Metaphor, culture and intercultural communication

Are metaphors universal or are they culture specific? How does culture shape metaphors? How do metaphors shape intercultural communication?

One of the most important observations concerning metaphors is their construct in terms of universalism.

Some conceptual metaphors are shared across very different cultures and are so inherent in the human mind’s capability of relating to abstract concepts, that they can reasonably be labelled as universal.

Whereas, others are rather closely connected and limited to the specific society in which they are used. Kövecses described the society as “a system of different ways of understanding reality shared by individuals, characteristic of smaller or bigger communities”[1], while a dialect is one of the main of such understandings.

Metaphor is not only a cognitive, but also a cultural concept. Conceptual metaphor is embedded in our culture, through which we are able to relate to abstract concepts in the world around us. As recognized by Lakoff and Johnson[2], metaphor use reveals the way we perceive the world and consequently the culture in which we live.

Culture, communication and metaphor

The role of culture in the world of business has been the subject of various research for at least twenty-five years[3].

The relationship between culture and communication might appear quite obvious to those influenced by postmodern, poststructuralist or cultural studies’ thinking. Nevertheless, due to Saussere, the turn towards communication has been possible.

Without the work by authors such as Wittgenstein and Austin, who stressed that signs cannot be considered in isolation from the actions in which they are produced, Habermas wouldn’t have been able to construct his “communicative paradigm”[4].

This was characterized by the assumption that culture is constructed through communicative actions. What’s important is the fact that in that paradigm, communicative action is meant to include the performance of social action in the use of language, nonverbal signs, cultural objects and artefacts. “Culture underlies every part of communication”[5].

The influence of culture on perception has given guidelines on the structure and interpretation of messages, which is of key importance in organizational life.

Scientists have started to take interest in the way behaviors and their meanings differ in particular cultures. Improving understanding of the communication phenomenon itself has become the objective of intercultural communication. Culture surrounded its own members in such a way that they lacked awareness of its existence.

According to D. Barnlund, “Cultural standards surround people so completely and permeate thoughts and actions to such a degree that only few people are aware of assumptions on which their life and reason are based”[6].

The notion of culture was first defined and intentionally applied by E.B. Tylor, who presented the widely cited and quoted meaning of culture in his work “Primitive Culture”. According to him, culture is a “complex entirety covering knowledge, faith, art, morale, law, customs and other abilities and habits acquired by human as a member of society”[7].

Culture constitutes a relatively integrated whole, including human behaviors corresponding to the models shared by a community, shaped and assimilated during interaction, as well as outputs of such behaviors[8].

Culture may also be defined as a system, in which the same symbols, beliefs, attitudes, values, expectations and behavior standards are shared. Thus, persons composing a given culture are characterized by the same assumptions regarding the way people should think, behave and communicate and usually behave in accordance with these assumptions[9].

Contemporary interest in intercultural communication commenced in the 1950s. At the time American anthropologists Edward T. Hall, Ruth H. Useem and John Useem started to analyse efficient communication between people from different cultures. It was then that the notion of intercultural communication was used for the first time[10]. Since that time the intercultural communication discipline has started to develop dynamically.

Development of the contemporary knowledge on intercultural communication has very practical sources. Intercultural communication has emerged as a result of strong pressure from practitioners.

After the Second World War the American government commissioned anthropologists to conduct research which was supposed to introduce the government to intercultural communication phenomena between the USA and hostile countries.

Intercultural communication is the direct result of the growing life internationalization.

It was businessmen, diplomats and activists of international organizations that stimulated researchers dealing with the intercultural communication phenomenon[11].

Knowing terminological problems related to communication and cultural notions, defining the common research field covering intercultural communication might be proposed.

Creation of the very definition of intercultural communication different from and, simultaneously, associated with its parent discipline, i.e. communication, may be regarded as the starting point for establishment of the intercultural communication discipline.

Culture is the central term here. E. Folb[12] defined it as “the plan, the guide”, whereas Hall[13] - as “the road map”. P. Harris and R. Morgan stated: “Culture influences and is shaped by each fact of human activity”[14]. The logic of the link between cultural orientation and communication itself is based on two fundamental functions fulfilled by communication[15]: relational (affiliation motives) and functional (reduction of uncertainty). Thus, intercultural communication may be defined as “the act of understanding and being understood by an audience of a different culture”[16].

Communication is intercultural when perspectives various in terms of culture influence the lack of possibility to create a single, shared culture[17], i.e. when there are obstacles at the level of sharing symbol meanings.

M. Lustig and J. Koester define intercultural communication as “the symbolic, interpretive, transactional and contextual process, in which the degree of diversity between persons is large and important enough to create diverse interpretations and expectations concerning competent behaviors and should be used in the process of creating shared meanings”[18]. In other words, intercultural communication takes place when information has emerged or has been coded in one culture and needs to be decoded in another culture[19].

When discussing intercultural communication, it is necessary to introduce the notion of the perceived intercultural communication competence, which is an impression that behavior associated with message transmission (message behavior) is correct and efficient in a given context[20]. Correctness means not violating principles and standards of a given culture[21], whereas efficiency relates to achieving the goal of interaction.

Managers communicating in intercultural environment need to ask themselves how much they know about a given culture and what they should know about it[22]. Becoming familiar with or knowing a given culture is not a goal itself but it should be set within the business context. Negotiations are the proper context for deliberations. It is worth remembering that cultures do not communicate with each other, it is the individuals that communicate with each other[23].

Competences connected with intercultural communication have originated from the field of research on interpersonal communication.

It is worth noticing that manager competent in communication with representatives of their own culture may lose their competences in case of contact with a different culture. Therefore, competences in the field of intercultural communication should be analysed from a separate point of view.

Managers succeeding in intercultural communication are aware of people’s tendency to evaluate facts from their own perspective, and try to adapt their point of view to the current situation and cultural diversity. According to the researchers E. Hall[24], G. Hofstede[25], D. Victor[26], L. Beamer[27] and F. Trompenaars[28], cultural values influencing behavior and communication are, as follows: perception of the individual's role, hierarchy, formalism, context, role and time perception, the perception of risk and uncertainty, the connection of humans with the universe and the perception of the meaning of one’s own culture. It is worth noticing that in the western models of communication, the critical role is assumed by the sender. R. Yan[29] criticizes western communication models, which emphasize the active role of the sender. Yan prefers a model in which both parties cooperate closely.

With respect to communication processes the following features of culture are worth emphasizing:

1. Culture manifests itself through language, behavior and activity. It provides standard models, thanks to which it is easier to act in everyday interactions, as well as interactions inside business organizations, thus facilitating communication. Owing to culture, it is possible to function within a given organization or society.

2. It is worth adding that a rigid image of a given group’s culture may lead to emergence of stereotypes which, actually, do not have much in common with reality. Thus, behavior standards shared within a given group should be perceived as possible or probable “forecasts of a scenario” of a given organizational or communication situation. These hypotheses or “forecasts” ought to be tested, modified and improved, depending on the real communication situation.

3. One should remember that there will always be persons whose behavior will significantly deviate from behavior of other members of a given cultural group. Their views, customs and standards will not be the same as those applied by other members of their culture.

4. People within the same culture will differ in religion or even the level of education. Women and men will be two different cultures within one culture. Enterprises, organizations or educational institutions will also have their own cultures.

5. Becoming aware of the way in which the culture of one country is similar and the way in which it is different from the culture of another country is the essence of intercultural understanding. The “another country” phrase has been used here because, when speaking about international environment, culture is usually understood at the national level[30].

Culture is such a complex phenomenon that understanding a diverse culture requires many years of contact with it. T. Todorov in “Nous et lesautres” maintains that during our lifetime we may assimilate one or two cultures different from our own. Real understanding of a different culture occurs only when we have constant contact with its representatives and compare ourselves to them[31]. The Author deals with selected aspects of intercultural marketing in the next chapters.

Researchers have studied the influence or the impact of national cultures on organizational behavior and the way managers from different cultural backgrounds interact with one another[32].

According to Kövecses culture is “a set of shared understandings that characterize smaller or larger groups of people”[33] with language being the most prominent shared characteristic. Hofstede and Hofstede suggest that “culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others”[34].

Bjerke expresses the opinion that culture is a mechanism which fuses social structures[35]. Scholars generally agree that variations between groups can exist on multiple dimensions: cognitions, behaviors, and values.

Undoubtedly adequate knowledge of both language and culture is needed to communicate effectively in any society, but success in communication relies heavily on the recognition of those cultural patterns and values that shape the cross-cultural communications process.

            However, it would be “misleading to separate the more universal concepts completely from the culturally variable ones. This is because even the more universal concepts are formed in a cultural-specific environment.

They are also influenced by cultural factors, even though not as much as others”[36]. Lakoff and Johnson claim that “all experience is cultural through and through [...] we experience our ‘world’ in such a way that our culture is already present in the very experience itself”[37].

Kövecses believes that while a conceptual metaphor may be shared across cultures and languages, the conceptual metaphor may be expressed in very different ways in two languages and cultures[38].

It is worth stressing that the conceptual system is grounded in a specific way, and that the concepts that get mapped are not mapped randomly, i.e. target domains are usually more abstract where source domains are usually more concrete.

Johnson and Lakoff say, “We typically conceptualize the nonphysical in terms of the physical”[39], meaning that we typically map from a domain that we can touch, feel, understand or see to domains that cannot be seen or comprehended so easily.

Dobrzynska thinks that “dialectal boundaries lie within the boundaries of social groups visible to the naked eye”[40]. She believes that in this case a discourse is based on a combination of opinions and aptitudes, a result of which is understanding organizational reality. Dobrzynska compares the movement of different images of the world and phenomena between discourses, locating the problem in a separate area of phenomena[41].

The researcher claims that representation has transformed into a different object created by a specific combination of circumstances, which may lead to the emergence of an alternative understanding of the given allegory[42].

However, Kövecses thinks that some similarities are so immanent to the human ability to identify conceptual ideas that, with a certain degree of prudence, they can be described as omnipresent, and thus as universal.

Kövecses attempts to explain the crack in the deliberations of the abovementioned researchers on theoretical analogies and their universality, and the existence of many interchangeable etymological allegories within different dialects and communities.

According to Kövecses, despite the fact that metaphors can be transmitted between dialects and groups of people, a specific metaphor can be communicated using completely different channels in both dialects or groups[43].

Trim believes that the trans-etymological comparability is “adaptable in figurative speech, although there are expressions that sound strange in one dialect but not in another”[44]. In this context, the researcher functionalised the notion of “dialectal variations”[45], useful in describing these interdialectal differences. Dialectal variations are understood as the correspondence between analogies and the rules of a specific dialect.

For example, if a representation in ST[46] seems exaggerated in TL, it is easier to substitute an image in ST for TT. Trim agrees that the interpreting party enjoys greater freedom in understanding written materials than anything else, e.g. a television documentary.

The reason for this is silent consent: similarities in ST can appear odd or completely new to a native speaker, and should perhaps be allowed the same unfamiliarity in the TT[47]. It may be assumed that journalists most often use analogies introducing linguistic innovation, pushing the persuasive effect into the background. Regardless of the fact whether the person interpreting a press release perceives it in a similar way, silent consent is just asking for being questioned, which has an effect on the interpretation process.

Cristofoli et al. advanced the thesis that there is one more type of contrast between metaphors, viz. between similarities in fiction and non-fiction. In non-fiction texts metaphors should be immediately clear without any considerable effort on the part of the recipient. Metaphors of this type are parts of reproducible convention[48], which increases the probability that the recipient is familiar with them and has already classified them in their mental lexicon. Naturally, it is worth emphasising that this does not mean that in the case of feature or documentary content the convention always imposes the same understanding.

Nevertheless, metaphors are subordinate to the general formal logic of the work. Referring to the terms coined by Trim, similarities with a low degree of TL saliency would require greater effort in interpretation than media representations with a high degree of TL saliency, as similarities in ST cannot be directly transferred into TL. Of course, this suspicion can only be deemed justified if one assumes that immediate interpretation of an image requires lower (in subjective terms) effort than the repeated or alternative configuration of a message.

Over the last years we have witnessed an increase in the number of psycholinguistic studies on specific aspects of experiencing metaphors. Within this paradigm one can distinguish neuroimaging[49], oculography – tracing eye movements[50], or response time measurement[51].

For example, the studies by Inhoff et al. from 1984 intensively used the oculographic method in order to analyze the time of reception of metaphorical or explanatory figures of speech. They discovered no difference between the phrases based on associations and unrelated phrases.

Two researchers, Blasko and Kasmierski, noted that metaphorical representations could be easily translated in the right context or as part of a fairly clear structure of semantic scopes[52]. Mashal and Faust used neuroimaging to prove that the process of allegorical explanation was influenced by a certain number of variables, such as the metaphorical nature or style of presentation or transmission.

There are two contradictory views on the process of experiencing reality through metaphors. The first one is based on an assumption that the perception of metaphors requires increased intellectual effort, while the process itself entails several stages[53]. Searle claimed that similarities are expressed in a figurative way whenever literal expressions prove imperfect[54].

Researchers Blasko and Connine called it abnormal processing[55]. The other perspective[56] on the perception of metaphors emphasises that they function in a similar way to literal speech and do not require increased effort. Following the terminology of Blasko and Connine, this is immediate processing.

Metaphors can also be understood as a method of broadening imagination within the organizational science. In both cases Morgan says that all researchers – deliberately or not – are driven by mental images underlying their reasoning: “(…) all speculations concerning the functioning of organizations or administration are related to the presence of verifiable images or similarities, thanks to which we develop the ways of understanding and supervising organizations in a specific, yet fragmentary manner”[57].

In both cases the question of attitude to metaphors in the organizational science goes deeper, as we do not have any specific data on the influence of national diversity on the processes presented.

In their surveillance study, Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhn (2001) demonstrated how the image of the notion of cooperation proves to be heterogeneous when analyzed, while the concepts of “separation of powers” and “independence” have a significant influence on the development of contrasting tendencies to conceptualise similarities. For example, the concept of cooperation seems overwhelming in societies based on individualism (Hofstede, 1980).

For example, the French organizational science offers more space to individuals as organization members. This is described using the notion of concentration, which cannot be easily compared with any other notion developed by the German organizational science.

Concentration is connected with barter procedures. Foglierini-Carneiro and Mélčse used this notion to describe instruments of relationship management, which are adopted by different entities to describe the coordination of elements. Although no university course offers a comprehensive presentation of the structures described here, concentration processes are significant points of reference for many textbooks. All French researchers analyze speculative ideas concerning the administration area as a manifestation of power and connections. (quotation)

Finally, most of them broadly discuss the issue of co-responsibility of employees for the functioning of an organization. One can clearly see that texts by the French treat organization members as the main objects of interest, and they perceive their actions and the structures formed in close reference to them, whereas German researchers treat them as completely separate phenomena.

What is more, a group of French authors to a greater or lesser extent based their methodologies on the structuralists’ research. Until now there has been no ordered introduction to the issues discussed herein. The role played by individuals is discussed best and most clearly byGmur: according to the French, they are the main carriers of the sense of interest or purpose in the organization whereas to Germans they are only data carriers[58].

 According to the view prevailing in the literature[59], metaphors drawn from the area of developmental studies, related to business, by definition connote aggression. This makes them more focused on certain issues than the original application would suggest.

For example, Strand and Freeman are of the opinion that the very use of the word “rival” instead of, for example, “partner” confirms the domination of metaphors mostly based on hostility and opposition within the management[60]. The analogies presented contain a concealed assumption about the inevitable striving for confrontation.

Metaphors used by the management mainly focus on competition. They concentrate on gaining advantage over the enemy in pursuing goals. They are drawn from military and sports areas. Such metaphors suggest that business is a zero-sum game. They are not just linguistic expressions; they have an influence on the decisions and actions taken.

The use of metaphors evoking aggression supports such marked business conduct. We agree with the view that this builds a false image of managerial processes. “Survival of the fittest”, as a metaphor determining the way of thinking, rejects any reflection on moral issues, humanism, or building a supportive community.

