How to Analyze Case Studies

How to Analyze a Case Study
Hands-on Guide: How to Analyze a Case Study
Essentials of Management Information Systems Sixth
Edition provides a number of case studies for you to analyze.
Included in these cases are questions to help you understand and
analyze the case. You may, however, be assigned other case
studies that do not have questions. This Hands-on Guide
presents a structured framework to help you analyze such cases
as well as the case studies in this text. Knowing how to analyze
a case will help you attack virtually any business problem.
A case study helps students learn by immersing them in a real -
world business scenario where they can act as problem-solvers
and decision-makers. The case presents facts about a particular
organization. Students are asked to analyze the case by focusing
on the most important facts and using this information to
determine the opportunities and problems facing that
organization. Students are then asked to identify alternative
courses of action to deal with the problems they identify.
A case study analysis must not merely summarize the case. It
should identify key issues and problems, outline and assess
alternative courses of action, and draw appropriate conclusions.
The case study analysis can be broken down into the following
steps:
1. Identify the most important facts surrounding the case.
2. Identify the key issue or issues.
3. Specify alternative courses of action.
4. Evaluate each course of action.
5. Recommend the best course of action.
Let's look at what each step involves.
Read the case several times to become familiar with the
information it contains. Pay attention to the information in any
accompanying exhibits, tables, or figures. Many case scenarios,
as in real life, present a great deal of detailed information.

Some of these facts are more relevant than others for problem
identification. One can assume the facts and figures in the case
are true, but statements, judgments, or decisions made by
individuals should be questioned. Underline and then list the
most important facts and figures that would help you define the
central problem or issue. If key facts and numbers are not
available, you can make assumptions, but these assumptions
should be reasonable given the situation. The "correctness" of
your conclusions may depend on the assumptions you make.
Use the facts provided by the case to identify the key issue or
issues facing the company you are studying. Many cases present
multiple issues or problems. Identify the most important and
separate them from more trivial issues. State the major problem
or challenge facing the company. You should be able to
describe the problem or challenge in one or two sentences. You
should be able to explain how this problem affects the strategy
or performance of the organization.
You will need to explain why the problem occurred. Does the
problem or challenge facing the company comes from a
changing environment, new opportunities, a declining market
share, or inefficient internal or external business processes? In
the case of information systems-related problems, you need to
pay special attention to the role of technology as well as the
behavior of the organization and its management.
Information system problems in the business world typically
present a combination of management, technology, and
organizational issues. When identifying the key issue or
problem, ask what kind of problem it is: Is it a management
problem, a technology problem, an organizational problem, or a
combination of these? What management, organizational, and
technology factors contributed to the problem?
· To determine if a problem stems from management factors,
consider whether managers are exerting appropriate leadership
over the organization and monitoring organizational
performance. Consider also the nature of management decision-

making: Do managers have sufficient information for
performing this role, or do they fail to take advantage of the
information that is available?
· To determine if a problem stems from technology factors,
examine any issues arising from the organization's information
technology infrastructure: its hardware, software, networks and
telecommunications infrastructure, and the management of data
in databases or traditional files. Consider also whether the
appropriate management and organizational assets are in place
to use this technology effectively.
· To determine the role of organizational factors, examine any
issues arising from the organization's structure, culture,
business processes, work groups, divisions among interest
groups, relationships with other organizations, as well as the
impact of changes in the organization's external environment-
changes in government regulations, economic conditions, or the
actions of competitors, customers, and suppliers.
You will have to decide which of these factors—or combination
of factors—is most important in explaining why the problem
occurred.
List the courses of action the company can take to solve its
problem or meet the challenge it faces. For information system-
related problems, do these alternatives require a new
information system or the modification of an existing system?
Are new technologies, business processes, organizational
structures, or management behavior required? What changes to
organizational processes would be required by each alternative?
What management policy would be required to implement each
alternative?
Remember, there is a difference between what an organization
"should do" and what that organization actually "can do". Some
solutions are too expensive or operationally difficult to
implement, and you should avoid solutions that are beyond the
organization's resources. Identify the constraints that will limit
the solutions available. Is each alternative executable given

these constraints?
Evaluate each alternative using the facts and issues you
identified earlier, given the conditions and information
available. Identify the costs and benefits of each alternative.
Ask yourself "what would be the likely outcome of this course
of action? State the risks as well as the rewards associated with
each course of action. Is your recommendation feasible from a
technical, operational, and financial standpoint? Be sure to state
any assumptions on which you have based your decision.
State your choice for the best course of action and provide a
detailed explanation of why you made this selection. You may
also want to provide an explanation of why other alternatives
were not selected. Your final recommendation should flow
logically from the rest of your case analysis and should clearly
specify what assumptions were used to shape your conclusion.
There is often no single "right" answer, and each option is
likely to have risks as well as rewards.
Hands
-
on Guide: How to Analyze a Case Study
Essentials of Management Information Systems Sixth Edition
provides a number of case studies for
you to analyze. Included in these cases are questions to help
you understand and analyze the case.
You may, however, be assigned other case studies that do not
have questions. This Hands
-
on Guide

presents a structured
framework to help you analyze such cases as well as the case
studies in this
text. Knowing how to analyze a case will help you attack
virtually any business problem.
A case study helps students learn by immersing them in a real
-
world business scenario wher
e they
can act as problem
-
solvers and decision
-
makers. The case presents facts about a particular
on the most important facts and
using this information to determine the opportunities and pro
blems facing that organization. Students
are then asked to identify alternative courses of action to deal
with the problems they identify.
should identify key issues and
problems, outline and ass
ess alternative courses of action, and draw appropriate
conclusions. The case
study analysis can be broken down into the following steps:
1.
Identify the most important facts surrounding the case.
2.
Identify the key issue or i

ssues.
3.
Specify alternative courses of action.
4.
Evaluate each course of action.
5.
Recommend the best course of action.
1.
Identify the most important facts surrounding the case.
Read the case several times to become familiar
with the information it contains. Pay attention
to the information in any accompanying exhibits, tables, or
figures. Many case scenarios, as in
real life, present a great deal of detailed information. Some of
these facts are more relevant
than others for
problem identification. One can assume the facts and figures in
the case are
true, but statements, judgments, or decisions made by
individuals should be questioned.
Underline and then list the most important facts and figures that
would help you define the

