Unformatted Attachment Preview
REVIEW: PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANISATIONS
Our interpretations of organisations are always based on some sort of theory to explain reality
(Morgan). Many ideas about organisations and management are based on a small number of taken for
granted beliefs and assumptions.
Organisations are complex and can be understood in terms of several perspectives. People who are
inflexible only see organisations in terms of one of these metaphors, but people who are open and
flexible and suspend judgement are able to recognise several perspectives, which open up several
rather than only a single possibility for dealing with organisations and their problems. We live in a
world that is increasingly complex and deal with complexity by ignoring it.
Morgan identifies nine organisational perspectives.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The machine view which dominates modern management thinking and which is typical of
bureaucracies.
The organismic view which emphasises growth, adaptation and environmental relations.
Organisations as information processors that can learn (brain metaphor).
Organisations as cultures based on values, norms, beliefs, rituals and so on.
In political organisations interests, conflict and power issues predominate.
Some organisations are psychic prisons in which people are trapped by their mindsets.
Organisations can adapt and change, and
Some organisations are instruments of domination with the emphasis on exploitation and
imposing your will on others.
NEW MATERIAL . . .
POLITICAL ORGANISATIONS
In democracies people are free in principle to have their own opinions, make their own decisions, and
to be treated as equals. In organisations in democratic countries employees have none of these rights.
The only freedom they have is the option to quit and move on. A country may therefore be
democratic, but its organisations are not.
The concepts of authority, power and superior-subordinate relationships dominate management and
organisations therefore are structured according to political principles. The original meaning of politics
is based on the view that when people have divergent opinions they should have the ability to
reconcile them through consultation and negotiation.
Many organisations are ruled by autocratic managers with a lot of power who make all decisions. In
such organisations the rule is to do things my way, as opposed to bureaucracies where the rule is to
do it according to the rules, or true democratic organisations, where the rule is how should we do it?
Politics is most evident in power plays, conflict and interpersonal intrigues, and is mostly invisible.
In human systems, people have different interests, which may come into conflict with that of the
organisation or other people in the organisation. They become political if people begin to share
interests or form coalitions to advance their interests.
Conflict occurs when there are opposing interests and is probably always present in most
organisations. Conflict can occur between people, groups, and coalitions and it may be inherent in the
way the organisation is structured. It is fostered by beliefs, mental programming, stereotyping,
competition for scarce resources, or in organisations that encourage competition between employees.
The way that conflicts of interest are resolved is through the power to determine who gets what, when
and how. It is the ability to get people to do things they would not normally want to do. Morgan
extends the sources of power from the four identified earlier to fifteen.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Formal power is when people accept the right of another to rule and to have power which
means that they have a duty to obey them. This form of legitimacy leads to social stability.
Traditionally charisma, tradition or rule of law is associated with this form of power with formal
authority associated with position typically of the bureaucratic type.
The control of resources depends on resources being scarce or limited access to them. A
common form of this type is the control of the financial resources of an organisation.
Using organisational structures, rules and regulations which is how the struggle for political
control expresses itself. The ability to use rules to your own advantage is an important source
of organisational power.
Control of decision making. One of the most effective ways to get a decision is by default, in
other words by controlling the agenda and assumptions about a problem situation. One can
also influence the issues and as stated before, decisions are shaped by group interaction.
Control of knowledge and information by controlling who gets what information.
Control of boundaries. Groups and departments often try to control key skills and resources,
which influences in-group/out-group decisions.
Control of technology. Organisations often become dependent on some form of core
technology, which influences interdependence and power relations. People are able to
manipulate control over technology to their advantage.
Coping with uncertainty means the ability to foresee change and make provision for that
ahead of time.
Alliances and networks include contacts, sponsors, coalitions and informal networks, which
give individuals advance information. Organisational politics therefore uses culture alliances
and networks to influence others with a stake in the sphere within which they are operating.
In order to be successful one has to incorporate friends and pacify potential enemies by
trading favours now for favours in the future. More often than not, these networks and
alliances are informal and invisible.
Control of counter-organisations such as for example trade unions. Opposing forces can enter
into an alliance to form a power bloc and in this case governments for example use trade
unions to indirectly control business monopolies.
You manage meaning when you can convince others to live the reality you would like to
pursue. Charismatic leaders seem to be able to influence how people perceive reality and
therefore act, in other words, they are able to change people’s mind maps towards what they
want.
Managing gender. In many organisations it matters a lot whether you are a male or female
and the male stereotype may dominate concepts of organisation.
There is a difference between surface manifestations and the deep structure of power, which
suggests that power is linked to the social environment and how it works.
The power you have can be used to get more power.
Power is ambiguous because it is difficult to describe precisely what power is and one cannot
be sure whether power is an interpersonal phenomenon or arising from deep structural
factors.
The political view of organisation shows that politics is inevitable in organisations and all
organisational activity is based on self-interest. It explodes the myth that organisations are rational, it
helps to find ways to overcome the limitations of the notion that organisations are integrated systems,
and it gets us to recognise socio-political implications of different organisations and their roles in
society. The danger of this view is that it can increase the politicisation of organisations.
PSYCHIC PRISONS
Organisations are consciously and subconsciously created and sustained and people become
imprisoned by mind maps to which these processes give rise. Socially constructed realities take on an
existence and power of their own that control those who created them.
People in everyday life are trapped by their incomplete and flawed understanding of reality. They are
able to free themselves from that, but many prefer to remain n the dark. People in organisations
become trapped by success, by organisational slack, and by group processes that lead to groupthink.
Many organisations and industries failed because they were unable to move beyond the policies that
made them successful to begin with. Secondly, in order to create certainty many organisations build in
margins for error, which eventually leads to institutionalised inefficiency.
