Strategic Management.docxby CHUANLING MASubmission date.docx

Strategic Management.docx
by CHUANLING MA
Submission date: 12-Dec-2022 05:28PM (UTC+0000)
Submission ID: 192054511
File name: Strategic_Management.docx (17.77K)
Word count: 1489
Character count: 8839
2
4
4
10
9

1
3
5
6
7
8
11
12
20%
SIMILARITY INDEX
18%
INTERNET SOURCES
9%
PUBLICATIONS
19%
STUDENT PAPERS
1 2%
2 2%
3 2%

4 2%
5 2%
6 2%
7 2%
8 2%
9 1%
Strategic Management.docx
ORIGINALITY REPORT
PRIMARY SOURCES
Submitted to University of Bolton
Student Paper
Submitted to Chapman University
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Lincoln
Student Paper
ejournals.library.ualberta.ca
Internet Source
www.conftool.net
Internet Source
Submitted to University of Northampton
Student Paper

bura.brunel.ac.uk
Internet Source
ppe.mcmaster.ca
Internet Source
Submitted to Association of Business
Executives
Student Paper
10 1%
11 1%
12 1%
Exclude quotes Off
Exclude bibliography Off
Exclude matches Off
Submitted to Central Queensland University
Student Paper
Submitted to York St John University
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Dundee
Student Paper

Organization & Environment
24(4) 444 –458
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1086026611436328
http://oae.sagepub.com
Citation Classics and Foundational Works
436328OAEXXX10.1177/1086026611436328Jermier and
ForbesOrganization & Environment
1University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
2Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT, USA
Corresponding Author:
John M. Jermier, PhD, College of Business, University of South
Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-5500, USA
Email: [email protected]
Metaphor as the Foundation of
Organizational Studies: Images of
Organization and Beyond
John M. Jermier1 and Linda C. Forbes2
Abstract
This article is the first part of a Citation Classics and
Foundational Works feature focused on
metaphor and organizational studies. The second part of the
feature is a personal reflection by
Gareth Morgan on the genesis and impact of his pathbreaking

book, Images of Organization (IO).
In this article, we summarize the nature of the contributions
made by IO, sketch ways in which
the book has prompted and served as a touchstone for new
research on metaphor and orga-
nization, and discuss the application of contemporary
metaphorical analysis to the problems of
theory development, research methods, and puzzle solving
facing scholars interested in sustain-
ability studies and research on organizations and the natural
environment (ONE). We illustrate
how early research that fostered ONE scholarship is marked by
the use of particularly powerful
metaphorical language and attention to poetic technique as well
as rigorous science. We suggest
how ONE research (and organizational studies in general) can
benefit from studying IO and
related literature on metaphorical analysis.
Keywords
Gareth Morgan, paradigm, tropes, root metaphor, analogical
reasoning, cognitive science,
theory construction, disciplined imagination, research
methodology, positivist empirical science,
organizational discourse analysis, literary method, rhetorical
styles, poetic technique, nature
writing, spirituality and the environment, organizational theory,
organizations and the natural
environment, critical theory, sustainability studies, Silent
Spring, The Ecology of Commerce,
corporation as island
Scholars of organizations have benefitted through the years
from key books that map and other-
wise take stock of the field (e.g., Baritz, 1960; Burrell &

Morgan, 1979; Clegg, Hardy, & Nord,
1996; March, 1965; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1981; Perrow, 1986;
Tsoukas & Knudson, 2003).
These compilations are invaluable because they advance
frameworks that organize and highlight
important schools of thought and streams of research. They also
tell a story about what warrants
attention in the field—and what does not. This type of
accounting for progress in organizational
studies is also conducted through annual reviews, research
anthologies, and special issues of
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F10860266
11436328&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2012-02-09
Jermier and Forbes 445
journals. These sources are often highly influential in charting
the course for future research and
in shaping the imagination of scholars interested in developing
and contributing to the field.
In this Citation Classics and Foundational Works feature, we
focus attention on Gareth
Morgan’s (1986) Images of Organization (IO), a book that
serves many of the important pur-
poses identified above. In addition, IO encourages reflection on
the concept of metaphor (and
its role in human thought and scientific work) and on the
fundamental root (or generative)
metaphors that underwrite the field’s dominant and emerging
theories and perspectives. The
message of IO for researchers, educators, and other students of
organization is that all concep-
tual frameworks (including formal theories) result from the

elaboration of root metaphors and
that metaphor tends to lock the scholar into a particular train of
thought. That is, the metaphors
we begin with and their associated philosophical assumptions
have profound consequences for
further thought and action. Thus, metaphor is not merely useful
in literary expression and jour-
nalism. It is useful in all intellectual work and is a proper
subject of inquiry for any scientific
field seeking to discover its foundations and advance its
research.
We are highlighting this book because we think it can serve as a
valuable resource for schol-
ars of organization and environment who want to further
explore the field’s metaphorical
underpinnings and the related literature that builds on this work.
In our view, this is some of the
field’s most creative and methodologically sophisticated
material and is indispensable for those
grappling with paradigmatic choices and radical approaches to
developing an ecocentric sci-
ence of organizations (see Hoffman & Bansal, 2012).
In this article, we introduce the Feature, which includes
Morgan’s (2011) companion piece
that follows (“Reflections on Images of Organization and Its
Implications for Organization and
Environment”). We also (a) summarize the nature of the
contributions made by IO, (b) sketch
ways in which the book has prompted and served as a
touchstone for new research on metaphor
and organization, and (c) discuss the application of
contemporary metaphorical analysis to the
problems of theory development, research methods, and puzzle
solving facing scholars inter-

ested in sustainability studies and research on organizations and
the natural environment (ONE).
The Nature of the Contribution
Even if it had not been cited more than 8,000 times since its
initial publication, it is easy to see
how Images of Organization serves as a crucial foundational
work for organizational studies. It
offers readers an overview of organizational social science and
theories of organization from the
perspective of metaphor, a fundamental element in human
language and, more specifically from
several root metaphorical expressions in the language of
organization. Therefore, it is useful
for analyzing underlying conceptual processes and linguistic
conventions that manifest in
everyday speech about organizations as well as in analyzing the
carefully formulated scientific
expressions produced by scholars of organizations.
Using eight root metaphors (organizations as machines, living
organisms, brains, cultures, polit-
ical systems, psychic prisons, flux and transformation, and
instruments of domination), IO inte-
grates decades of research and offers an approach to the field
that holds appeal for both novices and
experts. Commentators have traced the book’s appeal to many
factors, from the elegance of the
writing style to the innovativeness of the images of organization
that are elaborated. In our view,
IO has also appealed to so many different kinds of readers
because of the method of presentation.
Although there is no explicit theory of learning articulated in
the text, IO makes use of the method
of comparison and contrast, one of the most natural and
powerful forms of human learning (see

Marzano, 2007). By provoking the method of comparing and
contrasting metaphors, IO invites
learning at a highly abstract level and also at the more concrete
level of key concepts derived from
the root metaphors and combinations of concepts that might not
otherwise be brought together.
446 Organization & Environment 24(4)
Another appealing quality of IO is that it is written from a well-
formulated philosophical
position. IO is based on the idea that metaphors are inexorably
wrapped up with ontology, epis-
temology, methodology, and ultimately with the process of
developing theory. Metaphors are
wrapped up with ontology because our assumptions about the
nature of reality condition every
facet of existence. The ontological premise that “organizations
are multidimensional, socially
constructed realities where different aspects can co-exist in
complementary, conflicting, hence
paradoxical ways,” as Morgan (2011, p. 467) states in his
companion essay, has profound impli-
cations for developing strategies to comprehend organizations.
In addition, there is a certain
epistemological tone in the presentation that is appealing. This
tone is echoed in the companion
piece as Morgan (2011, p. 475) reiterates the key points that
metaphors provide partial insights; that different metaphors can
produce conflicting
insights; that in elevating one insight others are downplayed;
that a way of seeing becomes
a way of not seeing; and that any attempt to understand the

complex nature of organiza-
tions (as with any complex subject) always requires an open and
pluralistic approach
based on the interplay of multiple perspectives.
This epistemology is expressed in the conclusion to each
chapter in which strengths and limita-
tions of that metaphor are discussed. It is also expressed when
Morgan refers to the metaphors
presented in the book as illustrative of a range of possibilities
for organizational theorizing and
not as an exhaustive list.
Another angle that appeals to scholars of organizations is the
assertion that “metaphor is the
process that drives theory construction and science” (Morgan,
2011, p. 463). Although it is
commonly held that theory development is a process and that
theories can be falsified with
empirical evidence, it is not as commonly recognized that
theory and method are underwritten
and otherwise constructed from metaphorical imagery. IO
illustrates this treatise and lays
important groundwork for understanding the role of metaphor in
the process of theory develop-
ment and in the integral choice of research methods. Indeed, IO
serves as a reminder that theory
and method can no more transcend metaphor than metaphor can
transcend ontology and episte-
mology. Thus, as an innovative excursion into the realm of the
deep structure of organizational
studies, IO can be read simultaneously as a well-positioned
philosophical treatise, a rich theo-
retical exposition, and a sophisticated methodological exercise.
Importantly, IO also played a major role in legitimating

exploration and further elaboration
of frameworks derived from interpretive and radical paradigms
(see Burrell & Morgan, 1979).
This occurred at a time when the mainstream of the field was
not fully aware of the limitations
of devoting so much attention to work grounded in taken-for-
granted mechanistic and organis-
mic root images and when realist ontology and positivist
epistemology were seen as the gold
standard for underwriting scientific method. Building on earlier
work that revealed the underly-
ing philosophical assumptions in objectivist science, IO
challenged the credentials of the field’s
dominant images (mechanistic and living systems) and
highlighted the premature closure that
existed. As Morgan (2011, p. 468) states in his reflective essay
in response to our question about
whether he was calling for new liberating metaphors as a basis
for research: “One of my definite
aims was to help break the bonds of existing thinking and open
inquiry to more radical
metaphors.”
In summary, it is reasonable to think that without Morgan’s
efforts in producing IO and related
articles (e.g., Morgan, 1980, 1983a, 1983b), the field of
organizational studies might have been
substantially delayed in discovering and clarifying its
metaphorical foundations. IO has made a
unique contribution to organizational studies by elevating the
process of metaphorical thinking