available, you can make
assumptions, but these assumptions should be reasonable given
the situation. The
"correctness" of your conclusions may depend on the
assumptions you make.
2.
Identify the key
issue or issues.
issues facing the company you
are studying. Many cases present multiple issues or problems.
Identify the most important and
separate them from more trivial issues. State the m
ajor problem or challenge facing the
company. You should be able to describe the problem or
challenge in one or two sentences.
You should be able to explain how this problem affects the
strategy or performance of the
organization.
You will need to explain
why the problem occurred. Does the problem or challenge
facing the
company comes from a changing environment, new
opportunities, a declining market share,
or inefficient internal or external business processes? In the
case of information systems
-
related pr
oblems, you need to pay special attention to the role of
technology as well as the

present a combination of
management, technology, and organizatio
nal issues. When identifying the key issue or
Hands-on Guide: How to Analyze a Case Study
Essentials of Management Information Systems Sixth Edition
provides a number of case studies for
you to analyze. Included in these cases are questions to help
you understand and analyze the case.
You may, however, be assigned other case studies that do not
have questions. This Hands-on Guide
presents a structured framework to help you analyze such cases
as well as the case studies in this
text. Knowing how to analyze a case will help you attack
virtually any business problem.
A case study helps students learn by immersing them in a real -
world business scenario where they
can act as problem-solvers and decision-makers. The case
presents facts about a particular
on the most important facts and
using this information to determine the opportunities and
problems facing that organization. Students
are then asked to identify alternative courses of action to deal
with the problems they identify.
should identify key issues and
problems, outline and assess alternative courses of action, and
draw appropriate conclusions. The case
study analysis can be broken down into the following steps:

Read the case several times to become familiar with the
information it contains. Pay attention
to the information in any accompanying exhibits, tables, or
figures. Many case scenarios, as in
real life, present a great deal of detailed information. Some of
these facts are more relevant
than others for problem identificatio n. One can assume the facts
and figures in the case are
true, but statements, judgments, or decisions made by
individuals should be questioned.
Underline and then list the most important facts and figures that
would help you define the
available, you can make
assumptions, but these assumptions should be reasonable given
the situation. The
"correctness" of your conclusions may depend on the
assumptions you make.
issues facing the company you
are studying. Many cases present multiple issues or problems.
Identify the most important and
separate them from more trivial issues. State the major problem
or challenge facing the
company. You should be able to describe the problem or
challenge in one or two sentences.
You should be able to explain how this problem affects the
strategy or performance of the
organization.
You will need to explain why the problem occurred. Does the
problem or challenge facing the
company comes from a changing environment, new
opportunities, a declining market share,

or inefficient internal or external business processes? In the
case of information systems-
related problems, you need to pay special attention to the role
of technology as well as the
present a combination of
management, technology, and organizational issues. When
identifying the key issue or
Turnitin®
This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin®.
Instructions
Goal: Create a case study analysis based on two scholarly
studies that utilize metaphors (Morgan's, or similar) to describe
the functionality of organizations. After a concise, but
thorough, analyses of the cases, summarize the benefits of using
metaphorical devices in management practice.
Instructions: Students will write a 600-750 (preferably 650)
words case study analysis based on two case studies that
involve the use of Morgan's metaphors (or similar) as a tool to
understand organizations. Review the Case Study Analysis
procedure as presented in a document located in this week's
reading resources (see Lessons). Use case studies that were
published within the last ten years. After a concise, but
thorough and clear delineation and analysis of the cases,
complete the paper with a summary of what you gleaned from
using metaphors to understand management practice within
organizations.
Write using the APA style format, including a title page and
references page (no abstract is required). When you upload your
paper, also upload pdfs of BOTH case studies, so the professor
can check your analysis.
Use the following outline in your summary (in APA format with
a Title page and References page):
1. Identify the business problems of each of the cases;

describe the metaphor(s) used.
2. Rank-order the critical issues stated in the cases
3. Evaluate the proposed solutions. Are the solutions valid?
Why or why not? How/why did the use of metaphor(s) assist in
the solution?
4. Submit recommendations you propose beyond what is
already stated in the cases.
5. State how the solutions will be communicated in each case.
Do you agree? Why or why not?
6. At the end of the paper, write a paragraph expressing the
takeaways/benefits of using metaphors in management practice.
Turnitin®
Instructions
studies that utilize metaphors (Morgan's, or
similar) to describe the functionality of organizations. After a
concise, but thorough, analyses of the
cases, summarize the benefits of using metaphoric
al devices in management practice.
Instructions: Students will write a
600
-
750
(p
referably
650)

word
s
case study analysis based on two case
studies that involve the use of Morgan's metaphors (or similar)
as a tool to understand organizations.
Review the Case Study Analysis proc
edure as presented in a document located in this week's reading
resources (see Lessons).
Use case studies that were published within the last ten years.
After
a concise,
but thorough and clear delineation and analysis of the cases,
complete the paper with a summary of
what you gleaned from using metaphors to understand
management practice within organizations.
Write using the APA style format, including a title
page and references page (no abstract is required).
When you upload your paper, also upload pdfs of BOTH case
studies, so the professor can check your
analysis.
a Title page and References page
):
1.
Identify the business problems of each of the cases; describe the
metaphor(s) used.
2.

Rank
-
order the critical issues stated in the cases
3.
Evaluate the proposed solutions. Are the solutions valid? Why
or why not? How/why did the use
of metaphor(s)
assist in the solution?
4.
Submit recommendations you propose beyond what is already
stated in the cases.
5.
State how the solutions will be communicated in each case. Do
you agree? Why or why not?
6.
At the end of the paper, write a paragraph expressing t
he takeaways/benefits of using
metaphors in management practice.
Turnitin®
Instructions
studies that utilize metaphors (Morgan's, or
similar) to describe the functionality of organizations. After a
concise, but thorough, analyses of the
cases, summarize the benefits of using metaphorical devices in

management practice.
Instructions: Students will write a 600-750 (preferably 650)
words case study analysis based on two case
studies that involve the use of Morgan's metaphors (or similar)
as a tool to understand organizations.
Review the Case Study Analysis procedure as presented in a
document located in this week's reading
resources (see Lessons). Use case studies that were published
within the last ten years. After a concise,
but thorough and clear delineation and analysis of the cases,
complete the paper with a summary of
what you gleaned from using metaphors to understand
management practice within organizations.
Write using the APA style format, including a title page and
references page (no abstract is required).
When you upload your paper, also upload pdfs of BOTH case
studies, so the professor can check your
analysis.
a Title page and References page):
1. Identify the business problems of each of the cases; describe
the metaphor(s) used.
2. Rank-order the critical issues stated in the cases
3. Evaluate the proposed solutions. Are the solutions valid?
Why or why not? How/why did the use
of metaphor(s) assist in the solution?
4. Submit recommendations you propose beyond what is already
stated in the cases.
5. State how the solutions will be communicated in each case.
Do you agree? Why or why not?
6. At the end of the paper, write a paragraph expressing the
takeaways/benefits of using
metaphors in management practice.