The psychic prison metaphor brings a set of perspectives that enable us to explore unconscious
processes that trap people, it shows that our understanding of organisation is too rational, it draws
attention to ethics, power relations, and it shows up barriers to innovation and change. But it also has
limitations, namely that it ignores ideologies that control and shape organisations, it places a lot of
emphasis on cognitive processes whereas exploitation, domination and control are rotted in material
life, it encourages speculation, and it raises the risk of mind control.
TRANSFORMATIVE ORGANISATIONS (Flux and Transformation)
The universe is impermanent and constantly changing. That means that to understand organisations
we need to understand the basic force that generate and maintain organisations. Geoffrey Vickers
calls this the regulator and in natural systems there are basins of attraction around which complex
systems stabilise which fulfil the same function. Traditional approaches to organisational theory
suggest that change is initiated by the organisational environment.
The advantage of this view is that it provides an insight on the nature and sources of change, which
can help us to find ways of dealing effectively with change. The transformative view is criticised as too
idealistic and more effective after the fact than before.
ORGANISATIONS AS INSTRUMENTS OF DOMINATION
Bakan argues that since corporations are individuals in the eyes of the law, their behaviour can be
measured against that of humans, in which case corporations are socially disruptive and in terms of
the criteria of the DSM antisocial. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders version IV, antisocial behaviour is characterised by at least 3 of the following: failure to
conform to social norms, deceitfulness, failure to plan for the future, aggressiveness, a reckless
disregard of the safety of self and others, consistent irresponsibility to sustain consistent work
behaviour or honour financial obligations, and lack of remorse. Bakan’s study shows evidence of all of
these behaviours in corporations.
Corporate practices place profit before human welfare and in Third World countries people are
dispossessed and working in sweatshops and factories for subsistence wages. Organisations therefore
often are instruments of domination to further the self interest of elites at the expense of others.
Within organisations there is also often an element of domination.
Throughout history, organisations have been associated with social domination. In most organisations
asymmetrical power relations lead to the majority working in the interests of a few. People can be
dominated by charisma, by custom, and by rules and laws. The ability to use any of these depends on
the ability to find support and legitimation amongst those being ruled and authority is vested in how
the ruled are administered. Under the charismatic model, administration is unstructured, unstable,
and works through nepotism, customary administration is through officials in the employ of someone
with inherited status, and legal administration is bureaucratic. Bureaucracies are therefore
instruments of domination. Even democratic leaders become part of an elite interested in furthering
their own interests, and will tend to hang on to power at all costs.
People are increasingly being dominated by the process of strict administration and rules through
impersonal principles and the quest for efficiency. The logic of modern society is therefore domination
by reason.
The Industrial Revolution changed labour from a craft into a commodity that can be bought and sold.
It eliminated prior systems of production and made people dependent on the wage system. Ancient
systems relied on slaves for labour and even Plato’s idealised republic could not function without
them, whereas modern capitalism depends on wage labour. Profit depends on efficient labour, which
likely resulted in the discovery of modern management. Wage labour is followed by strict and precise
organisation, close supervision, and standardised jobs and it follows that skilled and semiskilled work
is replaced by cheaper unskilled workers and mechanisation. Consequently, managed gains increasing
control over workers, labour costs are reduced and planning and control becomes centralised.
Organisations become politicised because jobs became stratified between skilled career type and
unskilled lower paid type jobs. The former requires an investment in education and training which
becomes a fixed cost whereas the latter is of low status and subject to periodic unemployment and
come to see themselves as exploited.
The dominance metaphor draws attention to the rational consequences of individuals seeking to
advance their own interests while ignoring values. The model shows that domination can be intrinsic
to how we organise human behaviour, but the fact that domination is class based, that ruling elites
tend to centralise and control their interests, and that government policies sustain and serve the
interests of socially dominant groups does not mean that that is due to a conspiracy.
References
Argyris, C. , & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. A theory of action perspective. Reading:
Addison Wesley.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Metaphor: A Multifaceted Literary Device
used by Morgan and Weick to Describe
Organizations
Robert B. Van Engen
Regent University
The research in this paper gives a description of a metaphor as multifaceted. The metaphor’s many sides
create complexity, give clarity, provide validity, and develop creativity. Metaphor is a valuable tool that
gives dimension to language. The depth affects the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects of
human existence. Metaphor has value as a descriptive tool, also. It adds color and expands language.
Morgan and Weick described metaphor as important and beneficial in detailing organizations and
defining organizing theories. The size of the organization limits metaphorical practice. Organizational
culture illustrated by metaphor aids organizational members in understanding the organization’s history.
Metaphor is a multifaceted literary device that assists in illustrating complexity and in
expressing clarity. Metaphor helps to compare the value of variables and to expose creativity.
Using metaphor enhances communication and, according to Morgan (1997) and Weick (1979), is
a valuable tool for leaders/followers in organizations. Morgan listed several metaphors for
organizations, and this paper identified two: organizations as brains and as psychic prisons.
Weick presented his metaphorical concepts through a psychological format. The two authors
outlined the complexity, the lucidity, the validity, and the creativity that imagery conveys about
organizations. This paper examined the differences and similarities between Morgan’s and
Weick’s concepts of metaphor and the comprehensive nature that metaphor plays between
leaders/followers within organizations. The study of metaphor is important to small (a family)
and/or large (Microsoft) organizations. The benefit from this imagery connects people to the
physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of existence. Metaphor adds color to these
elements and develops memories, stories, and relationships that advance the organizational
culture which in turn, if maintained and balanced, creates quality leaders/followers and
organizations.
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
Van Engen/EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS
40
Metaphor: Many Sides
Metaphors are multifaceted and provide an imaginative way of communicating concepts
that are complex, unclear, valuable, or creative. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language defined metaphor as “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase that
ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit
comparison.” Metaphor requires the use of imagination, and imaginations can run wild. As
indicated by Weick (2005), though, this is needed in order to picture, predict, and then prevent
events like 9/11. The rhetoric was limited because few could imagine airplanes being used as
weapons.
