The Role of Metaphor in Organizational and Management Theory
Abstract
The thesis of Morgan (2006) that metaphor is implicit within organizational theory is evaluated. Two of the organizational metaphors presented by Morgan are examined: (a) organizations as cultures and (b) organizations as instruments of domination. The usefulness of these two metaphors in helping us understand organizations and the compatibility of the metaphors with Christian values is explored. The conclusion is that understanding metaphor is an important management skill.
The Role of Metaphor in Organizational and Management Theory
Morgan (2006) investigates organizational and management theory using the premise that “all theories of organization and management are based on implicit images or metaphors” (p. 4). A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a description is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable (Pearsall, 1998, p. 1163). It provides insight into an unknown by drawing a similarity with a known. For example, we could describe an organization as a machine to highlight the efficiency of its internal policies and practices. The consequence of using this metaphor is that we emphasize the similarities between the organization and a machine while ignoring the differences. These include the interaction of the various staff groupings and the interface of the organization with its external operating environment.
Morgan concludes that “any theory or perspective we bring to the study of organization and management, while capable of creating valuable insights, is also incomplete, biased and potentially misleading” (p. 5). The implication of this conclusion is that a variety of approaches should be used when analyzing an organization because no one theory will provide a comprehensive understanding. This paper evaluates Morgan’s premise that metaphor is implicit within organizational theory, then it examine two of the metaphors that he discusses: (a) organizations as cultures and (b) organizations as instruments of domination. Finally this paper explores the usefulness of these two metaphors in helping us understand organizations and the compatibility of the metaphors with Christian values. Readers gain a greater understanding of the nexus between metaphor and theory and gain an appreciation of the need for multiple perspectives in seeking to understand organizations and how organizations work.
Metaphor
Metaphor is originally a Greek word meaning to transfer. It consists of the preposition “meta” implying change and “pherein” meaning to bear or carry (Pearsall, 1998, p. 1163). This notion of transfer carries over into the use of metaphor as a figure of speech in English language and rhetoric. Metaphor is an implied comparison between two objects where the meaning of one object is transferred to the meaning of the second object. A metaphor is a “transport vehicle” well suited for travelling across ways of thought to carry change (Waistell, 2006).
Metaphor is also polysemous, capable of having more than one meaning. This quality allows metaphor to introduce new meaning at the same time as overlapping with existing meaning and producing metamorphosis (Waistell, 2006). Cornelissen, Kafouros, and Lock (2005) point out that metaphor sets up a creative and novel correlation between two objects which forces us to make semantic leaps to create an understanding of the information generated. Metaphor unveils a range of meaning not previously evident.
Metaphor as polysemous transfer vehicle of meaning is exemplified in Shakespeare’s “As You Like It” where he writes, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” The connection of a stage play to human society facilitates new perspectives on the latter. The metaphor carries the right mix of similarity and difference between the two objects to enable the listener to draw parallels and to develop new ways of seeing human society. It facilitates a metamorphosis of both language and reality. A new understanding of self generated by the metaphor of the stage play can lead to a reevaluation of personal priorities and lifestyle. Metaphor plays a hermeneutic role in shaping the way that people understand human existence and society.
Morgan (2006) highlights the role of implicit metaphor within organizational and management theory. Metaphors play a crucial role within theorizing because they involve a cognitively fundamental way of structuring our understanding of organizations. Cornelissen (2005) suggests that metaphor is “a salient and pervasive cognitive process that links conceptualization and language” (p. 1547). Metaphors are important rhetorical devices and the choice and use of metaphor fundamentally shapes understanding of organizations and their operations.
Leonard (2002) demonstrates the role of implicit metaphor in shaping social and organizational roles. She examines the manner in which gender and organizational theories have used metaphors to frame understanding about gender and gender relations. As Morgan (1980) points out “Different metaphors can constitute and capture the nature of organizational life in different ways, each generating powerful, distinctive, but essentially partial kinds of insight” (p.612). Because of this metaphors can be used to enforce the status quo or to construct new ways of understanding the current situation.
