Metaphors and Organizations

In Gareth Morgan’s famous work ‘Images of Organization’, introduces the concept of the metaphor itself as a most useful and logical tool to describe, understand and work through change in organizations.

Organizational behavior and development are theories. A theory is a metaphor, in the sense that it is in our minds and is meant to shed light on what is real, though the theory itself is not reality, and metaphors are by definition limited. Theory and metaphors are partial. When we use theories to describe organizational dynamics, we might as well do so consistently as metaphor.

Practically, metaphors are easier to grasp than theory. Additionally, when non-theorists describe organizations, more often than not they are applying metaphors, even if they are not aware of it. In other words, metaphors serve as a lens through which to view organizations.

In different chapters the book discusses organizations as: (1) machines, (2) organisms, (3) brains, (4) cultures, (5) political systems, (6) psychic prisons, (7) flux and transformation, (8) instruments of domination.

The mechanical prism of organization is in a way the classic Western-industrial view. In Greek, the word organon means ‘instrument’, so that the organization is literally something a functional thing. It is traced to Frederick the Great in the 18th century who learned from the Romans and structured the Prussian military in such a way to receive orders from the top and flow directly through the ranks. He also trained the soldiers into extreme obedience.

Frederick Taylor (1856-1915), pioneer of modern scientific management, established a methodology to turn the factory made of men and actual machines into a clockwork assembly line, which influenced management theory and thought into viewing human workers in a mechanical way, and considering motivation only as to mobilize production. This approach is useful for the economic model, and for generally raising levels of efficiency. Max Weber (1864-1920), pioneer of sociology and theorist, claimed that bureaucracy, as systematization through hierarchies of human activity in an efficient economic manner, is the prime way of ordering society, though a threat to individualism.

The natural prism of organization is sometimes associated with Eastern-humanistic thought, more circular rather than linear. It draws not from industrialism but biological terms. Organisations are living things, organisms within a natural environment. They must adapt to circumstances, by moving to different habitats, and evolve their skills and physical conditions to face threats. Organisations grow in health or become ill or wounded, even traumatized, and they have a lifecycle - birth and death. There are various ‘species’ of organizations, and one may speak of ‘survival of the fittest’. Contingency theory of organizations posits that in each particular situation organizations should always be managed and led differently, and there is no right way to make decisions and organize.

In the famous ‘hierarchy of needs’ of Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), a pioneer of humanistic psychology, human behavior and motivation in the workplace is not simply a matter of material incentives but rather reflect natural needs of the human being. Like other living species, people first establish their physiological needs for survival, such as food and water, or rather livelihood. People will establish their need for safety, to secure their livelihood and make a living without threatening their own health. Then people establish themselves socially, meeting social needs in the workplace, and beyond that humans seek higher psychological goals of esteem and philosophical fulfillment: self-actualization.

Organizations as brains is still somewhat of a natural metaphor. This view relates to the ‘learning organization’. In other words, an organization, like humans, possess a DNA, knowledge that is spread through all the cells and organs. Organizations learn as they go along, improving and adapting, conserving information and practical wisdom.

The flux and transformation chapter also relates to the natural world, as a metaphor. Among other things, it views the natural world as organized or chaotic, depending on the framing and level of focus. In other words, looking at a forest from afar seems beautiful and structured, but when we zoom in we see no consistent order. If we inspect matter through a microscope, we see a complex system of cells and elements. Autopoiesis (self-producing) means that the organism, or the cell, is not really distinct from the complex natural system, but rather it operates to distinguish itself, it self-organizes itself in relation to other matter. Thus the world is chaotic and not organized, unless we frame it as such, and frame ourselves through a lens, or self-organizes ourselves as a cognitive function. Also, because the natural world is so complex and random, while anything could set sequences of events in different directions in something of a butterfly-effect, the future is unpredictable, like the weather. This approach is also skeptic of management-proper theory and attitudes.

The political and cultural metaphors are also enlightening and widely used, as a social prism. Culture is perhaps more of a lens than a metaphor. There are multiple layers of a culture in any given organization. The organization itself may develop its own culture. Industries have cultures. Countries, people groups, various vocations themselves, and more, are influenced by common threads of behavior. It is hard to see from the outside but culture is a dominating force. Culture may be an asset, or detrimental. In order to instigate change, culture must be taken into account. It is a medium of influence.

Politics and organizations may refer to political dynamics between people inside an organization and between organizations, or to systems of government running the organization. In an authoritarian organization, the leaders hold all the power. A democratic organization would make decisions with the participation of many workers, and in some cases choose or elect the executives. In bureaucracies the workers are distanced from the offices of leadership, while in technocratic organizations those with professional knowledge hold the power. Some may even speak of anarchistic organizations, where workers systematically operate themselves. When viewing the organizational dynamics between people as political, we employ terms and concepts that are political, such as: interest groups, charisma and authority, power struggles, lobbying, unions, mutiny, coalitions, conflict resolution, territoriality, compromise, checks and balances, law, policy, public opinion, strategy, and more.

#development