Gareth Morgan (1998) argues that '...all organization and management theory and practice is based on images, or metaphors, that lead us to understand situations in powerful yet partial ways.' (p.3–4) Hence, he suggests, no one theory of management can serve all situations, we need to approach the same situation in different ways, using multiple metaphors to expand our perspective. From the silm® perspective it is argued that this capacity to approach the same situation in different ways reflects our ability to change "mental gear" to view organizations from different perspectives using different modes of thought. Indeed, support for this argument can be found later in Morgan's work where he cites Maturana and Varela (1980) who argue that the brain establishes and assigns patterns of variation and points of reference as expressions of its own mode of organization. Morgan's organizational metaphors will now be briefly reviewed and related to the silm® model. Of course, at this stage of development, it could be argued that the silm® model is just another metaphor. However, Judd (2006) proposes that the silm® model can be used as a framework to intergrate different psychological models. A pilot study suggests that the integrative framework has some validity. It is argued here that the same framework could integrate the organizational metaphors explored by Morgan. Organizations as Machines Morgan explains that machine organizations, usually called bureaucracies, have goals and objectives, a rational structure of jobs and activities, they follow a plan and people are employed to operate the machine in an appropriate, predetermined way. From the silm® perspective this metaphor reflects predominantly the "Logic" and "Material" modes of thought. Logic mode relates to planning, material mode to operation. Morgan suggests the strengths of the machine metaphor are to be found under conditions where machines work well. Limitations include the lack of flexibility and inability to adapt to change. Mechanistic organizations are not designed for innovation and they can also result in mindless and unquestioning bureaucracy. Back to Top Organizations as Organisms Morgan suggests that the metaphor of organizations as organisms can help a business flow and adapt to a changing environment. It offers powerful ways of thinking about the design of an organization and strategy. The emphasis is on survival, adaption and effectiveness. From the silm® perspective this suggests the "Intuitive" mode and creativity have a more significant role to play. Of course implementation requires the Logic and Material modes as well. There is perhaps greater flexibility than with pure machine bureaucracies. Morgan goes on to explain that employees can be motivated and effective by allowing them to achieve rewards and satisfy their personal needs, that is, to express their human side. The significance of work motivation and the satisfaction of needs is expressed in the work of Maslow (1943) who describes a hierarchy of needs towards full growth and development beyond. This "need" would seem to reflect the "internal world," a dimension of the silm® model. Morgan proceeds to introduce contingency theory which he suggests has become the dominant perspective. The emphasis is upon balancing internal needs with adaption to the environment or situation, organizing appropriately and changing management style accordingly. Again, from the silm® pespective this reflects the internal/external world dynamic of the silm® model. Morgan argues that one of the strengths of this metaphor is that it encourages organizations to pay close attention to the external environments to which they are inextricably linked, and managers, to achieve congruence with them. Survival and evolution are seen as central concerns, therefore focussing on key subsystems and needs can help organizations achieve effective relations with the environment. Limitations include the fact that organizations are not organisms. Conflict, and the role of power, are significant factors in any organization. Morgan concludes that when we take the parallels between nature and society too seriously, we fail to see that human beings, in principle, have a large measure of influence and choice over what their world can be. It is significant that Morgan has inserted the rider "in principle." Just how much influence and choice the majority of individuals have over what their world can be depends on many factors, some of which will be considered here. [see also Existential Perspective in Coaching] Back to Top Organizations as Brains Morgan uses the metaphor of the brain as a holographic system favouring a more decentralized, distributed form of intelligence with no centre or point of control. The brain apparently stores and processes data in many parts simultaneously. Pattern and order are said to '…emerge from the process - it is not imposed' as different elements are involved in systems of "parallel processing." However, it is argued that the brain displays considerable system specialization and therefore it is both holographic and specialized with the left and right hemispheres displaying dominance in different specializations, although both are said to be involved in any given activity (pp.71-72). Of several paradoxes identified one raises the question as to how can the most highly coordinated and intelligent system of which we are aware have no predetermined or explicit design? This is said to be close to the view of Daniel Dennet who suggests that there is no master centralised intelligence 'only' an incredible set of parallel activities that make complementary and competing contributions to what emerges as consciousness. Morgan suggests that we can think of organizations, like brains, as interconnected systems, including an information processing brain, where implementation teams and departments "think" for an organization and control overall activities. We can also understand organizations as complex learning systems—engaged in self-regulating behaviour based upon the principle of negative feedback—organizations are capable of learning in a brain like way through both single-loop and double-loop learning. Intelligent systems require a sense of the vision, norms, values, limits, or "reference points" that are a guide to self-regulating behaviour. If managers develop new innovative ways to meet customers' needs an open system can use these local ideas to actually influence the wider operating rules of the system. Thus the principles and values of the organization can evolve. As to Organizations as holographic brains Morgan suggests that every individual in an organization has a wonderful brain and the potential for new forms of intelligence to emerge from this vast network of connections is enormous. In summary Morgan suggests a new theory of management based upon the principles of self-organization challenges traditional ideas about strong central leadership and control, the setting of clear goals and objectives, the role of hierarchy, the concept of organizational design and top-down