to the level of conscious awareness of countless students of
organization. Accordingly, as our
sketch in the section below suggests, this work has mobilized
scholars of organizations to more
closely examine the foundations of the field and the processes
through which new knowledge is
created.
Research on Metaphor and Organization
The Early Years
IO was published 25 years ago in a very different intellectual
climate. Lakoff and Johnson’s
(1980) classic, Metaphors We Live By, was widely circulated
but cognitive linguistic analyses,
experimental studies in social cognition, and other empirical
research defining and establishing
the important role played by metaphor in social thought and
attitudes was limited (see Landau,
Meier, & Keefer, 2010). Morgan (1980) based his early work on
metaphors on landmark studies
in the philosophy of culture (Ernst Cassirer), ordinary language
theory (Max Black), poetic
sociology (Richard Brown), and related frameworks that
emphasize the ways human beings
develop and use symbolic constructs to structure and give
meaning to their world. The study of
metaphor lacked credibility in the broader social sciences and in
organizational studies. Yet as
he states in his reflective essay (Morgan, 2011, p. 460), the idea
of forging a link between the
perspectives advanced in Sociological Paradigms and
Organizational Analysis (Burrell &
Morgan, 1979) and metaphors of organization truly came easily,
“as an intuitive flash of
insight,” while facing a pragmatic career crossroad.

The work prefigured and helped shape an explosion of interest
in examining and challenging
the field’s paradigmatic and metaphorical underpinnings. One
such stream emerged in the early
1980s as a number of influential organizational studies scholars
embraced the theme of homo
symbolicus—an approach to understanding the symbolic
character of human life and the primacy
of symbolic representations in all fields of activity, including
science. They drew heavily on the
interpretive paradigm, cultural anthropology, and subjectivist
methods, launching the field of
organizational culture and symbolism (e.g., Frost, Moore,
Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1985;
Pondy, Frost, Morgan, & Dandridge, 1983). Studies of metaphor
and language were integral
parts of the emerging zeitgeist, and IO eventually helped further
expand this counter-paradigmatic
movement centered on culture and symbolism.
Although it is outside the scope of this introduction to provide a
comprehensive review of the
research on metaphor and organization influenced by Morgan’s
early work (which also can be
understood to include research on discourse theory and
organization), it is important to sketch
some of the ways this work has been developed. Given the reach
of Morgan’s thesis (that meta-
phor inevitably permeates both everyday meaning making and
the production of academic
knowledge), it is not surprising that the initial reaction to IO
was mixed. Most reviewers recog-
nized the creative flourish that was necessary to produce such a
radical reframing of the field,
appreciated the rigor of the subjectivist method that

demonstrated the relevance of the humani-
ties to organizational studies, and celebrated the liberating
potential of the multiperspectival
approach. However, some reacted negatively to the core idea, as
first presented in Morgan
(1980), objecting to the application of metaphors and other
figurative language on the grounds
that unconstrained use would retard or even derail more
traditional scientific pursuits in the
study of organization (Pinder & Bourgeois, 1982). Others
contended that Morgan’s advocacy of
metaphorical pluralism could inadvertently lend support to
totalitarian political tendencies
(Tinker, 1986) or expressed concern that the method of
metaphor would lead to extreme episte-
mological relativism, undermining the modernist project (Reed,
1990). Even more fundamen-
tally, some cautioned against rampant and naïve use of
metaphor in conceptualizing organizational
phenomena (e.g., VrMeer, 1994), and Carr and Leivesley (1995)
went so far as to claim that
organizational studies scholars frequently invoked the word
metaphor inappropriately.
In an attempt to provide a critical appraisal of the use of
metaphors in organizational science,
Grant and Oswick (1996a) invited several scholars to contribute
chapters to a book dealing with
key issues and new directions for research. This book has
become required reading for scholars
interested in the subject. Their introduction to the volume

includes an instructive section on
organizational science and metaphor that reviews the literature
and raises the question of whether
metaphors should be accorded a positive or negative status. The
main argument in favor of
according a positive status, write Grant and Oswick (1996b), is
the belief that metaphors have
generative capacity and are, therefore, liberating in orientation.
They enable seeing the world
anew and can serve as a tool helpful in overcoming the trap of
reifying the social world. They
also outline two arguments in favor of according metaphors a
negative status. First, as a result of
their figurative quality, metaphors do not meet standards for
exactitude in scientific investigation.
Second, metaphors (particularly the dominant mechanistic and
organismic frames) tend to gener-
ate ideological distortion and create “false consciousness”
because they fail to highlight structural
conflicts and power inequality. Of course the latter point does
not negate the idea that alterna-
tive metaphors could generate at least moments of emancipation
or that even the dominant
metaphors, if raised above the level of the taken for granted and
incisively critiqued, could gener-
ate new ways of seeing. In the volume’s closing chapter,
Morgan (1996) provides a useful expla-
nation of how metaphor works and reaffirms his emphasis on
metaphorical analysis as a valuable
tool for liberation and extending the boundaries of organization
and management theory.
Two Streams of Research
Research on metaphor and organization has continued to
progress and is now mature enough to
include useful attempts to map the terrain, define the orthodoxy,

and point to future directions
for research (e.g., Cornelissen, 2005; Cornelissen, Oswick,
Christensen, & Phillips, 2008; Inns,
2002; Oswick, Keenoy, & Grant, 2002). In making our own
observations about this field of
study, we will draw on these detailed reviews and we highly
recommend them. Given space
considerations, however, we focus our attention on two central
tendencies or themes in the
research literature: (a) studies examining metaphors in specific
organizational settings and (b) stud-
ies detailing how metaphor works and exploring the role of
metaphor in the construction of
organizational theories. We also highlight two articles
published shortly after IO that we believe
illustrate the approaches to research on metaphor and that serve
well as markers. They represent
important streams of literature that have developed from two of
the seeds Morgan (1980, 1983a,
1983b, 1986) planted, although we cast them more as
contemporaneous studies than as deriva-
tive presentations.
Metaphors in organizational settings. The first theme,
examination of the meaning of meta-
phors in specific organizational settings, has a rich history in
organizational studies, one that
extends beyond research on organizational culture and
symbolism and that includes literature
on organizational discourse (e.g., Grant, Hardy, Oswick, &
Putnam, 2004). Through the years,
many researchers have taken a descriptive and critical approach
to understand how metaphors
are used in certain settings, focusing on power, control,
resistance, and related concepts (e.g.,
Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Hopfl & Maddrell, 1996; Leclercq-

Vandelannoitte, 2011; Mantere
& Vaara, 2008; Martin, Knopoff, & Beckman, 1998). For
decades, metaphor has also been
considered more normatively from the point of view of its
possible role in organizational
development and planned change (e.g., Barrett & Cooperrider,
1990; Burke, 1992; Cornelissen,
Holt, & Zundel, 2011; Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001; Jacobs &
Heracleous, 2006; Oswick &
Montgomery, 1999).
To illustrate this latter approach, we refer to Sackmann (1989),
who conducted a detailed
study of metaphorical expressions in an applied setting—a sales
conglomerate based in Los
Angeles, California. She interviewed 52 employees, including
top management and a sample
of lower level employees randomly selected from various
divisions and different hierarchical
levels. Her objective was to develop a better understanding of
what kind of metaphors are
appropriate to promote organizational transformation when
corporate survival is at stake. The
organizational change process was divided into two parts:
strategic planning (which involved
searching out a new identity and direction for the firm) and an
implementation stage (which
involved the rather typical and often extremely taxing initiative
of creating and maintaining a
humanistic culture amidst [“housecleaning,” Sackman, 1989, p.
479], downsizing, and other
divestiture activities). According to Sackmann (1989), a

metaphor of “philosophizing” was
elaborated to attempt to influence perceptions of the company’s
identity and related macro
characteristics during strategic planning while a metaphor of
“gardening” (cutting, pruning,
gathering, and planting/nurturing) was elaborated to attempt to
influence meaning making
during implementation. This study is interesting for our
purposes because it illustrates how
metaphors can be elaborated and apparently effectively
deployed in a typical organizational
setting aspiring to enact humanistic transformation following
radical structural change. The
empirical content presented in this article is appropriately
detailed for the time and tells a
credible story about metaphorical expression at a general level.
It differs from current state of
the art studies of metaphor and language use in organizations
that emphasize discursive prac-
tices primarily in that it does not provide extensive
conversational evidence to support its
claims or much detail about the context.
How metaphors work and disciplined imagination in theory
construction. The second theme
(which is focused on how metaphors work and on the role of
metaphor in the construction of
organizational theory) includes detailed studies of theoretical
distinctions and debates in social
cognition, ranging from perspectives on conceptual metaphor
theory to new perspectives on
embodied cognition (see Landau et al., 2010, for review). Our
emphasis is on work that uses this
literature to uncover what metaphors do in the process of
theorizing. From Gareth Morgan’s
early work to the present, he has stressed that metaphor is the

foundation of the human concep-
tual system, a position articulated in Lakoff and Johnson’s
(1980) classic and one substantiated
by decades of subsequent research (see Gibbs, 2008; Lakoff,
2008). As noted above and in the
companion essay that follows, Morgan conceptualizes metaphor
as the process that drives the-
ory construction and science. Most organizational studies
scholars working in the area tend to
accept this premise and devote attention to exploring the role
metaphor can play in generating
new theory. The emphasis placed on generating new theory
rather than on testing and develop-
ing existing theory may be grounded in the belief that
organizational studies scholars have
focused far more attention on reductionist empirical methods
than on cultivating the theoretical
imagination. In line with this assessment, Morgan (2011)
laments the fact that in current scien-
tific work, innovative metaphors that can generate useful
insights tend to get lost in the process
of concretizing or tying down the details, a goal displacement
that has negative consequences
for both theoretical understanding and practical puzzle solving.
In an article that warrants consideration as a Citation Classics
and Foundational Works piece
in its own right, we now turn to Weick’s (1989) study of the
process of theory construction in
organizational studies. The theme of the article is seemingly
straightforward: “to build better
theory, theorists have to ‘think better’” (p. 529). But, for Weick
as for Morgan, this is not a
simple proposition because it means laying down new
foundations for thinking imaginatively
and relying on those foundations in attempts to develop theory