Gaining advantage through development is the basic goal business organizations should set themselves. The idea of advantage can be examined in an interesting way in terms of the functioning of the managerial staff. In order to ensure effective and comprehensive management, taking into consideration the local context, organizations have to surpass their expectations, and thus to evolve and change their organizational DNA.

Gaining and maintaining advantage is not an easy task, neither is it a task devoid of any structure or method. In this case, the metaphorical method seems to be the right solution. What is significant within the concept of management is the procedure and methodology of setting goals of an organization, building a strategy, and coming to agreements in order to achieve the goals set and to spend the resources possessed[61]. Metaphors are perfect in the case of such tasks.

Scholars studying metaphors from a cognitive perspective show several phenomena as proof that metaphors are in fact dynamic, language-independent, conceptually active structures. Johnson and Lakoff[62] looked at linguistic evidence that included “novel case generalization” which is the ability to understand entire, novel, linguistic expressions by using shared conceptual structures.

Recent decades have seen a growing body of neuroimaging research, as well as psychological studies, that support the case for metaphor’s role in cognitive reality. These studies include predictions of the image-schematic structure of various concepts[63]: priming experiments[64]; forced-choice and free-form drawing tasks[65]; spontaneous gesture studies[66]; ERP measurements[67]; response times[68], and eye-tracking[69]. MRI studies have shown that cognitive mappings are instantiated neurologically in the brain[70], and this suggests that conceptual metaphors as a real phenomenon are part of human cognition.

Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.

Metaphor, culture and intercultural communication literature and bibliography

[1] Kövecses Z., Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 1.

[2] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980.

[3] Chmielecki M., Culture as a barrier of knowledge sharing, „Journal of Intercultural Management”, 2014.

[4] Habermas J., On the Logic of the Social Sciences, The MIT Press, Cambridge 1988.

[5] Liddicoat A., Crozet C. (Eds), Teaching language, teaching culture, Applied Linguistics Association of Australia, Melbourne 2000, p. 2.

[6] Barnlund D., Communication in a global village, [in:] Samovar L., Porter R. (eds), Intercultural communication: A reader, Wadsworth, Belmont, p. 13.

[7] Tylor E.B., Primitive Culture, John Murray, London 1971, quoted after: Kroeber A.L., Istota kultury, PWN, Warszawa 2002, p. 152.

[8] Kłoskowska A. Kultura masowa, PWN, Warszawa 1980, p. 40.

[9] Bovee C.L., Thill J.V., Business Communication Today, Random House, New York 1989, p. 587.

[10] Hall E.T., Bezgłośny język, PIW, Warszawa 1987.

[11] Chmielecki M., Teaching intercultural communication in Polish higher education management programmes – a critical look, “Journal of Intercultural Management”, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2012, pp.79-89.

[12] Folb E., Who’s got the room at the top? Issues of dominance and nondominance in intracultural communication,[In:] Samovar L., Porter R. (eds), Intercultural communication: A reader, Wadsworth, Belmont 1982.

[13] Hall E.T., Beyond culture, Doubleday, New York 1976.

[14] Harris P.R., Moran R.T., Moran S.V., Managing Cultural Differences. Global Leadership Strategies for the 21st Century (Managing Cultural Differences, Elsevier Science & Technology Books), Burlington 2004, p. 17.

[15] Honeycutt J. M., Components and functions of communication during initial interaction, with extrapolations, to beyond, [In] Deetz S.A. (ed.), “Communication yearbook”, Vol. 16., Sage, Newbury Park 1993, pp. 461-490.

[16] Sitaram K., Cogdell R.T., Foundations of Intercultural Communication, Ch. E. Merill Publications Co.Columbus 1976, p. 26.

[17] Carbaugh D. (ed.), Cultural Communication and Intercultural Contact, Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey 1990 and Carbaugh S., Cultural Communication and Intercultural Encounters: Personhood, Strategic Actions and Emotions, “Teoria Sociologica”, No. II(3), 1994, pp. 17-34.

[18] Lustig M., Koester J., Intercultural Competence, HarperCollins, New York 1993, p. 58.

[19] Porter R., Samovar L., Basic Principles of Intercultural Communication, [In] Samovar L., Porter R. (eds), Intercultural Communication, Wadsworth, Belmont 1991, pp. 5-22.

[20] Spitzberg B.H., Intercultural Communication Competence, [In] Samovar L., Porter R. (eds.), Intercultural communication, Wadsworth, Belmont 1991, pp. 353-365.

[21] Williams K.C., Spiro R.L., Communication Style in the Salesperson-Customer Dyad., “Journal of Marketing Research”, No. 22 (November), 1985, pp. 434-442.

[22] Webb J., Keene M., The impact of discourse communities on international professional communication, [In] Lovitt C. R., Goswami D. (eds.), Exploring the rhetoric of international professional communication, Baywood, New York 1999.

[23] Yan R., Yin/Yang principle and the relevance of externalism and paralogic rhetoric to intercultural communication, “Journal of Business and Technical Communication”, No. 11, 1997, pp. 297-320.

[24] Hall E.T., The silent language, Garden City, Anchor, New Jersey 1959.

[25] Hofstede G., Kultury i organizacje. Zaprogramowanie umysłu, PWE, Warszawa 2000.

[26] Victor D.A., International professional communication, Harper Collins, New York1992.

[27] Beamer L., Learning Intercultural Communication Competence, “Journal of Business Communication”, No. 29, 1992, p. 285.

[28] Hampden-Turner C., Trompenaars F., Riding the waves of culture,McGraw-Hill, New York 1998.

[29] Yan R., Yin/Yang principle and the relevance of externalism and paralogic rhetoric to intercultural communication, “Journal of Business and Technical Communication”, No. 11, 1997, pp. 297-320.

[30] Ghauri P.N., Usunier J.C. (eds.), International Business Negotiations, Pergamon,Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford 1996, pp. 21-38.

[31] Todorov T., Nous et les autre, Seuil, Points 1992, p. 282.

[32] E.g.: Adler N., International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 4th ed., South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati 2002.; Hofstede G., Cultures’ consequences: International differences in work related values, Sage, Beverly Hills 1980; Hofstede G., Cultures and organizations: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival – Software of mind, 2nd ed., Mc-Graw Hill International (UK) Limited, London 1991; Trompenaars  F.,  Hampden-Turner  C.,  Riding  the  Waves  of  Culture:  Understanding Cultural  Diversity  in  Business,  Second  Edition,  London  &  Santa  Rosa,  Nicholas  Brealey  Publishing Limited 1997; Earley C.P., Erez M. (Eds.)  New Perspectives on International Industrial/Organizational Psychology, „Frontiers of Industrial & Organizational Psychology”, Jossey-Bass Publishers 1997.

[33] Kövecses Z., Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 1.

[34] Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J., Cultures and Organisations. Software of the Mind, Geert Hofstede BV 2005, p. 4.

[35] Bjerke B., Kultura a style przywództwa, Oficyna Ekonomiczna, Kraków 2004, p. 13.

[36] Callies M., Zimmermann R., Cross-Cultural Metaphors Investigating Domain Mappings Across Cultures, Philipps-Universität Marburg 2002, p. 11.

[37] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980, p. 57.

[38] Kövecses Z., Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p 119.

[39] Lakoff G., Johnsen M., Metaphors we live by, The university of Chicago press, London 2003, p. 59.

[40] Dobrzynska T., Translating metaphor: problems of meaning, “Journal of Pragmatics” 24 (6), 1995, p. 598.

[41] Dobrzynska T., Translating metaphor: problems of meaning, “Journal of Pragmatics” 24 (6), 1995, p. 598.

[42] Dobrzynska T., Translating metaphor: problems of meaning, “Journal of Pragmatics” 24 (6), 1995, p. 599.

[43] Kövecses Z., Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p 119.

[44] Trim R., Metaphor Networks: The Comparative Evolution of Figurative Language, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire 2007, p. 70.

[45] Trim R., Metaphor Networks: The Comparative Evolution of Figurative Language, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire 2007, p. 64.

[46] Source text (ST), target text (TT), source language (SL), target language (TL)

[47] Trim R., Metaphor Networks: The Comparative Evolution of Figurative Language, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire 2007, p. 65.

[48] Cristofoli M., Gunhild D., Stage L., Metaphor, meaning and translation, „Hermes, Journal of Linguistics”, No. 20, 1998, p. 168.

[49] Mashal N., Faust M., The effects of metaphoricity and presentation style on brain activation during text comprehension, „Metaphor and Symbol”, 25 (1), 2010.

[50] Inhoff A.W., Lima S.D., Carroll P.J, Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading, „Memory and Cognition”, No. 12 (6), 1984.

[51] Glucksberg S., Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York 2001.

[52] Blasko D.G., Kazmerski V.A., ERP correlates of individual differences in the comprehension of nonliteral language, „Metaphor and Symbol”, 21 (4), 2006, p. 280.

[53] Coney J., Lange A., Automatic and attentional processes in the comprehension of unfamiliar metaphors, “Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social”, 25 (2), 2006, p. 94.

[54] Searle J.R., Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York 1979, p 105.

[55] Blasko D.G., Connine C.M., Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing, „Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition”, No. 19 (2), 1993, pp. 295-308.

[56] Glucksberg S., Understanding figurative language – from metaphors to idioms, „Oxford Psychology Series 36”, Oxford University Press, New York 2001.

[57] Morgan G., Images of organization, Sage, Newbury Park 1986, p. 4.

[58] Gmür, M. (2006). From Charts and Sails. Metaphors of Management and Organization in Germany and France. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 1, 175-186.

[59] Strand R., Freeman R.E. Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia, “Journal of Business Ethics” 2013. 

[60] Strand R., Freeman R.E. Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia, “Journal of Business Ethics” 2013. 

[61] David F.R., Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, Tenth Edition, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education International 2005.

[62] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, Basic Books, New York 1999, pp. 81-89.

[63] Gibbs R., Embodiment and linguistic meaning, „Brain and Language”, No. 84, 2003, pp. 1-15.

[64] Boroditsky L., Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors, „Cognition”, No. 75(1), 2000, pp. 1–28; Gibbs R. and Colston H.L., The Cognitive Psychological Reality of Image Schemas and Their Transformations, „Cognitive Linguistics”, No. 6, 1995, pp. 347-378.

[65] Richardson D., Spivey M., Edelman S., Naples A., Language is Spatial: Experimental Evidence for Image Schemas of Concrete and Abstract Verbs, Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, Erlbaum, New Jersey 2001, pp. 873-878.

[66] McNeill D., Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1992.

[67] Blasko D.G., Kazmerski V.A., ERP correlates of individual differences in the comprehension of nonliteral language, „Metaphor and Symbol”, 21 (4), 2006.

[68] Glucksberg S., Understanding figurative language – from metaphors to idioms, „Oxford Psychology Series 36”, Oxford University Press, New York 2001.

[69] Inhoff A.W., Lima S.D., Carroll P.J, Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading, „Memory and Cognition”, No. 12 (6), 1984, pp. 558-567.

[70] Mashal N., Faust M., The effects of metaphoricity and presentation style on brain activation during text comprehension, „Metaphor and Symbol”, 25 (1), 2010; Rohrer D., Taylor K., Pashler H., Wixted J.T., Cepeda N.J., The effect of overlearning on long-term retention, „Appl. Cognit. Psychol.”, No. 19, 2005, pp. 361–374.

Metaphor and the the social constructivism perspective

What is social constructivism? Why is metaphor important in social constructivism theory?

Language is the most crucial aspect in the process of any knowledge production that cannot be conceived as describing and representing the universe, but as a way of molding the world, and that is a form of social action by human beings.

The meaning of language is gained through the context it is used in[1].

Social constructivism is an approach that gains meaning through the ability to make things a reality, through many forms of presentation – such as stimulation of a continuous process of creation.

According to McNamee & Hosking[2], postmodern intelligence and social constructivism call for a review of modern assumptions about knowledge production, such as a) the individual rationality, (b) empirical evaluation, (c) language as representation, and (d) narrative of progress.

Constructivism’s approach is unique in that it is able to broaden the horizon, and the behaviors, stemming from different cultures, thus creating room for change in society and social norms.

This approach shows that knowledge comes from two sources; through social interactions and through dialogue[3]. Burr[4] argues that “knowledge is what someone has or does not have but something that people do together”.

In the world of business, social constructivism brings with it different concepts, such as imagination, co-creation and meaning. These give managers, consultants and leaders tools for organizational interventions. The value of these resources is found in their interconnection and mutual influence.

Further, analysis of resources is useful and can stimulate the creativity of a professional to come up with new ways of working with their people.

Dialogue, debate, discussion and persuasion are different from one another. In constructivism’s perspective, dialogue is an ongoing process that is interactive and happening in conversation, and there is a likelihood that many different realities can be shared by the people having a conversation[5].

At the outset of a conversation, different perspectives and understandings are welcomed. In constructivism, the best solution or opinion cannot be achieved through observation or describing the world the way it is, but requires an ever-changing process that considers the existing cultural and even historical features.

When debating, there is a clash of views from both opposing and proposing sides, and only the best view is considered to have won the argument. Persuasion, however, takes a  different approach, which is softer and aimed at finding the most convincing way to make people join your side.

Dialogue is different in that it creates a place for both parties to bring different ideas – part of the process of co-creating new realities[6]. In a real sense, dialogue is not about finding the ‘right way’, but finding a generative way of doing things that people will be connected to and involved in.

This makes the participants feel responsible and concerned for the ongoing project. It is therefore acceptable to say that discussion will be successful if as many people as possible are involved and come up with ideas. In dialogue, the different perspectives given by different individuals culminate in a fresh way of looking at things[7].

In the process of dialogue, imagination is very important in coming up with less rigid, spontaneous and original ideas. When the imagination is encouraged, the way of thinking is given freedom and new knowledge is created. Also, getting many people to participate in the same topic of discussion magnifies the potential for creating very important experiences.

The ability to use imagination to look at the future generates tremendous potential for social change, and thus organizations should view dialogue as a process that has the ability to change the habitual way of thinking, talking, and creating totally new experiences.

Therefore new organizations should engage and include their employees, to generate a sense of belonging and co-responsibility among the employees and management.

Co-creation can enhance the process of building more trustworthy relationships in an organization. Although technology is a critical tool in bringing people together, it should not be assumed that it brings with it a concomitant shift in human relations[8].

The environment for co-creation is enhanced by the use of dialogue in any process or communication which will yield potential for people to be able to invest in other forms of interactions among the people involved. In the process of co-creating in an organization, with the facilitation of a coordinator, in the process they can use their collective thinking to come up with new ideas and interesting stories that can speak about themselves and their immediate surroundings[9].

In organizational development, imagination and co-creation are crucial in the deconstruction of old patterns of thinking, creating new meanings and opening up transformation within an organization.

Consequently, according to social constructionism there is a need to create a place for dialogue in any organization, to increase the use of imagination in the process of change through the co-creation of new possibilities.

Mead’s proposal gives rise to symbolic interactionism which claims to find the processes by which people interpret their social environment, give meaning to actions and form accurate representations of their immediate reality, so that they can develop appropriately within them. It is believed that man is not a passive observer, but an active agent of the environment.

Although analogical thinking can produce a particular interpretation, it forces other interpretations into the background. This means metaphor can reveal as well as hide[10]. Therefore, we should be very careful about the source and target of a metaphor, and use any other additional metaphors to describe the aspects of the intended target.

It is also advisable to note that the meanings of metaphors have been extended, from the rhetorical or linguistic devices, to include visual metaphors and metaphors expressed through behavior.

For example, the ritual of the Japanese tea ceremony as a metaphor for the natural world[11]. In the functioning of a business organization, the relevance of metaphors is ranked by:

v  Their support for the understanding of the organizational context (that is, explaining the concept),

v  How far they enable interpretation of the organizational context in different ways (as viewed from different perspectives),

v  Their support for new ideas about the organizational context (developing new hypotheses or theories).

This stands in agreement with specific concerns into organizational conversations that the analysis of an organization’s dialogue should be the important part of organizational studies.