systems. As to limitations, Morgan suggests that there may be a conflict between the requirements of organizational learning and the realities of power and control. Further, the process of learning requires a degree of openness and self-criticism that is foreign to traditional modes of management. And finally, learning in an organization is not an end in itself, ultimately it should serve some positive purpose within society. Back to Top Organizations as Cultures Morgan explains that 'Once we understand culture's influence on workplace behaviours, we realize organizational change is cultural change and that all aspects of corporate transformation can be approached with this perspective in mind.' (p.111) Morgan accepts that different groups of people have different ways of life. However, in most large cities in the World he suggests that office and factory workers all live similar lives and that they belong to the same "industrial culture." They are all members of organizational societies but national culture shapes the character of an organization. Morgan explains that just as individuals in a culture might share much in common their personalities can be very different. So too can groups within organizations. It is this phenomenon that is described as "corporate culture." Morgan then considers various influences on corporate cultures including values, leadership style and gender. Citing Weick (1979), the process of enactment is described, whereby we must understand culture as an ongoing, proactive process of reality construction. Organizationally, shared meanings provide alternatives to control through external procedures and roles. Values may have little to do with the actual organizations in which they are found, yet they may play a crucial role in upsetting all attempts at cultural change. Strengths include the fact that the metaphor of organizations as cultures emphasizes the symbolic significance of almost everything we do. Limitations include the fact that the culture metaphor can be used to support ideological manipulation and control. It is holographic and cannot really be managed and important dimensions are always invisible. Finally, the political dimension is so deep that it is impossible to grasp the full significance of culture through the culture metaphor. Back to Top Organizations as Political Systems Morgan suggests that politics is an inevitable feature of corporate life. Effective managers are said to be skilled political actors. Aware of competing interests they use conflict as a positive force. For the worker there is a conflict between self-determination as a democratic right and in the extreme, total subjugation as an employee. Thus organizations are inevitably political systems involving the activities of rulers and the ruled. Morgan explains that we can analyze organizational politics in a systematic way by focussing on relations among interests, conflict and power. When alternative paths of action are possible people have different ideas about how to go about things. Choices hinge on the power relations between those involved. Hence coalition building is an important dimension of almost all organizational life. There is also a need to understand conflict that arises whenever interests collide. Although regarded as undesirable it is in fact normal and will always be present in organizations. Its source always rests in some perceived or real divergence of interests. Power—Morgan lists a number of sources of power including symbolism and the management of meaning. The democratic leader spends time listening, summarizing, integrating, and guiding what is being said, making interventions and summoning images, ideas, and values that help those involved to make sense of the situation with which they are dealing. Gender and management of gender relations Present structure is said to enable men to achieve positions of prestige and power more easily than women, called the "glass ceiling" effect. However, Morgan argues that the characteristics of the female archetype have much to offer. Structural factors that define the stage of action Morgan asks "How is it that there can be so many sources of power, yet so many feelings of powerlessness? One answer he suggests rests in the "pluralist" view that access to power is so open, wide and varied that to a large extent power relations become more or less balanced. Another explanation he suggests rests in the "deep structural" view, that the power play is defined by economics, race, class relations, and other deep-structural factors that shape the social epoch in which we live. Strengths include the fact that the political metaphor encourages us to see how all organizational activity is interest based and to evaluate organizational functioning with this in mind. Therefore power is a central consideration, previous metaphors have tended to underplay the relation between power and organization. Conflict management becomes a key activity. Management is focused on balancing and coordinating these interests so that people can work together within the constraints set by the organization's formal goals. Conflict can encourage self-evaluation and challenge conventional wisdom. It can also stimulate learning and change and help an organization to keep abreast of a changing environment and be a source of constant innovation. Morgan argues that rationality is always political. No one is neutral in the management of organizations—even managers! They like others, use the organizations as a legitimizing umbrella under which to pursue a variety of task, career and personal interests. Organizational integration is said to become problematic. Much organization theory has built on the assumption that organizations, like machines or organisms, are unified systems that bind part and whole in a quest for survival. The political metaphor suggests otherwise. Interaction ultimately depends on the degree to which people really need each other. It is much better to think about the organization as a coalition of changing interests and manage it that way than to pretend that it has more integrated properties. An analysis of organizational politics in terms of the interplay among rival interests, conflicts, and sources of power can help us understand and manage those forces. Limitations include the fact that the metaphor should be used with caution, otherwise its use may generate cynicism and mistrust in situations were there were none before. The political metaphor can also seem too friendly because it underplays gross inequalities in power and influence. The political metaphor may overstate the power and importance of the individual and underplay the system dynamics that determine what becomes political and how politics occurs. Back to Top Psychic Prisons The nature of psychic prisons, with favoured ways of thinking and acting, become traps that confine individuals within socially constructed worlds that prevent the emergence of other worlds. Janis (1972) describes this process as "groupthink." Morgan argues that whilst there may be such blindspots in conscious awareness