Leonard points out how the metaphors of space, time, and the sexual body have been used to construct roles for women within masculine organizational theory. The metaphor of space has traditionally portrayed men as belonging in public spaces such as business and community leadership and women as belonging in private spaces such as the home. Translated to organizations the metaphor reinforces the right of men to belong at the top of the hierarchical order with women perceived as having subservient roles. Men are expected to have career aspirations while women are expected to desire nurturing roles. The metaphor of time as linear and divided into measurable units has been linked to gender. Men are portrayed as managing and organizing according to the notion of linear time with focus on efficiency and goal achievement. Women are seen to be oriented toward the repetitive, continuous nature of time and to emphasize relationships and continuity. The metaphor of the sexual body has seen men understood first and foremost as intellectual, rational beings, while women have been constructed as little more than their bodies. Leonard suggests that with regard to women “it was their sexual and reproductive capacities which were emphasized as containing the ‘essence of womanhood’, not their mental ones” (p. 66). The combination of these three metaphors emphasizes the difference between men and women and assigns them very different social and organizational roles according to these perceived differences.
Leonard also explores alternative significations for these metaphors to reframe gender relations within organizational theory. She demonstrates the power of metaphor and how awareness of it provides the possibility of reframing existing metaphors or of discovering alternative metaphors. As she concludes, “by revealing rhetorical devices and linguistic strategies, and offering resignifications of metaphors and narratives, new readings may be imagined which may help us to re-frame established frames of meaning” (Leonard, 2002, p. 76).
Waistell (2006) demonstrates how metaphors can be used to mediate organizational change. He conducts a study of metaphors contained in 113 speeches delivered over a 10 years period by a Vice-Chancellor leading the transition of a university to distance education. Metaphors of space and time are employed to convey the need to embrace change and the ability of the university to achieve such change. The metaphors employed mediate organizational change in a number of ways. First, they transfer from familiar to strange meaning, building on past experience to create new meanings. Second, they provide coherence explaining how distance education and virtual relationships are continuous with campus based learning. Third, they change reality by changing language. They introduce a new vocabulary to the university that incorporates the concept of distance education. Finally, they recontextualize and translate understanding of the university to the emerging context. Waistell concludes that “metaphors break spatial and temporal distance by translating the organization from one time and space to another, fusing spatial and temporal horizons, effecting organizational change by changing the organization’s language” (p. 651).
Cornelissen (2005) analyzes metaphorical images of organization in organizational and management journals between 1993 and 2003, finding that the dominant root metaphorical categories for organizations are “animate being,” “machine,” “flow-change,” “evolution,” “architecture,” “culture,” “system,” “warfare,” and “geographical space” (p. 1559).
Animate being metaphors liken organizations to living organisms and particularly to humans. Specific human qualities such as learning, creativity, and character are employed to conceptualize and explain organizational dynamics. Machine metaphors suggest that organizations are comprised of mechanically structured interconnected parts and resources. Notions such as structure, control, and capacity assume prominence. Flow-change metaphors liken organizations to processes and forces that are constantly in flux and transformation. They highlight organizational change and ongoing process. Evolution metaphors liken organizations to evolutionary patterns and processes and focus on different types of organizations, their contextual and market fit, and their rise or decline. Architecture metaphors focus on the physical or morphological structures of organizations. They lead to views of organizations as erected structures and frameworks. Culture metaphors portray organizations as cultural phenomena and as manifestations of cultural morals, values, rituals and symbols. Systems metaphors liken organizations to simple systems interacting and adapting to an environment. An organization is seen to consist of various interdependent subsystems and its behavior is said to be emitted and then selected by environmental contingencies. Warfare metaphors liken organizations and related behaviors to warlike activities and events including strategies, competitive tactics, and competitive wars. Geographical space metaphors focus on the distribution of objects or places in space, particularly geographical locations and places. They bring to the fore concepts such as domain, setting, and landscape (Cornelissen, 2005, p. 1559-1561).
Each of these metaphors represents a distinctive way of thinking and of seeing the world in general and organizations in particular. They each bring a unique and useful perspective to the task of understanding organizations. However, the insight provided by each metaphor is one sided and highlights certain features of an organization at the expense of other features. The choice of metaphor fundamentally shapes the approach to understanding organizations and the nature of subsequent discussion of the legitimacy and usefulness of structures and potential reform. As Ferguson (1994) explains “Grammatical and rhetorical strategies shape the ways that statements can be made, bestowing legitimacy on some, rendering others unsuitable or excessive” (p. 85). The choice of metaphor frames the discussion and thereby the range of options available for consideration.