This is in line with certain ontological assumptions about the nature of social life, namely, that social phenomena are socially constructed in line with people’s concepts of the world that they live in, and act to contribute to its reproduction and transformation. Dialogue analysis is generally obtained by analysis of ‘text’ in the wider sense of written texts, spoken interactions, multi-media and the internet.

Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.
Metaphor and the the social constructivism perspective literature and bibliography

[1] Burr V., Social constructionism, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York 2003; Gergen M.M., Gergen K.J., The social construction of narrative accounts [In] Gergen K.J., Gergen M.M (Ed.), Historical social psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale 1984, pp.173-189; McNamee S., Relational bridges between constructionism and constructivism, [In] Raskin J.D. and Bridges S.K. (Ed.), Studies in meaning 2: Bridging the personal and social in constructivist psychology, Pace University Press, New York 2004, pp. 37-50.

[2] McNamee S., Hosking D.M., Research and social change. A relational constructionist approach, Routledge, New York 2012.

[3] Gergen K.J., Gergen M., Social construction: Entering the dialogue, Taos Institute Press, Chagrin Falls 2004.

[4] Burr V., Social constructionism, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York 2003, p. 9.

[5] Gergen K.J., McNamee S., Barrett F., Toward transformative dialogue, „International Journal of Public Administration”, No. 24, 2001.

[6] Gergen K.J., McNamee S., Barrett F., Toward transformative dialogue, „International Journal of Public Administration”, No. 24, 2001.

[7] Camargo-Borges C., Collaborative group practices: Exercizing dialogue in healthcare setting, Taos Institute Pres, Chagrin Falls, in press.

[8] Ramaswamy V., Gouillart F., Building the co-creative enterprise, „Harvard Business Review”, No. 88, 2010.

[9] McNamee S., Gergen K.J. (Eds.), Relational responsibility, Sage, Thousand Oaks 1999.

[10] Morgan G., An afterword: Is there anything more to be said about metaphor?, [In] Grant D., Oswick C. (eds), Metaphor and organizations, Sage, London 1996, p. 234.

[11] Holyoak K.J., Thagard P., Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought, MIT press 1996. 

Conceptual metaphor and cognitive linguistics

 One group of linguists that trained as part of the generative grammar practice in the 1970s began to see shortcomings with that approach. Ronald Langacker and George Lakoff are two of the most prominent linguists to have turned away from generative grammar.

Langacker and Lakoff reacted by setting out to create a new theory of language, which over time would come to be known as Cognitive Linguistics. At the moment, Cognitive Linguistics is considered a broader movement, that includes various methodologies and approaches.

Studies in linguistics have shown that when complex, intricate ideas are talked about, philosophized about and researched, then metaphors abound.[1]

There are two potentially opposing approaches to metaphor: one in which the metaphors plays an ornamental or decorative function, and one in which it is perceived as occupying a central place in thought and language.

The second of these views is referred to as the ‘contemporary theory of metaphor’[2]. The ‘decorative’ approach describes metaphor as a poetic or rhetorical device peripheral to language and thought, while contemporary theory holds it as occupying a central role in thought, and thus in the development of language. Lakoff claims that our understanding and knowledge of many topics is filtered through metaphor.

The assumption that human cognition – i.e. the production, communication and processing of meaning – depends on the mappings between the mental spaces is one of the basic tenets of cognitive linguistics. Human cognition is autonomous from language. The cross-domain linguistic expression mappings are simply deeper cognitive structures manifested on the surface that have important analogue or spatial components[3].

Conventional theories have usually painted metaphors as “rhetorical spices”, reduced to the equivalent of literal paraphrases.

Understood like this, they become optional linguistic devices. However, cognitive linguistics treat metaphor as just a matter of thought and not as a language which would then make conceptual metaphors pervasive and inescapable[4].

Language is “essentially and inherently symbolic in nature”[5]. This means that conceptualization concerns all linguistic expression.

Meaning is thought to be something that will reside in someone’s mind, and language is the means to relate that meaning in the form of sound or written words. Research into conceptual metaphors conducted by cognitive linguists has revealed many innovative and astonishing facts about how we make use of metaphors within the human mind.

“Cognitive linguists concluded that the same mechanisms used to create metaphors existed thousands of years ago. People have been creating relationships between a word or words and non-literal meaning to convey a culture’s conceptualized meaning”[6]. Findings show that metaphors are not just devices that are used by poets or rhetoricians to make their arguments and verses spicier, but are actually fundamental structures that our mind will use to make sense of complicated concepts in our lives.

In Cognitive Linguistics language is seen as an important part of cognition.

Taylor said that in generative grammar, it is thought that language knowledge will constitute a “separate cognitive faculty, structured according to its own specific principles and which is independent of other mental capacities”[7]. Still generative grammar acknowledges that grammar exists as cognitive function in the mind of a speaker. Taylor then said that, “…[rather] than a theory of mind constraining linguistic theory, linguistic theory itself inputs into a theory of mind”[8].

Cognitive psychologists believe that using metaphors is like thinking about an entity as if it were a different entity, e.g. ‘organization as a human body’.

When people use metaphors, they compare their mental models of one concept in which they are interested (e.g. an organization), with their mental model of a concept about which they already know something (e.g. the human body).

This enables them to take a ‘short cut’ to knowledge by building on what they already know, and requires analogical reasoning or analogical thinking: finding similarities in both the target and the source and using these similarities to generate new meanings and understanding about either the target or the source.

Metaphors therefore provide a framework to conceptualize targets in a particular way[9]. For example, the multi-metaphor method uses organizational metaphors in information systems development.

Cognitive psychologists believe that use of metaphors is one of our fundamental ways of thinking. Metaphor:

-          Helps view something from different perspectives[10];

-          Helps explain concepts[11] thus supports learning;

-          Assists in developing new hypotheses or theories[12];

-          Challenges conventional assumptions[13].

Metaphors are a very useful tool in development of theories in the social sciences[14]. They can provide a means of creating a taxonomy. This is the first step towards description, followed by prediction, and finally understanding[15].

 

A critique of Conceptual Metaphor Theory

            The strength of the cognitive theory of metaphors used in the analysis lies in the fact that it provides us with a tool to better understand the world. We are able to explore our cognitive system through conceptual metaphors. Thus, you can see that the use of metaphors can give an insight in to how the cognitive approach to metaphors can contribute to a better understanding of the  language of business, finance, and economics.

Like almost every other theory that makes such revolutionary claims, Conceptual Metaphor Theory was bound to attract some criticism, and in the last few decades has in fact received a wide range of criticism.

 Lakoff and Johnson’s theory was criticized from a semantic aspect by Wierzbicka, who believes that concepts can be truly explained and compared only in terms of their components, which is why she is concerned with finding definitions of words that are inherently meaningful. She finds Lakoff and Johnson’s theory unhelpful because they “fail to break the concept defined into its semantic components”[16]. Wierzbicka adds that it is “an illusion to think that spatial and otherwise physical notions are inherently clearer to us than frankly mental ones, as it is an illusion to think that the external is more accessible to us, and more familiar to us than our inner world”[17]. Clausner and Croft[18] discuss, for example, the difficulties with formulation of conceptual metaphors, due to different metaphor schematicity.”

For instance, Clausner and Croft[19] note that the well-known conceptual metaphor introduced by Lakoff and Johnson[20] – that THEORIES/ARGUMENS ARE BUILDINGS – does not generalize the linguistic facts at the appropriate level. We can say, for example, that “the theory has a solid foundation”, but we cannot say that “the theory has long corridors and high windows”[21]. Rakova emphasizes that a theory that builds on image schemas and, in general, on the universality of essential physical experiences, “…cannot in the same breath be a theory of cultural variation – especially if embodiment is conceived naturalistically”[22].

Although numerous employees holding a metaphor can accurately describe their perception of the business or organization in which they work, any single metaphor will limit their perception by blocking and distorting certain pieces of the information encountered.

People perceive, remember, as well as analyze information they receive differently. In that instance, metaphor will be the result of each individual imagination (of what was noticed and what is important and emphasized).

What is more, depending on their feeling and/or state of mind the same employee might potentially use different metaphors, at different times, to represent the same concepts.

Multiple or sometimes even inconsistent metaphors that relate to the same phenomenon prove that conceptual metaphor has a tendency to focus on different aspects or nuances of the same concept[23]. Different an organization’s members might use diverse metaphors to describe the same organizational problems and concepts, or even the organizations themselves[24]. This may often result in a situation in which several metaphors are operating simultaneously and in contradiction of one another[25], leading to what is known as a “short-circuit in communication”[26].

Since metaphors create different perceptions and interpretations leading to different behaviors, and this makes it difficult for an organization’s or business’s members to find a common understanding, when their interpretation of basic facts and events is so varied[27].

Common metaphors among an organization’s members can form the basis for stability and a fluent process in the organization. However, finding common meaning in many

areas of its life can be quite difficult. What has to be stressed is the fact that managers do not control the development of meaning in the organization; all members of the organization are partners in this process, and they shape the life of the organization through the interpretations and meaning they attach to their daily experience[28].Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.

Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.

Conceptual metaphor and cognitive linguistics bibliography and literature

[1] Taylor J.R., Cognitive Grammar, Oxford University Press 2002, p. 21.

[2] Lakoff G., The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, [In] Ortony A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993.

[3] Slingerland, E., Blanchard, E. M., & Boyd-Judson, L. (2007). Collision with China: Conceptual metaphor analysis, somatic marking, and the EP-3 incident.International studies quarterly, 51(1), 53-77.

[4] Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor.

[5] Taylor J.R., Cognitive Grammar, Oxford University Press 2002, p. 20.

[6] Renz L.M., Metaphor: Imagery Devices Used by Morgan to Describe Organisations as Culture and Psychic Prisons, “Emerging Leadership Journeys”, Vol. 2, Iss. 1, 2009, pp. 54-65.

[7] Taylor J.R., Cognitive Grammar, Oxford University Press 2002, p. 7.

[8] Taylor J.R., Cognitive Grammar, Oxford University Press 2002, p. 8.

[9] Oates B.J., Fitzgerald B., Multi-metaphor method: Organizational metaphors in information systems development, „Informations Systems Journal”, No. 17(4), 2007, pp. 421-449.

[10] Hesse M., Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science, Harvester Press 1980.

[11] Gentner D., Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning, [In] Kuczaj S.A.  (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 2. Language, thought and culture, Hillsdale , Erlbaum, New Jersey 1982, pp. 301-334.

[12] Boden M.A., The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London 1990.

[13] Muscari P.G., A plea for the poetic metaphor, „Journal of Mind and Behaviour”, No. 13, 1992.

[14] Wang T., From general system theory to total quality management, „Journal of Academy of Business”, No. 4 (1/2), 2004, pp. 394-400.; Levassuer R., Open system theory and organizations, „Futurics”, No. 28 (3/4), 2004, pp. 82-88.; Kendall J.E., Kendall K.E., Metaphors & Methodologies: Living beyond the systems machine, "MIS Quarterly", 17 No. 2, 1993, pp. 149-171; Hartzell G., The metaphor is the message, "School Library Journal", No. 48 (6), 33, 2004.

[15] Lynham S., Theory building in the human resource development profession, „Human Resource Development Quarterly”, No. 11 (2), 2000, pp. 159-178.; Lewis M., Grimes A., Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms, „The Academy of Management Review”, No. 24 (4), 1999, pp. 672-690.; Kerssens-van-Drongelen I., The iterative theory-building process: Rationale, principles and evaluation, „Management Decision”, 39 (7), 2001, pp. 503-512.

[16] Wierzbicka A., Metaphors Linguists Live By, “Papers in Linguistics”, Vol. 19:2, 1986, p. 292.

[17] Wierzbicka A., Metaphors Linguists Live By, “Papers in Linguistics”, Vol. 19:2, 1986, p. 292.

[18] Clausner T.C., Croft W., Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors,  Cognitive Science Society Inc. 1997.

[19] Clausner T.C., Croft W., Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors,  Cognitive Science Society Inc. 1997.

[20] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980.

[21] Koveces Z., Conceptual metaphor theory, Some criticisms and Alternative Proposals, „ Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics”, No. 6, 2008,  pp. 168-184.

[22] Koveces Z., Conceptual metaphor theory, Some criticisms and Alternative Proposals, „ Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics”, No. 6, 2008,  pp. 168-184.

[23] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980.

[24] Morgan M., Models, [In] The Handbook of Economic Methodology, DavisJ.B. , Hands D.W., Mäki U. (eds.), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 1998, pp. 316–321.

[25] Smircich L., Studying organizations as cultures, [In] G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research (pp. 160-172), Sage, Beverly Hills 1987.; Morgan G., Smircich L., The case for qualitative research, „Academy of Management Review”, No. 5, 1980, pp. 491-500.

[26] Smircich L., Studying organizations as cultures, [In] G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research (pp. 160-172), Sage, Beverly Hills 1987.

[27] Hamburger Y., Itzhayek U., Metaphors and organizational conflict, „Social Behavior and Personality”, No. 26(4), 1998, pp. 383-398.

[28] Hamburger Y., Itzhayek U., Metaphors and organizational conflict, „Social Behavior and Personality”, No. 26(4), 1998, pp. 383-398.

Metaphors of organizations

There are many different theories of organizations. However, all of these theories “are based on implicit images or metaphors that lead us to see, understand, and manage organizations in distinctive yet partial ways.”[1]. The abundant metaphors in the literature are definite evidence.

For instance, organizations such as coalitions of individuals contracting with each other[2]; verbal systems[3]; psychic prisons, political systems, and instruments of domination[4], to name but a few,

The notion of “organization” can be distinguished from the notion of “institution” understood as rules of structuration of interaction processes created by people, whereas “organization” is a social group aimed at achieving goals in an organized way[5].

Moreover, a social organization is considered to be a relatively permanent system of diverse and coordinated activities of people, using a set of human, capital, ideological, and natural resources, interacting with other systems of human activity and resources of the environment[6]. A social system understood as an organization can be described as:

·         Morphology, i.e. the internal structure of these social constructs,

·         A structure co-created by its constituents linked with different relationships,

·         A unique system of positions and functions performed by its elements,

·         A hierarchy characteristic of the given system,

·         A value system,

·         An ability to make active and passive adaptations, related to social practice[7].

In the light of management science, organizations can be perceived as isolated from the environment, internally ordered and correlated sets of elements. The way they are ordered and correlated determines the organizational structure, thanks to which a given set of elements can function as a coherent whole, or a system[8].

According to A. Komiski, “Organizations are created and developed by people. They do it to ensure that the goals, tasks, and functions assumed are performed. People not only create organizations, they are their material. Correlated units and groups pursuing certain goals and performing tasks together form the social subsystem of an organization.

Participants occupying different positions within the formal structure usually use different technical devices and techniques of acting. The formal structure, machines, devices, and acting techniques form the technical subsystem of an organization. Almost all modern organizations (involved in production, teaching, providing medical treatment, and dealing with defense or administration) are thus complex social and technical systems”[9].

Ch. Bernard defines this phenomenon as a system of consciously coordinated activities by two or more people[10]. H. A. Simon believes that coordination of the course of activities, establishing precise boundaries of power, and the sphere of activity and power of each organization member create a formal organization and constitute abstraction and more or less permanent relationships having the dominant influence on the behavior of every employee[11].

G. Hofstede describes an organization as a social system by nature different from the state, if only in the fact that its members were not raised in it. Being a member of a given organization is, to a greater or lesser extent, a matter of choice [12].

Organizational metaphors serve as something more than pure theoretical constructs. Metaphors allow us to link our experiences in different areas, which helps us understand various concepts in different ways. Morgan[13] wrote that metaphors “generate an image for studying a subject”. They are principally a way of conceiving one thing in terms of another[14].

A metaphorical analysis is now common in the discourse of management science, and it is extensively used both as a tool for the creation of organizational theories and culture, and for their analysis, diagnosis, and management[15].

In his book, G. Morgan presented the possibilities of using metaphors in research into the problems of organizations and management.

The following metaphors have been described based on several sources: Morgan G., Images of Organization, Sage, 1986/1997; Boyd S., Metaphors Matter: Talking About How We Talk About Organizations, <research.gigaom.com>; Cichocki P., Irwin C., Organization Design: A Guide to Building Effective Organizations, Kogan Page Limited, 2011.