instead of following the more
traditional handbook. To elaborate: the tone of the article and
its compatibility with Morgan’s
views on scientific reductionism are established in the first
sentence. Weick asserts that theorists
often write trivial theories because their process of theory
construction favors methods aimed at
empirical validation rather than broader criteria, such as
usefulness. The root of the problem is
that there is little room in the handbook of the positivist
epistemologist for anything theoretical
that does not lead directly to empirical validation and definite
predictions about the results of
future observations. When scientific communities see validation
as the ultimate test of the value
of a theory, steps preliminary to this stage can be degraded. Yet
these are precisely the steps
Weick believes generate higher quality theoretical formulations.
Weick’s model of disciplined imagination is his prescription for
producing better theory.
Better theory results from more accurate and detailed problem
statements that trigger theoriz-
ing, more heterogeneity among thought trials (conjectures about
ways to solve theoretical and
practical problems), and more diversity of selection criteria
used to evaluate conjectures. Weick
compares his model to the process of natural selection in the
theory of evolution and settles on
the notion of artificial selection because the theorist (or more
precisely a community of theo-

rists) guides the evolutionary process. In contrast with
traditional theory construction activities,
the disciplined imagination recognizes that because
organizations are so complex, dynamic,
and difficult to observe, theorists must be guided through all
stages of the process by “indirect
evidence and visualizations of what they [organizations] may be
like, often captured in meta-
phors” (Weick, 1989, p. 529). Better theorizing necessitates that
tools such as metaphors be
embraced and used creatively to enrich each step of the process
and enhance the variety.
Recently, organizational studies scholars have taken up the
challenge issued by Weick,
Morgan, and others to identify what would be necessary to more
fully liberate the imagination in
theory construction activities (e.g., Boxenbaum & Rouleau,
2011; Cornelissen, 2006; Cornelissen
et al., 2008; Oswick et al., 2002; Oswick, Fleming, & Hanlon,
2011). Three things are clear from
this research: (a) there is some dissatisfaction being expressed
with the limited amount of new
theory being generated, (b) metaphor and other forms of
analogical reasoning are increasingly
being seen as central to all aspects of new theory construction,
and (c) some influential scholars
are calling for greater attention to methodological issues
concerning the identification and analy-
sis of metaphors, including more rigorous qualitative and
quantitative assessments.
We view these developments as largely consistent with
Morgan’s early work because in
responding to the call for new theories, scholars are
recommending more explicit recognition of

the role for metaphor in the process of theory construction and
in the analysis of phenomena in
organizational settings. In focusing on methodological issues,
they are emphasizing the impor-
tant distinction between generative root metaphors and surface
or decorative metaphors. As
Morgan (2011, p. 468) puts it, “Innovative theory building and
problem solving does not just
rest in finding a cute new metaphor.” The field of
organizational studies should be able to con-
tinue to benefit greatly from coordinated attempts to produce
new generative root metaphors,
apply disciplined imagination in theory construction, and even
explore the significance of other
tropes, such as anomaly, paradox, and irony (see Oswick et al.,
2002).
Metaphor, Organization, and the Natural Environment
Literary Method and Silent Spring
The ONE research literature is inherently multidisciplinary. It is
based on ecology and environ-
mental science, biology, organizational social science, and other
scientific disciplines.
Interestingly, as we will illustrate, it also has deep roots in the
literary arts and humanities, as
metaphor and other tropes are ubiquitous in the field. Although
it can be argued that tropes
shape the literature of any discipline, research that fostered
ONE scholarship is marked by the
use of particularly powerful metaphorical imagery and poetic
technique. And, there is evidence

that some scholars explicitly crafted figurative language to
enhance the appeal and impact of
their work. For example, Rachel Carson’s (1962) Silent Spring,
well known to ONE scholars
and often cited as the book that launched the contemporary
environmental movement, effec-
tively reached a broad audience by fusing rigorous science with
literary art techniques. Carol
Gartner (2000), a noted literary scholar specializing in Rachel
Carson’s writings, elaborates on
this point:
Carson uses a lawyer’s arsenal of classic rhetorical
argumentation to make her case but
augments it with a writer’s mastery of poetic technique. The
beauty of her writing style
beguiles the reader into reading and assimilating material that is
both intellectually diffi-
cult to understand and emotionally difficult to accept. (pp. 104-
105)
Beyond using the best scientific evidence available to make a
substantive case against the
overuse of pesticides, Carson selected vivid and often
disturbing language and metaphors. With
this style, she created moving and lingering dystopian images.
Indeed, the very title of her book,
Silent Spring, has created one of the most memorable and
didactical images in modern literature.
In developing her main theme, calling into question the idea
that synthetic chemicals could be
targeted to selectively kill pests and weeds, she wrote,
These sprays, dusts, and aerosols are now applied almost
universally to farms, gardens,

forests, and homes—nonselective chemicals that have the power
to kill every insect, the
“good” and the “bad,” to still the song of birds and the leaping
of fish in the streams, to
coat the leaves with a deadly film, and to linger on in soil—all
this though the intended
target may be only a few weeds or insects. Can anyone believe
it is possible to lay down
such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without
making it unfit for all life?
They should not be called “insecticides,” but “biocides.”
(Carson, 1962, p. 18)
In invoking (for rhetorical purposes) the language and image of
“biocides,” Carson subtly
linked her argument against the widespread use of insecticides
to the Cold War and the nuclear
winter many feared could result. This move served to
underscore the gravity of her message (see
Glotfelty, 2000). Each chapter of Silent Spring contains a
powerful blend of literary imagery and
accessible scientific description and explanation. Often, her
chapter titles tell a story in their own
right, provoking reader’s emotions. To wit, her third chapter,
“Elixirs of Death,” uses paradox to
link elixir (an agent that can cure all) with death (cf. Gartner,
2000). The blend in her writing of
credible scientific information and poetic flair through
metaphor (and other figures of speech and
literary techniques) moved scholars and millions of citizens
alike to identify more strongly with
nature and natural systems.
Literary Method and ONE Literature
Carson’s (1962) Silent Spring is undoubtedly in a class of its
own. It is not difficult, however, to

think of other classic environmental studies that have deeply
influenced ONE scholarship and
that are marked with literary brilliance, such as Carolyn
Merchant’s (1980) The Death of Nature,
Bill McKibben’s (1989) The End of Nature, and Paul Hawken’s
(1993) The Ecology of
Commerce. In a vividly descriptive text, Hawken (1993)
analyzes the role of business and its
relationship with the natural environment. Like Carson’s Silent
Spring, through strong research
and skilled rhetorical technique, he has moved many readers to
new ways of thinking about the
roles and responsibilities of contemporary business (see Forbes
& Jermier, 2010). His literary
acumen shines brightly in the chapter titled “The Death of
Birth.” This particular chapter led the
late Ray Anderson, Founder and long-time CEO of Interface
Carpets, to a personal transforma-
tion in ecological consciousness. In speeches, interviews,
lectures, and other public presenta-
tions, Anderson (2009) often confessed that his reading of
Hawken’s book made him feel
“indicted as a plunderer, a destroyer of the earth, a thief,
stealing my grandchildren’s future”
(p. 14). Anderson’s widely circulated epiphany story has, in
turn, affected the ecological con-
sciousness of many ONE students and scholars.
In the same chapter, Hawken discusses efforts to convince
business leaders to cease their
campaign against limits to economic growth and to rethink

taken-for-granted notions of pros-
perity. He employs the underlying image of a “sound economy”
and the metaphor of “prosper-
ity as limitation” to liberate thinking about economic growth
and sustainable progress.
Hawken’s use of these images draws attention to and illustrates
the often contested nature of
metaphors. Building a sound economy requires that humans
respect natural limits and find new
ways to thrive without threatening nature’s diversity and our
own genetic heritage. As Hawken
(1993) puts it,
Business must change its perspective and its propaganda, which
has successfully por-
trayed the idea of “limits” as a pejorative concept. Limits and
prosperity are intimately
linked. Respecting limits means respecting the fact the world
and its minutiae are diverse
beyond our comprehension and highly organized for their own
ends, and that all facets
connect in ways which are sometimes obvious, and at other
times mysterious and com-
plex. If our economy is “limited” by inclusion as part of the
greater closed system of
nature, those limits are not more necessarily constricting to a
sound economy than a blank
canvas was to Cézanne or a flute to Jean-Pierre Rampal. (p. 35)
By the early 1990s, through reflection on the field’s
anthropocentric paradigmatic underpin-
nings, organizational studies scholars realized that a vast
literature had been developed that paid
virtually no attention to the natural environment (see Jermier,
Forbes, Benn, & Orsato, 2006).
Although several published studies called attention to this fact

and advocated development of
alternative theoretical frameworks grounded in ecocentric
thinking, Shrivastava’s (1994) state-
ment of the problem was perhaps the most compelling. Arguing
that the concepts and language
of organizational studies were narrow, economistic, and
antinaturalistic (denatured), thereby
“[precluding] the discipline from addressing the central
concerns of environmentalism that deal
with degradation and extinction of natural resources” (p. 711),
he developed the metaphor of
“organizational theory as castrated male.” The concept of
CASTRATED is used as a mnemonic
symbol to organize his critique of the field. The letters stand for
“Competition, Abstraction,
Shallowness, Theoretical Immaturity, Reification,
Anthropocentrism, Time Independence
(Ahistorical), Exploitable, and Denaturalized” (p. 711)—his
interpretation of what characterized
the field, its biases, and its limitations. Shrivastava countered
by proposing that the greening of
organizational studies could be facilitated by adopting an
“ecologically grounded concept” that
would take an “eco-biosphere view of organizational
environments” (p. 720).
This study provides an excellent example of how a field can be
reoriented and reshaped by
following Morgan’s (1980) approach to metaphorical analysis,
beginning with reflection on par-
adigmatic underpinnings and linking to puzzle solving in the
realms of both theory and practice.
There are many other examples of metaphors driving the
narratives of contemporary ONE schol-
arship that have been or will be highly influential (e.g., “The
Natural Step,” Karl-Henrik Robert,

