Metaphors of Organizational Behavior- Influence of Metaphors on Efficient Functioning of a Firm - Literature review Example

Title: Metaphors of organizational behavior  Dated: April 08, 2009 Organization behaviour- Introduction: The organizations are implementing the projects and the programs to attain specific objectives within a specific time with optimum utilization of the available resources. During the project life cycles, the internal and external environment influences the implementation process, resulting in deviation from the outlined objectives. The style of leadership and type of leadership will the use of project tools, technologies and management principles come-up with plausible strategies to cope with the emerging needs especially the successful analysis of metaphors in the organisational behaviours. Composition of the project team adoption of project life cycle model, constructive use of information, energy and other resources are regulated by the authorities through their leadership. Legal issues are regulated through the execution of contracts with the contracting parties. The most striking factor which the project proponents faced is the change management, which is a litmus test for the success of the whole process(1). The dynamic leadership of the organizations is emphasizing on the fulfillment of the objectives for smooth implementation and execution of the projects. Any deviation from these principles would result in derailing the whole implementation mechanism. Meanings of Metaphors in an organization: In a metaphor there could be an implicit or explicit discussion that Mr. A is like Mr. B. Webster's Dictionary defines a metaphor as "a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used for one thing is applied to another" – therefore, Mr. A is Mr. B. The process of relationship exchange and interaction between Mr. A and Mr. B itself creates a new relationship/meaning (2). In etymological terms, metaphor actually means "transference" - from the Greek myth, meaning "behind," thereby means to carry. The metaphors are something high type of sentences uttered about an organizational behavior. They provide a rich source of information about organizational attitudes and beliefs. Some theorists and anchors/practitioners of organization change believe that we can use metaphor as a potent point of influence, reframing or recreating or less efficient imagery so that it aligns with the traditions/values and course of any changing organization(3). Significance of Metaphors: The importance of metaphors, nevertheless, is far greater. Its use implies “a way of thinking or and a way of seeing or perceiving that allows how we understand/comprehend our world” (Morgan-1997). Metaphors are direct comparisons that shape a conceptual frame for thinking/ideas. When events cannot be explained, problems cannot be resolved or, metaphors are implied to give meaning out of dispel and confusion the obscurity. Metaphors make uncertainty understandable (Orton-1974). By including metaphor within the frame of knowledge process that explains a form of epistemology, the metaphor constructs a bridge from the mind to culture (4). The metaphor thus changes the culture in which we live and thereby affects the ways in which humans interact with their environment. By using metaphors, the situation can be named, framed, and the problematic situation can be stabilized (Schon-1993). If metaphor is a foundation for an action, it is more reasonable that it may play a vital role as a basis for learning and the evaluation of learning. Usage of Metaphors and understanding conflict: Metaphors are used to explain an experience or Metaphors and organizational conflict. Many people hold a metaphor that precisely explains their perception of the organization in which they work. The metaphor also describes the way people remember, perceive, and analyze information they receive. However, any single metaphor confines someone's perception by blocking and distorting the information encountered. Most of the conflicts in the organization are created by people having different type metaphors, unaware to the reality that they behave in accord with their metaphor. It is believed that our ideas provide yet another viewpoint on the use of the metaphor for understanding organizational conflict. Conflict arises where interest collides. The natural reaction to conflict in an organizational context is usually to view as dysfunction force that can be attributed to some regrettable set of circumstances or causes(5). The organizational metaphor is an image used to describe the organization. For example, there are people who perceive their workplace as a family unit, others as a battlefield, or as a machine, or even as a sinking ship. The organizational metaphor is the pair of spectacles through which members examine the process and events in the organization. Using these glasses, they perceive, interpret, and understand the occurrences in the organization (6). Metaphors and Organizational Literature: There are three methods generally used by theorists and analysts investigating organizations. (1) The method or approach, that deals with the probing or investigation of the formal organization, was base on the idea derived from classical management theory and tends to utilize models arising from a traditional managerial point of view. (2) The method or approach that deals with the sociology of organizations. This approach is based on the research work of Max Weber. (3) The psychological approach, which narrates the probing or investigation of the personnel within the organization (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). It is also a sociological instrument, because the metaphor serves as an indicator that divides the stakeholders of the organization into groups and thus affects the process at the gross route level(7). When an organizational metaphor is examined from another point of view, it is supposed to give meaning to the environment and as a symbolic kind of expression of the process and atmosphere. As per this approach, the society is not more than a subjective structure of folks who are creating a social world of meaning