1
Gareth Morgan’s Organisational Metaphors
PER S PEC TI V ES O N OR GA N I S A T I O N S
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. The machine view which dominates modern management
thinking and which is typical of
bureaucracies.
2. The organismic view which emphasises growth, adaptation
and environmental relations.
3. Organisations as information processors that can learn (brain
metaphor).
4. Organisations as cultures based on values, norms, beliefs,
rituals and so on.

5. In political organisations interests, conflict and power issues
predominate.
6. Some organisations are psychic prisons in which people are
trapped by their mindsets.
7. Organisations can adapt and change, and
8. Some organisations are instruments of domination with the
emphasis on exploitation and
imposing your will on others.
MACHINE ORG AN ISATION S
Machines and machine thinking dominates the modern world.
People are expected to operate like
clockwork by working to certain procedures, rest according to
certain rules and repeat that in a
mechanical way. Organisations are machines in which people
are parts.
Machine organisations are tools to achieve the ends of those
who own them. Organisations have to
adapt to the technology they use and after the Industrial
revolution people lost their work
autonomy to become specialists in controlling machines.
Machine organisations are modelled on the military from which
it borrowed ranks and uniforms,
standardised regulations, task specialisation, standardised
equipment, systematic training, and
command language. Bureaucracies produce routine
administration in the same way as machines in
factories.
Machine managers are taught that you can plan for and control
organisations and divide
organisations in functional departments with precisely defined
jobs. Commands are given from the

top and travel throughout the organisation in a precisely defined
way to have a precisely defined
effect. The thrust of classical management theory is that
organisations are rational and can be
optimised to become as efficient as possible.
2
Machine organisations work well if the task is simple, the
environment stable, the task is repetitive,
if precision is required, and if humans behave like machines. On
the flipside, machine organisations
adapt poorly to change, it fosters bureaucracy, it can have
unanticipated unwanted consequences,
and it is dehumanising.
ORG AN ISMIC ORG AN ISAT IONS
These organisations are perceived to work like living
organisms. Consequently, they are concerned
with survival. Employees have complex needs that must be
satisfied for them to function well. The
Hawthorne studies identified social needs in the workplace and
brought the motivation to work to
the fore. The emphasis shifted towards making work more
meaningful and getting people more
involved in their jobs.
Since organisations are open to the environment, they should be
organised to fit their task
environments, rather than according to a boilerplate. Such
organisations are better able to respond
to change in the environment. This lead to models such as
adhocracies, project orientated
companies, matrix organisations, and so on.

Some researchers emphasise the importance of the environment
as a force in organisational
survival. According to the population ecology view, some
organisations depend on resources to
survive for which they have to compete with other
organisations. Since there is normally a shortage
of resources, only the fittest survive and the environment
determines who will succeed or fail. It is
therefore important to understand how groups of organisations
or industries adapt and survive
rather than individual organisations, since whole industries may
fail when the environment
changes.
The strengths of the organismic view is its emphasis on
relations between organisations and the
environment, which suggests that open systems must be
understood at a process level. Secondly, its
focus is on survival, which is a process as opposed to goals
which are endpoints. Organismic
organisations have more design choices, they are more
innovative, and they focus on
interorganisational relations. Its limitations are that it is too
mechanistic and therefore struggles
with social phenomena on which it relies, most organisations do
not function well because their
elements do not cooperate, and the metaphor can easily become
an ideology.
THE SELF -OR GANIS ING ORG AN ISAT IONS
When things change, it is important that people should be able
to question whether what they do is
appropriate in a rational way, like a brain, which is the best
known information processor.
Organisations cannot function without processing information,

communicating, and making
decisions.
According to Simon, organisations cannot be perfectly rational
because they never have access to all
information, they can therefore only consider a few alternatives
when making decisions, and they
are unable to accurately predict outcomes. Organisations
therefore settle for a bounded rationality
of based on sufficient decisions guided by rules of thumb and a
limited search and limited
information. These limits of rationality are institutional and
make decision making more
manageable. Jobs and functional departments create structures
of interpretation and decision
making, which simplifies the ability of managers to make
decisions.
3
The question is whether organisations, like a brain, can learn?
Cybernetics studies the exchange of
information, communication, and control, which allows
machines to maintain a steady state
through feedback and self-regulation. Movement beyond a
specified limit triggers movement
towards the opposite direction to maintain a course towards a
desired goal. An analogy is that of a
sailboat on its way to a harbour. In order to do that, a system
must be able to detect aspects in the
environment, compare that to rules guiding behaviour, detect
deviations from the rules, and take
action to correct the deficit. More complex systems are able to
correct mistakes in the rules guiding

them, and the ability to question the activities of a system is the
basis of learning (see for example
(Argyris and Schön).
In practice, so-called double-loop learning is not that easy for
the following reasons. Bureaucratic
structures discourage people from thinking for themselves,
people protect themselves against
making mistakes in organisations where employees are held
accountable for their actions and
rewards success and punish failure, and there is often a gap
between what people say and do.
Organisational learning requires accepting mistakes and
uncertainty as inevitable in complex
environments, it requires the ability to consider different
viewpoints to issues and problems, and
action based on inquiry rather than traditionally imposed goals
or targets. A key issue is
questioning prevailing beliefs and assumptions and a shift
towards choosing limits or constraints
rather than just ends.
Morgan speculates that the key to the brain’s abilities is its
connectivity, which means that different
functions are performed by the same structures, and functions
can evolve depending on changing
circumstances. In the same way, organisations should therefore
seek to self-organise and build in
redundancy that allows that just like the brain. Redundancy can
be created by adding specialised
parts to the system, or by adding functions to the parts, in other
words multitasking or multi-
skilling. The former is mechanistic and the latter allows for
flexibility and the ability to self-
organise.