see http://www.naturalstep.org; “Natural Capitalism,” Hawken,
Lovins, & Lovins, 1999; “Cradle-
to-Cradle,” McDonough & Braungart, 2002; “Corporate
environmentalism as greenwashing,”
Ramus & Montiel, 2005; “Earth as small planet,” Stead &
Stead, 2009; “Earth as Gaia,” Waddock,
2011; “Corporate environmentalism as sustainability,” Hoffman
& Bansal, 2012), but focused
studies on the effects of underlying metaphors and other tropes
in the ONE literature are rare. As
we discussed earlier, one of the important roles metaphor can
play is that of supporting the
development of theory construction. As Morgan and others have
argued and demonstrated (also
see Keulartz, 2007), when metaphors are appreciated as more
than linguistic ornaments, they
can be valuable tools used in the creation and conceptualization
of novel ideas. Moreover, those
metaphors that are in use can be critically examined to
determine how they are directing thought
and action.
Audebrand’s (2010) recent article warrants attention along these
lines because it demonstrates
not only the need for new metaphors but also recognition of the
challenges faced when attempt-
ing to overcome limiting, deeply entrenched metaphors. The
focus of the article is on sustain-
ability in strategic management education but it raises broader
concerns and questions about the
field of organizational studies. Despite signals of meaningful

change, such as sustainability
related subjects being added to conventional textbooks,
Audebrand contends that there are major
obstacles to enacting deeper ongoing change in the field when it
comes to integrating sustain-
ability themes. The reason is that the dominant, root metaphor
of war is so pervasive in strategic
management thought and theory that it undermines attempts to
reorient the field (also see
Oreskes, 2011, on metaphors of warfare in dealing with climate
change). He argues that mean-
ingful change will require the generation and adoption of new
root metaphors as well as new
forms of educator awareness and responsibility. The powerful
presence of the war metaphor and
the hold it has on the field of strategic management, however,
are only part of the problem.
Audebrand (p. 425) notes that “the challenge is even greater
since the war metaphor is embedded
in a complex network of metaphors that include
anthropocentrism, individualism, patriarchy,
mechanism and progress (as well as their derivations).” This is
a good example of how the
“forcefulness” of metaphors builds when they are part of a
“whole system” or an “ecology” of
metaphors (Keulartz, 2007, p. 44).
We have attempted to demonstrate through some examples that
metaphor has been and is a
particularly powerful force in environmental studies and in ONE
research. But we also think
there is a need for much more development. To this end, we
believe more cross-disciplinary
engagement holds considerable promise for ONE scholarship.
Scholars in the fields of geogra-
phy, environmental history, environmental studies, and

environmental science, among other
areas of study, are debating the relative merits of various
metaphors. While few in this broad
literature argue that there is one best metaphor that will
adequately foster the advancement of
needed theory, many do concur with Morgan’s approach and
advocate double vision or multiple
perspectives. For example, Keulartz (2007) argues that
metaphors and other discursive tools
can serve as “diplomatic devices that facilitate interaction
between different disciplines and
discourses” (p. 27).
Logocentric Empirical Science and Song Bird Logic
Many organizational studies scholars have been aware of the
central role language plays in all
facets of theory construction and development for years despite
what Van Maanen (1995, p. 134)
in his insightful essay refers to as the field’s “logocentric
tradition of empirical science.” In this
dominant tradition, “we cultivate and teach a writing style or
nonstyle that values limited meta-
phor, simplicity, and a formal, if not mathematical precision.”
Certainly, this statement is less
true of organizational studies research today than it was 15
years ago. Alternative paradigms and
methods have reached a stage of development that can convey
mainstream credibility, and
metaphorical and discourse analysis, as discussed above, have
begun to reach their stride.
However, we wonder to what degree Van Maanen’s (1995)
characterization of and reaction to
the field still holds:

I am appalled at much of organization theory for its
technocratic unimaginativeness. Our
generalizations often display a mind-numbing banality and an
inexplicable readiness to
reduce the field to a set of unexamined, turgid, hypothetical
thrusts designed to render
organizations systematic and organization theory safe for
science. (p. 139)
In line with this, to what extent do ONE scholars privilege the
logocentric tradition in theory
construction and development? To what extent is our thinking
still captured by anthropocentric or
reformist paradigm assumptions and root metaphors that lead us
to celebrate incremental change
and marginalize radical perspectives on change? To what extent
are we aware that the choices we
make at the level of metaphor and language have consequences
for theory construction and puzzle
solving? Nature writer Curtis White (2007) argues that those
interested in stopping environmental
destruction must be careful not to place too much faith in the
best empirical evidence, quantitative
reasoning, and the language of science and bureaucracy. When
we approach environmentalism
with this mindset, soon “we no longer have a forest; we have
‘board feet.’ We no longer have a
landscape, a world that is our own; we have ‘valuable natural
resources’” (p. 22). In effect, we lose
the poetic, the aesthetic, the moral, the spiritual, and it is these
sources, according to White, that
are our strongest foundation for confronting the bulldozers,
confronting the chainsaws, confront-
ing Monsanto. It is song bird logic that prevails.

Many ONE scholars, including us, do not wish to abandon the
language of traditional,
empirical science or concede that the reformist agenda will
inevitably hijack more ambitious
environmental initiatives and lead to a dead end. What business
does in meeting their legal and
moral obligations with respect to the environment is crucially
important. We are learning valu-
able lessons for progressive environmentalism by studying
(using varied methods) all moments
of corporate environmentalism. However, it does seem crucial
that we avoid the false certainty
that objectivist methods can provide. It seems equally crucial
that we not limit our agenda to
managerialist solutions to greening capitalism because
assessments of today’s environmental
problems raise doubts about the efficacy of strictly reformist
approaches. The fields of ONE
research (and organizational studies in general) need new
thinking about organization and envi-
ronment. In our view, this is not a good time to accept
assimilation into the conservative main-
stream of the field or to rest on the dominant metaphors that
guide so much theory development
and everyday puzzle solving. We can continue to elaborate
those metaphors and tie them
down more securely, as Morgan (2011) notes in his companion
essay is typical of normal sci-
ence. A higher priority should be placed on generating new
metaphors or least on being conver-
sant with metaphors that are being developed in related fields.
Creating New Metaphors
The metaphor of nature as island is an example that has
received considerable attention across

fields. This is not a new idea. It has long captured the human
imagination and is often equated
with utopia (Philippon, 2004; see also Keulartz, 2007).
Contemporary interest in this metaphor
focuses on extending classic theories of the biogeography of
islands (see MacArthur & Wilson,
1967), which attempt to explain how species are distributed in
relation to space and time. But,
island biogeography is about more than actual islands.
It is also about metaphorical islands: areas of the environment
that have become isolated
from their surroundings, either through natural means, cultural
means, or some combina-
tion of the two. What holds for an island in the Galapagos, in
other words, also holds for a
distant mountaintop, a prairie pothole, or a square mile of old-
growth timber left standing
in the middle of a clear-cut. (Philippon, 2004, p. 268)
In an era of high connectivity and global reach, would the trope
“corporation as island,” if
mixed with the right amount of irony and paradox, provoke new
thinking? Would it encourage
scholars and other puzzle solvers to think about what can be
ripped from existing, degraded
environmental conditions, insulated by a moat, and steered
toward utopian ideals? For those
scholars of organizations interested in developing new
metaphors, we hope the material
presented in this article will be useful. Of course, we believe
scholars can benefit greatly

from reading Gareth Morgan’s (2011) reflections on new
metaphors of organizations and the
natural environment in the companion piece that follows.
Interestingly, in addition to recog-
nizing how new thinking and new theory can develop by
systematically attempting to create new
metaphors, Morgan is also clear in stating that there is much to
be gained from addressing the
limitations and distortions created through existing metaphors
that have been widely used to
rationalize environmental degradation. Gains can be achieved
through both avenues.
New thinking and new theory in the field of organizational
studies can develop following
many avenues, including some that do not pay systematic
attention to the field’s metaphorical
underpinnings. However, the message of this feature, in short, is
articulated best by Morgan in
his early work (1980, 1983a, 1983b, 1986, 1996) and reiterated
and expanded in the companion
essay: better theory, research methods, and puzzle solving can
always result from deeper reflec-
tion on and critical assessment of a field’s metaphorical
foundations.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Alvesson, M., & Wilmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as
organizational control: Producing the appropri-
ate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 619-644.
Anderson, R. (2009). Confessions of a radical industrialist:
Profits, people, purpose—Doing business by
respecting the earth. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Audebrand, L. K. (2010). Sustainability in strategic
management education: The quest for new root meta-
phors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 413-
428.
Baritz, L. (1960). The servants of power. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Barrett, F. J., & Cooperrider, D. L. (1990). Generative metaphor
intervention: A new approach for working
with systems divided by conflict and caught in defensive
perception. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 26, 219-239.
Boxenbaum, E., & Rouleau, L. (2011). New knowledge products
as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in
organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 36,
272-296.
Burke, W. W. (1992). Metaphors to consult by. Group &
Organization Management, 17, 255-259.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and
organizational analysis. London, England:
Heinemann Educational Books.

Carr, A., & Leivesley, R. (1995). Metaphors in organization
studies: A retreat to obscurantism or ideology
“in drag”? Administrative Theory & Praxis, 17, 55-66.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. New York, NY: Ballantine
Books.
Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.). (1996).
Handbook of organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2005). Beyond compare: Metaphor in
organization theory. Academy of Management
Review, 30, 751-764.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2006). Making sense of theory construction:
Metaphor and disciplined imagination.
Organization Studies, 27, 1579-1597.
Cornelissen, J. P., Holt, R., & Zundel, M. (2011). The role of
analogy and metaphor in the framing and
legitimization of strategic change. Organization Studies, 32,
1701-1716.
Cornelissen, J. P., Oswick, C., Christensen, L. T., & Phillips, N.
(2008). Metaphor in organizational research:
Context, modalities, and implications for research—
Introduction. Organization Studies, 29, 7-22.
Forbes, L. C., & Jermier, J. M. (2010). The new corporate
environmentalism and the ecology of commerce.
Organization & Environment, 23, 465-481.

Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., &
Martin, J. (Eds.). (1985). Organizational culture.
Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Gartner, C. B. (2000). When science writing becomes literary
art: The success of Silent Spring. In
C. Waddell (Ed.), And no birds sing: Rhetorical analysis of
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (pp. 103-125).
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2008). Metaphor and thought: The state of the
art. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 3-13). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, C. B., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2001). Metaphors and
meaning: An analysis of the concept of
teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 274-303.
Glotfelty, C. (2000). Cold war, Silent Spring: The trope of war
in modern environmentalism. In C. Waddell
(Ed.), And no birds sing: Rhetorical analysis of Rachel Carson’s
Silent Spring (pp. 157-173). Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C., & Putnam, L. L. (Eds.).
(2004). The Sage handbook of organizational
discourse. London, England: SAGE.
Grant, D., & Oswick, C. (Eds.). (1996a). Metaphor and
organizations. London, England: SAGE.
Grant, D., & Oswick, C. (Eds.). (1996b). Introduction: Getting
the measure of metaphors. In D. Grant &
C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 1-20).

London, England: SAGE.
Hawken, P. (1993). The ecology of commerce: A declaration of
sustainability. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. H. (1999). Natural
capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution.
New York, NY: Hatchett Book.
Hoffman, A. J., & Bansal, P. (2012). Retrospective, perspective,
and prospective: Introduction. In P. Bansal
& A. J. Hoffman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on business and
the natural environment (pp. 3-25).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hopfl, H., & Maddrell, J. (1996). Can you resist a dream?
Evangelical metaphors and the appropriation
of emotion. In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and
organizations (pp. 200-212). London,
England: SAGE.
Inns, D. (2002). Metaphor in the literature of organizational
analysis: A preliminary taxonomy and a
glimpse at a humanities-based perspective. Organization, 9,
305-330.
Jacobs, C. D., & Heracleous, L. T. (2006). Constructing shared
understanding: The role of embodied meta-
phors in organizational development. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Sciences, 42, 207-226.
Jermier, J. M., Forbes, L. C., Benn, S., & Orsato, R. J. (2006).
The new corporate environmentalism and
green politics. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W.
Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 618-650). London, England:
SAGE.

Keulartz, J. (2007). Using metaphors in restoring nature. Nature
and Culture, 2, 27-48.
Lakoff, G. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. W.
Gibbs Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
metaphor and thought (pp. 17-38). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A. (2010). A
metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological
Bulletin, 136, 1045-1067.
Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2011). Organizations as discursive
constructions: A Foucauldian approach.
Organization Studies, 32, 1247-1271.
MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The theory of island
biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of
participation in strategy: A critical discursive perspec-
tive. Organization Science, 19, 341-358.
March, J. G. (Ed.). (1965). Handbook of organizations. Chicago,
IL: Rand McNally.
Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative
to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional

labor: Bounded emotionally at the body shop. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 43, 429-469.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A
comprehensive framework for effective instruc-
tion. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle:
Remaking the way we make things. New York,
NY: North Point Press.
McKibben, B. (1989). The end of nature. NY: Random House.
Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and
the scientific revolution. San Francisco:
Harper & Row.
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in
organization theory. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 25, 605-622.
Morgan, G. (1983a). More on metaphor: Why we cannot control
tropes in administrative science. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 28, 601-607.
Morgan, G. (Ed.). (1983b). Beyond method: Strategies for
social research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Morgan, G. (1996). An afterward: Is there anything more to be
said about metaphor? In D. Grant &
C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 227-240).
London, England: SAGE.
Morgan, G. (2011). Reflections on Images of Organization and
its implications for studies of organization

and environment. Organization & Environment, 24, 459-478.
Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. (1981). Handbook of
organizational design. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Oreskes, N. (2011). Metaphors of warfare and the lessons of
history: Time to revisit a carbon tax? Climatic
Change, 104, 223-230.
Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing
to blending: Rethinking the process of
organizational theory-building. Academy of Management
Review, 36, 317-337.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2002). Metaphor and
analogical reasoning in organizational theory:
Beyond orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review, 27, 294-
303.
Oswick, C., & Montgomery, J. (1999). Images of organization:
The use of metaphor in a multinational
company. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12,
501-523.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay.
New York, NY: Random House.
Philippon, D. J. (2004). Conserving words: How American
nature writers shaped the environmental move-
ment. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Pinder, C. C., & Bourgeois, W. V. (1982). Controlling tropes in
administrative science. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 27, 641-652.
Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J., Morgan, G., & Dandridge, T. C.
(Eds.). (1983). Organizational symbolism. Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.
Ramus, C., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate
environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Business
& Society, 44, 377-414.
Reed, M. (1990). From paradigms to images: The paradigm
warrior turns post-modernist guru. Personnel
Review, 19, 35-40.
Sackmann, S. (1989). The role of metaphors in organization
transformation. Human Relations, 42, 463-485.
Shrivastava, P. (1994). Castrated environment: Greening
organizational studies. Organization Studies, 15,
705-726.
Stead, J. G., & Stead, W. E. (2009). Management for a small
planet. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Tinker, T. (1986). Metaphor or reification: Are radical
humanists really libertarian anarchists? Journal of
Management Studies, 23, 363-384.
Tsoukas, H., & Knudson, C. (Eds.). (2003). The Oxford
handbook of organization theory. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1995). Style as theory. Organization Science,
6, 133-143.
VrMeer, R. (1994). Postmodernism: A polemic commentary on
continuity and discontinuity in contempo-

rary thought. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 16, 85-91.
Waddock, S. (2011). We are all stakeholders of Gaia now: A
normative perspective on stakeholder thinking.
Organization & Environment, 24, 192-212.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined
imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14,
516-531.
White, C. (2007). The idols of environmentalism. Orion
Magazine, 26(4), 18-23.
Bios
John M. Jermier is Professor of Organizational Behavior and
Exide Professor of Sustainable Enterprise
Research at the University of South Florida, Tampa. Most of his
research has focused on developing critical
theory perspectives on organizations and on social science
research methodology. His current interests
center on organizational greening and environmental policy. He
is co-founding editor (with Paul
Shrivastava) and current co-editor (with Richard York) of
Organization & Environment.
Linda C. Forbes is Associate Professor of Organizational
Studies at the Ancell School of Business at
Western Connecticut State University in Danbury, CT, USA.
Her research interests include cultural studies
and symbolism, environmental philosophy and policy and
varieties of qualitative inquiry.
Journal of Management Inquiry

2016, Vol. 25(3) 338 –343
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1056492615591854
jmi.sagepub.com
Meet the Person
Introduction
In his best-selling book, Images of Organization, Gareth
Morgan (1986) set out what has subsequently become known
as “the eight metaphors” (Morgan, 2011), namely, organiza-
tions as machines, organisms, brains, cultures, political sys-
tems, psychic prisons, systems of change and flux, and
instruments of domination. In subsequent work, he has also
considered organizations and organizing by reference to spi-
der plants, termites, and blobs out of water (Morgan, 1993).
His body of work on organizational metaphors (see, for
example, Morgan, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1986, 1993, 1996,
2011) has had a significant impact on management thinking
and the study of organizations (Grant & Oswick, 1996;
Oswick, Keenoy, & Grant, 2002). It has informed and
inspired literally thousands of academics, managers, and stu-
dents over the past three decades.1 Moreover, it has also
stimulated the production of a vast array of metaphorical
images, including thinking of organizations and organizing
as analogous to, for example, theaters (Mangham &
Overington, 1987), jazz improvisation (Zack, 2000), conver-
sations (Broekstra, 1998), personalities (Oswick, Lowe, &
Jones, 1996), identities (Cornelissen, 2002), polyphonies
(Hazen, 1993), human entities (Kumra, 1996), military bat-
tlegrounds (Dunford & Palmer, 1996), and soap bubbles
(Tsoukas, 1993).

Rather than offering a broad discussion of the role and
status of metaphorical thinking in organizational analysis,
this contribution focuses on Gareth Morgan’s perspective on
metaphor and considers which particular metaphors have
had significant purchase, which have endured, and whether
any new and significant metaphors are emerging within the
field. Given that we have known Professor Morgan for more
than 20 years, and having written extensively on metaphor
ourselves (see, for example, Grant & Oswick, 1996; Oswick
& Jones, 2006; Oswick et al., 2002), the interaction pre-
sented here unfolded as an emergent conversation rather than
as a structured interview.
The “Eight Metaphors” and Beyond
Following an initial discussion of parameters and defini-
tional issues, our conversation offered some reflections on
established organizational metaphors before going on to con-
sider new ones. More specifically, we reviewed the status of
the eight metaphors contained in Images of Organization and
then we briefly explored the emergence of two new contem-
porary metaphors.
Foundational Images or Illustrative Starting
Points?
Cliff: Okay. Did you want to talk about . . . we could
talk about metaphors themselves. I’d be really
591854 JMIXXX10.1177/1056492615591854Journal of
Management InquiryOswick and Grant
research-article2015
1City University London, UK
2UNSW Business School, Sydney, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Cliff Oswick, Cass Business School, City University London,
106 Bunhill
Row, London EC1Y 8TZ, UK.
Email: [email protected]
Re-Imagining Images of Organization:
A Conversation With Gareth Morgan
Cliff Oswick1 and David Grant2
Abstract
In this article, we review the metaphors presented by Morgan in
Images of Organization and highlight how they simultaneously
act as “relatively static reflections” (i.e., they provide a history
of organization theory) and “relatively dynamic projections”
(i.e., stimulating the formulation of further organizational
images). We also discuss the potential for new organizational
metaphors and consider two specific metaphors (i.e., the “global
brain” and “organization as media”). We also challenge the
established punctuated metaphorical process (i.e., a transfer
from a metaphorical source domain to an organizational target
domain), propose a dynamic perspective of interchange (i.e.,
source domain to target domain to source domain and so on),
and develop the notion of multidirectionality (i.e., two-way
projections between target and source domains).
Keywords
organizational behavior, organizational design, organization
theory
mailto:[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F10564926
15591854&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-06-24

