Path-dependent actors cannot deliberately break their own locked-in path.

Evidence

Facing strategic rigidity or even a threat to the organization’s survival, decision makers would certainly be eager to learn more about possible interventions designed to escape or unlock organizational paths. But can organizations actually break path dependence? This is an intricate endeavor, since the idea of deliberately breaking a path is self-contradicting in a way. If we define path dependence as a situation in which individual actors or organizations have lost their power to choose among alternatives, then the assumption that the same actors can unlock the path is obviously inconsistent. Pathdependent behavior, strictly speaking, excludes path-breaking behavior. — Jörg Sydow, Georg Schreyögg, and Jochen Koch, Organizational Path Dependence, 99

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: A genuine paradox: the very loss of choice that defines path dependence disqualifies the actor from restoring choice. Sits with you because it implies path breaking requires an external vantage point, not willpower.
• SEED: Angle: ‘You can’t think your way out of your own lock-in’ — why escape from institutional, personal, or algorithmic ruts requires a second-order observer rather than more effort.