Ross Ashby suggested that the diversity of a self-regulating
system must be the same as the
complexity of its environment so that it can respond
appropriately to its environment. This can be
achieved by multifunctional people or multifunctional teams
that have the ability to adapt and
learn. It requires facilitative enabling management that specifies
direction but not the specifics for
getting there. The more you specify or predesign, the less
flexible the system becomes. On the other
end of the spectrum, without any direction at all, self-
organisation takes too long.
The strengths of the brain metaphor are its contribution to
learning and self-organisation, a shift
away from goal directed planning, and a shift away from
bounded rationality. But it also has two
major weaknesses, namely the conflict between learning and
self-organisation and power and
control, and secondly, the resistance of beliefs and assumptions,
or mind maps, to change.
ORG AN ISATIONS AS CULTURES
In industrial countries we now live in a society made up of
organisations that influence our lives,
each with their own peculiar beliefs, rules, and rituals.
According to Emile Durkheim, in
organisational societies traditional patterns of social order
disintegrate and lead to fragmented
beliefs based on the occupational structure of the society.
As I showed earlier, Hofstede’s research showed significant
national differences in the concept of
work and how work is organised. Culture therefore shapes
organisations, and organisations are

4
mini-societies with their own different subcultures within
national cultures with frequently
subcultures within subcultures.
In short: organisations are socially constructed realities.
The strengths of the cultural model of organisation is that it
draws attention to the symbolic aspects
and subjective meaning of organisations, to the shared mental
programs that create this meaning, it
helps to interpret the nature and significance of relations
between the organisation and its
environment, and it helps in understanding organisational
change. However, a cultural model can
also lead to ideological control in the wrong hands and getting a
complete picture of an existing
culture is not easy.
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
Edgar Schein takes a somewhat different view of organisational
culture that has implications for
Hofstede’s’ research (Schein). According to him there are three
dimensions to organisational
culture namely artefacts, which are similar to Hofstede’s
cultural practices, espoused values, and
beliefs, or Hofstede’s mental programs.
Artefacts are the visible structures and processes of an
organisation and include language,
technology, products, dress code, ways to address people,
rituals, ceremonies, and so on. They are
easy to see but are only meaningful relative to the values and

assumptions of the organisation.
Espoused values are the ways an organisation justify what it
does. When any group forms or is faced
with a new task or challenge, it accepts some person or
subgroup’s proposed solutions based on
assumptions about what works and what is right or wrong. Once
the group observes that the plan
works, the perception is mentally transformed into a shared
belief and then becomes a shared
assumption. Only solutions that continue to work in reliably
solving a group’s problems and that
can be socially validated are transformed into assumptions.
Social validation means that certain
values are confirmed by shared experience, which in turn means
how comfortable and free of
anxiety members are when they adhere to the new rules.
Beliefs and ethical rules copied from other people remain
conscious as espoused values and are
used as a guide for dealing with important situations and when
initiating new members in an
organisation on how to behave. Espoused values are therefore
useful for coping with uncertainty
and events that cannot be controlled. They refer to what people
say they do, as opposed to what
they may actually do in a given situation. Hofstede’s research
reports on national espoused values,
which may not necessarily always be what many people in
different national cultures do in practice.
Assumptions are the unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs,
perceptions, thoughts and feelings that
serve as the ultimate source of values and action. When a
solution to a problem often works, what
was a theory in the beginning becomes a reality to people. We

never confront or discuss our
assumptions which make them extremely difficult to change. To
change we have to relearn things
about reality which is difficult because asking questions about
assumptions destabilises our mental
and interpersonal worlds which causes anxiety. To avoid
anxiety people want to see that things fit
their existing assumptions to the point that they will distort or
deny what is really happening.
Leaders are the custodians of culture and therefore have an
important role to play when change
becomes necessary.
5
To Schein therefore, organisational culture is the product of a
complex group learning process that
binds together a pattern of behaviours and provides structural
stability to groups at a deeper level
through shared basic assumptions. The search for patterns and
integration comes from the human
need for stability, consistency and meaning. Hence the function
of culture is to provide stability to
human group interaction by maintaining expected behaviour.
One can understand the substance and dynamics of group
culture by distinguishing between how a
group adapts to the outside world and how it integrates its
internal processes in order to remain
able to adapt. Adaptation basically describes a coping cycle that
any system must maintain relative
to its environment, with the following essential elements.
1. Every group must have a shared concept of its ultimate

survival problem, from which it
develops a basic sense of what its core mission, primary task, or
reason for existence is. If
people disagree about goals subcultures may develop or the
group may break up. Assumptions
about identity and purpose are central to organisational culture.
2. To achieve their goals, people must agree about how to go
about to achieve the group’s mission.
3. People must also agree about how to allocate tasks and roles,
how the organisation should be
structured, people rewarded, tasks controlled, and how
information and authority will be
shared. In other words, a group’s skills, technology and
knowledge become part of its culture.
Cultural assumptions about means and goals involve internal
status issues related to the
allocation of territory, property, roles and privileges, which
increases the complexity of the
group and become issues to be addressed if change is necessary.
If there is consensus on means,
it supports regular behaviour and many visible artefacts of
culture, which, once they are in
place become a source of stability and difficult to change.
4. There must be consensus about how an organisation measures
the outcomes of its activities.
5. People must decide how the group will take corrective action
if they discover that they vary
from their stated goals. Corrective strategies reveal assumptions
about mission and identity and
are also related to assumptions about a groups’ internal
functioning.

6. The process of becoming a group is not automatic. Every
group must learn how to become a
group by developing a common language, reaching consensus on
boundary issues of in versus
out-group, developing rules to define relationships, developing
assumptions about reward and
punishment to constrain individual behaviour, and finding
explanations for unpredictable
events.
Organisations on the whole are unitary or pluralistic in Flood
and Jackson’s terms, which is why
they are able to function the way they do. The situation is
somewhat different in bureaucracies.
POLITICAL ORG AN I SATIONS
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 poli tical
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.
6

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. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Control of knowledge and information by controlling who
gets what information.
6. Control of boundaries. Groups and departments often try to
control key skills and resources,
which influences in-group/out-group decisions.
7. 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.