Organization as a machine 

The default modern notion of business is derived from the industrial model of centralized control and subdivided work and the roles of all-knowing bureaucratic management, which spell out the work that the laborers perform. Reduces the organization to a form of engineering, with management as the engineers and the dehumanization of the workers as cogs to construct the “one best way” to function.

Associated concepts

Efficiency, waste, maintenance, order, clockwork, cogs in a wheel, programs, inputs and outputs, standardization, production, measurement and control, design

Organization as an organism 

The naturalistic view is that an organization is similar to a living thing that seeks to adapt and survive in a changing environment. Useful when management is confronted with circumstances that they believe require organizational change. And the greater metaphor of competition for scarce resources against other organisms in a Darwinian struggle fits other cultural norms and justifies certain attitudes, like openly aggressive behavioral norms.

Associated concepts

Living systems, environmental conditions, adaptation, life cycles, recycling, needs, homeostasis, evolution, survival of the fittest, health, illness

Organization as a brain 

emphasizes learning over other activities, lines up with the perspective that places information processing at the center of organizational action, and accords with practices like Total Quality Management and Kaizen.

Associated concepts

 Learning, parallel information processing, distributed control, mindsets, intelligence, feedback, requisite variety, knowledge, networks

Organization as a culture
 

Organizations possess their values, rituals, ideologies, and beliefs. They can be collections of semi-independent and contending subcultures, or uniform and homogeneous. Organizational cultures can also be seen as contiguous with ethnic, national, or regional cultures, inheriting some values and beliefs. A great deal of the application of this metaphor in the business setting can be seen as an attempt to impose a specific and clearly-articulated set of norms that are intended to proscribe and define the culture and to indoctrinate employees as a means to direct their behavior. This discussion will be expounded upon below, as it is particularly relevant to various recent discussions.

Associated concepts

Society, values, beliefs, laws, ideology, rituals, diversity, traditions, history, service, shared vision, and mission, understanding, qualities, and families

Organization as a political system

In this perspective, the interplay of various factions is viewed as a political contest for power and dominance. In this model, effective managers are skilled politicians who balance competing interests and apply their power for the benefit of their constituencies and political factions. Organizations can be identified as autocracies, bureaucracies, technocracies, or democracies. This view boils down all striving tobeg self- and group-interest-oriented and justifies conflict and factionalism as inevitable and maybe even advantageous.

Interests and rights, power, hidden agendas and backroom deals, authority, alliances, party line, censorship, gatekeepers, leaders, conflict management

Organization as a psychic prison 

This metaphor plays up the perspective that the natural impulses of humans as social animals are never far below the surface, like sexual attraction, anxieties, fear, obsessions, and dependencies. As a result, the psychic makeup of the powerful can come to dominate the organization’s dynamics and competencies.

 Conscious and unconscious processes, repression and regression, ego, denial, projection, coping and defense mechanisms, pain and pleasure principle, dysfunction, and workaholism

Organization as flux and transformation 

This understanding is derived from the growing understanding of complexity and chaos and casts the organization as a nexus for these phenomena. This approach considers the feedback loops within a system as opposed to characterizing linear relationships and causal chains. While this can be an attractive set of ideas for theorists, it doesn’t provide a foundation for management to push from.

 Associated concepts

Constant change, dynamic equilibrium, flow, self-organization, systemic wisdom, attractors, chaos, complexity, the butterfly effect, emergent properties, dialectics, and paradox

Organization as instruments of domination 

Here, organizations are portrayed as actors that exploit people, the natural environment, and the global economy for the benefit of the organization. This is the canonical evil corporation of film and literature, exploiting seemingly rational and even legal processes to control the world, or as much of it as it can wrest away from others.

Associated concepts

Alienation, repression, imposing values, compliance, charisma, maintenance of power, force, exploitation, divide and rule, discrimination, corporate interest

Metaphors and analogies are used constantly to help us make sense of organizations

Both metaphors and analogies are used constantly to help us make sense of organizations and businesses. They shape our understanding of organizations and mental models of organizational reality. By using metaphors, managers both explain and try to understand certain phenomena based on their precedented experience of different phenomena, or,,in Morgan’s words, “to understand one element of experience in terms of another”[16]. Metaphors can assist managers with making more effective decisions and choices in their daily work and also help inspire and motivate employees.

They influence employees’ beliefs, values, and attitudes by providing unconscious emotional associations with words or phrases that they equate with being good or bad (Charteris-Black). Charteris-Black defined this as “a linguistic representation that results from the shift in the use of a word or phrase from the context or domain in which it is expected to occur to another context or domain where it is not expected to occur, thereby causing semantic tension”[17].

According to Morgan[18], the power of metaphors lies in their ability to frame complex concepts. They can be applied to diagnose and treat numerous organizational problems (Grant & Oswick). When applied to existing or new phenomena, they can uncover complex behavioral patterns[19]. Metaphor helps managers by giving clarity to complex organizational issues[20].

Morgan[21] believes that effective managers can then become more skilled at understanding the situations in the organizations they manage. Metaphors facilitate communication. If managers understand the power of metaphors and use them as foundations in the process of studying organizations, their understanding of them will automatically increase[22].

It is, however, argued that organizational theory is dominated by perspectives that view organizations as machines or organizms[23]. Just like all metaphors, every one of these is “the tip of a submerged model”[24] which carries with it (metaphorically) a weight of symbolism and associations, which can be problematic within the wider pursuit of organizational growth.

M. Wheatley[25] explains that organizations should be understood less as machines and more as organic and living entities. She believes that the right metaphors should be drawn from quantum mechanics rather than classical Newtonian physics. One of the central contrasts ,in this case ,is the emphasis on global and not fragmentary understanding. Paradigms are understood as a whole, and weight is attached to relationships within systems.

As Wheatley notes, “When we look at operational paradigms from this perspective, we enter a field of completely new organizational science, the science of miracles,,, thacannot be reduced to a simple juxtaposition of circumstances and outcomes or examining individual elements of the system separately. We move to the area where stable principles of procedures and the process of determining them as a set of cultural practices and forms are of significance.”

In the modern understanding of organizations within different systems, there are relative foundations for many types of results; however, specific circumstances are dynamic and changeable. Indicator-based management and cause-and-effect logic might seem trustworthy on diagrams and graphs, but in the reality of fluctuating human relationships, they can turn out to be quite dangerous.

Organizations perceive themselves as networks of connections, quickly adapting to risks and opportunities. The role of leaders is to create administrative structures that enhance and streamline the operations of organizations without corporate mediators. Project teams take quick decisions based on new data. The system is the means and not the end, while the management only focuses on facilitating the process and not on achieving the goals set.

Metaphors of organization criticism

In-depth criticism is more and more frequent, focusing on the typical model of an organization and basing it on the metaphor of a machine, within which workers function as small cogs in the great machine of power. Maintaining structures and paradigms of work in stable systems is a difficult and costly task in a highly changeable world. Talented individuals are discouraged from unconventional actions, which means ignoring the whole knowledge accumulated in their heads.

The machine metaphor draws upon 19th-century understandings of classical mechanics as well as Taylor’s formulation of scientific management[26]. According to the machine metaphor, organizations more often than not act according to rational economic principles and also have a hierarchy in their organizational structure.

Besides that, the substantive goal is to increase wealth and the productivity of employees considered mechanical parts within the organization. Another attribute is that the failure of a function is considered the failure or malfunctioning of a part. In this setup, the pursuit of efficiency is supreme. Normally, the external environment is ignored as the organization is essentially closed[27].

If it becomes accepted that metaphors eventually do influence perception and action[28] then our thinking concerning organizations through the use of the machine metaphor is infused with a particular mode. This mode perpetuates ‘othering’ and dehumanization. First and foremost, the metaphor requires us to consider and act as if humans within the organization are only functional components, whose utility is only extended in so far as they enable the continued operation of the organization. If the components are defective, those parts must be replaced.

On top of that, the machine metaphor’s implications of hierarchy create a type of separation between the users of the metaphor and those to whom it is being applied, usually referred to as the functional components. Accordingly, the metaphor not only separates but also fails to consider the whole human person beyond their function. The truth is that the human is a cog in the machine and a resource that has capabilities that need to be exploited for the good of the particular organization.

This theory thus fails to enable sustainable development and the entire narrative of humans and humanity that is implicit in the concept. Secondly, the metaphor debatably perpetuates a synecdoche whereby the organization becomes the focus of concern while making the user create a focus on the abstract, the organization. In effect, rather than a particular set of individuals who are applying a metaphor, with their concerns being paramount, through their application of the metaphor,,the synecdoche instead moves the organization “to being the subject and thus dehumanizes both the users of the metaphor and also reinforces the dehumanization of those operating within the organization.” In this view, the metaphor perpetuates individuals taking an egocentric view of the world, in which the concern is the continued operation of the organization.

Given this argument, the narrative perpetuated is organizational and not human. By using the metaphor, one can find themselves trapped in defining everything relative to the organization as the subject rather than the humans as the subject, a result that is tot compatible with the Sustainable Development concept.

In summary, a metaphor that perpetuates a mode where the organization is the locus of concern and the human members of an organization are mechanical parts facilitates a form of slipperiness that dehumanizes both ourselves (we are now parts) and our social constructions (organizations). It separates us from our organizations and thus detracts from our ordinary definitions of organizations that strengthen the central role of humans.

Consequently, this slipperiness perpetuates the epistemology that an organization is a separate subject, and as such, the epistemology that an organization and its environment are separate categories[29]. Therefore, the machine metaphor either wittingly or unwittingly perpetuates an epistemology that separates, de-emphasizes, and dehumanizes us while simultaneously emphasizing organizations, a result that is not conducive to organizational growth and development.

A note of optimism here is that the metaphor is simple to convey and enables a focus on efficiency, which is potentially useful[30]. Nevertheless, this metaphor was developed in the 19th century, with all the social class, conflict, and consciousness of those days.

Moving on, the twentieth century was the era of the development of production technology, which had a considerable influence on society and defined the logic of business and various types of organizations. Similarly, there is a dominance of information technology in the twenty-first century. This modern development of information technology affects our methods of communication.

One can see a change in the conditions of organizations and business as far as the production of goods and services are concerned. This development has led to an increase in the interconnectivity and transparency between various sections of society – there is an improvement in the speed of transactions coupled with a reduction in the cost of information. This results in the empowerment of individuals.

Organizations have to use a combination of efficiency, flexibility, and innovation[31]. There is a demand for flexibility among organizations, resulting in the assembly of various forms at short notice. These organizations have a limited purpose and life[32]. Production of services and products in new configurations can be seen, and people should have the ability to use both external and internal resources to solve tasks. This has become very common now. Organizations and businesses are becoming more involved in value networks and business ecosystems. But they have limited control over these networks[33]. When we use the word ‘organization’ in this post, it includes a whole range of institutions and business entities, from traditional companies to temporary networks of actors.

Handing over control to people outside an organization is a challenge. The new organizational form has a different way of looking at things. It challenges the role of management and the value of experts. It also feels the need to have control over the customer experience and stresses the importance of quality assurance[34]. Hence,, the machine metaphor is not fully applicable in 21st-century managemnt,, characterized by co-participation, amorphous, and project-based organizational structures.

Morgan[35] is of the view that the use of metaphors is necessary to think about and understand the world. Organizational forms such as value networks, mass collaborations, multi-unit enterprises, and user contribution systems exhibit a lack of metaphors. It is a challenge for the management of contemporary organizations to manage complexity rather than reduce it.

Similarly to the machine metaphor, the organism metaphor as applied to organizational understanding faces plentiful difficulties. It is often not specified, for example, whether the organism is a person or a single-cell amoeba[36], either of which implies different actions and considerations. The major downside of the organism metaphor is that it implies that the organization is a form of life separate from its human constituents and hence needs to be considered alongside other forms of life in terms of survival, growth, decay, death, population ecology thinking, and Darwinian understanding[37].

Organism metaphors don’t need to be discussed explicitly. Consider the similarity between an organization and an organism: an organism has the goal of surviving despite all odds. Similarly, you can infer that the organization is a form of life, with the goal of the organization being to survive[38]. This implies that the organization is a separate entity from its human constituents. The human constituents are merely facilitators or detractors of the continued survival of the organization[39]. In stark similarity with the machine metaphor, the organism metaphor causes an engagement in slipperiness, dehumanizing our social constructions and ourselves and raising the organization as the focus of concern. The organization takes primacy over the humans, and thus the metaphor does not enable the pursuit of sustainable development.

In cases where metaphors help constitute reality, they exhibit a unique power in guiding action. Hence, their application is likely to result in actions fitting the metaphor to make the 16 experiences coherent[40]. Hence, organizations function as machines and organisms. The metaphors imply that we dehumanize the individuals in the organizations and treat them as functional components. This makes us detach from the organization and makes the organization a subject and focus of concern, and it is the metaphors that ask us to do this.

Thus, when we apply the metaphor of machines and organisms to organizational phenomena, we encourage the dehumanization of some members of the organization and view them as components rather than fellow humans. We view them as machine parts whose function is to serve the organization’s needs instead of as human beings whose value is greater than their utility. When we use these metaphors, we promote organizations as the locus of concern and treat them as separate subjects. This is known as ‘egocentrism’. We define issues about the organization and its continued operation[41]. These two outcomes have a strong impact, and the use of these metaphors makes us move away from the aspect of humanistic management.

One of the many metaphors used involved comparing an organization to culture, which, according to the author, was one of the most appropriate and creative references.

In semantic terms, the organization as a culture emphasizes the element of creating a social reality within itself and its operations. According to the Morganian understanding, culture was a metaphor for the organization itself.

As cultural phenomena, the nature of which involves the cultural context of an environment, organizations create a culture and include subcultures expressing their complexity.

Despite the evolution of various organizational forms, there has been little change in the existing principles of management[42].

Modern management principles rest on the foundations of Fayol, Taylor, and Weber, as follows.

·         Their main aim is stability.

·         Analyses can be made by reducing things to smaller parts.

The cause-and-effect mechanism between individual parts can be studied.

In the past, managers have used easy language to solve simple, static problems while facing challenges about the complex, dynamic realities of the current business environment. Senge[43] described this about twenty years ago.

Employees can use metaphors to describe the image they have of their organization. They give meaning to their organization[44]  and can practically express their feelings, not always necessarily positive, in an illustrative and imaginary way. For instance, organizations dominated by a high level of internal competition become ‘battlefields’, or those where a specific climate of distrust and suspicion dominates become spy rings’ or ‘secret police forces’[45].

Working through metaphor can be extremely advantageous, as it has a symbolic and not a direct nature. Metaphor has the power to show the same situation from many angles and points, some very close and some quite distant. It can also provide a complete dictionary of words and phrases with which to describe a situation without using terms that would automatically provoke anger or anxiety[46]. In this case, it alleviates all the difficulty that exists in the direct expression of sensitive issues and, in many cases, brings out meanings, understandings, and analyses from deep in the unconscious[47].

Successful managers can read the organization from numerous angles[48]. If they are open and ready to learn, they can delay immediate judgment until they have a comprehensive view of the situation to create a whole new agenda of possibilities. Less efficient managers usually interpret their environment from a constant perspective. Thus, they are less effective as they encounter obstacles. Rigid managers are often trapped in their image of themselves and of the organization[49].

Metaphors are particularly useful for bringing clarity to situations dominated by ambiguity and vagueness. “The more ambiguous a situation is, the more important metaphors become for ordering the situation and making sense of our organizational experience”[50].

In these cases, metaphors help managers understand how certain unconscious factors influence individual and group decision-making processes. For example, managers can gain insight into time management concepts if they understand why people spend or do not spend time on certain activities[51]. Morgan noted that some activities at work can be highly valued because they are designed to leave a legacy. Individuals who need to leave a legacy can then be focused more on these activities. This helps leaders communicate effectively with subordinates.

Organizational metaphors influence researchers in the formulation of their theories. They also influence practitioners in shaping structures and processes. They work because of paradigmatic assumptions about the organizational reality[52], bringing them together in a self-contained and consistent analogy. Gareth Morgan[53] brought to light a range of eight metaphors of organization.