Oswick and Grant 339
interested in having a little chat about them. You
previously mentioned the phrase, “the eight
metaphors.”2 We ought to talk about how the
metaphors have changed, whether the original
metaphors still have purchase. So do you still
think they’re relevant?
Gareth: Oh, absolutely. They’re relevant historically,
right? If you want to understand organization
and where it’s come from and how organization
theory has developed, then obviously the eight
metaphors are actually relevant to that. In many
respects Images of Organization is an analysis
of the history of organization through metaphor,
right? And that’s where I always start. But, the
point is now that metaphors have different sig-
nificance, it’s going back to the idea we have
previously talked about in terms of context and
the importance of metaphor in a context, so
building upon what you’ve just said, it’s clear
that organizations are shifting from hierarchical
structures to flat networks. Basically, new meta-
phors are needed for understanding this. Sure
you can get some degree of understanding net-
works through the images of the brain or of cul-
ture or of the organism, but, obviously new
metaphors are forcing themselves into our atten-
tion. So that metaphor [i.e., the “flat network”]
in particular is one that’s obviously very
relevant.
David: Do you see them as new root metaphors, or met-
aphors that may emanate out of the original
eight?

Gareth: Well, that becomes a little bit of a game really of
whether you want to make the eight work, which
you can to a huge degree. But, it would be stupid
for me to defend just eight metaphors when the
whole purpose of images of organization is to
say . . . to talk about the way of thinking and
how, if you accept that the way of thinking is
metaphorical, then why would you limit your-
self, okay, and so I’ve always said that they’re
illustrative. So it becomes clear that we’ve got
to add to them and different people are doing
that and legitimately.
Big Data and Big Brother
David: Any examples [of metaphors that have been
added to] that really work for you? That appeal
to you personally?
Gareth: Yeah, well obviously the idea of the global
brain, which is a variation, if you want, on the
brain metaphor, but it’s not really, it goes way
beyond it, but clearly the Internet as a simple
example of that and then there is “big data.” Big
data in this world, that’s hugely important.
Think about the Foucauldian metaphor, the pan-
opticon and the whole idea of discipline and
self-discipline, punishment, surveillance. Link
that now to big data, look at what all the big tech
companies are doing . . .
Cliff: Yes, but it seems to me that it’s one of those
metaphors that has been a bit of a slow burn
metaphor, to use a metaphor to talk about meta-

phors, that when I talked to managers and stu-
dents, 10, 15, 20, 25 years ago about the idea of
surveillance and disciplinary power, a lot of
them just couldn’t get that idea at all. I think it’s
one of those metaphors that’s come of age with
the increase in the actual prevalence of surveil-
lance in society [e.g., the proliferation of video
cameras in public spaces] and greater awareness
of the power of institutions.
Gareth: Exactly.
David: Well I think it’s freed up, it’s left it shackles
behind, if you like, of . . . it was mixed up in
discussions about Neo-Marxism and control in
the workplace, which is a different thing. It’s
that ideological bent that’s got left behind, so
that when you’re talking about surveillance
now, you’re talking about surveillance in so-
called free world . . . we’re supposedly never . . .
have never been as free as we are in many ways,
but are actually constrained.
Gareth: Yes, I agree with that. But, it’s interesting
because there are two elements to this. It seems
to me, it’s external surveillance, which we can
all see, but in the Foucauldian model as well, it’s
how this becomes self-surveillance and so the
way in which we are looking . . .
Cliff: Self-discipline, yeah . . .
Gareth: . . . self-disciplining, right, which is incredibly
powerful in terms of the way things are working
out and also I think we have to recognize how
big data and how the big companies like Google

and the like, and the collection of data, are basi-
cally another form of surveillance in the sense
that they’re understanding . . .
Cliff: How people behave.
Gareth: . . . how they behave, what their interests are,
what they do, what they buy, etc. etc. etc. And,
what they’re actually doing in many respects is
not feeding back the differences, what you don’t
think or what you don’t like, they’re feeding
back stuff that reinforces your point of view. So
if you want to take this on it becomes . . . we’re
in a self-affirming bubble, where the external
reality that we’re encountering all the time is
340 Journal of Management Inquiry 25(3)
reinforcing whatever patterns that we’ve got. So
there are very, very interesting implications of
this, so clearly this becomes a major line of
development.
Cliff: Yeah. I also think, and you may not agree with
me here, but the power of some of the meta-
phors is when they’re juxtaposed. I don’t mean
blended or multiple lenses, but they are just held
in tension. So the kind of, the machine metaphor
and the organism metaphor are best understood
in relation to each other and when we start to
talk about the panopticon, I wonder about the
kind of emergence of social movements and the
whole idea of activism as a response to some of
the disciplinary power issues and the panopti-

con. So in other words, just as you have a play
between the organic metaphor and the mecha-
nistic one, that you have this sort of . . . these
things almost grow in relation to each other as
ways of thinking, so I wonder whether the kind
of . . .
Gareth: Symbiotic, almost? To use a metaphor, but yes.
Cliff: Symbiotic, yes. Possibly, because I do think . . .
I kind of introduced it there but, I don’t know
how you think or what you think the kind of . . .
the social networks, activism, mobilization, all
these kinds of . . . they seem to be very pertinent
ways of thinking about a new form of organiza-
tional metaphor.
Gareth: Yes, linking into the concept of self-organiza-
tion, right, of emergent organization and com-
plex adaptive systems thinking has got a lot to
contribute to this, but here you get into, where’s
the driving metaphor? Where’s the root meta-
phor in it all? I think that’s hugely important to
understand those social movements and what
the driving metaphors behind them are. It’s
utterly fascinating. So clearly new metaphors
are being developed and rightly so.
Images of Media-ization?
Gareth: There’s one other metaphor I’ve got to put on
the table, because you asked me what metaphors
that I think are important and I said, the global
brain . . . and we discussed the panopticon. The
other one is this notion of organization as media.

David: Oh, yes.
Gareth: Which is one that I’ve floated around, because
I’ve been very . . . not very involved, I’ve been
flirting, I guess, with Marshall McLuhan3 for
the best part of 20, 30 years. I don’t know if you
can do much more than flirt with the ideas
because the whole notion is that there’s . . . it’s
much more of a source of provocation and all
the rest of it. Anyway, it fits very well with my
type of thinking and the whole idea that we have
a society that historically has been built up on
the concept of literacy and so the written word
and taking the bureaucracy as the embodiment
of the written approach to organizing through
the rules, etc. etc. and all of the conventional
science and perspective based thinking and the
linearity that comes with that. The whole idea of
fixed objective reality, all connected with this
world of literacy and the digital revolution and
the shift in to electronic-mediated, multi-sen-
sory modes of understanding to a degree that
we’ve never experienced before, has got to be a
force, not in a technologically determined way,
but has to be a force that demands a completely
new mode of thinking in how we understand the
world that’s going on around us and McLuhan
came up with the notion of the global village as
a very, very early metaphorical understanding of
what’s going on, but there are many, many more
ways of thinking about this and of capturing this
movement which is as important as the trend to
media-ization, and so if you start to see this as
part of the ground which is in motion here, all
those metaphors that are going to be needed to

capture this, it’s just phenomenal.
Cliff: Yeah, and I can see that, and I think it’s always
interesting to then sort of look at the second
order metaphors. So, for example, the “organi-
zation as family” metaphor encourages us to
look at second order comparisons such as pater-
nalism, the maternal figure, family feuds, and
family values. Following through on that orga-
nization as media take, companies used to talk
about mission statements, the written. Now it’s
about brands and a brand isn’t an . . .
Gareth: It’s an image. . . .
Cliff: . . . it’s an image, and do you know what, brands
are consumed as much by employees as they are
by external agents these days. So it kind of plays
to the idea that if there’s media metaphors tak-
ing . . . really taking hold, then we find some of
these artifacts that are around that move away
from mission statements to, what’s our brand?
And our brand is something you can’t easily
capture in just a written form, and a mission
statement is exactly that. It’s a statement that’s
written and it’s that literacy thing and the media
thing really does play into things like, as I say,
brand.
David: I think the thing that you’re capturing there is
that we’re moving towards a much more

sensory approach to understanding, which is
interesting in itself, because it may be almost a
full circle, going back to what we were talking
about earlier. So without the literal [written
word approach], we’re much more reliant on our
five senses. . . . And that either . . . I’m not quite
sure, but it either creates the potential for new
metaphors or it takes us back to some of the
original real basic metaphors that we’re founded
on and reinterpreting those, coming up with dif-
ferent metonymical outcomes, if you like.
Gareth: No, it’s fascinating, because it will potentially
revolutionize the whole of science and the whole
scientific thinking and the notion of research
and . . .
Cliff: Have you heard of these things called
“emojis”?
Gareth: Emojis?
Cliff: Right. Emojis are symbols that you use in text
messages. Teenagers use them on their mobile
phones—smiley face, sad face, heart, etc. There
are hundreds of them on phones. You can repre-
sent happiness, sadness, love, anger . . .
Gareth: Nothing written.
Cliff: No, and as I understand it kids are sending com-
plete text messages, which have no words and
consist only of a string of images.
Gareth: I love that. You see it’s just a little illustration of
how this is all unfolding in a way that we can’t

