strategic management

Journal of Management Inquiry 2016, Vol. 25(3) 338 –343 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1056492615591854 jmi.sagepub.com

Meet the Person

Introduction

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

Rather than offering a broad discussion of the role and status of metaphorical thinking in organizational analysis, this contribution focuses on Gareth Morgan’s perspective on metaphor and considers which particular metaphors have had significant purchase, which have endured, and whether

any new and significant metaphors are emerging within the field. Given that we have known Professor Morgan for more than 20 years, and having written extensively on metaphor ourselves (see, for example, Grant & Oswick, 1996; Oswick & Jones, 2006; Oswick et al., 2002), the interaction pre- sented here unfolded as an emergent conversation rather than as a structured interview.

The “Eight Metaphors” and Beyond

Following an initial discussion of parameters and defini- tional issues, our conversation offered some reflections on established organizational metaphors before going on to con- sider new ones. More specifically, we reviewed the status of the eight metaphors contained in Images of Organization and then we briefly explored the emergence of two new contem- porary metaphors.

Foundational Images or Illustrative Starting Points?

Cliff: Okay. Did you want to talk about . . . we could talk about metaphors themselves. I’d be really

591854 JMIXXX10.1177/1056492615591854Journal of Management InquiryOswick and Grant research-article2015

1City University London, UK 2UNSW Business School, Sydney, Australia

Corresponding Author: Cliff Oswick, Cass Business School, City University London, 106 Bunhill Row, London EC1Y 8TZ, UK. Email: [email protected]

Re-Imagining Images of Organization: A Conversation With Gareth Morgan

Cliff Oswick1 and David Grant2

Abstract In this article, we review the metaphors presented by Morgan in Images of Organization and highlight how they simultaneously act as “relatively static reflections” (i.e., they provide a history of organization theory) and “relatively dynamic projections” (i.e., stimulating the formulation of further organizational images). We also discuss the potential for new organizational metaphors and consider two specific metaphors (i.e., the “global brain” and “organization as media”). We also challenge the established punctuated metaphorical process (i.e., a transfer from a metaphorical source domain to an organizational target domain), propose a dynamic perspective of interchange (i.e., source domain to target domain to source domain and so on), and develop the notion of multidirectionality (i.e., two-way projections between target and source domains).

Keywords organizational behavior, organizational design, organization theory

Oswick and Grant 339

interested in having a little chat about them. You previously mentioned the phrase, “the eight metaphors.”2 We ought to talk about how the metaphors have changed, whether the original metaphors still have purchase. So do you still think they’re relevant?

Gareth: Oh, absolutely. They’re relevant historically, right? If you want to understand organization and where it’s come from and how organization theory has developed, then obviously the eight metaphors are actually relevant to that. In many respects Images of Organization is an analysis of the history of organization through metaphor, right? And that’s where I always start. But, the point is now that metaphors have different sig- nificance, it’s going back to the idea we have previously talked about in terms of context and the importance of metaphor in a context, so building upon what you’ve just said, it’s clear that organizations are shifting from hierarchical structures to flat networks. Basically, new meta- phors are needed for understanding this. Sure you can get some degree of understanding net- works through the images of the brain or of cul- ture or of the organism, but, obviously new metaphors are forcing themselves into our atten- tion. So that metaphor [i.e., the “flat network”] in particular is one that’s obviously very relevant.

David: Do you see them as new root metaphors, or met- aphors that may emanate out of the original eight?

Gareth: Well, that becomes a little bit of a game really of whether you want to make the eight work, which you can to a huge degree. But, it would be stupid for me to defend just eight metaphors when the whole purpose of images of organization is to say . . . to talk about the way of thinking and how, if you accept that the way of thinking is metaphorical, then why would you limit your- self, okay, and so I’ve always said that they’re illustrative. So it becomes clear that we’ve got to add to them and different people are doing that and legitimately.

Big Data and Big Brother

David: Any examples [of metaphors that have been added to] that really work for you? That appeal to you personally?

Gareth: Yeah, well obviously the idea of the global brain, which is a variation, if you want, on the brain metaphor, but it’s not really, it goes way beyond it, but clearly the Internet as a simple

example of that and then there is “big data.” Big data in this world, that’s hugely important. Think about the Foucauldian metaphor, the pan- opticon and the whole idea of discipline and self-discipline, punishment, surveillance. Link that now to big data, look at what all the big tech companies are doing . . .

Cliff: Yes, but it seems to me that it’s one of those metaphors that has been a bit of a slow burn metaphor, to use a metaphor to talk about meta- phors, that when I talked to managers and stu- dents, 10, 15, 20, 25 years ago about the idea of surveillance and disciplinary power, a lot of them just couldn’t get that idea at all. I think it’s one of those metaphors that’s come of age with the increase in the actual prevalence of surveil- lance in society [e.g., the proliferation of video cameras in public spaces] and greater awareness of the power of institutions.