However, caution needs to be attached in the use of metaphor. When comparing ideas,
the metaphors must be relevant to the culture or the environment of the organization for the
greatest impression. “Metaphors and analogies must be selected with some sensitivity to how
those being described would feel and how intended audiences will respond” (Patton, 2002, p.
504). So, metaphors must be adapted because an obsolete metaphor may introduce more
complexity. Therefore, the context is very important in the application of this literary device.
Complexity
If used appropriately, metaphors clarify complex ideas. Davidson (1978) described
metaphors as “relatively simple” or “relatively complex,” which account for its intricacy (p. 30).
Oswick and Montgomery (1999) found that metaphors could “mislead and hence obscure” (p.
521). Nonetheless, metaphors clearly provide a way to simplify the complex. Leder (2007)
explained the power that imagery plays in elucidating concepts. “Using a metaphor is a bit like
carrying a verbal PowerPoint—especially when it's used to simplify an increasingly complex
business. The words and pictures combine to make your lesson concrete” (para. 3). The
complexities metaphors create promote further reflection on ideas. This reflection leads to
additional questioning so that theories or concepts become clear, particularly concerning
organizations. Oswick and Montgomery discovered this in researching the use of metaphor in
organizations:
For instance, for some of the team leaders the metaphor instantaneously appeared in
response to the question and seemed to intuitively fit (e.g. the organisation [sic] is like an
elephant) but the reasons why it was so apt were not always immediately clear to the
respondent and only after further reflection did the similarities emerge (i.e. the “ground”
shifted from being unconscious and tacit to conscious and articulated). (p. 519)
Complexity can be made less confusing with the use of metaphor. Gaddefors (2007) concurred,
that “it [the use of metaphor] facilitates learning particularly when one is working under pressure
to communicate something complex and difficult” (p. 175).
Morgan (1997) and Weick (1979) agreed that use of metaphor is complex especially for
organizations. Morgan considered it one of the challenges in using metaphor. Metaphors allow
leaders to communicate confusing ideas to subordinates as well as helping shape vision and
organizational life. These two areas of organizations can be complicated, so it calls for
leaders/followers to understand the comparison in order to advance organizations into the future.
Still, challenges exist in overcoming complexity and the proper use of metaphor. Morgan
explained it is a matter of seeing and thinking differently. “Think ‘structure’ and you’ll see
structure. Think ‘culture’ and you’ll see all kinds of culture” (p. 348).
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
Van Engen/EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS
41
Morgan’s (1997) metaphor of organizations as brains expanded this concept. The brain is
a complex organ that generates thoughts, memories, and ideas. It is an information storage
system that provides data to the body. The brain allows three dimensional views of the world.
Morgan described this aspect as “holographic” (p. 76). He interpreted Dennett’s research to
suggest “that what we see and experience in the brain as a highly ordered stream of
consciousness is really the result of a more chaotic process where multiple possibilities…are
generated…” (p. 77). The brain is complex and is a good illustration for describing
organizations. The organization has multiple possibilities and processes that information to make
decisions about its culture, its vision, and its relationships. Clearly, like the human brain,
organizations have a central leader or team of leaders that develops and explains reality inside
and outside the organization.
The brain metaphor is used in the language of the organization. One example is
“brainstorming” which is described as “a conference technique of solving specific problems,
amassing information, stimulating creative thinking, developing new ideas, etc., by unrestrained
and spontaneous participation in discussion” (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language). The amassing of multiple perspectives creates complexity in the organization, which
appears to be a chaotic process. However, brainstorming is crucial in surfacing new ideas and
multiple viewpoints for the organization.
Weick’s concepts (1979) corroborated Morgan’s ideas (1997) of complexity.
“Organizations deal with streams of materials, people, money, time, solutions, problems, and
choices. Streams can be a useful metaphor to portray the continuous flux associated with
organizations…” (Weick, p. 42). With the “stream” flowing, organizations face the complexity
that lead to disaster or innovation. Metaphors help to take these complex ideas and bring clarity.
Morgan’s (1997) metaphor of organizations as a psychic prison further illustrated the
complexity. According to Morgan, a person’s psyche has hidden mechanisms that affect the
thought processes that can deflect a person away from true reality. These unconscious habits,
dependencies, or worries stimulate how the person develops and continues to develop
relationships. The thought progression is distressed as traditions, anxiety, and/or paranoia
influence behaviors and trigger stress in other areas of life. Organizations are not left isolated
from these thoughts. Morgan explained that because of the psychic prison, the leader has buried
fears that cause him or her not to accept advice from anyone, especially from a follower. In turn,
followers, because of these prisons, develop a rivalry among each other that influences the
amount of information he or she will share with the leader. Organizations are subsequently
hindered and trapped by these prisons and will have trouble growing or being innovative unless
the complexity around psychic prisons is addressed.
In research by Weick (1979), the metaphor’s complexity was demonstrated more as an
evolutionary process that “enlarge the pictures so that small details are clear” (p. 252). Metaphor
becomes a magnifying glass. Differently from Morgan, Weick was more interested in the
organizational theories that effect leader/follower behaviors, instead of organizational structures.
The complexity identified by evaluating these concepts directed Weick in a new course. More
significantly, Weick thought the system of metaphor puts “old things into new combinations and
new things into old combinations” (p. 252) to bring about a clearer picture in a complex theory.
Still, Morgan and Weick agreed that metaphors interpret the complex and produced clarity.
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
Van Engen/EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS
42
Clarity
Metaphor creates clarity by comparing confusing ideas with known objects allowing the
audience to understand what is being communicated (Leder, 2007). How? The image the
metaphor creates in the mind connects the individual with new thoughts (“I never saw that
before”), or past thoughts (“I’ve always thought, but now I see it a different way”) and brings
clear thoughts (“Now I see”). These thoughts stimulate emotions either positively or negatively
which bring about transformation, innovation, or reorganization in leaders/followers and
organizations, especially if theories and ideas are clear. Metaphor is valuable because it makes
the complicated, and even the uncomplicated, understandable.