possibly appreciate. So it’s clear that Images of
Organization is not about the eight metaphors,
but it’s about that type of thinking that can help
us get into this . . . deal with this world a bit
faster than we might otherwise would, particu-
larly as academics.
Concluding Thoughts
There are several main inferences that can be derived from
the interaction presented in this article. The first concerns
Gareth Morgan’s reflections regarding the production and
consumption of the eight metaphors contained in Images of
Organization. It is clear that his metaphors continue to be
popular and relevant (e.g. Human Relations have a special
issue planned that is devoted to Morgan’s eight metaphors).
For Morgan, the continued allure of his metaphors is their
historical relevance as a collection of insights that help to
make sense of how organization theory has developed. He
states in our discussion that “. . . in many respects Images
of Organization is an analysis of the history of organiza-
tion through metaphor.” Although the eight metaphors
have an enduring historical significance, it is also apparent
that Morgan wants them to be seen as illustrative rather
than exhaustive images and, as such, that they are deployed
going forward as a basis for generating further insights and
ways of thinking. In this regard, his metaphors simultane-
ously work as “relatively static reflections” (i.e., they cap-
ture the essence of the history of organization theory) and
“relatively dynamic projections” (i.e., offering a reference
point and/or trigger for further metaphorical entailments
and developments).
A further interesting aspect of our conversation was that it
highlighted two new organizational metaphors that resonate

with contemporary organization life, namely, “the global
brain” and “organization as media.” The “global brain” met-
aphor draws attention to the neural-like interconnectedness
of a digital world combined with the increasing significance
of “big data.” This metaphor also reveals the dark side of
“big data,” in the Foucauldian sense of disciplinary power
and surveillance, as ever more intrusive phenomena for indi-
viduals as employees, consumers, and citizens. The “organi-
zation as media” metaphor draws from Marshall McLuhan’s
work—especially the idea that “the medium is the message”
(McLuhan, 1964)—to provoke a consideration of the demise
of the written word as a cornerstone of organizing (e.g., job
descriptions, rules, mission statements, etc.) and a shift
toward what Morgan describes as “electronic-mediated,
multi-sensory modes of understanding.”
If we reflect upon the characteristics of the “global brain”
and “media” metaphors, it appears that they are very differ-
ent to Morgan’s “eight metaphors.” The earlier metaphors
seem to be far more bounded insofar as it is possible to con-
ceive of an individual organization as a discrete metaphorical
entity (e.g., as a machine, organism, culture, or brain). By
contrast, it is hard to envisage a single organization as a
“global brain” or “media.” Instead, they are more easily
depicted as synonymous with organizations at an aggregated
level. Moreover, these new metaphors can be appropriately
positioned as “images of society and social life” as much as
“images of organization and organizational life.” Somewhat
ironically, this perhaps, at least to a certain extent, is in itself
a reflection of living within a digitally connected world with
increasingly blurred boundaries between organizations (and
between business and society more generally). Hence, we
posit that new organizational metaphors are not organiza-
tion-specific and that they are largely driven by wider social
and technological changes rather than organization-centric
imperatives.

When we reviewed the transcript of our meeting, we
noticed that the discourse concerning established meta-
phors (i.e., the machine and the organism) and the new
metaphors did not entirely adhere to the conventional wis-
dom on metaphor-use where the process is presented as
involving the projection of a relatively concrete “source
domain” (i.e., a specific metaphor) onto a relatively
abstract “target domain” (i.e., an organization) to generate
insights or new ways thinking (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980;
Morgan, 1980, 1986). More specifically, it appeared that
342 Journal of Management Inquiry 25(3)
the process of elaborating upon, and projecting a metaphor
typically required the concurrent articulation of an inverse
or opposite metaphorical image. So, for example, the dis-
cussion of machine metaphor incorporated the concomi-
tant use of the organism metaphor. Equally, the discussion
of “big data” (i.e., “the global brain”—control and surveil-
lance) was accompanied by a discussion of “big brother”
(i.e., “social movements”—autonomy and resistance).
And, the discussion of “organization as media” based on
“electronic-mediated, multi-sensory modes of understand-
ing” (e.g., images, sounds, feelings) was juxtaposed with
“the literal” (i.e., the written). This might suggest that
rather than seeing the metaphorical process as a two-part
projection (i.e., from “source domain” to “target domain”),
we might further explore the metaphorical process as a
form of tripartite correspondence (an interplay between a
“source domain,” a “shadow source domain,” and a “target
domain”).
Finally, this last point leads us to a final closing provoca-

tion: If, as Morgan has indicated, the metaphors produced in
Images of Organization should be utilized to generate further
ways of thinking, we could further rethink the established
metaphorical process (i.e., a transfer from a metaphorical
source domain to an organizational target domain) in terms
of the extent to which it can be thought of as being fixed and
relatively discrete. By adopting a dynamic perspective of
movement from one metaphor to another (i.e., source domain
to target domain to source domain and so on) and embracing
the notion of multi-directionality4 (i.e., target domains can
also project onto source domains), we can create more play-
ful and less constrained ways of using metaphors that are
likely to produce more innovative ways of thinking and cre-
ate new images of organization.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. For example, the first edition of Images of Organization sold
just under 250,000 copies.
2. The eight metaphors refer to those contained in Images of
Organization (Morgan, 1986).
3. Marshall McLuhan formed the notions of the “medium is the

message” and the “global village” and is credited with predict-
ing the advent of the Internet (see McLuhan, 1964).
4. A multi-directional view of metaphor has been developed
within cognitive linguistics (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002) but
has not really permeated through to management and organi-
zation theory.
References
Broekstra, G. (1998). An organization is a conversation. In D.
Grant, T. Keenoy, & C. Oswick (Eds.), Discourse and organi-
zation (pp. 152-176). London, England: Sage.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2002). On the organizational identity
metaphor.
British Journal of Management, 13, 259-268.
Dunford, R., & Palmer, I. (1996). Metaphors in popular man-
agement discourse: The case of corporate restructuring. In
D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations
(pp. 95-109). London, England: Sage.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think:
Conceptual
blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Grant, D., & Oswick, C. (Eds.). (1996). Metaphor and organiza-
tions. London, England: Sage.
Hazen, M. A. (1993). Towards polyphonic organization. Journal
of
Organizational Change Management, 6(5), 15-26.
Kumra, S. (1996). The organization as a human entity. In C.

Oswick
& D. Grant (Eds.), Organisation development: Metaphorical
explorations (pp. 35-53). London, England: Pitman.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by.
Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mangham, I. L., & Overington, M. A. (1987). Organizations as
the-
atre: A social psychology of dramatic appearances. Chichester,
UK: Wiley.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of
man. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving
in orga-
nization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 605-622.
Morgan, G. (1981). The schismatic metaphor and its
implications
for organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 2, 23-44.
Morgan, G. (1983). More on metaphor: Why we cannot con-
trol tropes in administrative science. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28, 601-607.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Morgan, G. (1993). Imaginization: The art of creative
management.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morgan, G. (1996). Is there anything more to be said about

meta-
phor? In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organi-
zations (pp. 227-240). London, England: Sage.
Morgan, G. (2011). Reflections on Images of Organization and
its
implications for organization and environment. Organization
& Environment, 24, 459-478.
Oswick, C., & Jones, P. (2006). Beyond correspondence?
Metaphor
in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 31,
483-485.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2002). Metaphor and ana-
logical reasoning in organization theory: Beyond orthodoxy.
Academy of Management Review, 27, 294-303.
Oswick, C., Lowe, S., & Jones, P. (1996). Organisational
culture
as personality: Lessons from psychology? In C. Oswick & D.
Grant (Eds.), Organization development: Metaphorical explo-
rations (pp. 106-117). London, England: Pitman.
Tsoukas, H. (1993). Organizations as soap bubbles: An
evolutionary
perspective on organization design. Systems Practice, 6, 501-
515.
Zack, M. H. (2000). Jazz improvisation and organizing: Once
more
from the top. Organization Science, 11, 227-234.

Author Biographies
Cliff Oswick is professor of organization theory and deputy
dean at
Cass Business School, City University London, UK. His
research
interests focus on the application of aspects of discourse,
drama-
turgy, tropes, narrative and rhetoric to the study of
management,
organizations, organizing processes, and organizational change.
He
has published more than 140 academic articles and contributions
to
edited volumes. He is the European editor for Journal of
Organizational Change Management and associate editor for
Journal of Change Management. He is also a member of the
National Training Laboratory, a trustee of the Tavistock
Institute of
Human Relations, and co-director of the International Centre for
Research on Organizational Discourse, Strategy and Change.
David Grant is a professor of organizational studies and senior
deputy dean at UNSW Business School, Sydney, Australia. His
research focuses on how language and other symbolic media
influ-
ence the practice of leadership and organization-wide, group-
and
individual-level change. He has published on these topics in a
range
of peer-reviewed and practitioner journals as well as numerous
handbooks and edited volumes. He is also co-editor of the Sage
Handbook of Organizational Discourse (2004, with Cynthia
Hardy,
Cliff Oswick, and Linda Putnam), Metaphor and Organizations

(1996, with Cliff Oswick), and Organization Development:
Metaphorical Explorations (1996, with Cliff Oswick). He is a
member of the National Training Laboratory and a founding
mem-
ber of the International Centre for Organizational Discourse
Strategy and Change.
Metaphorical images of organization:
How organizational researchers develop
and select organizational metaphors
Joep P. Cornelissen, Mario Kafouros and Andrew R. Lock
A B S T R AC T The article examines how metaphors are
developed and selected
within organizational theorizing and research.The issue
addressed is
not whether metaphors exist and play a part in organizational
theorizing – as this is now widely accepted – but to draw out
how
metaphors are actually used and are of conceptual value,
particularly
as such insights may aid organizational researchers in a better
use of
them.Working from this position, the article reviews the extant
theor-
etical literature on metaphor, surveys the organizational

literature to
document past and contemporary metaphors-in-use (1993–
2003),
and identifies the heuristics (i.e. judgmental rules) that have
been used
by organizational researchers in developing and selecting these
metaphors. The identified heuristics are the integration,
relational,
connection, availability, distance and concreteness heuristics.
On the
basis of these identified heuristics, and the biases and errors
associ-
ated with them, the article also posits a number of governing
rules
that can guide organizational researchers in their continued
develop-
ment and selection of metaphors in the organizational field.
K E Y WO R D S heuristics � metaphor � organization theory
� tropes
This article reflects at least three trends that have become
increasingly
apparent over the past two decades within the field of
organization theory:
the development of interest in the paradigms, schemes and
concepts that over