He used the same framework that is used for ordering in organizational science. He viewed organizations as machines and organisms, as well as brains and cultures, political systems, and psychic prisons, and viewed flux and transformation as instruments of domination. Other literary figures have repeatedly extended this set of organizational metaphors. We can take the example of the theater metaphor of Mangham and Overrington[54], or the jazz metaphor of Weick[55]. There have been subsequent debates around metaphors in organizational research, which have tended to concentrate on two main issues. The first is the fundamental question of the scientific status of the metaphor approach and its uses in organizational science[56]. The second issue does not have much dispute and focuses on the use of metaphors in the process of organizational change and transformation[57].

Metaphors have great use in the communication of broad, abstract concepts. These concepts include organizational mission and strategy. They are also useful in situations requiring innovative concepts and approaches[58]. Using metaphors in management increases the understanding of complicated and intangible concepts in alignment with simpler and tangible concepts.

An image can help in studying something, and metaphors help with this. These images can provide the basis for detailed scientific research. Research determines the extent to which you find the features of the metaphor in the subject of inquiry[59]. This enhances and amplifies the view of the organization, allowing members to become more enlightened about the impediments faced by the organization. They understand how the organization can become unburdened and more effective. Metaphors are complex by nature and can have multiple interpretations and implications. They require careful examination to understand the message they convey[60]. However, we should not forget the actual purpose of organizational metaphors.

They simplify the explanation of the workings of the enterprise. In doing so, they increase understanding by delimiting the mind. Thus, they encourage practitioners to think outside the box. One metaphor is enough to understand certain aspects of an organization. But it can be an imperfect understanding[61]. We included multiple images instead of allowing the dominance of a single perspective when reading organizations. Most organizations indeed require more than one metaphor to bring out the reality.

Even though the Morganian theory based on metaphors rejects classic principles of formal logic, according to which a given object cannot be itself and its opposite at the same time, the metaphorical approach agrees with the multidimensionality of organizations, which can be “a bit of everything”, e.g., a culture, an organism, and a brain. However, one should realize that metaphors cannot and should not be used completely freely.

Metaphorical thinking puts us on certain tracks, indicating hidden characteristics of the object studied while at the same time concealing certain aspects of the phenomenon.

Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.

Metaphors of organizations literature and bibliography

[1] Morgan G., Images of Organization, updated edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco 2006, p. 4.  

[2] Shafritz J.M., Ott J.S., Classics of Organization Theory, Brooks/Cole Publishing (3rd Edition), California 1992, citation: Cyert R.M., March J.G., A Behavioural Theory of Organisational Objectives in Modern Organisational Theory, Wiley, New York 1959, pp. 76-90; Polanyi K., The Great Transformation, House of Beacon Press (2nd edition, 1st edition 1957, book written in 1944), Boston 2001.

[3] Kornberger M., Clegg S.R., Carter C., Rethinking the polyphonic organization: Managing as a discursive practice, „Scandinavian Journal of Management”, No. 22, 2006, pp. 3-30, citation: Hazen M., Towards polyphonic organization, „Journal of Organizational Change Management”, 6 No. 5, 1993, pp. 15–26.

[4] Morgan G., Images of Organization, updated edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco 2006.  

[5] Marshall G. (ed.), Sownik socjologii i nauk spoecznych, PWN, Warszawa 2004, pp. 246, 379. In the light of anthropology, Hofstede agrees with this view, saying: Organization is a social system by nature different from the state, if only in the fact that its members were not raised in it. Being a member of a given organization is to a greater or lesser extent a matter of choice (…) one can resign from this membership”; Hofstede G., Hofstede G.J., Cultures, and Organizations Software of the Mind, Geert Hofstede BV, 2005, pp. 47–48.

[6] Dyoniziak R. i in., Społeczeństwo w procesie zmian. Zarys socjologii ogólnej, ZCO, Zielona Góra 1999, p. 91.

[7] Dyoniziak R. i in., Społeczeństwo w procesie zmian. Zarys socjologii ogólnej, ZCO, Zielona Góra 1999, p. 93.

[8] Koźmiński A.K., Piotrowski W. (ed.), Zarządzanie. Teoria i praktyka, PWN, Warszawa 2006, p. 52.

[9] Koźmiński A.K., Piotrowski W. (ed.), Zarządzanie. Teoria i praktyka, PWN, Warszawa 2006, p. 53.

[10] Bernard Ch., Funkcje kierownicze, Czytelnik, Kraków 1997, p. 96.

[11] Simon H.A., Działanie administracji. Podejmowanie decyzji w organizacjach administracyjnych, PWN, Warszawa 1976, p. 72.

[12] Simon H.A., Działanie administracji. Podejmowanie decyzji w organizacjach administracyjnych, PWN, Warszawa 1976, p. 48.

[13] Morgan G., Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organizational theory, „Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 25, 1980, pp. 611.

[14] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980; Lakoff G., Turner M., More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, „Chicago University Press”, Chicago 1989.

[15] Sułkowski Ł., Metafory, archetypy i paradoksy organizacji, „Organizacja i kierowanie”, No. 2, 2011.

[16] Morgan M., Models, [In] The Handbook of Economic Methodology, Davis J.B., Hands D.W., Mäki U. (eds.), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 1998, s. 316–321.

[17] Charteris-Black J., The Persuasive Power of Metaphor, Palgrave MacMillan, Houndsmills, 2005, p. 14.

[18] Morgan G., Images of Organization, updated edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 2006.

[19] Grant D., Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and Organizations, Sage, London 1996, pp. 213-226.

[20] Grant D., Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and Organizations, Sage, London 1996, pp. 213-226.

[21] Morgan G., Images of Organization, updated edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 2006.

[22] Grant D., Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and Organizations, Sage, London 1996, pp. 213-226.

[23] For example see: Cummings S., Thanem T., Essai: The Ghost in the Organism, „Organization Studies”, No. 23, 2002, pp. 817-839.; McAuley J., Duberle J., Johnson P., Organization Theory: Challenges and Perspectives, FT Prentice Hall, London 2007; Audebrand L. K., Sustainability in Strategic Management Education: The Quest for New Root Metaphors, „Academy of Management Learning & Education”, No. 9(3), 2010, pp. 413–428; Hatch M.J., Organizations: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press: Oxford Hawken 2011; Egri C.P., Pinfield L.T., Organizations, and the Biosphere: Ecologies and Environments, 1999, pp. 209-233; Shafritz J.M., Ott J.S., Classics of Organization Theory, Brooks/Cole Publishing (3rd Edition), California 1992; Spence C., Thomson I., Resonance tropes in corporate philanthropy discourse, „Business Ethics: A European Review”, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2009, pp. 372-388.; Kendall J.E., Kendall K.E., Metaphors & Methodologies: Living beyond the system’s machine, „MIS Quarterly”, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1993, pp. 149-171; Morgan G., Images of Organization, updated edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco 2006.

[24] Cornelissen J.P., On the organizational identity metaphor, „British Journal of Management”, No. 13, 2002.

[25] Wheatley M.J., Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World, Berret-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco 2006.

[26] Hatch M.J., Organizations: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press: Oxford Hawken 2011; Cornelissen J.P., Kafouros M., Metaphors and Theory Building in Organization Theory: What Determines the Impact of a Metaphor on Theory?, „British Journal of Management”, No. 19(4), 2008, pp. 365-379.

[27] Morgan G., Images of Organization, updated edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco 2006; Cornelissen J.P., Kafouros M., Metaphors and Theory Building in Organization Theory: What Determines the Impact of a Metaphor on Theory?, „British Journal of Management”, No. 19(4), 2008, pp. 365-379; McAuley J., Duberle J., Johnson P., Organization Theory: Challenges and Perspectives, FT Prentice Hall, London 2007; Tinker T., Metaphor and reification: Are radical humanists really libertarian anarchists?, „Journal of Management Studies”, No. 25, 1986, pp. 363-384; Shafritz J.M., Ott J.S., Classics of Organization Theory, Brooks/Cole Publishing (3rd Edition), California 1992.

[28] For example, see Ford J., Ford L., The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations, „Academy of Management Review”, No. 20(3), 1995, 541–570; Tsoukas H., The Missing Link: A Transformational View of Metaphors in Organizational Science, „The Academy of Management Review”, No. 16(3), 1991; Tsoukas H., Analogical Reasoning and Knowledge Generation in Organization, „Theory Organization Studies”, No. 14(3), 1993; Burr V., Social constructionism, Routledge, London 2003.

[29] Gladwin T.N., Kennelly J.J., Krause T.S., Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research, „Academy of Management Review”, Vol. 20, No.4, 1995, pp. 874-907.

[30] For example, Weizsacker E.V., Lovins A.B., Lovins L.H., Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use, Earthscan, London 1998; Hawken P., Lovins A., Hunter-Lovins L., Natural Capitalism, Little Brown and Company, New York 1999; Barter N., Bebbington J., Factor 4/10/20/130: A Briefing Note, „Social and Environmental Accounting Journal”, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2009, pp. 23-26.

[31] Sandberg J., Targama A., Managing Understanding in Organizations, Sage Publications, London 2007; Hamel G., The Future of Management, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston 2007; Cohen M., Commentary on the Organizational Science Special Issue on Complexity, „Organizational Science”, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1999, pp. 373–376,

[32] Cohen M., Commentary on the organizational science special issue on complexity, „Organizational Science”, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1999, pp. 373-376.

[33] Hamel G., The Future of Management, Harvard Business Press”, Boston, 2007.

[34] Tapscott D., Williams A., Wikinomics; How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, Penguin Group, New York 2006; Cook S., The contribution revolution: letting volunteers build your business, „Harvard Business Review”, Vol. 86, No. 10, 2008, pp. 60-69.

[35] Morgan G., Images of Organization, updated edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco 2006, p. 4.  

[36] Tsoukas H., The Missing Link: A Transformational View of Metaphors in Organizational Science, „The Academy of Management Review”, No. 16(3), 1991.

[37] Tinker T., Metaphor and Reification: Are Radical Humanists Really Libertarian Anarchists?, „Journal of Management Studies”, No. 25, 1986, pp. 363–384; Cummings S. Thanem T., Essai: The Ghost in the Organism, „Organization Studies”, No. 23, 2002, pp. 817-839; Tsoukas H., The Missing Link: A Transformational View of Metaphors in Organizational Science, „The Academy of Management Review”, No. 16(3), 1991; Hatch M.J., Organizations: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press: Oxford Hawken 2011.

[38] Grant R.M., Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 7th Ed., Chichester, Wiley 2010.

[39] Shafritz J.M., Ott J.S., Classics of Organization Theory, Brooks/Cole Publishing (3rd Edition), California 1992; Morgan G., Images of Organization, updated edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco 2006; McAuley J., Duberle J., Johnson P., Organization Theory: Challenges and Perspectives, FT Prentice Hall, London 2007; Egri C.P., Pinfield L.T., Organizations, and the Biosphere: Ecologies and Environments, pp. 209–233, [In] Clegg S.R., Hardy C., Nord W.R. (eds), Managing Organizations, Sage, London 1999.

[40] Tsoukas H., The Missing Link: A Transformational View of Metaphors in Organizational Science, „The Academy of Management Review”, No. 16(3), 1991; Tsoukas H., Analogical Reasoning and Knowledge Generation in Organization, „Theory Organization Studies”, 14(3), 1993; Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980; Ford J., Ford L., The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations, „Academy of Management Review”, No. 20(3), 1995, pp. 541–570; Burr V., Social constructionism, Routledge, London 2003.

[41] Tinker T., Metaphor and Reification: Are radical humanists really libertarian anarchists?, „Journal of Management Studies”, 25, 1986, pp. 363–384; Hatch M.J., Organizations: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press: Oxford Hawken 2011; Egri C.P., Pinfield L.T., Organizations, and the Biosphere: Ecologies and Environments, pp. 209–233, [In] Clegg S.R., Hardy C., Nord W.R. (eds), Managing Organizations, Sage, London 1999.

[42] Hamel G., The Future of Management, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, 2007; Hamel G., Moonshots for Management, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87, No. 2, 2009, pp. 91–98.

[43] Senge P., The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Century Business, London 1990.

[44] Smircich L., Studying organizations as cultures, [In] Morgan G. (Ed.), Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research, Sage, Beverly Hills 1987, pp. 160-172.

[45] Hamburger Y., Itzhayek U., Metaphors and organizational conflict, „Social Behavior and Personality”, No. 26(4), 1998, pp. 383-398.

[46] Hamburger Y., Itzhayek U., Metaphors and organizational conflict, „Social Behavior and Personality”, No. 26(4), 1998, pp. 383-398.

[47] Barker P., Using Metaphors in Psychotherapy, Brunner Mazel, New York 1985.

[48] Morgan G., Images of Organization, Sage, Newbury Park 1989.

[49] Morgan G., Imagination: The Art of Creative Management, Sage, Newbury Park, 1993.

[50] Boland R., Greenberg R., Metaphorical structuring of organizational ambiguity, [In] Pondy L., Boland R., and Thomas H. (eds.), Managing Ambiguity and Change, John Wiley, Chichester, 1988.

[51] Morgan G., Images of Organization, updated edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco 2006.  

[52] Morgan G., Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organizational theory, „Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 25, 1980, pp. 605-622.

[53] Morgan G., Images of organization, Sage, Newbury Park 1986.

[54] Mangham I.L., Overrington M.A., Organizations as Theater: A Social Psychology of Dramatic Appearances, Wiley, Chichester, 1987.

[55] Meyer A., Frost P.J., and Weick K.E., The Organizational Science Jazz Festival: Improvisation as a Metaphor for Organizing Overture, „Organization Science”, No. 9(5), 1998, pp. 540–542.

[56] Grant D., Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and Organizations, Sage, London 1996, pp. 213-226; Reed M., From paradigms to images: the paradigm warrior turns post-modernist guru, „Personnel Review”, No. 19(3), 1990, pp. 35-40.

[57] Marshak R., Metaphors in Organizational Settings: Impact and Outcome, [In] Grant D., Oswick C. (Eds.), Metaphor and Organizations, Sage, London, 1996, pp. 147–165; Sackmann S., The Role of Metaphors in Organization Transformation, „Human Relations”, No. 42, 1989, pp. 463–485.

[58] Hill R.C., Levenhagen M., Metaphors and mental models: sensemaking and sense giving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities, „Journal of Management”, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1995, pp. 1057–1074.

[59] Morgan G., Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organizational theory, Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 25, 1980, pp. 605–622.

[60] Gibson C.B., Zellmer-Bruhn M.E., Metaphors and Meaning: An Intercultural Analysis of the Concept of Teamwork, „Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 46(2), 2001, pp. 274–303.

[61] Itkin H., Nagy M., Theoretical and Practical Use of Metaphors in Organizational Development and Beyond, <http://pmr.uni-pannon.hu/articles/3_4_itkin_nagy.pdf>.

Metaphors saturate the language of leadership. Metaphor is not just a mere ornament; it is a common, frequent, and pervasive phenomenon.

They are often used to understand evasive concepts that we would like to communicate with others. Morgan wrote that metaphor is “a primal, generative process that is fundamental to the creation of human understanding and meaning in all aspects of life”[1]. According to Black, metaphors help us sort reality from illusion[2].

We instinctively graft abstract and complex concepts such as ‘time’, ‘life, and ‘organization’ onto more concrete concepts that are easier to visualize. Even theories get visualized, often as structures (we may talk about ‘supporting’ evidence or the ‘foundations’ of a theory).

What’s a metaphor?

“Metaphors are omnipresent in science. Astrophysicists describe the distribution of mass in the universe as being foam-like, and chemists still ascribe orbitals to atoms as if electrons were planets spinning around a nuclear sun”[3].

Phrases such as ‘life is a game’ or ‘business is war’ clearly represent expressions using which the speaker aims to draw the recipient’s attention to the fact that in life or business, you can either win or lose.

Metaphors have remained an important subject of interest through the centuries.