Gareth: Exactly. David: Well I think it’s freed up, it’s left it shackles

behind, if you like, of . . . it was mixed up in discussions about Neo-Marxism and control in the workplace, which is a different thing. It’s that ideological bent that’s got left behind, so that when you’re talking about surveillance now, you’re talking about surveillance in so- called free world . . . we’re supposedly never . . . have never been as free as we are in many ways, but are actually constrained.

Gareth: Yes, I agree with that. But, it’s interesting because there are two elements to this. It seems to me, it’s external surveillance, which we can all see, but in the Foucauldian model as well, it’s how this becomes self-surveillance and so the way in which we are looking . . .

Cliff: Self-discipline, yeah . . . Gareth: . . . self-disciplining, right, which is incredibly

powerful in terms of the way things are working out and also I think we have to recognize how big data and how the big companies like Google and the like, and the collection of data, are basi- cally another form of surveillance in the sense that they’re understanding . . .

Cliff: How people behave. Gareth: . . . how they behave, what their interests are,

what they do, what they buy, etc. etc. etc. And, what they’re actually doing in many respects is not feeding back the differences, what you don’t think or what you don’t like, they’re feeding back stuff that reinforces your point of view. So if you want to take this on it becomes . . . we’re in a self-affirming bubble, where the external reality that we’re encountering all the time is

340 Journal of Management Inquiry 25(3)

reinforcing whatever patterns that we’ve got. So there are very, very interesting implications of this, so clearly this becomes a major line of development.

Cliff: Yeah. I also think, and you may not agree with me here, but the power of some of the meta- phors is when they’re juxtaposed. I don’t mean blended or multiple lenses, but they are just held in tension. So the kind of, the machine metaphor and the organism metaphor are best understood in relation to each other and when we start to talk about the panopticon, I wonder about the kind of emergence of social movements and the whole idea of activism as a response to some of the disciplinary power issues and the panopti- con. So in other words, just as you have a play between the organic metaphor and the mecha- nistic one, that you have this sort of . . . these things almost grow in relation to each other as ways of thinking, so I wonder whether the kind of . . .

Gareth: Symbiotic, almost? To use a metaphor, but yes. Cliff: Symbiotic, yes. Possibly, because I do think . . .

I kind of introduced it there but, I don’t know how you think or what you think the kind of . . . the social networks, activism, mobilization, all these kinds of . . . they seem to be very pertinent ways of thinking about a new form of organiza- tional metaphor.

Gareth: Yes, linking into the concept of self-organiza- tion, right, of emergent organization and com- plex adaptive systems thinking has got a lot to contribute to this, but here you get into, where’s the driving metaphor? Where’s the root meta- phor in it all? I think that’s hugely important to understand those social movements and what the driving metaphors behind them are. It’s utterly fascinating. So clearly new metaphors are being developed and rightly so.

Images of Media-ization?

Gareth: There’s one other metaphor I’ve got to put on the table, because you asked me what metaphors that I think are important and I said, the global brain . . . and we discussed the panopticon. The other one is this notion of organization as media.

David: Oh, yes. Gareth: Which is one that I’ve floated around, because

I’ve been very . . . not very involved, I’ve been flirting, I guess, with Marshall McLuhan3 for the best part of 20, 30 years. I don’t know if you can do much more than flirt with the ideas because the whole notion is that there’s . . . it’s

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

Cliff: Yeah, and I can see that, and I think it’s always interesting to then sort of look at the second order metaphors. So, for example, the “organi- zation as family” metaphor encourages us to look at second order comparisons such as pater- nalism, the maternal figure, family feuds, and family values. Following through on that orga- nization as media take, companies used to talk about mission statements, the written. Now it’s about brands and a brand isn’t an . . .

Gareth: It’s an image. . . . Cliff: . . . it’s an image, and do you know what, brands

are consumed as much by employees as they are by external agents these days. So it kind of plays to the idea that if there’s media metaphors tak- ing . . . really taking hold, then we find some of these artifacts that are around that move away from mission statements to, what’s our brand? And our brand is something you can’t easily capture in just a written form, and a mission statement is exactly that. It’s a statement that’s written and it’s that literacy thing and the media thing really does play into things like, as I say, brand.

David: I think the thing that you’re capturing there is that we’re moving towards a much more

Oswick and Grant 341

sensory approach to understanding, which is interesting in itself, because it may be almost a full circle, going back to what we were talking about earlier. So without the literal [written word approach], we’re much more reliant on our five senses. . . . And that either . . . I’m not quite sure, but it either creates the potential for new metaphors or it takes us back to some of the original real basic metaphors that we’re founded on and reinterpreting those, coming up with dif- ferent metonymical outcomes, if you like.

