Metaphors in understanding organizations better Lijo John FPM06/10-Q Metaphor tries to draw analogies between two entities of which

one is usually known with greater amount of clarity compared to the other. The use of metaphors in understanding organizations have been criticized both for its applicability as a tool for understanding and explaining the observed phenomenon and also for bring out biases in understanding the observed phenomenon since metaphor somehow binds the rationality. Nevertheless, the metaphor still is widely used may be due to very fact that it has received much attention for both supporters and critics. Morgan (1980) argues that the discipline of the organization theory has been imprisoned by the metaphorical explanations of the observations. He argues that the use of metaphors have lead to an evolution of the neo-exploratory phase of the organizational theory which contradicts the interpretive, radical humanist and the radical structural paradigms. These paradigms are not in line with the arguments presented by the orthodoxy of the organizational theory explanation backed by the functionalist explanations. The functionalists argue that the action orientation of the members of the organization may be to achieve the future states, whereas the interpretive theorists argue that the action is to form a bridge between the past and the future. The organizational theory from the radical humanist and the radical structuralist perspectives cannot bring in a wider understanding of the nature of the organization through an exclusive in the organizational behaviour. This requires a deeper probe into the use of metaphor for integrating the understandings form the different paradigm so of thought process so as to embody a single knowledge which tries to link the paradigms in such a way that the individualistic identity is maintained yet the diversity explains the facets of organizational theory. Morgan (1983) criticises the use of tropes (extreme constructionist language) should not be used in the pretext of metaphorical explanation of the observed phenomenon. He argues that the metaphor makes sense in the primal way but when it comes to the secondary realm of metonymy (specify the difference between the elements comprising whole) and synecdoche (expand the similarity with the context) the metaphor assumes the form of trope which traps itself into the language itself rather than conveying the implied sense. The use of tropes in the organizational study leads to the a formulation of a complex model which rather than adding to the understanding simply affects leads to more ambiguity which seemingly opens new areas of research which is not based on the concrete evidence required for a scientific enquiry. The idea of the science loaded with the metaphors explaining the observations and the implications of these observations cannot be used for deeper analysis. Pinder and Bourgeois (1983) negate the arguments of Morgan (1983) stating that the use of metaphor should be controlled rather than being avoided completely. The use of uncontrolled and misrepresented utilization of the metaphors for all observations need to be analysed for getting more effective utilization of metaphors for explaining the phenomenon. The language of the metaphor becomes disdainful for the experience translates into the metaphor which

cannot be explained in a better way by any other tool. There is a distinct difference between the tropes and the language of metaphor which cannot be utilized interchangeably and therefore making the comparison uneventful. The organizational identity metaphor has gained wide acceptance and has become academic interest since it was first propounded in 1985. The organizational identity metaphor morphs the identity of an individual into an organization creating a distinct and individualistic persona of the organization drawing the parallels form the individual which is juxtaposed which is central, enduring, and distinctive about an organization's character. Organizational identity is typically taken by scholars to be an organization's members' collective understanding of the features presumed to be central and relatively permanent, and that distinguish the organization from other organizations (Gioia, et al., 2000a). Cornelissen (2002a) questions heuristic value of the organizational identity metaphor. The organizational identity metaphor can be used to explain the organizational dynamics by compromising the theoretical framework of the organization. The organizational identity metaphor combines the social psychology an individual identity. This combination does not give an opportunity to test the validity of the metaphor. The hypothesis associated with the metaphor itself needs to be redefined to fit to the context its representing. Since the combination draws similarity from the various facts itself, it does not qualify to be a metaphor in originality but a metaphor for need of one. The interpretation and the correction stages of metaphor analyses the raw metaphor to form a kind of more comprehensive analogy for the concept that is being discussed to form more effective analogy of the concept being presented, which the organizational identity metaphor does not qualify. The identification of similarity needs to be based on a heuristic process which again gives enough time for the evolution and modification of the metaphor. But in this case, the metaphor itself does is not fit to be considered as one since its a paraphrased idea to seemingly fit the definition of the metaphor. Organizational identity comes from the sociology and the individualistic interaction with the surroundings. But he links used to analyze the interaction by it are not related in any way to organization. This effectively the interactional similarity drawn does not actually explain the phenomenon. Since the metaphor essentially draws the analogies between the individual and the organization, there is a high probability that the individual viewing the organization may bring in his view while explaining the relations. Thus the metaphor fails to explain the universal commonness that it was devised to actually represent Cornelissen (2002b). Gioia et al.,(2002a) responds to the arguments stating that the Cornelissens arguments maintains that the organizational identity metaphor has totally blinded ones understanding of the organization is totally baseless. He maintains that the organization being a set of people needs the identity metaphor to explain the interactions in the organization because it not only gives voice to the informants but also that our analytical metaphors are best suited for explaining the interaction directly observed by the constituting members of the organization. Moreover the organizational identity metaphor is comparatively new in the arena and it needs time before all the interaction explained using the metaphor to be validated and accepted. Identity metaphor tries to explain why some people tend to care for the organization more than the others. The metaphor captures the internal dynamics which can be very difficult to

explain in other context or ways. This transfer of the identity form the individual to the organization is possible. This transfer is possible since the metaphor itself is used to explain the by drawing analogies. But the question is how similar they are. The levels of an individual will be different from that of the organization. Thus the can these two levels be compared is what needs to be analyzed (Gioia et al.,(2002b) References Bourgeois, V.W. & Pinder, C.C. (1983). Contrasting philosophical perspectives administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), 608-613 Corenelissen, J.P. (2002a). On the organizational identity metaphor. British Journal of Management, 13(3), 259-268. Corenelissen, J.P. (2002b). The merit and mischief of metaphor: a reply to Gioia, Schultz and Corley. British Journal of Management, 13(3), 277-279. Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M.,& Corley, K.G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63-81. Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M.,& Corley, K.G. (2002a). Metaphorical Shadow boxing: a response to Corenelissens reply to our rejoinder. British Journal of Management, 13(3), 281 Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M.,& Corley, K.G. (2002b). On celebrating the organizational identity metaphor: a rejoinder to Corenelissen. British Journal of Management, 13(3), 269-275. Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organizational theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 605-622. Morgan, G. (1983). Metaphor on metaphor: why we cannot control tropes in administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), 601-607.