Theory, analysis, research, and study have been dedicated to them from Aristotle until now. Contrary to common thought, our conceptualization and thinking are pervaded by metaphors rather than simply serving as rhetorical and poetic devices.

To be more precise, in the field of linguistics and communication, it is believed that our cognitive processes and thoughts are highly metaphorical—that human thought is constructed and constituted of metaphors[4]. Language is certainly barely metaphor-free, meaning that people reason in metaphors and develop familiarity with new domains as a result of metaphorical thinking[5]. This is because analogical thinking leads to a fresh understanding of either familiar or new concepts[6].

Metaphors are implied comparisons that bring together two concepts. “Metaphor occurs when a unit of discourse is used to refer unconventionally to an object, process, or concept, or collides unconventionally.

And when this unconventional act of reference or collation is understood based on similarity, matching, or analogy involving the conventional referent or colligates of the unit and the actual unconventional referent or colligates”[7].

Dickins, for instance, defines metaphors as “A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is used in a non-basic sense, this non-basic sense suggesting a likeness or analogy [...] with another more basic sense of the same word or phrase”[8].

According to Deignan, “A metaphor is a word or expression that is used to talk about an entity or quality other than that referred to by its core, or most basic, meaning. This non-core use expresses a perceived relationship with the core meaning of the word and, in many cases, between two semantic fields”[9].

Do metaphors evolve?

We must also stress that metaphors evolve. For instance, until very recently, the information superhighway was a metaphor for the internet. But the word ‘cyberspace’ has now taken over[10]. The question is whether they are the same. Alternatively, will a new word replace the term ‘cyberspace’ as wearable computers cross over from the realm of the exotic to that of a mass-produced commodity?

Among the various types of metaphors emerging from professional literature, several that are used more frequently in management can be identified.

Since George Lakoff and Mark Johnson published their famous book, metaphors have been published and have since taken the place of research into cognition and human language.

Metaphors have become the perfect tool for defining the role of Cognitive Linguistics and discovering how language reflects our perception of the world. Even though metaphors go unnoticed by most language users, they claim that the language they speak is literal. To most, it comes as a surprise that metaphorical speech is part of  everyday language and will always be there, whether we know it or not, when we speak about our experiences, emotions, etc. Metaphors do not belong only in the realm of language. Important researchers such as Andrew Goatly, Zoltan Kövecses, George Lakoff, and others have argued that Cognitive Linguistics underlines how we perceive the world. Metaphors are used to make us understand abstract domains such as time, social institutions, and emotions.

The use of metaphors can be a useful tool for reading, understanding, and leading organizations.

In everyday language, metaphors comprise essential elements at a practical level[1], so why shouldn’t they be in management or management consulting? We strongly believe that a metaphoric approach to management can be applied both in academia and in managerial and consulting practice all over the world.

Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.

Metaphors literature and bibliography

[1] Cornelissen J.P., On the organizational identity metaphor, „British Journal of Management”, No. 13, 2002; Cornelissen J.P., Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory, „Academy of Management Review”, Vol. 30, 2005; Morgan G., Images of Organization, updated edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco 2006; Oswick C., Keenoy T., Grant D. 2002., Metaphor and analogical reasoning in organization theory: Beyond orthodoxy, „Academy of Management Review”, No. 27(2), pp. 294-303; Tsoukas H., The Missing Link: A Transformational View of Metaphors in Organizational Science, „The Academy of Management Review”, No. 16(3), 1991; Tsoukas H., Analogical Reasoning and Knowledge Generation in Organization, „Theory Organization Studies”, No. 14(3), 1993; Morgan G., An afterword: Is there anything more to be said about metaphor?, [In] Grant D. and Oswick C. (eds), Metaphor and Organizations, Sage, London, 1996, p. 228.

[2] Black M., Models and Metaphors, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1962.

[3] Brown T.L., Making Truth: Metaphor in Science, University of Illinois Press 2003, xiv + 215 pp.

[4] Deignan A., Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics, J. Benjamins Pub. 2005, p. 18.

[5] Gentner D., Jeziorski M., The shift from metaphor to analogy in western science, [In] Ortony A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press 1993, pp. 447–480; Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1980.

[6] Walsh J.P., Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane, „Organization Science”, No. 6, 1995, Schön D.A., Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy [In] Ortony A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 1993.

[7] Goatly A., The Language of Metaphors, Routledge, London, 1997, p. 8.

[8] Dickins J., Two models for metaphor translation, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005, p. 228.

[9] Deignan A., Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005, p. 34.

[10] Barta-Smith N., Hathaway J., Cyberspaces into Cyberplaces, „Journal of Geography”, No. 99(6), 1999, pp. 253-265.

Example of a metaphor

The ‘metaphor mania’ of the last thirty years has led to a lot of research that deals with the following processes: juxtaposition, comparison, and identification of the two scopes of metaphor (i.e., the tool of thinking that is used in shaping a specific discipline), and ironically, the result of the light that has been shed on the metaphorical process. Thus, metaphor is thought to be both a tool for creating several sciences and an outcome of the way that these sciences have developed.

Example of metaphor in marketing

Metaphors are especially useful in such creative domains as marketing. One can observe a wide use of metaphors in marketing literature.

These range from the marketing ‘mix’, the ‘globalization’ of markets, market ‘segmentation’ and ‘viral’ marketing, to ‘the consumer is King’, brand ‘DNA’, and the product ‘life cycle’. This is because analogical thinking and imaginative juxtapositions predicate creativity in marketing.

Metaphors conceal as much as they reveal. You can navigate through complex, interrelated ideas using metaphors and storytelling options. When narrated in the proper form, they bring coherence and delight. Stories are a serious tool for bringing complexity to life.

They make complex issues accessible and usable for the world. The world can benefit a lot from learning more. When applied as straightforward market management tools, metaphors can even damage brands, products, and company performance by creating underlying or overarching exchanges and relationships.

Metaphors are implicit or explicit statements about the product.

Marketing metaphors can have different linguistic, visual, or symbolic components.

1. Slogans such as “Budweiser, the king of beers,” “Chevrolet, the heartbeat of America,” and “Pioneer, the art of entertainment”.

2. Brand names such as Safari (a perfume), Tide (a laundry detergent), and Fiesta (a car)

3. Visual or symbolic metaphors such as the image of nude young females in advertisements for the “Obsession for Men” aftershave

Metaphors describe abstract phenomena in concrete terms. Similarly, in marketing, the use of metaphors involves the embodiment of abstract characteristics into products and services.

However, such figurative imputations are the need of the hour in marketing. It has to be accepted that marketing literature is a rich brew of eye-catching comparisons. However, the question often asked is whether this is good or bad.

Five decades ago, the use of metaphors in marketing literature was certainly unwelcome[1]. Strunk and White[2] were the primary protectors of proper literature in this case. They warned against extravagant use of language and exuberant metaphors[3].

They considered metaphors to be unnecessary, unseemly, and unfit for use. There was a prohibition on the use of mixed metaphors, too. They advocated the use of plain prose in a true academic style, aspiring to respectable scientific status[4].

Nowadays, both marketers and marketing scholars are very active in using metaphors to achieve their objectives. They use metaphors to gain consumer attention, evoke imagery, and provoke comparisons. They make use of metaphors to explain the similarity between a product and its concept. The use of metaphor to explain a complex or technical product and influence the customer’s beliefs is not new.

Developing metaphors requires time and money. Marketers do this to achieve their objectives. Thus, it would be safe to assume that marketers benefit from customer behavior toward metaphors. They know how consumers process and store metaphors in memory. They know the understanding of metaphors by consumers. They can judge consumer preferences.

Language, with its amazing complexity of structure and rich vocabulary, is naturally the main tool people use to express their thoughts and feelings. On the market, companies that gain an advantage are those that manage to create a network based on effective cooperation between the entities involved. Thus, the ability to establish and enhance relationships with the company’s environment is becoming more and more significant, and communication plays a special role in the process of establishing these relationships.

The fact that awareness of the communication process is essential in an organizational environment is indisputable. Knowledge of the notion of communication and the whole course of the process becomes the foundation for the process of creating messages in an organization.

Naturally, when analyzing factors determining the course of communication and its effects, it would be a mistake to omit the natural limitations of the process.

As it is possible to make different interpretations of the environment around us, there is no perfect message. This is particularly true in situations when the communication process is limited to such a specific form as the message within an organization.

Aristotle considered the ability to think metaphorically, i.e., by illustrating, virtuosity. He believed that people who can see similarities between two completely different spheres and connect them must possess a remarkable gift. If two similar things are indistinguishable in one aspect, they can differ in others.

When thinking figuratively, we mostly move the area of reference, which refreshes the perspective on a given issue in an organization, and we also organize the space between the issue in question and a different field, which can lead to innovative conclusions.

Numerous studies have been conducted[5] to identify the usefulness of allegory in team activities. For example, Nambu and Harada[6] examined the relationship between the usefulness of allegory and the nature of communication channels. For this purpose, the critical aspects of selected allegories were examined. An analysis of messages that were riddles to the researcher was used[7].

According to the results, the use of analogy encouraged harmonious communication and critical thinking about individual messages of members of a given organization.

They believe that analogies aimed at describing the riddle as a whole were used to build a certain mental foundation at an early stage of critical thinking, whereas analogies describing individual elements of the imagined whole were used to describe places of particular interest at the following stages of the process of specifying the problem.

At the moment, the turn towards metaphors rooted in acts of cooperation is becoming more frequent. One can see that the managerial staff has withdrawn from the imperative of “gaining an advantage by force” and turned towards the imperative of “a helpful point of reference”.

Example of metaphor in marketing literature and Bibliography

[1] Ortony A., Metaphor, Language, and Thought, [In] Ortony A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993.

[2] Strunk W., White E.B., The Elements of Style, Longman, New York, 1959.

[3] Orwell G., Politics and the English Language, [In] Inside the Whale and Other Essays, Penguin, London 1962, pp. 143–157.

[4] Ford and Carnegie reports; Brown S., Postmodern Marketing, Routledge, London, 1995.

[5] Nambu M., Harada T., Cognitive artifacts and conversation in referential communication tasks, „Cognitive Studies”, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1998, pp. 39–50; Kuriyama N., Funakoshi K., Tokunaga T., Kusumi T., Kyodomondaikaiketsuniokeru Metaphornoyakuwari (The role of metaphors in collaborative problem solving), Hituzi Shobo Publishing Ltd., Tokyo 2007.

[6] Nambu M., Harada T., Cognitive artifacts and conversation in referential communication tasks, „Cognitive Studies”, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1998, pp. 39–50.

[7] Kuriyama N., Funakoshi K., Tokunaga T., Kusumi T., Kyodomondaikaiketsuniokeru Metaphornoyakuwari (The role of metaphors in collaborative problem solving), Hituzi Shobo Publishing Ltd., Tokyo 2007.

Example of a metaphor in economics

Classic and modern economics use metaphors constantly. In economic discourse, metaphor is very common[1]. Many economic expressions, such as expansion, depression, and inflation, are metaphorical.

Nevertheless, it was only in 1982 that W. Henderson began the conversation of metaphor in economics, stressing that metaphorical analysis was scarce in economics despite its deliberate and wide use in economic texts. The 1980s then saw metaphors dragged out of the closet by Johnson and Lakoff[2], pioneers in this field. They proved that metaphorical reasoning was prevalent and stressed that metaphors were essential for humanity’s understanding. In the 25 years since Waterman and Peters’ triumph, the use of metaphors has grown stronger. Every academic that you can think of now uses metaphors[3]. This has become most prevalent in the management and business fields.

In fact, all great economists used some metaphors to explain the essence of certain processes or social phenomena.

Naturally, one of the most common metaphors in economic analysis was proposed by Adam Smith. It is the metaphor of the “invisible hand”, referring to the spontaneous order of the market economy. Another example of such an economist is J.M. Keynes, who often referred to the metaphor of the “animal instinct” when describing the activities of entrepreneurs and profiteers on the market[4].

The metaphor of an organism compares an organization to a structure characterized by a certain cycle or nature, which is born, develops, and dies. Hence, health, illness, and the human body are common source domain names in conceptual metaphors. Notably, drawing a parallel between the body and the market is old in economics. Francois Quesnay (1694–1774), an 18th-century French doctor and economist, was the first to examine the financial markets as a biological system. He associated the circulation of capital with the blood flow in the body between the organs, which symbolize the different sectors of the market. In his perspective, the stomach, which creates the blood and sends it to the heart, is represented by the agricultural laborers. Industrial workers are the lungs that keep the metabolism going and provide the body with oxygen. The landowner can be portrayed as the heart that sends out the blood, i.e., the capital of the entire organism[5].

Metaphorically, the parts or aspects of the market are comprehended as organs of the body, which can additionally separately become sick and can then change the entire body.

So long as the organs function well, the market functions well; hence, in economic terms, the general well-being of an economy is comprehended as its economic ‘health’. Nevertheless, occasionally difficulties or ailments can appear both in the function of the market as well as in the human body. In the former, medical aid is essential to healing the sick body. Likewise, there are also some dangers to economic health. The market can also suffer injuries or fall ill, and then a market can also get medical treatment—an ‘injection’ or a ‘cure’. In other words, economic measures are taken to prevent it from falling. The market, just like a patient, will recover. And if not, then the market will fail.

Now let’s see what facets and components of the body can function as source domains in the cognitive evaluation of subjective expressions used in the language of economics, finance, and business. All of these are as follows: the healthy condition of a human body; illnesses; physical, mental, and psychosomatic ailments and their concomitant effects (i.e., the symptoms of sicknesses—pain, headaches, spasms, etc.); the treatments of sicknesses (e.g., pills, medication, injections, surgery, etc.); and the healing or passing of patients. As far as the goal domains are involved, we can discuss the proper and inappropriate state of an economy, the signals of issues and issues in an economy, measures taken to solve economic issues, and the healing or failure of an economy.

The metaphor that economy is an organism shows the importance underlying the cognitive model for conceptualization of the economy as a whole.

The extension of higher-level metaphors has also been found in several lower-level metaphors. The most visible was the conceptualization of the economy as a patient with several metaphorical expressions: recovery, healthy, qualms, flu, limping or hobbling along, sweating, and depressed, among others. Charteris-Black argues that the underlying notion of conceptualizing the economy as a patient shows that the economy is a passive entity whose condition is determined by good decisions; this perception allows the economist to be a doctor or surgeon that can play a role in influencing the economy to heal (Charteris-Black).

Authors such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx used biological metaphors to explain or form economic theories[6]. Hirshleifer[7] says that the relationship between biology and economics cannot be straightforward, even though Alfred Marshall said that economics is a branch of biology, or, as Ghiseling[8] pointed out, that biology is natural economics. The French physician Francois Quesnay related economics to biological references by pointing out that in history, the natural states of the economy can be described as situations where the flow of income between economic sectors and the social ‘organs’ maximizes the net product, just as blood circulates in the human body[9].

Biology is a particularly inspiring source of metaphors and analogies in general. Naturally, such analogies are also used by business and economics, especially the current of evolutionary economics, which has been developing rapidly over the last decades. An almost classic example is a comparison of company or product development to a biological life cycle. The basic metaphor used by evolutionary economics is the biological concept of natural selection. One of the most interesting metaphors in evolutionary economics is the one proposed by A.A. Alchian, looking for ways to substitute the neoclassical concept of maximization with the biological concept of natural selection. The application of the idea of “natural selection” in the company model was first discussed by Alchian[10]. As Alchian argued, competition between companies is not determined by the motif of profit maximization but by “an adaptive, imitative, and based on trial and error search for a possibility of increasing one’s profit”[11]. This is why, in the spirit of Darwinism, “those who achieve profit survive, while those who lose are eliminated from the market”[12]. Alchian suggestively presents an analysis of companies’ behavior in a competitive environment. He states that “economic counterparts of genetic transmission, mutation, and natural selection are imitation, innovation, and profit”[13].