Morgan (1997) and Weick (1979) held similar views that metaphors clarify unclear ideas
or provide meaning to organizational life. The idea does not necessarily have to be complicated
for followers to understand. Metaphor is needed for simple communication and is important in
shaping clarity. Morgan’s brain metaphor communicated several concepts about organizations.
Leaders and followers comprehend but in different ways, simply because of his or her position in
the organization. Does that make the metaphor ineffective? Not necessarily! It gives an
opportunity for the relational aspect of organizations to develop. To resolve this issue of diverse
understanding of a metaphor, leaders and followers need to explain what the metaphor illustrates
to each of them. As they do, ideas become clearer and concepts have an improved likelihood of
being implemented or accepted.
Weick (1979) developed this concept of connection throughout his book and described it
with the words of “interdependence” (p. 72), “interlocked behaviors” (p. 103), or “sensemaking” (p. 194). All of these concepts help to build clarity. The idea for organizations is to
develop a clear understanding of who the organization is (culture and reality), where the
organization is going (mission), and why the organization exists (vision and purpose). The
metaphor helps to create answers to these questions and bring clarity to the concepts.
Morgan (1997) and Weick (1979) used similar metaphors in describing the unseen
aspects of the organizations. Morgan’s image of organizations as psychic prisons dealt with the
“unconscious” (p. 243) or hidden aspects of a leader or a follower’s psyche. Disruption of the
organizational structure because of unexplained fears or repressed feelings in leaders or
followers affect whether growth or innovation emerge. Weick paraphrased Hermann (1963)
when explaining the behaviors of organizations and why it fails, “Organizations fail because they
remember too much too long and persist too often doing too many things the way they’ve always
done them” (p. 224). The traditional habits are ingrained in leaders and followers and are
naturally applied to situations in the organization. This unconscious behavior is unwise because
it leads to stagnation. Using metaphor can surface unconscious emotions and provide means of
bringing clarity into the organization.
Validity
If the metaphor’s complexity is made clear, it produces the desired results. Still, it is
important to use caution when presenting metaphor as a valid apparatus to describe leaders,
followers, and organizations. Metaphor is figurative language and open for different
interpretations based upon an individual’s thoughts or experiences. Davidson (1978) stated his
fear that, “understanding the metaphor is as much a creative endeavor as making a metaphor, and
as little guided by rules [italics added]” (p. 29). Clarifying the imagery is suspect so validity is
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
Van Engen/EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS
43
questionable. However, Jensen (2006) believed that figurative language is valid in research,
“Metaphors enable the connection of information about a familiar concept to another familiar
concept, leading to a new understanding where the process of comparison between the two
concepts acts as generators for new meaning” (p. 5). The issue is in defining the metaphor. It
cannot be taken literally. Jensen illustrated by describing the well-known statement used by
Forrest Gump, “Life is like a box of chocolates.” The statement taken literally implies “life = a
box of chocolates” (p. 7). Nonetheless, the observer understands that it cannot be the case and
begins to look for a “non-literal” meaning.
Even though metaphor has limitations, Morgan (1997) and Weick (1979) declared that it
is still valid in explaining organizations and its concepts. “Hence the need for a coherent
linguistic array (e.g., a vocabulary or set of images) that ‘frames’ what is happening in such a
way that it renders change familiar and easily understood” (Abel & Sementelli, 2005, p. 443).
Ultimately, the desired outcome is enhancing the quality of the organization. The brain and
psychic prison metaphor by Morgan and the metaphors by Weick were valid because they gave a
point of reference. This perspective, if clear, connects the members of the organization to the
organization and these relationships improve the quality. Weick was interested in these
relationships while Morgan believed understanding the structure of the organization held more
substance. However, the quality is further enhanced when valid metaphors are used in
organizations to challenge unimaginative thinking. The freedom to express ideas, opinions, and
information with imaginative language like metaphor, creates an environment of innovation and
transformation.
Creativity
The figurative device of metaphor and its interpretation fits well with creativity. In
organizations, leaders describe it as innovation. In spite of how the term is expressed, metaphor
augments creativity by connecting images and description with colorful language. This is
profitable for leaders when communicating complex ideas or when needing to clarify concepts or
to overcome shifts in direction of the organization. Kouzes and Posner (2002) had found
extended metaphor or story “gives life to vision” and enabled leaders to develop a “shared
identity” with followers (p. 155). Leaders and followers combine efforts to be creative and
develop solutions for problems within organizations. Through descriptive language, the people
relive the experience creating an organizational story. “So when it's time to provide a memorable
concept, nothing's better than a metaphor” (Leder, 2007).
“Metaphor supplies language with flexibility, expressibility, and a way to expand
language” (Weick, 1979, p. 47). The flexibility (or non-flexibility) of organizations was
illustrated by Morgan’s (1997) two metaphors. The brain is an ever changing, always functioning
organ. The brain is never inactive. Even in rest, the brain is working and still creative. This is
true of organizations as well. The psychic prison metaphor illustrates the inflexibility of
organizations. Imprisonment or confinement can hinder the creative process and may cause
worries or fears. Leaders and/or followers need to have the language expanded (Weick, 1979)
with metaphor when simple words will not communicate the ideas. Metaphors breed creativity
and create new thoughts.
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
Van Engen/EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS
44
Metaphor: A Valuable Tool
According to Morgan (1997), metaphor now has become a valuable tool for leaders in
communicating to or about the organization. Weick (1979) took a different approach on
metaphor and its importance to the organization. He believed figurative language helps leaders to
clarify organizing concepts or theories, so that a healthy culture is established. Still, the authors
thought leaders must make use of metaphor to describe, compare, and connect the organization
with reality so as to create a positive culture and to add depth to understanding and relationships.