1 5 4 5
Human Relations
DOI: 10.1177/0018726705061317
Volume 58(12): 1545–1578
Copyright © 2005
The Tavistock Institute ®
SAGE Publications
London,Thousand Oaks CA,
New Delhi
www.sagepublications.com
time define and characterize the field (e.g. Barley & Kunda,
1992; Morgan,
1980); the development of interest in the process of theorizing,
particularly
in those cognitive processes underlying it (Weick, 1989); and
the develop-
ment of interest in the nature of language for (re)presenting
organizational
life, particularly the incidence and function of metaphor (Daft
& Wiginton,
1979; Oswick et al., 2002). Although these trends overlap in
various regards,
the article tightens their association by explicating the role of

metaphor in
the thinking and behavior of organizational theorists and
researchers. More
specifically, the article clarifies how metaphor, and the
imagination that
follows from it, is used within organizational theorizing and
what this
implies for its continued use within organization theory and
research.
Specifically, the purpose of our analysis is 1) to clarify how
organiz-
ational researchers circumscribe and understand the world of
organizations
through the use of metaphor, 2) to document the heuristics of
metaphor that
they use in doing so, and 3) to suggest, on the basis of this
documentation,
how metaphor can be used to its fullest effect. The latter
suggestion is
evidently more prescriptive in nature and moves beyond the
descriptive data
presented to discuss missed opportunities and potentialities in
the heuristic
inferences used by researchers in order to probe more deeply
and generate
new insights into the world of organizations. This is not,
however, the central
thrust of our analysis. Rather, our major emphasis is on
providing a histori-
cal and empirical overview of the past and contemporary
metaphors in use
over the period 1993–2003, and to delineate the heuristics (i.e.
the judg-
mental rules in producing and selecting metaphors) that have
guided their

development, selection and use. We focus particularly on the
dominant
metaphors within organizational theorizing and research and by
looking at
their heuristics attempt to explain their prevalence and
continued use.
In what follows, we will first contextualize the role of metaphor
in
organizational theorizing, before moving on to a more specific
and detailed
discussion of prior work that has speculated on the heuristics of
metaphor.
From this discussion the article then proceeds with a survey of
the use of
metaphor in organizational theorizing and research over the past
period
(1993–2003) in order to infer and document empirically the
heuristics-in-use
in organizational theorizing and research. The results of the
empirical survey
and the uncovered heuristics-in-use are discussed and are also
used to formu-
late a number of governing rules for the selection, adoption and
continued
use of metaphor in organizational theorizing and research. We
conclude with
a discussion of theory and research implications, positioning the
suggested
governing rules for the use of metaphor within the wider realm
of organiz-
ation theory and suggesting research applications.
Human Relations 58(12)1 5 4 6

Metaphor in organization theory
The trends indicated at the beginning of this article suggest a
marked increase
of interest in recent years in the paradigms, schemes and
metaphors that
organizational theorists and researchers work from in their
theorizing and
research endeavors (Bacharach, 1989; Morgan, 1980; Weick,
1989).
Although this interest comes in various forms (see Gioia &
Pitre, 1990) and
reflects wider meta-theoretical issues around theorizing and
research, our
concern in this regard is with the specific use of metaphor
within the process
of organizational theorizing. This concern is given in by
previous work
(Morgan, 1980, 1983; Weick, 1989) which has suggested that
metaphors
play a crucial role within theorizing, that theorists cannot really
surpass them
and that theorists and researchers therefore need to be more
mindful of their
use and the images that they evoke in such a way that they
become ‘more
deliberate in the formation of these images and more respectful
of represen-
tations and efforts to improve them’ (Weick, 1989: 529). This
view stands
in sharp contrast to an earlier view of metaphor as a derivative
issue of only
secondary importance. That is, metaphor was thought to be
either a deviant
form of expression or a nonessential literary figure of speech

(e.g. Pinder &
Bourgeois, 1982). In either case, it was generally not regarded
as cognitively
fundamental. This denial of any serious cognitive role for
metaphor was prin-
cipally the result of the longstanding popularity of strict
‘objectivist’ assump-
tions about language and meaning. The objectivist view
suggests that the
world has its structure, and that our concepts and propositions,
to be correct,
must correspond to that structure. Metaphors, then, may exist as
cognitive
processes of our understanding, but their meaning must be
reducible to some
set of literal concepts and propositions (Bourgeois & Pinder,
1983; Pinder
& Bourgeois, 1982).
In marked contrast with this ‘objectivist’ view, Morgan (1980,
1983)
forcefully demonstrated that metaphors involve a cognitively
fundamental
way of structuring our understanding of organizations as a new
meaning is
created through the creative juxtaposition of concepts (e.g.
‘organization’
and ‘machine’) that previously were not interrelated. Ever
since, a whole
range of theories and frameworks have been proposed (e.g. the
‘transfor-
mational’ model, Tsoukas, 1991, and the ‘domains-interaction’
model,
Cornelissen, 2004, 2005) that have both advanced and
challenged Morgan’s
characterization of metaphor as proceeding ‘through assertions

that subject
A is, or is like B, the processes of comparison, substitution and
interaction
between the images of A and B acting as generators of new
meaning’
(Morgan, 1980: 610). Tsoukas (1991, 1993), for example,
suggests that a
metaphor, as a figurative play of words, can be used in a
creative manner to
Cornelissen et al. Metaphorical images of organization 1 5 4 7
reveal ‘literal’ structural similarities between concepts that
were not salient
before, and may as such provide for ‘enriching’ and ‘insightful’
new under-
standings of organizations. Cornelissen (2004, 2005) argued
that metaphor-
ical language sets up a creative and novel correlation of two
concepts which
forces us to make semantic leaps to create an understanding of
the infor-
mation that comes off it. The notion of semantic leaps, then,
points to certain
‘non-compositional’ processes that are at work in metaphor, that
evoke the
imaginative capacities of meaning construction, and that
eventually lead to
the production of a new, emergent meaning (see also Fauconnier
& Turner,
1998; Tourangeau & Rips, 1991). Accordingly, in Cornelissen’s
view,
metaphors are cognitively fundamental in themselves – a
metaphor creates

new, emergent meaning that is not compositional; instead, there
is new
meaning constituted in and through the metaphor (e.g. ‘an
organization
having certain identity traits in its strategies, values and
practices that give
it its specificity, stability and coherence’ in case of the
‘organizational
identity’ metaphor) that is not a composition of meanings that
can be found
in either the target or source concepts per se.
Beyond this discussion of how metaphors ‘work’, the
organizational
literature on metaphors has also drawn attention to further
analytical
distinctions; primarily between ‘live’ and ‘dead’ metaphors, and
between
‘root’ metaphorical schemata versus specific ‘surface’
metaphorical
language and concepts (Alvesson, 1993; Morgan, 1980; Oswick
et al.,
2002). Tsoukas (1991), for example, pointed to the difference
between
‘novel’ or what are sometimes understood as ‘live’ metaphorical
word
combinations (e.g. ‘organizational identity’) versus
‘conventionalized’ or
‘dead’ metaphors (e.g. ‘organizational structure’); language and
concepts
that have become so familiar and so habituated in theoretical
vocabulary
that scholars have often ceased to be aware of the metaphorical
underpin-
nings (see also Hunt & Menon, 1995; Inns, 2002; Sandelands &
Srivatsan,

1993). Alvesson (1993) and Morgan (1980) have drawn a
distinction
between ‘root’ or ‘second-order’ metaphorical schemata as
schools of
thought that filter and structure a researcher’s perceptions of
the subject of
study (e.g. ‘social phenomena as information processing
systems’) (e.g. Daft
& Weick, 1984) which then pre-structure and give rise to more
specific ‘first-
order’ metaphorical concepts (e.g. ‘organizational memory’)
(e.g. Walsh &
Ungson, 1991) with the latter serving as more concrete
frameworks for
scholarship and analysis. Inns (2002), finally, in her review of
writings on
metaphor within organization theory, suggested that many
authors not only
explore and use metaphors differently (for example as a
qualitative research
tool, as a generative tool for creative thinking, as a pedagogical
or
communicative tool) but also differ in terms of whether they
critically
Human Relations 58(12)1 5 4 8
engage with them. At the level of organization theory, then,
Inns’ review
suggests that organizational researchers primarily appear to use
metaphors
in their theory building as ways of ‘making the unfamiliar
familiar’ (akin to
Inns’s view of metaphor as an explicatory teaching or

communicative tool)
or as a means of generating novel understandings that push the
boundaries
of the body of knowledge on organizations (cf. Inns’s view of
metaphor as
a generative tool for creative thinking) (see also Oswick et al.,
2002; Schön,
1993, for a similar discussion). The latter generative capacity of
metaphor
to create new ways of seeing, conceptualizing and
understanding organiz-
ational phenomena is indeed widely acknowledged within the
scholarly
organizational community (Alvesson, 1993; Chia, 1996;
Cornelissen, 2004,
2005; Grant & Oswick, 1996; Inns, 2002; Morgan, 1996;
Tsoukas, 1991,
1993).
In the present study, we accommodate the aforementioned
analytical
distinctions (between ‘live’ and ‘dead’ metaphors, between
‘root’ metaphor-
ical schemata and ‘surface’ metaphorical language, and between
‘explicatory’
and ‘generative’ uses of metaphor) and define metaphor as a
linguistic utter-
ance in which the combination of words is literally deviant in
the sense that
terms that have originally or conventionally been employed in
relation to a
different concept or domain are applied and connected to a
target term or
concept within organization theory (cf. Cameron, 1999; Gibbs,
1996; Steen,
1999). We also assume that metaphors as linguistic utterances

Strategic Management.docxby CHUANLING MASubmission date.docx

Strategic Management.docxby CHUANLING MASubmission date.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Strategic Management.docxby CHUANLING MASubmission date.docx

Similar to Strategic Management.docxby CHUANLING MASubmission date.docx (20)

More from lillie234567

More from lillie234567 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Strategic Management.docxby CHUANLING MASubmission date.docx