For instance, the flower garden is a great metaphor for looking at economic growth and income distribution. A flower’s growth depends on the individual characteristics of the flower and the seedlings. It also depends on common factors shared by other flowers in the garden (local climate, pests, the skills and diligence of the gardener, etc.), as well as particular factors and advantages that are relative to the flower. These might provide better sunlight, soil, and water in one part of the garden than in other parts. However, although there might be some interdependence, the rapid growth of a sunflower at the end of the garden largely comes at the expense of a struggling tulip. The sunflower has advantages that the tulip does not have, but the fast-growing sunflower is not in any way taking growth from the slow-growing tulip.

In the metaphor of a stock market as a bubble, bubble’ connotes the situation where the prices sometimes become higher than their actual value. It is so common in English-language business and economic articles that it can be seen as a conventional metaphor. The conceptualization of the economy as a ship, which is based on a solid systematic structure and the captain as the president of the central bank, also has the crew as the clerical assistants and the sea as the socio-economic environment of the country. Obstacles to the ship (reefs, storms) are critical situations that require the use of nautical instruments (anchors, compasses, maps) that are the bank’s various guidelines and directives. These assume that a central bank knows exactly where the ship should be heading, how the ship is working, and the effect of the crew’s actions on its course. However, it can be argued that they are working in a world where nothing is certain. When we look at recent socio-economic events, environmental consequences have brought about the downfall of many corporations.

Many times, people also draw comparisons between business and war. We see how the mappings occur in the metaphor ‘Business is War’. War carries images of battles, battlefields, military forces, headquarters, soldiers, weapons, strategies, and the outcome of the war. In cognitive terms, these are the source domains. Business negotiations, markets, business partners, strategies in business, and outcomes in business comprise the target domain. One can easily establish connections between the two domains. For instance, when you compare business negotiations with battles fought on battlefields, you draw a comparison between business representatives, bankers, and marketers with soldiers. Strategies are required in both fields. War strategies include images of military operations, formation of battlefronts, minefields, attacks, counterattacks, defense, ceasefires, etc. Similarly, in business negotiations, you can find comparisons in the representatives of different groups attacking each other and defending their positions and interests. You can draw parallels in the way they take risks and ‘redraw the battle lines’. The outcome of a war is either a victory over the enemy or a defeat. You can also come to a ceasefire agreement and reach a compromise. Similarly, business deals also end in agreements, deals, and compromises.

Example of a metaphor in economic literature

[1] McCloskey D.N., Metaphors economists live by, "Social Research", Vol. 62(2), 1995, pp. 215–238.

[2] Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1980.

[3] Knowles M., Moon R., Introducing Metaphor, Routledge, Abingdon 2006.

[4] Keynes J.M., Ogólna teoria zatrudnienia, procentu i pienidza, PWN, Warszawa 1985, chapter 12.

[5] Cf. Nyir S.J., Zalai E., and Nagy közgazdászok. Az ókortól napjainkig, Kossuth Kiadó, Budapest 1997, pp. 21–23; Mátyás A., Korai közgazdaságtan története, Aula Kiadó, Budapest 1992, pp. 36–37.

[6] Wyatt S., Danger! Metaphors at Work in Economics, Geophysiology, and the Internet, „Science, Technology, & Human Values”, No. 29(2), 2004, pp. 246.

[7] Hirshleifer J., Natural Economy versus Political Economy, „Journal of Social Biological Structures”, No. 1, 1978, pp. 319–337.

[8] Ghiselin M.T., The Economy of the Body, „American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings”, No. 68, 2, 1978, pp. 233-237.

[9] Spencer B.H., Productive Nature and the Net Product: Quesnay’s Economies Animal and Political, „History of Political Economy”, No. 32(3), 2000, pp. 517–551.

[10] Alchian A., Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory, „Journal of Political Economy”, No. 58, 1950, pp. 211–221.

[11] Alchian A., Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory, „Journal of Political Economy”, No. 58, 1950, pp. 212.

[12] Alchian A., Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory, „Journal of Political Economy”, No. 58, 1950, pp. 211-213.

[13] Alchian A., Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory, „Journal of Political Economy”, No. 58, 1950, p. 220.

Example of a metaphor in management

The development of the cultural trend in management entailed more metaphors describing organizational culture. As a result, there appeared to be clear differences between representatives of different paradigms who perceive culture in different ways.

The functionalist paradigm is dominated by metaphors of organizational culture, understood as a method for integrating members or elements of an organization.

In metaphors characteristic of this current, key values of culture, philosophy of management, and directions of organizational development are combined.

Interpreted in functionalist terms, organizational culture can be thus compared to “social glue”, “clan”, “resource”, or “compass”[1]. In the literature, the ideal is a cohesive, strong, and integrated organizational culture, which bonds the whole organization like “glue”.

In this context, it can be a source of the employee’s identification with the organization, which can increase their loyalty and create a coherent and positive internal image and unity related to the set goals and values.

Functionalists believe that culture yields control and management, depending on the needs of the organization and its managers. Thus, it is a management tool that allows for higher work effectiveness and increases employee involvement.

As organizational culture can determine the direction of the organization’s development, it can be understood as a kind of a “compass”.

In the case of non-functionalist paradigms, the metaphors of organizational culture and organization are the same. If one assumes a root metaphor, according to which an organization “is a culture and does not have culture”[2], then comparing any object to an organization entails comparing it to organizational culture.

The most common metaphors of an organization and, in consequence, of organizational culture include comparisons to a temple, theater, text, language, a work of art, acting and drama, flow, autopoiesis, and the brain. In interpretivism, metaphors focus on comparing culture to complex social processes or beings.

In the cognitive sense, metaphors within the functionalist paradigm can be accused of lacking faith in the possibility of interpreting and explaining reality. This results from the fact that these metaphors explain management processes that are difficult to interpret with the use of equally complex phenomena, such as language or the brain. On the other hand, interpretative metaphors focus on indicating complex social processes.

In the CMS current, there are many cultural and organizational metaphors connected with oppressiveness and inequality, perceived from a critical perspective.

The most popular metaphors within this paradigm include comparing an organization to a political system, ideology and totalitarianism, war and battle, psychological prison, and a tool of domination and repression[3].

It is worth noting that describing culture as “a tool of domination and repression” is commonly and often literally quoted within the critical current to describe negative aspects of control in organizations. The metaphors of the critical current are rather one-sided, and they focus on the repressiveness and control in organizations.

In the postmodern understanding, organization, and management are mostly metaphorical. In postmodernism, ideas and theories are figurative rather than literal. This is related to the fact that postmodernism refers to the “language game” and “linguistic turn” proposed by Wittgenstein.

Postmodern metaphors are mostly exploited for their literary and not cognitive meaning. Postmodernists representing radical humanism believe that literature often has a more positive influence on our understanding of the world than the strict scientific method.

As one can see, metaphors can be attributed to different paradigms. This means that the way metaphors are interpreted highlights the assumptions made and brings to mind associations and images rooted in different cognitive perspectives.

Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.

Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.

Example of a metaphor in management bibliography and literature

[1] Alvesson M., Understanding Organizational Culture, Sage, London, 2002, pp. 16–41.

[2] Smircich L., Koncepcje kultury a analiza organizacyjna, transl. Gciarz J., [In] Marcinkowski J., Sobczak J.B. (ed.), Wybrane zagadnienia socjologii organizacji. Cz II: Perspektywa kulturowa w badaniach organizacji, UJ, Kraków 1989, p. 41.

[3] Alvesson M., The Play of Metaphors, [In] Hassard J., Parker M. (eds.), Postmodernism and Organizations, Sage, London, 1993.

Metaphors in leadership and management

The metaphorical approach to leadership and management described is applied in research as well as managerial and advisory practice all over the world[1a]. The metaphorical analysis of organizational culture is part of the field of the humanities.

Metaphors have always been applied in leadership and management.

However, it is only since the rise of cultural management studies that scholars have been investigating the cognitive value of metaphors in organizational studies (Kövecses). The end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s witnessed rapid development in the concepts of organizational culture and culture in management.

Several comparative cross-cultural studies, anthropological analyses of culture, and best-selling publications addressed to managers contributed to the increased interest in values and culture in management studies. In his book Images of Organization, Gareth Morgan suggested the possibility of using metaphors to examine organizational and management-related problems.

One of the metaphors presented by Morgan, which he considered most creative, was based on a comparison between an organization and culture. Since the publication of Morgan’s ground-breaking book, metaphorical analysis has become popular in management studies and is now commonly used both as a tool to help create theories of organization and organizational culture and as a method of management[2a].

“All theories of organization and management are based on implicit images or metaphors that persuade us to see, understand, and imagine situations in partial ways. Metaphors create insight. But they also distort. They have strengths. But they also have limitations. In creating ways of seeing, they create ways of not seeing. Hence there can be no single theory or metaphor that gives an all-purpose point of view. There can be no 'correct theory' for structuring everything we do.”[1] 

Gareth Morgan

 

It has always been the goal of leaders to understand their employees’ intentions and try to predict their behavior in an organizational context[2]. However, today’s management faces a great challenge.

Our mental patterns are no longer sufficient for navigating the scenarios of modern organizational complexity[3]. The modern-day manager is challenged with dealing with these constantly increasing complexities in the pursuit of efficiency and effectiveness.

They must understand how constant changes influence their tasks so they can contribute to establishing a fast-reacting organization. “Ideal organizations”, as described by Weick and Quinn[4] as well as Buchanan et al.[5], are capable of ongoing adaptation, being both proactive and reactive at the same time according to circumstances and situations.

Organizational metaphors can serve as methods or tools that provide insight into how organizations function and how best to deal with making them successful in a state of permanent change. Bolman and Deal[6], stress that companies are ambiguous, contradictory, and uncertain and that metaphors can help administrators decrease or remove the misunderstandings caused by managing such a complex phenomenon. Morgan[7] states that metaphors assist companies in analyzing organizations through a “mosaic of different lenses or images”.

Bennis and Nanus[8] investigated transformational leaders, i.e., those who could transform people’s expectations and organizational systems, and found that among the tools the transformational leader uses to create the vision—and so create the meaning of the organization—is a metaphor[9]. By studying metaphors, the modern-day manager will be better prepared to understand organizations and how best to deal with the circumstances they are challenged by as they strive for results.

Growing dissatisfaction with the many theories underpinning organizational studies has motivated scholars to seek alternative ways to describe, analyze, and theorize the increasingly complex processes and practices constituting organizations[10].

“The linguistic turn of the later 20th century has led to a widespread and growing interest in discourse, both in the social sciences generally and in organization studies”[11].

As a result, ‘organizational discourse’ has emerged as an increasingly significant area of study[12].

Discourse is an element of all concrete social events. ‘Organizational discourse’ refers to the collections of texts embodied in the practices of talking and writing, bringing organizationally related objects into being as these texts are created, distributed, and consumed[13]. Mumby and Clair stress that “Organizations exist only in so far as their members create them through discourse. This is not to claim that organizations are ‘nothing but’ discourse, but rather that discourse is the principle means by which an organization’s members create a coherent social reality that frames their sense of who they are”[14].

There are several typologies for organizational discourse, and according to Putnam and Fairhurst[15] eight types of organizational discourse analysis: sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, cognitive linguistics (including discursive psychology), pragmatics (including speech acts, ethnography of speaking, and interaction analysis), semiotics, literary and rhetorical analysis, critical discourse analysis, and postmodern discourse analysis.

The study of metaphor in cognitive linguistics has contributed to organizational analysis in several ways. Its generative qualities are believed to enable new knowledge creation and to provide innovative, fresh perspectives on both organizational theory and behavior.

Research on organizational discourse encompasses various theoretical and methodological positions, and metaphors have often been used as theory-building and methodological tools[16]. Some studies have aimed to examine metaphors related to particular organizational phenomena. Discourse analysis drawing from a variety of sociological, socio-psychological, linguistic, philosophical, anthropological, communications, and literary-based studies[17] is reflected in the sheer variety of ways that researchers talk about and analyze organizational discourse.

Organizational discourse analysts often refer to organizations as discursive constructions. Organizations are places where discourses are built and implicated. To understand and analyze them, metaphors are used[18]. Metaphors are used to help understand the organizational reality with a supportive image.

Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.

 Metaphors in leadership and management literature

[1a] Gannon M.J., Integrating context, cross-cultural dimensions, and cultural metaphors in management education and training, Paper presented at the Biennial International Conference of the Western Academy of Management, Istanbul, Turkey, June 28–July 2, 1998.

[2a] Sukowski., Metafory, archetypy i paradoksy organizacji, „Organizacja i kierowanie”, No. 2, 2011.

[1] Morgan G., Images of Organization, Sage 1986–1997, p. 348.

[2] Chmielecki M., Factors Influencing Effectiveness of Internal Communication, “Management and Business Administration”, No. 23.2, 2015, pp. 24-38.

[3] Sukowski., Epistemology of Management, Peter Lang International, Frankfurt-Berlin-Bern-Vien-Oxford-New York-London-Warsaw 2013.

[4] Weick K.E., Quinn R.E., Organizational Change and Development, „Annual Review of Psychology,” 1999, p. 379.

[5] Buchanan D., Fitzgerald L., Ketley D., Gollop R., Jones J.L., Lamont S.S., Neath A., and Whitby E., No Going Back: A Review of the Literature on Sustaining Organizational Change, „International Journal of Management Reviews”, No. 7 (3), 2005, p. 190.

[6] Bolman L.G., Deal T., Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, Fourth Edition, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 2008.

[7] Morgan G., Images of Organization, updated edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 2006.

[8] Bennis W.G., Nanus B., Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row, 1985.

[9] Smircich L., Morgan G., Leadership: The Management of Meaning, „The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science”, No. 18 (3), 1982, pp. 257–273.

[10] Grant D., Hardy C., Oswick C., and Putnam L., Introduction: Organizational Discourse: Exploring the Field, [In] Handbook of Organizational Discourse, Sage 2004.

[11] Heracleous L., Hendry J., Discourse and the Study of Organization: Toward a Structural Perspective, „Human Relations”, No. 53(10), 2000, p. 1252.

[12] Boje D.M., Ford J., and Oswick C., Language and organization: The doing of discourse, „Academy of Management Review”, Forthcoming 2004; Grant D., Keenoy T., and Oswick C., Discourse and organization, Sage Publications 1998; Grant D, Keenoy T. Oswick C., Organizational discourse: key contributions and challenges, „International Studies of Management and Organization”, No. 31, 2001, pp. 5–24; Grant D., Hardy C., Oswick C., and Putnam L. (Eds.), Introduction: Organizational discourse: Exploring the field, [In] Grant D., Hardy C., Oswick C., Putnam L. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of organizational discourse, Sage, London 2004, pp. 1-36.; Iedema R. & Wodak R., Organizational discourses and practices, „Discourse and Society”, No. 10(1), 1999, pp. 5–20.; Keenoy T., Oswick C., Grant D., Organizational discourses: Text and context, „Organization”, No. 4(2), 1997, pp. 147–57; Keenoy T., Marshak R., Oswick C., Grant D., The discourses of organizing, „Journal of Applied Behavioral Science”, No. 36 (2), 2000, pp. 511–12.; Keenoy T., Oswick C., Grant D., Discourse, epistemology and organization: A discursive footnote, „Organization”, No. 7(3), 2000, pp. 542–545; Phillips N., Hardy C., Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction, Sage, Newbury Park 2002; Putnam L.L., Cooren, F., Textuality and agency: Constitutive elements of organizations, „Organization”, No. 11(3), 2004.

[13] Grant D., Keenoy T., and Oswick C., Of diversity, dichotomy and multi-disciplinarity, [In] Grant D., Keenoy T., and Oswick C. (eds), Discourse and Organization, Sage, London 1998, pp. 1–14; Parker I., Discourse Dynamics, Routledge, London 1992; Phillips N., Hardy C., Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction, Sage, Newbury Park 2002.

[14] Mumby D., Clair R., Organizational Discourse, [In] Van Dijk T.A. (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process: Discourse Studies Vol. 2: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Sage, London 1997, p. 181.

[15] Putnam L., Fairhurst G., Discourse analysis in organizations: Issues and concerns, [In] Jablin F.M., Putnam L. (eds), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, Sage, London 2001, pp. 235–268.