Morgan (1997) and Weick (1979) viewed metaphors as tools that are valuable for
elucidating the issues organizations tackle and for creating a positive environment. The issues
mentioned previously of complexity, clarity, validity and creativity, are not exhaustive.
Additionally, figurative language helps to cast vision and shape culture and is an effective tool
leadership must invest time in learning. Harris and Barnes (2006) agreed and stated, “Stories,
allegories, and metaphors are fast and powerful leadership tools for communicating complex
concepts in unforgettable ways” and “you [the leader] may be brilliant in your own field, but if
you cannot communicate your idea in a way that makes it understandable to those outside your
field, you place limits on your idea” (p. 351). Oswick and Montgomery (1999) drew the same
conclusion and suggested that leaders who use metaphors to explore his or her organization gave
expression to “previously tacit perceptions” (p. 519) and created a positive attitude among the
followers. The metaphorical tool finds value in tackling difficult issues and in cultivating a better
culture among leaders and followers in the organization.
The value of metaphor, according to Morgan (1997), was that it illustrates behaviors that
shape the organizational culture by presenting reality in a creative way, by creating new ideas,
and by shaping vision. The brain metaphor portrays this rather satisfactorily as it works to
process reality daily with new thoughts and then adding priority to those thoughts to accomplish
tasks for the day.
Weick (1979) believed that organizations are shaped more by its environment other than
what is understood and metaphor is valuable because it aids in understanding this reality as the
organization constantly changes. According to Weick, the organizational culture needed to be
flexible because reality is subjective. The metaphorical language he used gave evidence for his
subjective tendency. Öztel and Hinz (2001) observed Weick’s writing as subjective and deduced:
Not only do we “function” better in organisations [sic] when using narratives as opposed
to rational analysis, but we also need stories that are relevant as opposed to accurate. A
relevant template is more powerful in sensemaking [sic] than a comprehensive rational
analysis. (p. 158)
The subjective nature of theory makes using metaphor a valuable tool for organizations. Morgan
(1997) and Weick differed at this point. Morgan preferred the rational metaphor that can explain
the organizational structure as opposed to Weick who suggested the process is evolving and
ever-changing.
As a Dimensional Tool
Metaphor is a valuable tool because it adds dimension to language so that better
interpretation and/or understanding of the physical, mental, emotional, ethical, and spiritual
worlds is obtainable. This goal of explaining humanity and its existence has been part of the
search for meaning since the beginning of time. It is no different for organizations. Reality,
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
Van Engen/EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS
45
inside or outside the organization can then be evaluated by use of a metaphor. Gaddefors (2007)
interpreted research by Inns (2002) who:
Suggests a taxonomy consisting of six uses of metaphor… as a research tool, as a
teaching tool, as a generative tool for creative thinking, as a tool for deconstructing and
questioning embedded assumptions and, finally, as a hegemonic tool to influence
perception and interpretation. Although the six uses overlap, our concern is primarily
associated with the use of metaphor as a tool to influence perception and interpretation.
(p. 178)
The dimensional tool is constructed in a metaphorical process (Vince & Broussine,
1996). 1 The metaphor is presented for an audience to hear or see (physical). As the colorful
language is thought over, a perception or connection is made about the image and the concept
(mental). Emotions (either positive or negative) are created about the relationship between the
metaphor and the concept and proper understanding or perception is made about the idea
(emotional). Is the concept good or bad, right or wrong? A decision (ethical) now needs to be
made about the concept based upon prior knowledge and regarding this new idea determined if it
can be accepted and believed (spiritual). The metaphorical process of physical, mental,
emotional, ethical, and spiritual understanding assists to discover meaning. Other dimensions can
be identified, but this paper will leave that to future research. Metaphor is a valuable tool in
developing depth to the organization’s structure and existence.
Morgan’s (1997) and Weick’s (1979) writings gave several illustrations of this
dimensional tool. Morgan’s explanations of the brain metaphor as “holographic” (pp. 75-76) and
“right brain, left brain” (p. 80) developed a different perspective on the organizational structure.
Holography creates a three dimensional view giving an encompassing perception on the subject.
Compared with the brain, the structure of the organization has many sides and levels which help
the organization function effectively. Right and left brain studies have developed concepts about
human actions and behaviors. Morgan believed organizations can be labeled with a right or left
side decision-making bias (p. 80) which naturally affects the vision, mission, and relations in the
organization. Morgan’s premise of the brain metaphor was in order to be effective and efficient
the organization must utilize both sides of the brain.
Even the psychic prison metaphor by Morgan (1997) illustrated the dimensions
associated with organizations. It “plays a powerful role in drawing attention to the ethical
dimension of organization,” and “an increased awareness of the human dimension needs to be
built into everything we do” (p. 248). Again, metaphor is a valuable tool in providing depth to
the organization’s composition and life.
Weick’s recipe (1979) was similar in the metaphorical process. Metaphor is valuable
because it generates ideas. The recipe’s ingredients express dimensions, but not exhaustively.
Organizing theories are developed from these dimensions. “Organizing is also built around
feelings, actions, and desires and collective attempts to understand them” (p. 134). These levels
of existence form a “map” (p. 135) and/or a circle that gives understanding to old and new
concepts, which then creates new ideas. This process generates deeper levels of perception and
thought.
Organizations experience the dimensional tool when using metaphor to describe
concepts. Understanding and practicing the metaphorical process develops the organizational
1
Vince and Broussine (1996) were helpful in understanding the various processes that exist for change as well as
repression and mechanism used by Morgan in the psychic prison metaphor.
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
Van Engen/EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS
46
culture and cultivates relationships, which gives the organization another level of reality. The
practice effects reality inside and outside the organization. Dimension requires using descriptive
words and metaphor is accessible as that tool.
