Metaphor in the Scientific Study of
Organizational Behavior and Negotiation

Under Development

In reviewing research into underlying dimensions of the negotiation process, Gelfand & McCusker (2001) find heavy use of battle and game metaphor (e.g., position, common ground, strategy) and theater/cinema metaphor (e.g., dialog, storyline, frames, roles).

This would seem to reflect the operating metaphors of both the (predominantly Western) scientists studying the negotiation process as well as negotiators themselves. What additional metaphors might be generated that would bring out other, neglected aspects of the negotiation process?

Because it is found within cultural concepts of, for example, battle, games, and theater, and because bodily movement elements are so much more universal, Primary Conceptual Metaphor would seem an obvious choice for researchers.

Researchers and practitioners of management science also demonstrate some enthusiasm for metaphor. Michael Lissack presents the following:

Starbuck & Milliken (1988) : “Perceptual frameworks [metaphors] categorize data, assign likelihoods to data, hide data, and fill in missing data.”

March (1984) argues that "organizational life is as much about interpretation, intellect, metaphors of theory, and fitting our history into an understanding, as it is about decisions and coping with the environment." (Weick, 1995) Clegg (1994) goes on to state: "Multiple ways of looking at organizations are required to achieve better understandings of their complexities and contradictions. Any single metaphor is partial."

Schön (1983) in discussing problem setting notes, "we select what we will treat as the 'things' of the situation, we set the boundaries of our attention to it, and we impose upon it a coherence .... Problem setting is a process in which, interactively, we name the things to which we will attend and frame the context in which we will attend to them." This use of frames and metaphor is integral to the process Weick (1995) defines as "sensemaking... to construct, filter, frame, create facticity, and render the subject into something more tangible."

Morgan (1986) is well known for having identified a series of metaphors which can be used to acquire understanding of organizations. These metaphors range from viewing the organization as a machine to viewing it as an ameba. Weick (1993) cites an architectural metaphor as inappropriate for organizational design because it portrays "a bounded activity that occurs in a fixed point in time" focusing on" structures rather than processes". He proposes instead the metaphor of improvisation as in a theater. "Design, viewed from the perspective of improvisation, is more emergent, more continuous, more filled with surprise, more difficult to control, more tied to the content of action, and more affected by what people pay attention to than are designs implied by architecture."(emphasis added)

Ghosal and Mintzberg (1994) "propose a new metaphor -- the spinning top. It suggests that the energy of diversified corporations should be invested into sustaining a dynamic balance." They go on to discuss relative distributions of effort between the base, core, and bulk of the organization when viewed through the filter of the spinning top. Why make use of this metaphor? "Our metaphor allows us to address the following questions."

The famous garbage can metaphor (Cohen, March & Oldsen, 1972) has been a valued tool in the arsenal of the organizational scientist. Others have made use of the brain (Garud and Kotha, 1994), the U.S. civil war (Greenberg, 1995), jazz (Weick, 1979), catching a ball (Lane, Malerba, et al, 1995), Indian tribes (Hill and Levenhagen, 1995), and the list goes on. Gersick (1994) writes of "the difference between an alarm clock and a thermostat as attention regulating devices" while discussing strategic change within a new venture. Nonaka (1991, 1994) suggests that knowledge creation is associated with language and require the creative use of metaphors.

Mental models matter in that they guide the attention field of managers. "Managers attend to what they believe is important to their firm's performance. Their belief may be based on their own or other people' s attributions.... these mental models will influence attention, and determine what environmental data is noticed and interpreted, all of which together constitute a major factor in guiding and directing organizational activities." (Grohnaug and Lines 1995)

Overman (1996) writes, "As metaphor, image, language, and patterns of thinking result in organizational realities.... the use of metaphor is the first path for chaos and quantum practitioners." 

George Johnson (1995) writing of the complexity researchers at the Santa Fe Institute notes, "Once a filter is installed in the brain, it bends everything we see. Gazing out on the jungle, a Darwinist sees the beauty of natural selection... A structuralist imagines instead a multidimensional fitness landscape... Like all of us, both are faced with never knowing the extent to which the patterns they see are out in the world or imposed by the prisms of our nervous systems." 