Metaphor is implicit within organizational theory. Cornelissen (2005) and Morgan (2006) demonstrate how underlying metaphors shape the construction of theory. The connection between metaphor and theory is evident in the evolution of organizational theory over the twentieth century. The modernist epistemology that prevailed at the beginning of the century generated images of the universe as a vast rationally integrated machine that could be explained using scientific method. This way of seeing the world carried over into organizational theory where the dominant understanding was of organizations as machines. By the end of the twentieth century the dominance of modernism had been replaced by postmodern epistemology which focuses on the organic and random aspects of nature and which emphasizes the need for harmonious integration. This image of reality produces organizational theories that use metaphors such as organisms, culture, and flux and transformation.
The premise of Morgan that “all theories of organization and management are based on implicit images or metaphors” (2006, p. 338) is valid. On the basis of this premise, two organizational metaphors will be examined: (a) organizations as cultures and (b) organizations as instruments of domination.
Organizations as Cultures
Morgan (2006) defines culture as “the pattern of development reflected in a society’s system of knowledge, ideology, values, laws, and day-to-day ritual” (p. 116). Herskowitz (cited in Hawkins, 1997) views culture as “a construct describing the total body of belief, behavior, knowledge, sanctions, values, and goals that make up the way of life of a people” (p. 418). Geertz (cited in Hawkins, 1997) describes culture as “an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (p. 418). According to the Oxford Dictionary culture is “the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group,” and “the attitudes and behavior characteristic of a particular social group” (Pearsall, 1998, p. 447). The word derives its origin from the Latin cultura which refers to growing or cultivation. In 16th century English, culture referred to the cultivation of the soil. By the 19th century its meaning had been extended to the cultivation of the mind and manners, leading to the contemporary understanding (Pearsall, 1998, p. 447). The combination of these definitions portrays culture as the implicit beliefs and values within society which shape and carry its institutions, perspectives, and accepted behaviors.
The importance of culture lies in its reality shaping impact on the ability of people to see and understand situations and events. Culture provides a pattern of understanding that shapes the way we make decisions and structure our lives. This can be seen in the fundamental differences in lifestyle in industrial societies and in pre-industrial societies. Industrial societies, which have been shaped by the influence of organizations, have distinct concepts of work and leisure. People follow rigid routines for the work week, and separate home and family from work. Morgan (2006) observes that “to an outsider, daily life in an organizational society is full of peculiar beliefs, routines, and rituals that identify it as a distinctive cultural life when compared with that in more traditional societies” (p. 117).
As an organizational metaphor, culture focuses attention on the shared values, ideas, beliefs, rituals, and other patterns of shared meaning that shape the character of the organization (Morgan 2006, p. 6). On the basis of these commonalities the members of an organization construct a reality that shapes the manner in which they understand events and situations. This shared perception of reality in turn shapes the corporate culture of an organization. The corporate culture consists of the distinctive patterns of shared meaning and operating norms of the organization which are revealed in the “patterns of interaction between individuals, the language that is used, the images and themes explored in conversation, and the various rituals of daily routine” (Morgan, 2006, p. 125). Morgan contrasts the corporate cultures of Hewlett-Packard and ITT to illustrate how distinctive the cultures of different organizations can be. The Hewlett-Packard culture is based on the concept of teamwork which is outworked through an ethos of sharing problems and ideas in an atmosphere of free and open exchange. By contrast, the ITT culture is based on the concept of competition which is outworked in an intensely competitive internal company atmosphere incorporating confrontation and intimidation. Both cultures produce successful organizations.
Corporate culture must be understood by management if the organization is to successfully achieve its objectives. Morgan (2006) suggests three diagnostic questions that focus on understanding the culture of an organization: (1) What are the shared frames of references that make organization possible? (2) Where do they come from? (3) How are they created, communicated, and sustained? The identification of prevailing corporate culture provides the opportunity to either reinforce or modify that culture as necessary. The challenge of bringing about change in an organization involves creating cultural change. Morgan (2006) says that it is a challenge of “transforming the mind-sets, visions, paradigms, images, metaphors, beliefs, and shared meanings that sustain existing business realities and of creating a detailed language and code of behavior through which the desired new reality can be lived on a daily basis” (p. 138).