As a Descriptive Tool
Metaphor is a valuable, descriptive tool because it adds color to language so that leaders,
followers, and the organization can work together more efficiently, can understand the
perspective that develops a healthy culture, and can deal with new ideas with stable emotions.
Color cannot stand alone. It must be applied to an object. Studies have concluded that the color
of paint on a wall affects emotions. In the business world, wearing a red tie implies power. Color
is the detail of the metaphor and creates memory through shared experience and repetitive
practices. Color helps us understand the world around us. Harris and Barnes (2006) explained
that using a descriptive tool “can create an understanding of a scientific principle in the mind of
an artist or a young student, a sales manager or subsistence farmer” (p. 351). Color can even be
distorted to create different mental pictures. Still, color is valuable in describing the structure or
reality of the organization.
To illustrate the point of color, television and radio broadcasts of athletic contests create
more description of what is happening in the game by providing a color commentator or analyst.
The commentator teams with a play-by-play reporter to provide the audience a different view of
the competition. The analyst’s job is to give a personal perspective about the game, about the
participants, and/or about his or her past participation from a viewpoint of one who has appeared
in the competition. Because of his or her participation, the commentator can relate to the players
and share those feelings with the audience. The observer senses the emotions by picturing mental
images from the commentator’s stories and explanations. The expressive information is
communicated through colorful language, special noises, and/or descriptive graphics. The color
analysts add further details (or color) that the average spectator might not perceive. These new
ideas are meant to connect viewers to the game and give the fan more appreciation for or
understanding of the game. Consequently, the broadcast of the event is described with color and
a valuable, descriptive tool.
Metaphor is the color commentator in literature and a descriptive tool for organizations
and its theories. As with a color commentator, the metaphor must partner with another object or
concept in order to be effective. It creates a perspective that allow leaders and followers to
describe perceptions about the organization, about members and relationships within the
organization, and about past, present and future perspectives of the organization. As metaphors
are interpreted, it provides color or descriptions of new ideas with colorful language, special
noises, and descriptive graphics while hoping to generate an emotional response.
Morgan’s (1997) metaphors were the descriptive tool that added color to his view of
organizational structure. He connected the organization with unassociated objects to bring clarity
to the complex. The metaphor, as a color commentator for Morgan, tries to create a personal
perspective so that members in the organization will embrace the vision and mission. The
descriptive tool’s value comes when emotions create new thinking. These new ideas help to
develop a healthy culture within the organization.
Weick’s (1979) metaphors were the descriptive tool that added color to concepts and
theories of organizing. He believed that a greater understanding and meaning was needed in
organizing and that only came from imaginative thinking, which created new ideas. Metaphor is
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
Van Engen/EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS
47
the colorful language that aids communicating the new information. According to Weick, beliefs
are challenged by this new data and new beliefs are developed which shape organizational
culture. On this point Weick disagreed with Morgan (1997) and argued that “Those who talk
about the environment determining the organizational structure introduce some rather
simplifying assumptions that we are eager to erase (and replace with other severe simplifying
assumptions)” (p. 135). Colorful language or metaphor is a valuable, descriptive tool Weick
chooses in order to describe the changes that need to be made.
Metaphor: Beneficial to Organizations
Some conclusions have been previously made above about the benefits of metaphor in
organizations. Yet, it is important to focus specifically on this aspect of organizations and
metaphor and determine if metaphor can be implemented in any type of organization. In
addition, how does metaphor affect the organizational culture and how can it be beneficial for the
advancement of organizational quality? In so doing, this paper will continue to examine the
writings of Morgan (1997) and Weick (1979) and assess the insights of the authors regarding the
benefits of metaphor for organizations.
Benefits to Organizations
Gerritsen (2006) outlined the benefits metaphor performs in organizations, “Metaphors
help constitute the realities we live in. Metaphors give groups and organizations a sense of
direction, history, and values” (p. 12). What benefits do these realities have with a different size
organization?
Organizations are benefited when metaphor depicts direction. Directions are charted from
a map, which means organizations must have a plan to make sure it is on the correct course.
Metaphor is beneficial in outlining this plan. It gives clarity to the course especially if changes in
direction need to be made. When course correction occurs in the organization, participation by
all members is vital for a successful transition. Cooperation can be described with metaphor and
can create an easier change in direction. Still, the change must be communicated effectively and
as learned above, metaphor is a valuable tool for this task.
Morgan (1997) believed that the method of finding direction had changed. To illustrate,
he described this process with a case study of the company, Multicom. A new direction was the
intention of the entrepreneurs as they developed their company. As the company grew, Morgan
explained the innovative company changed course and to some lost their sense of direction.
Planning, cooperation, and communication broke down and hindered the sense of direction.
Morgan reasoned that metaphor benefited the organization by detailing direction.
Weick (1979) specified plans as “symbols,” “advertisements,” “games,” and “excuses for
interaction” (pp. 10-11). Still, he was critical of planning as being valuable for the organization
in order to move in the right direction or stay on course. Because he viewed organizing as an
evolutionary process, direction was already determined and plans were simply controlling the
present activity within the organization.
Organizations are benefited when metaphor is used to explain the organization’s history.
The past is a metaphor or extended metaphor. The story of the organization’s life comes from
memories or from writings, but help to organize the future. Weick (1979) believed that
organizing concepts materialize from looking forward with imagination, not just from describing
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
Van Engen/EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS
48
the past. He cautioned that history or story can and has been severely edited, so all the details
may not be known or available for scrutiny. By observing the history of the organization, though,
certain patterns can be discovered. The benefit is to learn from past mistakes or to continue doing
things that have been done well. Not only should one learn from his or her own mistakes, but
Morgan (1997) believed it is important to examine the history of other organizations to learn
from them as well. Metaphor is beneficial in explaining the details of the organization’s history.