[16] Alvesson M., Cultural perspectives on organizations, Cambridge University Press, New York 1993; Brink T.L., Metaphor as data in the study of organizations, „Journal of Management Inquiry”, No. 2, 1993, 366–371; Grant D., Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and Organizations, Sage, London 1996; Morgan G., Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organizational theory, „Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 25, 1980, pp. 605–622; 

Morgan G., More on metaphor: why we cannot control tropes in administrative science, „Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 28, 1983, pp. 601-607; Morgan G., Images of organization, Sage, Newbury Park 1986; Grant D., Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and Organizations, Sage, London 1996, pp. 213-226; Putnam L., Phillips N., Chapman P., Metaphors of communication and organization, [In] Clegg S.R., HardyC., Nord W.R. (Eds..), The handbook of organization studies, Sage, London 1996, pp. 375-408; Tsoukas H., The Missing Link: A Transformational View of Metaphors in Organizational Science, „The Academy of Management Review”, No. 16(3), 1991.

[17] Keenoy T., Oswick C., and Grant D., Discourse, epistemology, and organization: A discursive footnote, „Organization”, No. 7(3), 2000, pp. 542–545; Alvesson M., Kärreman D., Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research, „Journal of Applied Behavioral Science”, No. 36(2), 2000, pp. 136–158.

Alvesson M., Kärreman D., Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis, „Human Relations”, No. 53(9), 2000, pp. 1125–1149; Grant D., Keenoy T., Oswick C., Of diversity, dichotomy and multi-disciplinarity, [In] Grant D., Keenoy T., Oswick C. (eds), Discourse and organization, Sage, London 1998, pp. 1–14; Grant D., Keenoy T., Oswick C., Organizational discourse: key contributions and challenges, „International Studies of Management and Organization”, No. 31, 2001, pp. 5-24; Potter J., Wetherell M., Discourse and social psychology, Sage, London 1987; Keenoy T., Oswick C., Grant D., Discourse, epistemology and organization: A discursive footnote, „Organization”, No. 7(3), 2000, pp. 542–545.

[18] Cornelissen J.P., Beyond Compare: Metaphor in Organization Theory, „Academy of Management Review”, Vol. 30, 2005; Morgan G., Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving in Organization Theory, „Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 25, 1980, pp. 605–622.

How can leaders use metaphors of organizational culture to lead better?

Metaphorical thinking serves leaders as a useful way of studying organizations and as a crucial aspect of the cognitive process in management.

Metaphors of organizational culture

Metaphors are a feature of language, and their changes reflect the transformations in our ways of thinking and speaking, as well as in our organizational activities. Depending on the perspective, a metaphor can be perceived as a useful technique or a foundation facilitating the understanding of an organization. However, it must be remembered that the use of metaphors should not be completely arbitrary. Metaphorical thinking gives us certain clues, indicates features of the object of our analysis, and stimulates creative thinking, but identifying the given object with a metaphor does not make any sense. Still, using and discovering the quasi-metaphorical process in interpreting management should enhance our understanding of organizational life (cf. Schmidt).

Organizational culture is often interpreted as a metaphor and described in metaphors. After all, in Morgan’s understanding, culture is a metaphor for the organization. As a result of the development of cultural management studies, several metaphors describing organizational culture have emerged. This has also led to a clear distinction between the representatives of various paradigms who perceive culture in their ways.

Functionalists mainly use metaphors of organizational culture, understood as a method of integrating the organization that brings together its key values, management philosophy, and directions of development. Interpreted from a functionalist perspective, organizational culture can thus be compared to “social glue,” “a clan”, “a resource,” or “a compass”[3]. The ideal model presents a strong, coherent, and well-integrated organizational culture that bonds together the whole organization (like “glue”). It can therefore be a source of employees’ identification with the organization, strengthening their loyalty, giving them a positive image of the organization, and building a sense of unity reinforced by common goals and values (“a clan”). Organizational culture is subject to control, whose scope depends on the needs of the organization and its managers. According to functionalists, it, therefore, serves as a tool that facilitates increasing productivity and employees’ commitment by unlocking the social and emotional potential of the organization (“a resource”). Organizational culture also determines the direction of the organization’s development. It expresses goals and values and serves as an organizational creed (“a compass”). Furthermore, organizational culture is also the source of organizational philosophy, which influences people in both conscious and subconscious ways.

In the case of non-functionalist paradigms, the metaphors of organization and organizational culture are identical. If one accepts the assumption informing the root metaphor, according to which organization is not “something an organization has” but “something an organization is”[4], a comparison between an object and an organization is equivalent to comparing the object to organizational culture. Among the most common metaphors of the organization are: a temple, theater, text, language, a work of art, acting and drama, flux, autopoiesis, and a brain. The metaphors of temple, theater, and language have been used, among others, Linda Smircich (“Organizations”), Mary Jo Hatch, and Barbara Czarniawska-Jorges to describe interpretive and symbolic aspects of organizations. The metaphors of acting, drama, and works of art were taken from Ervin Goffman, one of the founders of symbolic interactionism. The metaphorical approach to organization and also to an organizational culture that is depicted as a brain, flux, and autopoiesis was put forward by Gareth Morgan. Interpretive metaphors compare culture to complex social processes and complex entities (a brain). It can be argued that, in cognitive terms, their potential to interpret and explain reality is limited because they explicate difficult management processes by making references to equally complex and difficult entities such as the brain, language, or social processes. At the same time, however, these metaphors point to the uniqueness and exceptionality of management, understood as a complex social process.

Critical management studies (CMS) uses many cultural and organizational metaphors that convey the essence of oppression and inequality, as perceived from a critical perspective. One of the most popular metaphors compares an organization to a psychic prison, a tool of domination and oppression, a political system, an ideology and totalitarianism, war and battle, and the panopticon[5]. The metaphor of the psychic prison was proposed by Morgan, who in his book Images of Organization mostly used it to describe certain obsessive, repressive, and self-censoring aspects of the human psyche. The perception of culture as “a tool of domination and repression” is quite popular and is commonly used in critical management studies to describe the negative aspects of cultural control. This is also true of such metaphors as ideology, war, and the panopticon. According to representatives of CMS, organizational culture is a source of ideological “false consciousness" and “symbolic violence,” as well as the conflict that is inherent to the system and the struggle of social groups. The panopticon, by contrast, is a historical metaphor. Borrowed by Michel Foucault from Jeremy Bentham, it refers to a perfect model of surveillance and control. Alluding to Hugh Willmott and Mat Alvesson, Micha Zawadzki proposes a metaphorical understanding of organizational culture as an emancipatory tool[6]. The metaphors used by the proponents of critical management studies are rather one-sided and ideologically laden since they focus only on two aspects of organization: oppressiveness and control. Underscoring the above-mentioned aspects of management, these comparisons tend to neglect their positive dimensions. Still, they accurately reflect the nature of radical structuralism.

Generally, the postmodern understanding of organization is metaphorical. This means that the majority of ideas and theories are based on metaphors and analogies, rather than being constructed in a literal way. This phenomenon is closely connected to the fact that postmodernism is much indebted to Wittgenstein’s “language games” and “linguistic turn,” as well as to its literary, artistic, and textual roots. As described by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, a rhizome is one of the earliest cultural metaphors, used by postmodernists to describe a shapeless tangle of threads whose roots are hard to trace. “Simulacra” and “the matrix,” by contrast, communicate the idea of postmodern hyper-reality, in which the essentialist notions of sense and truth are no longer valid. Cultural processes are a game, a simulation. They serve as multiple curtains behind which no core truth or reality can be hidden (Baudrillard). The metaphors of a supermarket, collage, and happening represent culture as an eclectic, indeterministic, and unpredictable entity that can be internally contradictory and develop spontaneously. Most postmodern metaphors are used in a literary rather than cognitive sense. This is because postmodernists, as supporters of radical humanism, claim that literature is a better tool for understanding the world than the authority of science. Such a way of thinking, however, leads to excessive attachment to popular cultural metaphors, which are too often used uncritically. Zygmunt Bauman, for instance, has published extensively on the concept of the “liquid modern world.”[7] He has written fascinating essays in the field of cultural philosophy. However, apart from various unsystematized observations, they do not offer any results from empirical research.

Metaphors can therefore be attributed to a specific way of thinking connected with a particular paradigm. This means that each interpretation of a metaphor accentuates certain prior assumptions and brings to mind associations and images that are characteristic of a given cognitive perspective.

The metaphors given above for organizational culture correspond to the four paradigms proposed by Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan. However, it is important to note that, depending on the interpretation, many of them can also be used in various other paradigms. This brings us to one of the features of metaphorical thinking, which is that the cognitive and pragmatic functions of a metaphor depend on its interpretation. The metaphor of the organization as a brain can, for instance, be functionalist if we assume the computational theory of mind to be true. Organizing is thus primarily seen as being based on learning and processing information. However, if we assume that the brain is responsible for perception, interpretation, and understanding of the world, then we emphasized reflective processes, and we can contextualize the metaphor in the discourse of symbolic interactionism. Other metaphors used in management discourse, such as a temple, text, and language, similarly have multiple meanings and fit in various paradigms.

TSome metaphors aredeeply rooted in the management discourse (glue, a clan, a resource, theater, language, a prison); are used occasionally but are not very popular (a work of art, a collage, a chameleon, a matryoshka); have been taken from other discourses of the humanities and social sciences (the panopticon, a rhizome, simulacra, and a matrix); or are new (a shooting range and a labyrinth, obsobsessive-compele last two metaphors in each category ironically illustrate the thesis of the interpretive character of metaphors. When interpreting a given entity, we can compare it to another because of the nature of language and our cognitive apparatus. Thus, culture can, for instance, be compared to various attractions in a theme park or even to mental disorders or emotions. Interpreted as “a shooting range and a labyrinth,” organizational culture is oriented towards one effective solution: success. The metaphor of “a haunted house” alludes to the dark side of human nature. The comparison to “a masked ball” brings to mind an instant association with multiple organizational roles and identities. The metaphor of “a house of mirrors” evokes multiple, distorted reflections. As regards the metaphors of cultural processes depicted in terms of mental disorders, one can also easily find various arbitrary points of reference. Organizational culture in the NFS paradigm can ironically be read as “an obsessive thought” about the need to reach cognitive certainty and perfection in management, which is conspicuous in “compulsive actions” such as an obsessive search for methodological perfection—the perfect scholarly method” of cognition and culture management. Organizational culture in the paradigm of Critical Management Studies (CMS) can sometimes be reminiscent of a paranoid vision caused by persecutory delusions. Consequently, culture can be seen as a tool of oppression, “false consciousness,” psychological manipulation, and as a social engineering technique used to control and exploit employees. An uncritical attitude toward these persecutory delusions might cause paranoia among the seemingly healthy members of an organization. In the paradigm of symbolic interactionism, organizational culture can be compared to schizophrenic psychosis. Culture understood as “schizophrenia” is characterized by a split (Greek schisis) between emotions and reflective thinking, which unfortunately leads to permanent dysfunction. Similarly, the postmodern “autism” of organizational culture can be interpreted as an instance of management discourse being enclosed in its world.

The metaphorical method is commonly used to examine and change organizational cultures. Its key advantages include openness and reflective nature, thanks to which this method is both unorthodox and creative. This is particularly useful in studying and understanding such complex and ephemeral phenomena as organizational culture. On the other hand, using metaphors in cultural management studies has several limitations:

1. The reflective method is unstructured and unstandardized, and thus its usefulness is limited to its creative aspects and does not cover systematic analyses and measurements. After all, metaphors are only used in qualitative and interpretive research.

2. The analysis of “new metaphors” (culture as “a theme park” or “a mental disorder”) indicates the dangers inherent in this way of interpreting reality. The arbitrariness of comparisons can lead to a total loss of cognitive function. It could then be replaced by the creative function, which is itself connected with imagination and associations (Oswick and Jones).

3. Discriminating between a metaphor and a literal presentation can be difficult. In general, language is metaphorical, a fact to which most people do not usually pay much attention. Is “a resource” a metaphor? When this article talks about the metaphor of “a resource” that “helps unlock employees’ potential,” it is using two further metaphors: “Unlocking” is a mechanical metaphor that compares starting an action to opening a lock with a key, while the term “potential” is borrowed directly from physics.

4. It is often very difficult to assign a metaphor to only one paradigm since its understanding depends on its interpretation. The meaning of the comparison is rather fluid; for instance, although “organizational glasses” originally derived from the functionalist paradigm, in time they have become a method of interpreting organizational culture by other paradigms. “Organizational glasses” are an interpretive metaphor as well, since culture is also seen as synonymous with the perception of reality. “Black organizational glasses” could represent the perception of reality by culture, approached from the perspective of the critical paradigm.

5. The perception of organizational culture as being synonymous with the whole organization is characteristic of non-functionalist paradigms. It considerably broadens the area of comparison, which makes these paradigms too general and imprecise.

The analysis of the nature of the metaphorical approach and its problems presented in this chapter does not address all aspects of this complex issue. It is possible, for instance, to name other cultural metaphors used in research and management education. For example, M.J. Gannon describes the metaphorical understanding of organizational culture as a computer, a tree, a whale, a gene pool, a rainbow, a prism, a school, a skyscraper, and a filter[8]. Another problem resides in the multiplicity of ideas and the lack of consensus regarding the canonical metaphorical method in management.

Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.

[3] Alvesson M., Understanding Organizational Culture, Sage, London 2002, pp. 16-41.

[4] Smircich L., Concepts of culture and organizational analysis, „Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 28, 1983, p. 347.

[5] Alvesson M., The Play of Metaphors, [In] Hassard J., Parker M. (eds.), Postmodernism and Organizations, Sage, London, 1993.

[6] Alvesson M., Understanding Organizational Culture, Sage, London 2002, pp. 16–41; Alvesson M., The Play of Metaphors, [In] Hassard J., Parker M. (eds.), Postmodernism and Organizations, Sage, London 1993.

[7] Cf., for instance, Bauman Z., Liquid Fear, Polity, 2006.

[8] Gannon M.J., Cultural Metaphors: Applications and Exercises, <http://faculty.csusm.edu/mgannon/docs/CULTURALMETAPHORS.pdf>.

Metaphorical analysis in leadership

A metaphorical analysis can be used in leadership to study and change organizational culture. Its unquestionable advantages include high reflectiveness and the possibility of an in-depth exploration of phenomena.

A metaphorical analysis is a highly unorthodox and creative method that is particularly useful for examining and understanding complex processes and phenomena, such as organizational culture.

However, it is worth noting that the use of metaphors in cultural research in management has several limitations.

1. Although it is a reflective method, it is also non-structured and non-standardized, which narrows down the possibility of applying it to creative aspects rather than broader, systematic analyses and measurements on a larger scale.

2. Such an interpretation of reality entails a high level of risk. Freedom of comparison can lead to losing cognitive functions and substituting them with the creative function related to the imagination[1].

3. A metaphorical analysis gives rise to problems connected with distinguishing metaphors from literal phrases. As it is often emphasized, language as such is metaphorical.

4. There are obvious problems connected with attributing a metaphor to only one paradigm, as everything depends on the way it is interpreted. The meaning of comparison is relatively fluid.

5. Equating organizational culture with the whole organization is characteristic of non-functionalist paradigms, and it entails the broadening of the sphere of comparisons, as a result of which they become too general and not very specific.

The essence and problems of the metaphorical approach to organizational culture presented in this book by no means exhaust the complexity of the phenomenon. It is also worth paying attention to the issue of the multitude of proposals and the lack of consensus about a kind of canon of metaphorical methods in management.

M.J. Gannon mentions the metaphorical understanding of organizational culture as a computer, a tree, a whale, a gene pool, a rainbow, a prism, a school, a skyscraper, or a filter[2].

Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.
Metaphorical analysis in leadership bibliography

[1] Oswick C., Jones P., Beyond correspondence? Metaphor in organization theory, “Academy of Management Review”, No. 31(2), 2006, pp. 483–485.

[2] Gannon M.J., Cultural Metaphors: Applications and Exercises, <http://faculty.csusm.edu/mgannon/docs/CULTURALMETAPHORS.pdf>.