Morgan (2006) suggests four strengths of the culture metaphor in understanding and modifying corporate culture. The first strength is that the culture metaphor focuses attention on the symbolic significance of the various aspects of organizational life. The behavior of the CEO, motivation and reward methods, vision, mission, and core value statements, the conduct of staff meetings, and many other organizational behaviors are all agents of enculturation that create corporate culture and influence operating practices. The second strength is that the metaphor highlights the shared systems of meaning that undergird organizational design and practice. Organizational activity can be created and shaped by influencing these shared ideologies, values, and beliefs. The third strength of the metaphor is that it encourages recognition that relations between an organization and its environment are also socially constructed. Organizations operate in relation to their environment according to their constructed conceptions of what they are and what they are trying to do. Numerous interpretative decisions create the organization’s understanding of its operating environment and its conception of its relationship to that environment. The final strength of the cultural metaphor is the contribution that it makes to an understanding of organizational change. Effective organizational change depends as much on achieving shifts in underlying patterns of shared meaning as it does on introducing structural and technological innovation.
Ready and Congar (2008) concur with Morgan’s assessment of the need to address culture in implementing institutional change. In a study of 40 global companies they seek to understand the challenges that organizations face in enabling new vision. One of the findings of the study is that existing internal culture and political dynamics frequently derail attempts by corporate leaders to instill new vision and bring about institutional transformation. Ready and Congar observe that “no vision of the enterprise can come to life without the enthusiastic support and follow-through of managers and employees” (2008, p. 75), and suggest that internal culture, values, and behaviors must be a primary focus of any initiative for organizational change.
Hawkins (1997) surveys the development of the focus on culture in organizational theory. Since the 1970s there has been a marked shift away from the mechanistic perceptions that dominated organizational theory in the first half of the twentieth century. This has been replaced with the view of organizations as cultures rather than as machines. In Search of Excellence by Peters and Waterman (1982) stimulated a raft of studies predicated on the idea that an excellent company must have a strong unifying culture. Morgan’s suggestion regarding the usefulness of the culture metaphor is endorsed by contemporary organizational theory and application.
Organizations as Instruments of Domination
Organizations are instruments of domination when they further the interests of elites at the expense of others. Morgan (2006) suggests that “the forces of domination embedded in the ways we organize often lead organizations to exploit their employees and the social and economic contexts in which they operate” (p. 297). Exploitation of employees takes a number of forms. The first is seen in the close links between organization, class, and control. In pursuit of efficiency and profitability, organizations tend to develop “increasingly strict and precise organization, close supervision, and increasingly standardized jobs” (Morgan, 2006, p. 302). The result of this is the development of a class of unskilled and expendable workers performing mundane tasks and often coming from socially disadvantaged groups. The second is the pursuit of economic profit at the expense of the health and welfare of employees. Economic considerations seem to outweigh the welfare of workers in corporate decision making. The third form of exploitation is evidenced in the workaholism and social and mental stress often seen in management employees. “Overwork, impossible schedules, high uncertainty, fear of job loss, economic problems, work-family conflicts, and other contextual factors are important factors across many occupational groups” (Morgan, 2006, p. 311). Exploitation of economic contexts is exemplified in the behavior of multinational corporations which engage in collusive business practices to reduce competition and interfere in the political arena to achieve corporate objectives. “The sheer power of the multinationals, and the associated cartels, alliances, and interlocking patterns of ownership and control that bind them together, combine to create a world economy dominated by organizations where the power of the corporate official often dwarfs that of the elected politician and that of the public at large” (Morgan, 2006, p. 321).
The metaphor of organizations as instruments of domination places emphasis on the destructive impact of organizations on employees and societies. It highlights that the basic drive of corporations is the maximization of profitability and that this assumes a far greater organizational priority than humanitarian or social concerns. The domination metaphor has a number of strengths. The first is its demonstration that the rational goal of pursuing organizational growth and profitability does have detrimental consequences for employees and societies. This double-edged nature of corporate activity should be factored into organizational theory. Morgan (2006) states that the metaphor “forces us to recognize that domination may be intrinsic to the way we organize and not just an unintended side effect” (p. 330). A second strength is that the domination metaphor provides the basis for the development of “an organizational theory for the exploited” (Morgan, 2006, p. 330). Such a theory could counter theories of organization that claim to be ideologically neutral or that understand organizations from the perspective of economic rationalism. A third related strength of the metaphor is that it fosters understanding of the issues that fuel a radical frame of reference. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction expressed toward corporations. The metaphor “encourages us to recognize and deal with perceived and actual exploitation in the workplace rather than dismiss it as a “radical” distortion of the way things are (Morgan, 2006, p. 331).