8. Coping with uncertainty means the ability to foresee change
and make provision for that
ahead of time.
9. 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.
10. 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.
7
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. The power you have can be used to get more power.
15. 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 PR IS ONS
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 w ere
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 ORGAN IS ATIONS
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.
8
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.
ORG AN ISATIONS AS INS TRUMENTS OF D OMIN ATI
ON
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.
9
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.
Reference List

Argyris, C. and D. Schön. Organizational Learning. A Theory of
Action Perspective. Reading: Addison
Wesley Publishing, 1978.
Morgan, G. Images of Organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications Inc, 1986.
Schein, E. H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2nd ed.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers,
1992.
Discuss one of the metaphors from Morgan’s writings that
applies to your own
organizational context. From the perspective of a
leader/manager, discuss the
benefit of identifying the functionality of your organization
through the lens of
the selected metaphor. What do you learn about your
organization using that
metaphor? What do you learn about your role in the
organization through
recognizing the metaphor at work?
This discussion is reflective (No citations/references required).
First person is
acceptable.
human relations
2016, Vol. 69(4) 1001 –1027
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0018726715616469
hum.sagepub.com
human relations
Metaphors, organizations and
water: Generating new images for
environmental sustainability
John M Jermier
University of South Florida, USA
Linda C Forbes
Western Connecticut State University, USA
Abstract
Research across the social sciences and related fields has made
it clear that metaphors
underwrite both scientific and everyday thinking. Gareth
Morgan’s work in this area,
most vividly developed in his classic book Images of
Organization, illustrates how
metaphors underwrite thinking about organizations and the
important role they can
play in generating new thinking. In this study, we use and
extend Morgan’s (2006)
thesis of ‘organizations as instruments of domination’ (IoD) to
reflect on critical issues
in organizational studies related to water and the broader
natural environment. We
find extending the IoD image to be helpful: (i) in deriving and
elaborating a metaphor
that reflects a risky trend (‘organizations as water exploiters’);

and (ii) in generating
and developing a new metaphor that is explicitly normative and
nature-centered
(‘organizations as water keepers’). The water keeper image
brings needed attention to
water problems and invites further research on activist
organizations (businesses and
others) seeking to change thinking and practice related to
environmental sustainability.
We illustrate the water keeper metaphor (and the significant
move away from the
paradigmatic assumptions of hard anthropocentrism) with
examples from environmental
champion Patagonia, Inc. We then take up Morgan’s challenge
to move beyond the
IoD metaphor to envision non-dominating forms of
organization. We revisit classic
nature-inclusive metaphors and the under-explored paradigm of
ecocentrism to evoke
Corresponding author:
John M Jermier, Professor of Organizational Behavior, Muma
College of Business, Professor of Sustainable
Enterprise Research, Patel College of Global Sustainability,
University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
33620-5500, USA.
Email: [email protected]
616469HUM0010.1177/0018726715616469Human
RelationsJermier and Forbes
research-article2016
mailto:[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F00187267
15616469&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-02-02

1002 Human Relations 69(4)
and reflect on broader notions of agency, interdependence,
connectedness and social
relations in transformed organizations.
Keywords
activism and social change, anthropocentrism, greening
organizations, instruments of
domination, IoD, land ethic, sustainable business, patagonia
Introduction: Metaphors and the environmental
sustainability imperative
Research on metaphor continues to flourish across the social
sciences and related fields.
This research is providing ever deeper understanding of the
ways metaphors come into
existence and affect fundamental aspects of human thought and
behavior (see Landau
et al., 2014). It also sheds light on the underpinnings of
scientific theorizing and related
problem solving activities. All scientific work, no matter how
rigorous it is, requires con-
ceptual frames that are, at their root, metaphorical (cf. Lakoff
and Johnson, 1999;
McCloskey, 1985; Scharf, 2013). In this sense, even scientific
researchers adopt and build
on metaphorical images and conform to Goffman’s classic thesis
that humans ‘… can
hardly glance at anything without applying a primary
framework’ (Goffman, 1974: 38).
The value of metaphor to contemporary researchers studying
organizations is
reflected in an authoritative statement made by Cornelissen et

al. (2005: 1545): ‘The
issue … is not whether metaphors exist and play a part in
organizational theorizing – as
this is now widely accepted – but to draw out how metaphors
are actually used and are
of conceptual value ….’ In this article, we illustrate how Gareth
Morgan’s (2006) domi-
nation thesis – as reflected in his image of organizations as
instruments of domination
(IoD) and other groundbreaking books and articles (e.g. Burrell
and Morgan, 1979;
Morgan 1980) – can actually be used to re-examine the current
research on organiza-
tions and the environment. Through reconsideration and
extension of Morgan’s IoD
image and through experimenting with alternative images, we
address water issues and,
by implication, other significant environmental sustainability
problems facing organi-
zations and society.
The main purpose of this article is to use metaphors to facilitate
deeper reflection on
the role of water in and around organizations and to support
broader thinking about
human–nature relations – even possibly to the degree where the
social is extended to
non-human living beings and the abiotic. As shown in Table 1,
there are several compari-
sons and contrasts that can be made in elaborating, extending
and going beyond the IoD
metaphor. We view this exercise in making distinctions across a
range of metaphors (and
related social and philosophical criteria) as a useful
methodology for highlighting taken-
for-granted thinking and imagining alternatives.

The article has four main sections. First, we revisit Morgan’s
metaphors in Images
of Organization (hereafter Images) to reflect on which ones
have been relied upon
most heavily by scholars and to what effect. After noting
research on the entrenchment
of the machine and living organism images, we discuss the
danger of overreliance on
these metaphors, laying groundwork for placing emphasis on
alternatives. Second, we
discuss a vital alternative, the IoD root metaphor, and extend it
to the domination of
Jermier and Forbes 1003
nature – an important but understated theme in Morgan’s
discussion of the image. We
note that, despite warnings from scientists about rampant,
unprecedented environmen-
tal change and increasingly urgent calls from across disciplines
to engage an environ-
mental sustainability imperative (e.g. Carroll and Buchholtz,
2015; Lubin and Esty,
2010; Marcus and Fremeth, 2009; Steiner et al., 2013; Wood,
2012), the natural envi-
ronment is still not a fully integrated topic in organizational
studies. Third, we address
this limitation by turning our attention to developing nature-
inclusive metaphors that
help frame organizational studies on the water crisis – a central
aspect of environmen-
tal degradation. We extend the IoD metaphor with two second-
order metaphors (organ-