Gareth: No, it’s fascinating, because it will potentially revolutionize the whole of science and the whole scientific thinking and the notion of research and . . .

Cliff: Have you heard of these things called “emojis”?

Gareth: Emojis? Cliff: Right. Emojis are symbols that you use in text

messages. Teenagers use them on their mobile phones—smiley face, sad face, heart, etc. There are hundreds of them on phones. You can repre- sent happiness, sadness, love, anger . . .

Gareth: Nothing written. Cliff: No, and as I understand it kids are sending com-

plete text messages, which have no words and consist only of a string of images.

Gareth: I love that. You see it’s just a little illustration of how this is all unfolding in a way that we can’t possibly appreciate. So it’s clear that Images of Organization is not about the eight metaphors, but it’s about that type of thinking that can help us get into this . . . deal with this world a bit faster than we might otherwise would, particu- larly as academics.

Concluding Thoughts

There are several main inferences that can be derived from the interaction presented in this article. The first concerns Gareth Morgan’s reflections regarding the production and consumption of the eight metaphors contained in Images of Organization. It is clear that his metaphors continue to be popular and relevant (e.g. Human Relations have a special issue planned that is devoted to Morgan’s eight metaphors). For Morgan, the continued allure of his metaphors is their historical relevance as a collection of insights that help to make sense of how organization theory has developed. He states in our discussion that “. . . in many respects Images of Organization is an analysis of the history of organiza- tion through metaphor.” Although the eight metaphors have an enduring historical significance, it is also apparent that Morgan wants them to be seen as illustrative rather than exhaustive images and, as such, that they are deployed

going forward as a basis for generating further insights and ways of thinking. In this regard, his metaphors simultane- ously work as “relatively static reflections” (i.e., they cap- ture the essence of the history of organization theory) and “relatively dynamic projections” (i.e., offering a reference point and/or trigger for further metaphorical entailments and developments).

A further interesting aspect of our conversation was that it highlighted two new organizational metaphors that resonate with contemporary organization life, namely, “the global brain” and “organization as media.” The “global brain” met- aphor draws attention to the neural-like interconnectedness of a digital world combined with the increasing significance of “big data.” This metaphor also reveals the dark side of “big data,” in the Foucauldian sense of disciplinary power and surveillance, as ever more intrusive phenomena for indi- viduals as employees, consumers, and citizens. The “organi- zation as media” metaphor draws from Marshall McLuhan’s work—especially the idea that “the medium is the message” (McLuhan, 1964)—to provoke a consideration of the demise of the written word as a cornerstone of organizing (e.g., job descriptions, rules, mission statements, etc.) and a shift toward what Morgan describes as “electronic-mediated, multi-sensory modes of understanding.”

If we reflect upon the characteristics of the “global brain” and “media” metaphors, it appears that they are very differ- ent to Morgan’s “eight metaphors.” The earlier metaphors seem to be far more bounded insofar as it is possible to con- ceive of an individual organization as a discrete metaphorical entity (e.g., as a machine, organism, culture, or brain). By contrast, it is hard to envisage a single organization as a “global brain” or “media.” Instead, they are more easily depicted as synonymous with organizations at an aggregated level. Moreover, these new metaphors can be appropriately positioned as “images of society and social life” as much as “images of organization and organizational life.” Somewhat ironically, this perhaps, at least to a certain extent, is in itself a reflection of living within a digitally connected world with increasingly blurred boundaries between organizations (and between business and society more generally). Hence, we posit that new organizational metaphors are not organiza- tion-specific and that they are largely driven by wider social and technological changes rather than organization-centric imperatives.

When we reviewed the transcript of our meeting, we noticed that the discourse concerning established meta- phors (i.e., the machine and the organism) and the new metaphors did not entirely adhere to the conventional wis- dom on metaphor-use where the process is presented as involving the projection of a relatively concrete “source domain” (i.e., a specific metaphor) onto a relatively abstract “target domain” (i.e., an organization) to generate insights or new ways thinking (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Morgan, 1980, 1986). More specifically, it appeared that

342 Journal of Management Inquiry 25(3)

the process of elaborating upon, and projecting a metaphor typically required the concurrent articulation of an inverse or opposite metaphorical image. So, for example, the dis- cussion of machine metaphor incorporated the concomi- tant use of the organism metaphor. Equally, the discussion of “big data” (i.e., “the global brain”—control and surveil- lance) was accompanied by a discussion of “big brother” (i.e., “social movements”—autonomy and resistance). And, the discussion of “organization as media” based on “electronic-mediated, multi-sensory modes of understand- ing” (e.g., images, sounds, feelings) was juxtaposed with “the literal” (i.e., the written). This might suggest that rather than seeing the metaphorical process as a two-part projection (i.e., from “source domain” to “target domain”), we might further explore the metaphorical process as a form of tripartite correspondence (an interplay between a “source domain,” a “shadow source domain,” and a “target domain”).