with the help common language and routine interaction (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Theorists and analysts contributing in the field of organizational sector attribute an important meaning to the metaphor, within the organization, not as the fact that the organization has but also to the fact what the organizational culture originally is. According to this school of thought, this culture is not a separate variable within the organization itself, but it is one that includes all the aspects of an ideal organization culture. (Morgan-1989, 1993), Smircich (1983), Weick, Peters & Waterman, 1982). For the organizational consultant, work using metaphors is both fascinating and rewarding. When someone is asked to describe a situation using symbols, his imagination is stimulated, and he will begin to think creatively (Barker, 1985). The climate of suspicion in another organization may "become" a spy ring or a secret police force. In this way, the metaphor allows a complex situation to be described in a single word. As Pondy (1983) points out, this metaphor contains many different components of the organization, which it has combined to create a meaningful identity(8). The Influence of Metaphors on the Efficient Functioning of the Organization: Metaphors can play a vital role in the proper functioning and development of an organization. The growth of the social organization depends on a common interpretation of schemata -- among them, the organization metaphor. These schemata are expressed by means of language and symbols that are developed through social interaction (Smircich, 1987). The schema supplies the basis for a united system of meaning that creates cooperation and allows the daily interaction to move fluently, without negotiation of a common interpretation of the tradition, goals, and values of the organization. The stability of the organization depends on the continuity of this mutual understanding among its members. According to Morgan (1989), the need for a common interpretation is especially important today. The modern world is changing quickly, and so there is a great need for well-defined and agreed goals and values. A common and long-term definition for the goals is created by vision, a clear task, and a shared philosophy, sense of identity, values, symbols, and metaphors (Morgan, 1989). In the technocratic organization, power is achieved through knowledge and expertise. A representative democracy is one in which the organization works by choosing bureaucrats whose activities are decided by their voters. There are other types of regimes to be found within organizations, and many are governed by a mixture of regimes. The nature of the conflict in each organization depends on the type of regime operating there. According to the political metaphor, a conflict may develop every time there is a clash of interests. In an organization there are many opportunities for such a clash - for example, conflict over limited resources, status, reward, or promotion, vertical conflicts between management and workers, horizontal conflicts between competing departments and units in the organization. Power is a medium through which conflict is managed and results are achieved, and the sources of power in the hands of organization members will determine who gets what and when(9). Despite its negative connotations, it is worth remembering that originally politics was a means of enabling societies to find solutions to their conflicting interests through discussion and negotiation. A different kind of metaphor is the organization as a machine. From this perspective, there is no place for conflict at all, because the organization is a system functioning automatically and rationally to achieve clear goals. Despite the fact that it has no legitimization, conflict is, however, likely to occur. Conflict, struggle, and contradicting interest will always exist, but this struggle and conflict will be held underground and will be expressed in informal conversation and in the way work is performed. Instead of venting his frustration, anger, and disagreement publicly, the worker has to obey; however, he can, for example, sabotage the work or not keep to the timetable. It is important to realize that certain metaphors held by members of the organization are likely to cause conflict over what to do and when. People will argue sometimes without understanding that their conflict stems from the fact that they hold different metaphors on the organization (Marshak, 1992). Sometimes there is one comprehensive metaphor in the organization; however, the use of this one metaphor creates conflict because it discriminates against one of the groups within the organization. For example, women are unlikely to have the same military or sporting experience or interest as the men with whom they work(10). Metaphor as an Instrument for Solving Conflict: There is some general guidance in the literature dealing with the ideal approach for the industrial consultant and organizational researcher to take when working within the organization. According to Turner (1971), the key to understanding an organization is the degree to which members are aware of their own situation, together with their understanding of their own role and that of the manager, co-workers, and the wider context in which the organization operates. The analyst must continuously be aware that meanings do not exist in objects or action; they are attributed to events by people who perceive and interpret. So the researcher seeking to assess the culture of the organization has to examine the social interaction fully. This will usually involve spending a significant amount of time in the environment, observing and interacting, aiming to learn directly from the organization members. The Manager Vision and the Organizational Metaphor: The role of the manager is a pivotal part of the mechanism to solve conflict in the organization. An effective manager has a crucial influence in shaping the culture of the organization (Greiner, 1983). The leader-manager has the power to give meaning and create a mutual vision and common values that will influence the workforce (Burns, 