izations as water exploiters and organizations as water keepers)
and illustrate the water
keeper metaphor with examples from environmental champion
Patagonia, Inc. Fourth,
we take up Morgan’s (2006) challenge to move beyond the IoD
metaphor and envision
non-dominating forms of organization, which we explore
through metaphors derived
from ecocentrism – a philosophy we believe offers valuable
insights despite seemingly
fading from research on organizations since it was discussed in
earnest in the 1990s
(e.g. Purser et al., 1995; Shrivastava, 1995).
By approaching the field of organizational studies and
environmental problems
simultaneously from the level of metaphors, we demonstrate
how metaphorical think-
ing can be useful for generating new insights about
organizations negotiating the envi-
ronmental sustainability imperative. By exploring three
different concepts of
human–water relations (see Table 1), we illustrate how extended
notions of social rela-
tions can provide new ways of thinking about major social and
environmental
problems.
Table 1. Framework of organizations and human–water relations
(based on and extending the
root metaphor, ‘organizations as instruments of domination’).
Root metaphors Organizations as
instruments of
domination

Organizations as
instruments of
domination
Beyond domination:
organizations as
spheres of conviviality
Sub-metaphors Organizations as
systems of totalitarian
control
Organizations as
battlegrounds
Organizations as land
ethic communities
Second-order or
extended metaphors
Organizations as water
exploiters
Organizations as
water keepers
Organizations as true
partnerships
Concept of water Commodity Resource Force of life with
recognized agency
Type of rationality Instrumental Modified instrumental Moral –
political

Organizational form Machine bureaucracy Contested terrain
Ecological collective
Human–nature
relationship
Human mastery of
nature
Human conservation
and restoration of
nature (Stewardship)
Holistic balance
Underlying paradigm Hard anthropocentrism Soft
anthropocentrism Ecocentrism
Metaphorical underpinnings of research on organizations
Morgan (2006) makes it clear in Images that two metaphors,
‘organizations as machines’
and ‘organizations as organisms’, pervade everyday and
theoretical thinking about
organizations. He begins the book by presenting these images
and by explaining the vast
influence each has had on classical and modern approaches to
organizational theory. He
makes a strong case for the machine metaphor as the foundation
of ‘many popular theo-
ries and taken-for-granted ideas about organizations’ (Morgan,
2006: 13), and points out

that this image is so ‘ingrained in our way of thinking about
organization’ that it is often
seen as ‘almost second nature’ to organize following this
approach (Morgan, 2006: 26).
He also identifies the living organism metaphor as a major
perspective and as the founda-
tion of ‘some of the central ideas of modern organization’
(Morgan, 2006: 65). He high-
lights the potency of these two root metaphors by noting their
ideological force (e.g.
links to social Darwinism in the case of the living organism
image), and cautions against
implicitly accepting them simply because of their pervasiveness
and familiarity.
In the only empirical study we are aware of that addresses the
metaphorical roots of
organizational theory and research, Cornelissen et al. (2005)
searched 23 high-impact
‘management journals’ identified in the Social Sciences Citation
Index for the period
1993–2003. Based on this representative sample of scholarship
in organizational studies
(broadly construed), they observed that the categories labeled as
‘machine’ and ‘animate
being’ (a classification that includes comparisons with aspects
of humans and other liv-
ing organisms) clearly dominated frequency counts of root
metaphors. Other scholars
agree with Morgan about the metaphorical underpinnings of
research on organizations,
management, and leadership, and suggest broader frameworks
(e.g. Alvesson and Spicer,
2011; Bolman and Deal, 2013; Putnam and Boys, 2006).
Recently, a number of organi-
zational studies scholars have noted similar limitations and

called for more attention to
metaphors and other forms of analogical reasoning to stimulate
innovative theory and
methods (e.g. Boxenbaum and Rouleau, 2011; Cornelissen,
2006; Oswick et al., 2011).
While a complete assessment of the root images that underlie
organizational studies
is beyond the scope of our study, the above sources we reviewed
suggest that the litera-
ture continues to be marked with strong tendencies to build on
mechanistic and organis-
mic imagery. There are advantages to working with these
familiar images but, as Morgan
makes clear, [‘we] have to accept 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’ (Morgan, 2006:
5).
The general point is that once a dominant root metaphor
becomes deeply ingrained in
our everyday ways of thinking it can become dangerous, no
longer being viewed as a
metaphor but as truth, thus closing off alternative ways of
seeing. As Morgan (2006: 67)
puts it: ‘a way of seeing is a way of not seeing.’ Meisner (1995)
provides an excellent
example of this in his description of the way Rene Descartes
and Isaac Newton became
victims of the metaphor of a clockwork universe because, as the
metaphor ceased being
apparent to them, they lost their ability to see it as merely one
perspective among many
possible perspectives.

Although we recognize that the field’s dominant metaphors have
been highly influen-
tial, our concern is that their level of taken-for-grantedness,
through naturalization and
through concretizing and tying down the details – which is
typical of relatively mature
metaphors (see Jermier and Forbes, 2011; Morgan, 2011) –
tends to impede fresh and
inclusive thinking. This is a long-standing concern among some
scholars conducting research on the natural environment. In a
provocative statement that
has become something of a landmark, Shrivastava (1994)
observed that despite devastat-
ing damage to the environment from organizational activities,
researchers predominantly
advanced images in which organizations were framed as severed
from nature (the meta-
phor of a ‘castrated environment’). According to Shrivastava,
these images prevented
scholars from engaging seriously with the environment as an
area of inquiry. He called
for a fundamental reconceptualization of organizations, one that
embraced a more nature-
centered approach to the field and one that paid genuine
attention to organization–nature
relationships. To address this concern, we next re-examine the
IoD image (which so
vitally depicts the domination of people) and explore its
implications for developing