Finally, this last point leads us to a final closing provoca- tion: If, as Morgan has indicated, the metaphors produced in Images of Organization should be utilized to generate further ways of thinking, we could further rethink the established metaphorical process (i.e., a transfer from a metaphorical source domain to an organizational target domain) in terms of the extent to which it can be thought of as being fixed and relatively discrete. By adopting a dynamic perspective of movement from one metaphor to another (i.e., source domain to target domain to source domain and so on) and embracing the notion of multi-directionality4 (i.e., target domains can also project onto source domains), we can create more play- ful and less constrained ways of using metaphors that are likely to produce more innovative ways of thinking and cre- ate new images of organization.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- ship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

1. For example, the first edition of Images of Organization sold just under 250,000 copies.

2. The eight metaphors refer to those contained in Images of Organization (Morgan, 1986).

3. Marshall McLuhan formed the notions of the “medium is the message” and the “global village” and is credited with predict- ing the advent of the Internet (see McLuhan, 1964).

4. A multi-directional view of metaphor has been developed within cognitive linguistics (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002) but has not really permeated through to management and organi- zation theory.

References

Broekstra, G. (1998). An organization is a conversation. In D. Grant, T. Keenoy, & C. Oswick (Eds.), Discourse and organi- zation (pp. 152-176). London, England: Sage.

Cornelissen, J. P. (2002). On the organizational identity metaphor. British Journal of Management, 13, 259-268.

Dunford, R., & Palmer, I. (1996). Metaphors in popular man- agement discourse: The case of corporate restructuring. In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 95-109). London, England: Sage.

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Grant, D., & Oswick, C. (Eds.). (1996). Metaphor and organiza- tions. London, England: Sage.

Hazen, M. A. (1993). Towards polyphonic organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 6(5), 15-26.

Kumra, S. (1996). The organization as a human entity. In C. Oswick & D. Grant (Eds.), Organisation development: Metaphorical explorations (pp. 35-53). London, England: Pitman.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mangham, I. L., & Overington, M. A. (1987). Organizations as the- atre: A social psychology of dramatic appearances. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in orga- nization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 605-622.

Morgan, G. (1981). The schismatic metaphor and its implications for organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 2, 23-44.

Morgan, G. (1983). More on metaphor: Why we cannot con- trol tropes in administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 601-607.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Morgan, G. (1993). Imaginization: The art of creative management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Morgan, G. (1996). Is there anything more to be said about meta- phor? In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organi- zations (pp. 227-240). London, England: Sage.

Morgan, G. (2011). Reflections on Images of Organization and its implications for organization and environment. Organization & Environment, 24, 459-478.

Oswick, C., & Jones, P. (2006). Beyond correspondence? Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 31, 483-485.

Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2002). Metaphor and ana- logical reasoning in organization theory: Beyond orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review, 27, 294-303.

Oswick, C., Lowe, S., & Jones, P. (1996). Organisational culture as personality: Lessons from psychology? In C. Oswick & D. Grant (Eds.), Organization development: Metaphorical explo- rations (pp. 106-117). London, England: Pitman.

Tsoukas, H. (1993). Organizations as soap bubbles: An evolutionary perspective on organization design. Systems Practice, 6, 501-515.

Zack, M. H. (2000). Jazz improvisation and organizing: Once more from the top. Organization Science, 11, 227-234.

Oswick and Grant 343

Author Biographies

Cliff Oswick is professor of organization theory and deputy dean at Cass Business School, City University London, UK. His research interests focus on the application of aspects of discourse, drama- turgy, tropes, narrative and rhetoric to the study of management, organizations, organizing processes, and organizational change. He has published more than 140 academic articles and contributions to edited volumes. He is the European editor for Journal of Organizational Change Management and associate editor for Journal of Change Management. He is also a member of the National Training Laboratory, a trustee of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, and co-director of the International Centre for Research on Organizational Discourse, Strategy and Change.

David Grant is a professor of organizational studies and senior deputy dean at UNSW Business School, Sydney, Australia. His research focuses on how language and other symbolic media influ- ence the practice of leadership and organization-wide, group- and individual-level change. He has published on these topics in a range of peer-reviewed and practitioner journals as well as numerous handbooks and edited volumes. He is also co-editor of the Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse (2004, with Cynthia Hardy, Cliff Oswick, and Linda Putnam), Metaphor and Organizations (1996, with Cliff Oswick), and Organization Development: Metaphorical Explorations (1996, with Cliff Oswick). He is a member of the National Training Laboratory and a founding mem- ber of the International Centre for Organizational Discourse Strategy and Change.