The importance of the metaphor is demonstrated in the spate of major corporate scandals that have become public in recent decades and which have undermined public confidence in corporations. Leeds (2003) describes the series of corporate scandals in the United States following the Enron collapse. The idea that corporations serve the public good is undermined by the fact that “each corporate scandal demonstrated first and foremost a violation of an essential requirement for the functioning of a market economy: public disclosure” (p. 77). Important information was withheld from employees, shareholders, and the public to the detriment of each group. White (2004) notes that as “the influence of corporations has ascended to unprecedented heights, serious questions arise as to the role and control of the corporation in global development” (p. 21) The combination of unprecedented corporate influence and diminished public confidence in corporate integrity raises the issue of how organization should conduct themselves in relation to the interests of employees and society. The domination metaphor helps to frame this issue.
The Usefulness of the Two Metaphors
Distinctive insights into organizations are produced by viewing them through different metaphors. This is clearly demonstrated by the two metaphors examined in this paper. When an organization is studied using the culture metaphor the focus is on the people, the members and employees of the organization. They create a pattern of shared meaning and behavioral norms that significantly impact the success of the organization. This cultural framework of the organization is as important as the formal systems of authority and operation. When an organization is studied using the domination metaphor the focus is on the impact of its practices on its employees and on its operating environment. These factors are not necessarily included when planning for organizational growth and profitability. They are significant because an organization that alienates its own employees and the broader society is jeopardizing its own viability. The two metaphors together provide valuable insights into organizational dynamics that are overlooked if a company is analyzed according to financial or efficiency criteria. The insights are so critical that they are typically included in risk assessment and management plans. Maintaining high corporate morale and a positive public image are important factors in contemporary management strategy.
Neither of the metaphors alone provides sufficient insight into organizations. A distorted and inadequate picture will emerge unless the metaphors are employed within a variety of approaches to analyzing an organization. The culture metaphor does not address essential issues such as technology, rules, procedures, resource allocation, information systems, and profitability. Morgan suggests that it also has the potential to be a catalyst for manipulative management practices that seek to engineer organizational culture to motivate and control employees. He notes that “where the culture controls rather than expresses human character, the metaphor may prove quite manipulative and totalitarian in its influence” (2006, p. 146). Such attempts at control fundamentally misunderstand the fact that culture is self-organizing and always evolving. It cannot be manipulated from the top. The insights of the culture metaphor do not necessarily lead to simple applications. The domination metaphor also has the limitation of not addressing important factors of organizational efficiency. In addition it can provide the ideological basis for conspiracy theories and for class conflict. Conspiracy theories interpret organizational domination as intentional strategy of ruling classes. Does organizational domination occur by default or by design? Morgan suggests that it most typically occurs by default as organization pursue growth and profitability (2006, p.332). Class conflict within western society has frequently occurred in the actions of trade unions against organizations and industries. An understanding of organizations as instruments of domination can lead to unnecessary social divisions and to industrial actions that undermine organizational efficiency and the greater social good. The useful perspectives provided by the culture and the domination metaphors are most helpful when incorporated into a holistic understanding of organization gained by utilizing multiple approaches of analysis.
A Christian Perspective
Christian believers bring a distinctive approach to organizational theory and practice, desiring that both theory and practice reflect Christian values. This raises the question as to whether the two metaphors discussed in this paper provide insights and applications that conform to such values. A brief summary and application of Christian theology is required in order to answer this question.
Christian theology provides a connection between God’s nature and organizational theory by suggesting that Christian organizations should reflect the divine nature as much as this is possible within a sin-afflicted world. The prayer of Jesus that “all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you” (John 17:21) indicates that the way that an organization can reflect the being of God is in its community or sociality.
The biblical data provides the insight that God is three and one, three in one. The attempts of the early Christian church to explain this data led to the conclusion “that there can be in God a sharing of being which does not subvert his unity” (Gunton, 1995, p. 938) This in turn led to an understanding that the being of God “is the persons in relation to one another” (Gunton, 1991, p. 74). God is what he is in virtue of what the Father, Son, and Spirit give to and receive from each other. The very life and existence of God is a demonstration of relational community. Christianity understands humankind as being created in the image of this triune God. Therefore, to be human is to be relational and to need to live in supportive community. This indicates that the way that an organization can reflect the being of God is in its community or sociality. As with the Trinity, this should be “a community in which people are defined through their relations with one another and in their significance for one another, not in opposition to one another, in terms of power and possession” (Volf, 1998, p. 198).