1978; Smircich & Morgan, 1982). The ability to read the organization from numerous angles is one of the characteristics of successful managers (Morgan, 1989). Such managers are open and flexible and delay immediate judgment until they have a comprehensive perspective of the situation. They know that a new definition of the situation may well arise when the situation is "read" from different perspectives(11). Rigid managers are trapped in their image of themselves and of the organization (Morgan, 1993). Bennis and Nanus (1985) investigated leaders who were defined as transformational that is, those who had the ability to transform people's expectations and the organizational systems. They found that the characteristic that all these leaders have in common is that they have a vision(12). This vision encompasses many components: the tasks, basic values, organizational culture, behaviors, standards of work, activities, expected action level, the decision-making process, and the ethical standards expected from workers. Among the instruments the transformational leader uses to create the vision and so create the meaning of the organization is the metaphor (Smircich & Morgan, 1982). It transforms the vision into a picture that amounts to more than its components. This makes it easy for the workers to relate to the vision in the most effective way possible. This picture often seems to be composed in three dimensions, and workers are able to feel it using all their senses. The vision has to build positive interdependence between group members and attempt to break all the obstacles existing between the various groups in the organization(13). Here again organizational psychology is influenced by clinical psychology. In order to show a significant improvement, a patient undergoing psychotherapy must change his method of interpreting information and his emotional attitude, both of which are controlled by the right hemisphere of the brain (Barker, 1985). Intervention using the metaphor causes not only logical insight and rational change but an emotional change through the right brain hemisphere (14). The metaphor gives us an insight into the way organization members perceive, organize, and interpret the event and process in the organization. This character of the metaphor, together with its many other advantages in the intervention process, makes it a very powerful instrument in solving organizational conflict and effecting other organizational interventions (15). Conclusion: It is, however, important to remember that just as we cautioned against managers and workers being rigid in their outlook, the same warning must be given to analysts. For those working in the field, it is often tempting to oversimplify the situation and to choose only one metaphor and impose it on the company. As well as going against the whole collective ethos of this type of work, using a single metaphor can cause the analyst to overlook some very important features of the situation. Analysts must realize that their own insight is limited, as will be their contribution if they impose only their own perceptions on the company. As Morgan (1986) points out, "any realistic approach to organization analysis must start from the premise that organization can be many things at one and the same time". Work with metaphors has important implications for the diagnosis of the cause of conflict within the organization and in the finding and application of effective solutions. The analyst can use metaphors from the very beginning of his work in the organization. The process can start by using metaphors as a way of removing inhibition and encouraging open communication. This process will itself lead to the expression of new ideas and a variety of opinions. Gradually the work will become more focused as participants suggest changes that will help the organization to achieve excellence. In order to implement a successful change within the organization, new ideas should be welcomed, and creative schemes that replace the old methods should be encouraged. Metaphors can be of great help in this process. In using metaphors, it is not only their content that is important, but also the processes of inquiry and interaction that are engendered. REFERENCES: 1. Robert B. Duncan, “Characteristics of Organizational Environment and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty.” Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1972), 313-327. 2. Jay R. Galbraith and Robert K. Kazanijan. Strategy implementation, Structure, Systems and Process, 2d ed (St: Paul, Minn: West, 1986) 3. J. Kennedy and A. Everest, “Put Diversity in Context”, Personnel Journal (September 1991). 4. Joseph J. Distefno and Martha L. Maznevski, “Creating Value with Diverse Teams in Global Management,” Organizational Dynamics 29, no.1 (Summer 2000), 45-63. 5. Lennie Copeland, “Learning to Manage a Multicultural Workforce,” Training (May 25, 1988) 48-56. 6. Marilyn Loden and Judy B. Rosener, Workforce America! (Homewood, Ill: Business One Irwin, 1991). 7. Carl E Larson and Frank M.J. LaFasto, Team Work (Newbury Park, Calif,: Sage, 1989) 8. Susanne G. G. Scott and Walter O. Einstein, “Strategic Performance appraisal in team based organizations” 2001, 107-116. 9. J. R. P. Frech, Jr,; and B. Raven, “The basis of social power in group dynamic” (1960) 607-623. 10. Andre L. Delbecq and Peter K. Mills, “Managerial Practices That Enhance Innovation,” Organizational Dynamics 14 (Summer 1985) 24-34. 11. Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethic relations. In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the Elimination of Racism. New York: Pergamon. 12. Press. Barker, P. ( 1985). Using Metaphors in Psychotherapy. New York: Brunner. 13. Mazel. Bennis, W, & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Free Press. Black, M. ( 1962). Models and Metaphors. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press. 14. Brewer, W. F, & Nakamura, G. V. (1984). The nature and functions of schemas. In R. S. Wyer, & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition, Vol. 1 (pp. 119-160). 15. Burns, J. M. ( 1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Read More