of thought, differentiated in approach and perspective, but sharing fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality they address. The functionalist paradigm assumes that society has a concrete and real existence, characterized by a systemic orientation towards producing an ordered and regulated social system. It encourages an approach to social theory that focuses on understanding the role of humans in society. Behavior is always seen as something demarcated by context in a tangible world of social relationships. Ontological assumptions encourage the belief in the possibility of an objective and value-free social science, where the scientist distances themselves from the scene they analyze through the rigor and techniques of scientific methods. The interpretivist paradigm is based on the view that social reality is ontologically doubtful and that what is considered real social reality does not exist in any concrete sense but is a product of subjective and intersubjective experiences of individuals. Society is understood from the perspective of the participant in action, rather than the observer. The interpretivist social theorist tries to understand the processes by which shared multiple realities emerge, sustain, and change. Like the functionalist approach, the interpretative approach is based on the assumption and belief that there is an implicit pattern and order in the social system; however, the interpretative theorist sees the functionalist attempt to establish an objective social science as an unattainable end. The radical humanist paradigm, like the interpretivist, emphasizes how reality is socially constructed and sustained, but links its analysis to the interest in what can be described as the pathology of consciousness, through which humans become trapped in the limits of reality they themselves create and sustain. This perspective is based on the view that the process of creating reality can be influenced by physical and social processes that channel, restrict, and control