Finally, metaphor is beneficial to organizations by clarifying values. A common set of
values can come from history or give the organization direction. Metaphor shapes values and
connects them to reality. Organizations who list belief statements desire its members to follow
and communicate those values inside and outside of the organization. The challenge is for
followers to understand the values in order to accomplish this task. Morgan (1997), in describing
organizations as brains, stated that value and other dimensions, “creates a capacity for each
person to embody and act in a way that represents the whole” (p. 102). Metaphors become
invaluable in revealing the meaning of the concepts and structures of organizations.
Regardless of the size of the organizations it is beneficial to use metaphor to examine the
direction, history, and values. Small organizations, like a family, may not formally declare these
realities, but still have a sense of what course the family should take. As in a large organization,
a smaller unit develops plans, works together to accomplish tasks and communicates between
units. History and values also play a significant role in the family organization and creative
language benefits the construction of organizational life. A common language or culture is
developed in the small unit that gives it uniqueness. The process occurs in large organizations
and metaphor benefits its structure as well. The figurative language device connects people,
develops memories, stories, and relationships, and if balanced and maintained, produces
organizational quality. “Metaphor is recognized as a means to understanding complex and
abstract ideas and therefore has become a commonly used device in the study of organizational
leadership” (Linn, Sherman, & Gill, 2007).
Morgan’s brain and psychic prison metaphors (1997) had some limitations when applied
to smaller organizations compared to larger organizations, nevertheless prove effective. Simply,
the small organization described as the brain is limited by the number of perspectives that are
available for solving issues. A larger organization is able to generate many more perspectives
because of the diverse groups of people and the various resources. However, the brain when
described as multi-dimensional or “holographic” (Morgan, p. 100) clearly can be utilized to
depict the small group. The psychic prison metaphor was more disruptive and debilitating in
small organizations because the lack of members hindered the amount of production or tasks that
could be accomplished. “Dark shadows” (pp. 239-243) in a larger environment can be overcome
by the sheer volume of people with a greater possibility to hide the secret or repress feelings.
Still, whether large or small, the organizational culture is affected and the quality of performance
is impeded. Metaphors benefit organizations, large or small, as the device illustrates the positive
or negative issues faced by each.
Culture of Organizations
The organizational culture is a combination of language, values, environment, history,
theories, ideas, etc., that metaphor pictures for understanding and meaning inside and outside the
organization. Deignan (2003) suggested, “From another perspective, ‘culture’ can be perceived
as including the dominant ideologies of a community” (p. 256) and intriguingly studied the
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
Van Engen/EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS
49
effects metaphor had in organizations cross-culturally in the same manner as Grisham (2006).
Repetition of the story or metaphor enhances the organizational culture. Dr. Jerry Falwell viewed
the history of Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University as an extended metaphor
demonstrating a life of faith, and shared the story frequently to connect members in the
organization. Repetition of oral tradition is important for leaders and followers, so that each one
understands and remembers the details of what it took to develop the present culture.
The organization is benefited when observers study the culture. According to Morgan
(1997), culture was developed by the members of the organization, whereas Weick (1979)
believed the environment caused certain behaviors more than what is realized. This point was
discussed above; nevertheless embracing one of the author’s viewpoints determines how leaders
advance the culture of his or her organization. Still, organizational culture is developed and
improved by the use of metaphor.
According to Abel and Sementelli (2005), “Organizational cultures are constructed,
deconstructed, and reconstructed by themselves, all the time, through the everyday behaviors of
the people involved, and they change in ways administrators can neither anticipate nor control”
(p. 445). Even with the seemingly chaotic process, the desire of leadership is to create quality
organizations. How is quality measured within organizations in this chaotic atmosphere? Quality
is measured by observing a positive morale among leaders and followers, examining the
experience of the leader, and evaluating the environment. Metaphor benefits the culture of the
organization by explaining these concepts and by comparing each metaphor and idea so that the
concept’s value is discovered. When a significant number in the organization understand the
concept by associating it with the metaphor, a healthier environment is produced.
Conclusion
The research indicates and concludes that metaphors are multifaceted, a valuable tool,
beneficial to organizations, and according to Morgan (1997) and Weick (1979), deserve
extensive study. One facet of a metaphor exhibits complexity and another facet presents clarity.
The ideas together appear illogical, but that is the challenge (Morgan, p. 348) of this literary
device. Another facet of metaphor is validity. Is metaphor a valid tool for research? Researchers
must proceed with caution because of the subjective nature of metaphor, but conclusive evidence
demonstrates the value of using metaphor to discern research. More conclusively, a metaphor is a
compelling device in describing organizations. Morgan’s and Weick’s research determined the
importance of comparing objects and concepts with organizations. A final facet examined was
creativity. Figurative language, like metaphor, naturally is creative and expands the interpretation
and understanding for leaders and followers within the organization.
More than multifaceted, the metaphor is a valuable tool as it adds dimension and color to
the organization. The levels of dimension affect the physical, mental, emotional, ethical, and
spiritual expressions of human existence. As a dimensional tool, metaphor is valuable because it
connects with each aspect and creates depth to the understanding and meaning of the
organization. As a descriptive tool, metaphor’s value is that it adds color. Color, like metaphor
must be attached to an object in order to have meaning. Metaphor is a color commentator for
organizations.
The research concludes that organizations are benefited by using metaphor as it describes
its direction, its history, and its values. The advantages for organizations, regardless of the size,
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
Van Engen/EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS
50
are that culture is identified and enhanced. Morgan (1997), Weick (1979), and this author
determined that metaphor warrants further comprehensive study.
