The Use of Anthropomorphizing as a Tool for Generating Organizational Theories

Abstract

Despite admonishments that anthropomorphizing represents a serious error in scientific thinking, this review shows that anthropomorphizing has been a critically important tool for developing influential theories in organization studies. Analyzing the literatures related to organizational identity and organizational knowledge reveals how organization theorists build on their rich and highly accessible understanding of humans (i.e., the self and others) to (1) make guesses and sense of organizational anomalies; (2) articulate theoretical mechanisms to build stronger theories; and (3) create plausible stories that facilitate sensegiving. Our review shows how some theorists by using particular approaches were able to use anthropomorphizing to generate new organizational theories, yet anthropomorphizing does not always lead to such salutary outcomes. Anthropomorphizing is less likely to enhance theorizing in organization studies when the theorist does not sufficiently doubt their guesses about organizational phenomena, fails to develop stronger explanations of the "how" and "why" of the theory thereby only partially exploring the social mechanisms underlying the proposed relationships, and fails in their attempts to tell the theory's "story". . We conclude with a discussion of the conditions under which anthropomorphizing is more or less effective.

The Leadership Process During an Organizational Crisis

“…However, it is very important to identify the crisis signals in the incubation period, trying to avoid the occurrence of the triggering event or, at least, to prepare the organization for the critical period. It is important to remember that a crisis, like other organizational events, is a fluid, unstable, dynamic situation and the recurrent happenings are in a state of constant flux (Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2015;Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001). In this context, the operative word is recognize.…”

Run Away or Stick Together? The Impact of Organization-Specific Adverse Events on Alliance Partner Defection

“…Third, in specifying our theory, we address organizations as our central actors to facilitate sensegiving to readers. We build upon existing evidence that anthropomorphizing has been a critically important tool for developing influential theories in organization studies (Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2015). While various individuals in the partner organizations may be involved in an alliance, and thus may hold differing perceptions of an organization-specific event, the key socio-psychological concepts developed in our framework relate to the individuals in charge of the alliance.…”

Images of Entrepreneurship: Exploring Root Metaphors and Expanding Upon Them

“…Metaphors have been established as important and constructive research tools (Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011; Cornelissen, 2006a; Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2011, 2015; Weick, 1989), but entrepreneurship scholars have primarily focused on their use outside of the research community, for example, by entrepreneurs (Anderson & Warren, 2011; Clarke & Holt, 2017; Cornelissen, Clarke, & Cienki, 2012; Drakopoulou-Dodd, 2002; Hill & Levenhagen, 1995; Hyrsky, 1999; Koiranen, 1995; Pitt, 1998), students, and teachers (Anderson et al., 2009; Drakopoulou-Dodd, Jack, & Anderson, 2013), and the media (Anderson & Warren, 2011; Nicholson & Anderson, 2005). With few exceptions (e.g., Anderson, 2005), studies using metaphors as a foundation for entrepreneurship theorizing have tended to draw on biological metaphors (e.g., Cardon, Zietsma, Saparito, Matherne, & Davis, 2005; Clarke, Holt, & Blundel, 2014; Coşgel, 1996; Lundmark & Westelius, 2014).…”

“…Therefore, the root metaphors applied in the mainstream of our field have important implications for the basic assumptions that are consciously and/or unconsciously propagated. Explicating these root metaphors enables us to compare and contrast such assumptions and to identify the downplayed aspects of entrepreneurship; it ultimately helps us to break out of ingrained conceptualizations and experiment with alternative ways of understanding the focal phenomena (Alvesson, Hardy, & Harley, 2008; Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011; Morgan, 1980, 2006, 2016; Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2011, 2015).…”

“…We complement these studies by focusing on which published research has taken root in the mainstream of our field to gain a deeper understanding of where the thought patterns came from and what they mean for our current understanding. Second, scholars have investigated how to use metaphors to theorize (Cornelissen, 2006a, 2006b; Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2015; Weick, 1989) and they have used metaphors to explore how entrepreneurship is conceptualized outside of academia (Anderson, Drakopoulou-Dodd, & Jack, 2009; Drakopoulou-Dodd, 2002; Nicholson & Anderson, 2005). We use metaphors to take stock of the body of knowledge from a unifying framework (a set of metaphors) in order to explore overlaps, constraints, and gaps, and to identify promising future directions for the field.…”