broader nature-inclusive imagery.
The metaphor of organizations as instruments of
domination
Key ideas
Is the Great Pyramid at Giza to be admired for the incredible
ingenuity and skill of the early
Egyptians or is it a metaphor of exploitation symbolizing the
enslavement and mistreat-
ment of thousands of people to serve and glorify privileged
elites? Through the lens of the
IoD metaphor, enslavement, mistreatment and other dimensions
of the ‘Ugly Face’ of
organization are exposed and emphasized. The perspective
generated by the domination
metaphor forces us to consider what may be found behind the
veil: systematic disadvan-
tage; widespread damage and destruction; and pervasive pain
and suffering – the uncen-
sored story of organization told from the standpoint of the
exploited. With the IoD metaphor,
Morgan depicts the exploitation of humans using concepts of
wage-slavery, surplus value
extraction and exposure to work hazards, and he extends the
image to the conduct of mul-
tinational corporations that take advantage of people,
communities and the environment –
only to later discard them because higher returns on capital are
possible elsewhere.
Domination is the second key idea developed in this
perspective. It is used as a gen-
eral concept to refer to the exercise of robust and thorough-
going hierarchical control.
What is dominated? Through this lens and Morgan’s

illustrations, domination of people
and the environment can be seen. Part of the purpose of
developing the IoD image, how-
ever, is to liberate thinking from total domination by
articulating the perspectives of the
subjugated. IoD imagery invites consideration of, for example,
the circumstances of
workers in secondary labor markets suffering employment
insecurity and toxic exposure,
women experiencing sex discrimination and gender inequality,
and post-colonial sub-
jects (including children) undergoing wage-slavery. Importantly
for our purpose it also
directs attention to the commodification of nature and broader
environmental degrada-
tion through pollution, depletion and appropriation of resources,
and destruction of habi-
tats and ecosystems. Indeed, the first pages of the chapter detail
serious threats from
corporate pollution:
Every day, industrial organizations spew millions of tons of
toxic waste into our waterways and
the atmosphere or bury them in leaky containers underground.
The economics of waste disposal
is such that many organizations feel that they have no choice
but to continue in these damaging
practices so long as they remain legal. As a result, it is now
estimated that as many as 2,000
toxins pollute the Great Lakes, and there are thousands of
dangerous toxic-waste sites adding
pollution to the groundwater … The fish have cancer, and in

areas of concentrated pollution
such as the infamous Love Canal near the Niagara River,
concern about pollution-related
diseases has reached crisis proportions. As in the case of food
and tobacco production, human
health is adversely affected by corporate practices that place
profits before human welfare.
(Morgan, 2006: 301–302)
Following Weber, Morgan is especially interested in conveying
how domination in
modern bureaucracies and capitalist organizations is intertwined
with the proliferation of
instrumental rationality – a narrow and degraded form of reason
that fetishizes the refine-
ment of means, calculative logic and mechanized efficiency.
Substantive end goals that
require moral and aesthetic reflection for justification are
eclipsed with the false certainty
of technological solutions, refined processes and quantitative
language. The modern
emphasis on instrumental rationality leads to domination as
‘impersonal principles and
the quest for efficiency tend to become our new slave drivers’
(Morgan, 2006: 296).
Gouldner’s (1970) discussion of poison gas weapons provides a
dramatic illustration
of how dominating technologies can arise and be maintained by
restricted reasoning. He
points out that evaluating the gas solely in terms of the
mathematical elegance of its for-
mula (or in terms of other strictly technical criteria) or
construing its elements as purely
neutral bits of information (useful for the furtherance of any
and all social values) obscures

more fundamental ethical questions about the technology.
Judgments about poison gas
limited solely to ‘“autonomous” technical criteria,’ in effect not
only allow but require
people to be ‘moral cretins in their technical roles’ (Gouldner,
1970: 13). This illustration
can serve as an object lesson and be applied to widely used
synthetic pesticides (many of
which are based on poison gas technology – see Pollan, 2006)
and also may be applicable
to hydraulic fracturing and many other technologies in use that
are claimed to be benign.
Viewed from the perspective of the domination metaphor,
systems of totalitarian con-
trol can arise in which elites aspire to formally administer all
aspects of nature and social
relations. These systems resemble total institutions that use
instrumentally rational pro-
cesses to subdue all opposition in and around organizations.
Alternatively, this metaphor
enables a view of organizations as deeply divided and
politicized along class, occupa-
tion, race, ethnicity, gender, environment and other lines:
battlegrounds, rife with con-
flict and with resistance to dominating and exploitative
practices. As a counterweight to
traditional organizational studies that sometimes evoke
Panglossian thoughts of unified
teams or happy families, the battlegrounds image frames
organization as contested ter-
rain in which entrenched struggles can arise from antagonisms
among people with fun-
damentally different views of issues and problems.
Usefulness

We understand the value of assessing the holistic usefulness of
all eight Images metaphors
at once. The approach we take, however, is more focused. For
two main reasons, we work
primarily with the IoD metaphor. First, it has potential to
generate more critical thinking
about organizations and nature – thinking compatible with the
environmental sustainabil-
ity imperative. As argued by Worster (1994: 378, cited in
Philippon, 2004): ‘[m]etaphors
imply worldviews,’ and it is in those worldviews that we find
fundamental strengths and
limitations of a perspective.1 In our view, it is important to
revisit discussions of the
assumptions of the anthropocentric paradigm (entrenched
worldview that casts humans as
separate from and superior to the rest of nature) in order to
examine the roots of current
environmental problems and to meaningfully explore
alternatives. We are concerned that
the organizational studies field has lost an edge as critiques of
anthropocentric bias have
faded and debates tend to be staged more around normal science
topics and shades of light
green (reformist) politics (cf. Dobson, 2009; Ezzamel and
Willmott, 2014). Second, the
IoD metaphor remains in the margins of the field despite the
fact that it counterbalances
limitations of the two most powerful conventional metaphors in
use. When Gareth Morgan

was asked to reflect on which metaphors offer strong insight for
research on organizations
and the natural environment, he emphasized the IoD image,
pointing to the role it plays in
highlighting the ‘exploitative and destructive aspects of
organizations’ and the ‘hidden
downsides of some of the conventional organizational
metaphors, most notably those of
machine and organism’ (see Morgan, 2011: 472).
We hold that further elaboration of the IoD metaphor, as well as
reflecting on how to move
beyond its limitations, remain critical for organizational studies
and for generating nature-
inclusive research. In the next section, we use insights from the
IoD metaphor to guide devel-
opment of new images related to organizations, sustainability
and the water crisis.
The domination thesis and new metaphors for
human–water relations
Profligate water use today will imperil future generations, the
same as the profligate use of oil,
destruction of forests, and other environmental tipping points
will. But water is much more
important to our future than oil. That’s because there are no
alternatives to it, no new substitute
for life’s essential ingredient... (Barnett, 2011: 5)
As we noted, environmental problems have led scholars across
disciplines to assert the
imperative of environmental sustainability. Prominent among
these problems is water,
the ‘life-creating, life-supporting, life enhancing’ element that
has no replacement, mak-

