Recontextualizing Anthropomorphic Metaphors in Organization Studies

Abstract

In this article, the authors discuss critically the use of "anthropomorphic" metaphors in organization studies (e.g., organizational knowledge, learning, and memory). They argue that, although these metaphors are potentially powerful, because of frequent usage they are at risk of becoming taken for granted and contextually disconnected from their source domain, the human mind. To unleash the heuristic potential of such metaphors, it is necessary to take into account the inherent dynamics and bidirectionality of metaphorical language use. Therefore, the authors propose a methodology for the context-sensitive use of metaphors in organization studies. They illustrate this approach by developing the new metaphor of organizational insomnia, which is informed by recent neuroscientific research on human sleep and its disruptions. The insomnia metaphor provides an alternative way of explaining deficits in organizational knowledge, learning, and memory, which originate in a state of permanent restlessness.

Why Sparing the Rod Does Not Spoil the Child: A Critique of the “Strict Father” Model in Transnational Governance

“…For instance, evaluators have been found to draw on the concept of ''space'' to comprehend the more abstract concept of ''time,'' such as in ''we are looking forward to a brighter tomorrow'' or ''falling behind schedule'' (Boroditsky 2000, p. 4). Likewise, organization theory scholars have suggested that thinking and speaking of organization and organizing is inherently metaphorical in nature (Cornelissen 2004(Cornelissen , 2005Schoeneborn et al 2013), as exemplified by the use of anthropomorphic metaphors to describe organizational characteristics and functions, such as in the ''organizational identity'' and the ''learning organization'' metaphors (Cornelissen 2005).…”

“…Unlike the mechanisms of state governance, TGSs, as well as their organizational structures, procedures, and outcomes, are as yet poorly understood (Djelic and Quack 2008;Stone 2008). Drawing on research in cognitive linguistics (Lakoff 1996(Lakoff , 2008Lakoff & Johnson 1980) and organization theory (Cornelissen 2004;Schoeneborn et al 2013), we argue that in order to make sense of the complexities of TGSs, evaluators often automatically apply concepts from domains they are more familiar with. That is, the conceptual structure underlying evaluators' reasoning about TGSs such as the UNGC is to a large extent metaphorical.…”

The Use of Anthropomorphizing as a Tool for Generating Organizational Theories

“…The first (potential) shortfall arises from a theorizing outcome that is separated from the original assumptions, propositions and related observables (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955;Schoeneborn, Blaschke & Kaufmann, 2013) and, as a result, there is a lost opportunity to engage in multi-level theorizing (Lane, Koka & Pathak, 2006;Thompson, 2011). The second (potential) shortfall arises from borrowing concepts, relationships, and theories, where there is insufficient regard to their relevance as organizational theories (Whetten, Felin, & King, 2009).…”

Nurturing Novelty: Toulmin's Greenhouse, Journal Rankings and Knowledge Evolution

“…The latter path is more challenging and fraught with difficulties. Alvesson et al (2017) suggest that academics adopt polymorphic approaches travelling between disciplines and seeking out academic adventures, to allow ideas to cross-fertilize, and bring novelty to both domains (Schoeneborn et al, 2013). This requires a shift in how individual academics view their role and the careers they follow, and at the same time, institutions need to nurture and develop this process of emergence (see below).…”