The future study concerns metaphor use cross-culturally. Morgan and Weick did not
extensively address the use of metaphor in culturally diverse settings, but with organizations
outsourcing and diversifying, plus technology and travel readily available, international
relationships are growing and a global thought process needs to be considered. Deignan (2003)
and Grisham (2006) did address the effects of using metaphors cross-culturally. An example
would be the School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship. The name is significant and
gives a description of the desired training for Regent University students. It is intended to be
global. What does that mean? Leadership has moved from small, specific cultures and now
involves a global perspective. An examination of the faculty and the students in the doctoral
program identifies this perception. Students travel from different continents to earn his or her
degree. Faculty come from various countries to equip future colleagues with a global mindset.
To develop an international perspective on the use of metaphor, questions need to be
asked for future research. How is the use of metaphor hindered or enhanced in a cross-cultural
situation? Can metaphor be understood and effectively communicated in cross-cultural
organizations? Are there universal metaphors? If so, can these be identified and used effectively?
Hopefully, metaphor is useful in different cultures and by different ethnic groups, so that an
understanding of global cultures and languages is learned and used to develop organizations
cross-culturally. Further study is justified.
About the Author
Rob Van Engen is an assistant director of Christian and community service and a professor of
worldview and contemporary issues at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He earned a
B.S. in pastoral ministries with a minor in Greek from Liberty and an M.A. in ministry
leadership from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary of Cornerstone University. He is pursuing a
Ph.D. in organizational leadership at Regent University’s School of Global Leadership &
Entrepreneurship.
E-mail: robvane@regent.edu
References
Abel, C. F., & Sementelli, A. J. (2005). Evolutionary critical theory, metaphor, and
organizational change. Journal of Management Development 24(5), 443-458.
Brainstorming. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (4th Ed.).
Retrieved June 23, 2007, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/brainstorming
Davidson, D. (1978). What metaphors mean. In Sacks, S. (Ed.), On Metaphor. Chicago, IL:
Chicago University Press.
Deignan, A. (2003). Metaphorical expressions and culture: An indirect link. Metaphor and
Symbol, 18(4), 255-271.
Gaddefors, J. (2007). Metaphor use in the entrepreneurial process. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 13(3), 173-193.
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
Van Engen/EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS
51
Gerritsen, L. (2006). Metaphors of the organization: Discourse in public and private worlds.
Dissertation Abstracts International, p. 269. From [Data File], 2006, Chagrin Falls, OH:
Taos Institute Publishing/Tilburg University, Available from
http://www.taosinstitute.net/tilburg/LGerritsenDissert.pdf
Grisham, T. (2006). Metaphor, poetry, storytelling and cross-cultural leadership. Management
Decision, 44(4), 486-503.
Harris, J. & Barnes, K. B. (2006). Leadership storytelling. Industrial and commercial training,
38(7), 350-353.
Jensen, D. F. N. (2006). Metaphors as a bridge to understanding educational and social contexts.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), Article 4, 1-17. Retrieved June 16,
2007 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/pdf/jensen.pdf
Leder, G. (2007). The power of metaphors: Use of clever analogies to simplify complex subjects
and you might just get clients to take your perspective. On Wall Street,17 (5), 88. Linn,
G. B., Sherman, R. and Gill, P. B. (2007) Making meaning of educational leadership: The
principalship in metaphor. NASSP Bulletin, 91(2), 161-171.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd Ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
metaphor. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (4th Ed.).
Retrieved June 17, 2007, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
Morgan, G. (1997). Images in organizations (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, London: Sage
Publications.
Oswick, C. & Montgomery, J., (1999). Images of an organisation: the use of metaphor in a
multinational company. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(6), 501-523.
Öztel, H., & Hinz, O. (2001). Changing organisations with metaphors. The Learning
Organization 8(4), 153-168.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks,
London: Sage Publications.
Vince, R., & Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working
with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies
17(1), 1-21.
Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd Ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Weick, K. (2005). Organizing and failures of imagination. International Public Management
Journal (8)3, 425-438.
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 1, 2008, pp. 39-51
© 2008 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
The case study analysis has been a method of teaching students how to use critical thinking and
analysis skills and to develop organizational and communication skills. In practice, a case study
is a written record and analysis of the events that occurred at a particular company. The details
of each case vary; however, most cases consist of information about the company or project;
goals, strategies, and challenges faced; and results and/or recommendations.
Case studies have a particular benefit in management research. When you analyze a case, you are
learning about real-life problems that occur in organizations and businesses. You will have the
opportunity to observe and analyze the steps that managers and leaders have taken, and then put
your managerial problem solving skills to work. This is your opportunity to recommend potential
alternatives not mentioned in the case, based on your reading and experiences.
Typically, the process of analyzing a case study is as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Read the case thoroughly before you try to analyze. You may have to read the case a
few times to understand what has occurred. Take notes as you are reading.
Identify and prioritize the organizational problems in the case. You can also determine
strengths and weaknesses of the organization at this time. Do not let personal issues and
opinions blur your judgment. Look at the issues from on objective point of view as if you
were the manager.
Be analytical, not descriptive. What this means is to analyze what is going based on the
theories in the text and how it applies to the case; not merely a description or recap of
the case.
Identify possible solutions. Determine how to implement solutions including how to
communicate the solutions within the organization.
Give yourself enough time to write and proofread!
Some tips to remember when conducting case study analysis:
• Consider the company’s background (founding, structure, and growth). These factors
may carry significant weigh in the case.
• Examine the competition within the industry. Perhaps some of the issues involved in the
case relate to the overall business environment in a particular sector. Consider whether
outside sources affect the case in a significant manner
• Examine the case from various levels of analysis, e.g., corporate, business, and task
levels. The level of analysis depends on the depth of description available for the case in
the readings. Analyze the case on as many levels possible.
• Evaluate the structure, change, hierarchy, reward systems, conflicts, and other issues
important to the company.
• Make sure that your recommendations are based on the readings and theories that are
pertinent to the case. Each recommendation must be supported.
Case studies allow the student to act as a consultant analyzing organizational development and
behavioral issues. Students should consult expert opinion as well as being innovative and
creative with the solutions.