Complexity theory has its own language, its own means of describing things. In a 1994 issue of the Journal of Management Inquiry, several articles were devoted to the concept of chaos and complexity theory. As Johnson and Burton (1994) phrased it "Chaos theory and its close cousin, complexity theory, have recently made their appearance in the social science literature, including studies of organizations. The trend toward loosely applying nonlinear dynamical theories to organizations troubles us... The essential problem remains: How should these concepts be applied?" The editor of the nontraditional research section of the same issue, Jean Bartunek (1994) writes, " I have some concerns about the long-term adequacy of the [complexity] metaphor. It provides intriguing ways of seeing organizational events from new perspectives. However... without the empirical work that accompanies it..." 

In these concerns lies the first root of this inquiry. Bartunek concluded her thoughts by stating, "Further work that attempts not only to make use of the metaphor...but also to explore its adequacy will be of value." James Begun (1994) in the same issue "describe[s] the directions in which chaos and complexity theory propel organization science, and why the field needs that push.... Chaos and complexity theory invite us to explore the 95% of the organizational world that we have avoided because it is too dark, murky and intimidating. Or, our theories and methods simply have not allowed us to see it... For organization scientists today, this requires that we... overcome distaste of "controlling tropes" and metaphors to approximate complex realities..."

Partial List of Lissak’s References 

Bartunek, J., 1994, "Editor's Introduction." Journal of Management Inquiry 3(4): 336-338. 

Begun, J. W., 1994, "Chaos and Complexity: Frontiers of Organization Science." Journal of Management Inquiry 3(4): 329-335. 

Cohen, M., J. March, et al., 1972, "A garbage can model of organizational choice." Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 1-25. 

Garud, R., 1994, "Using the Brain as a Metaphor to Model Flexible Production Systems." Academy of Management Review 19(4): 671-698. 

Gersick, C. J. G., 1994, "Pacing Strategic Change: The Case of a New Venture." Academy of Management Journal 37(1): 9-45. 

Ghoshal, S. and H. Mintzberg, 1994, "Diversifiction and Diversifact." California Management Review 37(1): 8-27. 

Greenberg, D. N. ,1995, "Blue Versus Gray: A Metaphor Constraining Sensemaking Around a Restructuring." Group & Organization Management 20(2): 183-209. 

Grohnaug, K. and R. Lines, 1995, "Managerial Focus in Changing Environments." Scandinavian Journal of Management 11, 3: 283-293. 

Hill, R. C. and M. Levenhagen, 1995, "Metaphors and Mental Models: Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Innovative and Entrepreneurial Activities." Journal of Management 21(6): 1057-1074. 

Johnson, G., 1995, Fire in the Mind. London, Viking. 

Johnson, J. L. and B. K. Burton, 1994, "Chaos and Complexity Theory for Management: Caveat Emptor." Journal of Management Inquiry 3(4): 320-328. 

Lane, D., F. Malerba, et al., 1995, Choice and Action. Santa Fe Institute Working Papers 95-01-004. 

March, J. G., 1984, "How we talk and act: Administrative theory and administrative life," in Leadership and Organizational Culture, T. J. Sergiovanni and J. E. Corbolly. Urbana, eds., Univ. of Illinois Press: 18-35. 

Morgan, G., 1986, Images of the Organization, Newbury Park, California, Sage Press. 

Nonaka, I., 1991, "The Knowledge Creating Company." Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec): 96-104. 

Nonaka, I., 1994, "A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation." Organization Science 5: 14-37. 

Overman, E. S., 1996, "The New Science of Management: Chaos and Quantum Theory and Method." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6, 1): 75-89. 

Schön, D. A., 1983, The reflective practitioner: How professionals think and act. New York, Basic Books. 

Starbuck, W. H. and F. J. Milliken, 1988, "Executives perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense," in The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers, D. C. Hambrick, ed., Greenwich, CT, JAI. 

Weick, K. E., 1979, The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed., Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley. 

Weick, K. E., 1995, Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Press. 

Weick, K. E. and K. H. Roberts, 1993, "Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks." Administrative Science Quarterly, September 1993.