ing adaptation to its scarcity ‘onerous’ (Chellany, 2013: xi).
Both the World Economic
Forum and the US State Department have recently listed water
scarcity and quality as
critical global issues (Hoekstra, 2014; Richter, 2014). Similarly,
the United Nations
Environment Programme’s Global Environmental Outlook-5 for
Business (2013) report
identified myriad problems and opportunities that business is or
will be facing in relation
to water across the globe. These problems include: constraints
on growth due to water
scarcity; operational and supply chain disruptions; confli ct with
other stakeholders over
limited supply; rising water costs; stricter water quality
regulations; product use restric-
tions or phase-outs; regulatory or market-driven reduction in
demand for some chemical
products; risk of reputational damage and potential loss of
social license to major water
users; costs associated with required erosion, sediment and
pollution control measures;
discharge monitoring and sampling; new markets for water-
efficient products; and
increased need for water purification products.
Thus, it is becoming increasingly apparent that water is of
immense strategic impor-
tance for organizations and society (Hoekstra, 2014). Does
research reflect the urgency of water problems and the

significance of this topic? Some
scholars have noted the dearth of organizational studies
research on water problems and
urged new studies aimed at understanding and improving
human–water relations (e.g.
Kurland and Zell, 2010; Lambooy, 2011; Martinez, 2015;
Money, 2014). But, why is
there such a dearth of research in organizational studies on this
topic? Some suggest that
for too long and in too many places, water, this crucial element
of life, has been taken for
granted, priced below its value, and assumed to exist in
abundance (Barnett, 2011). To
these points, we add the idea that too little attention has been
paid to examining how
favored metaphors and, relatedly, the hubris of
anthropocentrism have led to restricted
thinking when it comes to water sustainability issues.
Using normative metaphors to think about organizations and
water
The main purpose of thinking metaphorically is to generate new
understanding of an
abstract concept by compactly and vividly expressing what can
otherwise be said only
circuitously (Ortony, 1975). When metaphor is used, features of
the abstract concept that
previously were not present nor considered salient may be
advanced (see Cornelissen,
2005). Each metaphor highlights aspects of the concept while
implicitly hiding other
aspects (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).
In specifically relating the abstract concept organization to
‘water’ – a palpable,

familiar substance directly experienced every day – we invite
engagement with the
broader domain of water but recognize that the initial
conceptual blending of organiza-
tion and water might emerge from the more tangible features of
the comparison (e.g.
organizations as hydrologic cycles, organizations as drinking
fountains, or organizations
as people who are physically constituted by water). This type of
vividness is an advan-
tage of metaphor so long as the meaning developed is not too
restricted by the literal.
As shown in Table 1, we propose several abstract, non-literal
pairings that use the
word ‘as’ to link organization with source domains.2 We
elaborate the IoD root metaphor
with two sub-metaphors (organizations as systems of totalitarian
control and organiza-
tions as battlegrounds) and then extend it by deriving two
second-order metaphors:
organizations as water exploiters and organizations as water
keepers. We also experi-
ment with metaphors designed to serve as catalysts for thinking
beyond domination.
Sub-metaphors enable more specific mapping and nuanced
elaboration (Kovecses,
2000), whereas second-order metaphors extend a comparison
throughout a major part of
a work (cf. Alvesson, 1993; Fludernik, 2011).
Metaphors may be assessed using criteria such as compactness,
vividness, forceful-
ness and aptness (see Ortony, 1975). However, given the power
of metaphor to transform
thinking, some scholars have suggested that metaphors should

also be compatible with
progressive social change and theory development that has an
emancipatory intent. For
example, Larson (2011) places high priority on developing
prescriptive metaphors to
better bridge society and nature, and suggests that the pivotal
question is whether the
metaphors we choose will help us on the path to sustainability
or lead us further astray.
Following this method, some of the metaphors we develop (see
Table 1, Columns 3 and
4) are explicitly normative and are special cases of Oswick et
al.’s (2004) premeditated
metaphors. The latter are consciously and prescriptively
imposed as images of organiza-
tion to help generate new theory and solve organizational
problems.
Organizations as water exploiters
The water exploiter metaphor (see Table 1) is derived from the
IoD’s emphasis on sys-
tems of totalitarian control, and represents organization-based
domination of water
through privatization, hoarding, commodification,
contamination, wasteful use and other
activities that undermine the viability of aquatic systems. From
the perspective of organi-
zations as water exploiters, picturing organizations as ‘bloated’
can effectively signify
routine profligate water use and in many respects depicts

present day business as usual.
Related concepts from some areas of ecological research,
particularly agriculture and
international trade (e.g. water footprint, virtual water, embodied
water, or embedded
water) help elaborate this perspective. These concepts
emphasize the insight that there is
hidden water (often immense) in everything we encounter
(Allan, 2003). For example,
to produce a single hamburger for sale it takes an average of
2400 liters of water. The
embedded water in a hamburger can symbolize the scope of the
problem as rising popu-
lation and affluence create exponential demand for water. We
advance the water exploiter
lens to enhance reflection on dominating organizations that
create severe ecosystem
stress by using water in risky and unsustainable ways. An
artistic illustration of this point
may be found in the highly acclaimed, dystopian science fiction
film “Pumzi,” which
depicts a parched and barren, underground city in totalitarian
East Africa, following
World War III—the apocalyptic war over water. In this future
world, citizens are permit-
ted one small container of water per day. The container, which
appears in nearly every
scene, strongly resembles today’s sports drink bottles. It might
bait critique of multina-
tional water warrior Coca-Cola and its “Powerade” line (or,
ironically, as …

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).
Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
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.
Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
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 “sense-
making” (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
Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
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.
Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684

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,
Regent University
ISSN 1941-4684
inside or outside the organization can then be evaluated by use

How to Analyze Case Studies

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à How to Analyze Case Studies

Similaire à How to Analyze Case Studies (20)

Plus de ssuser47f0be

Plus de ssuser47f0be (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

How to Analyze Case Studies