Metaphor in leadership and management
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.
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.