Jürgen Moltmann (1981) suggests that the doctrine of the Trinity be developed as a theological doctrine of freedom which points “towards a community of men and women without supremacy and without subjection” (p. 192). Community is the appropriate way of organizing human society and organizations. This is so firstly because it reflects the nature of the God in whose image humans are created. It is so secondly because it recognizes the fundamental equality of persons and allows for the development and expression of human potential. Power structures and relationships exist within every organization. Christian theology suggests that the dynamics of power be used to create interdependence and mature relationships rather than to foster relationships of dependence and control.
The application of trinitarian theology to organizational understanding suggests that an organization is likely to function at its optimum when there is a fundamental equality of persons expressed in mutual giving and receiving. This leads to the conclusion that hierarchical structures and authoritative leadership styles which generate dependency, helplessness and servitude do not reflect God’s nature nor do they enhance human or organizational potential. The more an organization is characterized by symmetrical and decentralized distribution of power and freely affirmed interaction, the more will it corresponds to the nature of God and the more likely it is to unleash the human potential of its participants.
An organization reflecting the trinitarian community can have both leadership and rich diversity without a heavily autocratic hierarchy. It can be a community with a structure and a chain of command but without superiors and subordinates. As Moltmann (1981) says, the community of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit finds its earthly reflection “not in the autocracy of a single ruler but in the democratic community of free people” (p. 198). Any organization can be conceived of as “a community in which people are defined through their relations with one another and in their significance for one another, not in opposition to one another, in terms of power and possession” (Volf, 1998, p. 198). At the very least, the application of trinitarian principles would affirm the value of every member of the organization, and reduce any sense of alienation between management and employees.
The insights provided by the culture and domination metaphors resonate strongly with Christian values derived from trinitarian theology. They share in common a commitment to the value of people and the need for organizational theory and practice to recognize and enhance this value. They each require that the drive for organizational growth and profitability be balanced with institutional commitment to the welfare of all employees and to the greater social good. Together they call for organizations to be ethical and responsible social citizens.
Conclusion
Metaphor is implicit within organizational theory. Understanding this enables readers to view theory as perspective and to be aware that other perspectives are available. This understanding is particularly important when approaching organizational theory. As Morgan (2006) observes, “Organizations are many things at once! They are complex and multifaceted. They are paradoxical” (p. 337). Failure to recognize this will limit capacity to understand organizations. This in turn will limit the range of possible action available in seeking to improve organizational performance. “Metaphor encourages us to think and act in new ways. It extends horizons of insight and creates new possibilities” (Morgan, 2006, p. 341). Understanding metaphor is an important management skill.
References
Cornelissen, J. P., Kafouros, M., & Lock, A. R., (2005). Metaphorical images of organization: How organizational researchers develop and select organizational metaphors. Human Relations, 58, 1545-78.
Ferguson, K.E. (1994). On bringing more theory, more voices and more politics to the study of organization. Organization, 1, 81-99.
Gunton, C. (1991). The promise of trinitarian theology. Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark.
Gunton, C. (1995). The trinity in modern theology. In P. Byrne & L. Houlden (Eds.), Companion encyclopedia of theology. London: Routledge.
Hawkins, P. (1997). Organizational culture: Sailing between evangelism and complexity. Human Relations, 50, 417-440.
Leeds, R. (2003). Breach of trust: Leadership in a market economy. Harvard International Review, 25, 76-82.
Leonard, P. (2002). Organizing gender? Looking at metaphors as frames of meaning in gender/organizational texts. Gender, Work and Organization, 9, 60-80.
Moltmann, J. (1981). The trinity and the kingdom of god: The doctrine of god. London: SCM.
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 605-22.
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearsall, J. (Ed.). (1998). The new oxford dictionary of english. Oxford University Press.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row.
Ready, D. A., & Conger, J. A. (2008). Enabling bold visions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49, 70-76.
Volf, M. (1998). After our likeness: The church as the image of the trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Waistell, J. (2006). Metaphorical mediation of organizational change across space and time. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19, 640-654.
White, A. L. (2004). Lost in transition? The future of corporate social responsibility. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 16, 16-24.