there are also many unconscious dimensions to how we construct the reality of organizational life. Much of what happens at a surface level must take account of the hidden structure and dynamics of the human psyche. Psychoanalytic organization theory suggests that the bureaucracy is not only a mechanistic form of organization but an anal one too. Hence some people will be able to work in this kind of organization more effectively than others. Morgan suggests the more flamboyant, flexible, organic, innovative firms often call for a creative looseness of style that is quite alien to the bureaucratic personality. In aggressive, individualistic organizations the corporate culture is often characterized by a phallic-narcissistic ethos, where satisfaction is derived from being visible, adored, and "a winner." In viewing organizations as unconscious extensions of family relations, we have a powerful means to understanding key features of the corporate world. Defence mechanisms are said to pervade almost every aspect of organizational activity as people—operating as individuals or through unconscious collusion as groups—construct realities wherein threats and concerns within the unconscious mind become embodied in their understanding of the wider world. Organization, Shadow, and Archetype Jung (1953) viewed the psyche as part of a "collective unconscious" that transcends the limits of time and space. He used the term "shadow" to refer to unrecognized or unwanted drives and desires, both constructive and destructive forces. Unresolved tensions within can be projected onto others and external situations. Thus to understand external reality we need to understand "the other within." As the male archetype asserts itself, values associated with the female are submerged. By recognizing this we can tap submerged resources of energy and creativity and make our institutions much more human, vibrant, and morally responsive and responsible that they are now. Strengths of the metaphor are that it encourages us to question basic assumptions about how we see and experience our world. We also learn why change and innovation can be so difficult. The psychic prison metaphor heightens our awareness of the relationship between "the rational" and what seems "irrational," and warns of the dangers of dismissing or downplaying the significance of the latter, because the irrational can be an incredibly powerful force for the people involved. Rational decision processes need to make more room for creative leaps. However, Morgan warns that the metaphor has limitations and can be criticized for placing too much emphasis on the role of mental processes in creating, sustaining, and changing organizations and society. Further, many of the implications of the metaphor ignore the realities of power and the force of vested interests. The metaphor can also be exploited if it leads to attempts to manage each other's minds. Back to Top Organizations as Flux and Transformation Four "logics of change" are describe. Autopoiesis: there is agreement that the major problems facing modern organizations stem from changes in the external environment. Maturana and Varela (1980) argue that living systems are characterized by three principal features: autonomy, circularity, and self-reference with a capacity for self-production through a closed system of relations. The theory of autopoiesis accepts that systems can be recognized as having "environments" but insists that relations with any environment are internally determined. Organizations enact, they represent or perform in their environments as extensions of their own identity. Enactment is a core process that projects, defines, and produces a particular way of existing. Identity and Closure — The example Morgan gives is of the developments in digital and microprocessing technology. "Watchmakers" or "typewriter firms" failed to understand that these identities were no longer relevant or realistic. Systemic wisdom: Evolving identity—In the long run, Morgan argues that survival can only be survival with, never survival against, the environment or context in which one is operating. The challenge presented by the theory of autopoiesis is to understand how organizations change and transform themselves along with their environment, and to develop approaches to organization that can foster open-ended evolution. The logic of chaos and Complexity It seems best to view organization and environment as elements of the same interconnected pattern. In evolution, it is pattern that evolves. This idea is supported by the theory of chaos and self-organization, and complexity theory. System behaviours tend to fall under the influence of different "attractors." A system can be caught in a trajectory where events are unique yet patterned, and how the behaviour of the system can "flip" from one pattern to another. Managing in the midst of complexity—The brain metaphor suggests that there is no master manager or grand architect. Order evolves under the influence of a number of simple rules, there is no absolute ordering or predesign. Managing in a changing context—managers need to become skilled in helping to shape the "minimum specs" that can define an appropriate context, while allowing the details to unfold within this frame. Morgan states that the challenge of complex systems often seems overwhelming. The complexity defies comprehensive analysis, and it is often difficult to know where to intervene. But he argues that quantum change can be achieved incrementally. Whilst this may seem contradictory from a linear perspective, in complex nonlinear systems small incremental changes can produce large quantum effects. Managing Paradox—The successful management of change requires skills in dealing with contradictory tensions. Citing Lewin (1951), any successful change rests in "unfreezing" an established equilibrium by enhancing the forces driving change, or by reducing or removing the resisting forces and then "refreezing" in a new equilibrium state. However, the dialectical view differs in that it sees paradox as a product of internal tensions produced by the fact that elements of both sides of the paradox may embrace equally desirable states. A strength of this metaphor is that it helps us to understand the nature and source of change and that we may be able to influence the processes that produce them.The theories of complexity and chaos suggest that when pushed into edge-of-chaos situations the basic pattern can flip into new forms. The managerial challenge rests in nudging systems into desired paths by initializing small changes that can produce large effects. Limitations —The majority of management theory is based on the idea that it is possible to organize, predict and control. The insights of chaos and complexity theory suggest that given the reality of complex systems this is not possible. There is order in the chaos. However, the order only becomes apparent with hindsight. There is an aspiration to predict and see the future, and thereby to be "in control." the ultimate challenge may be to recognize the emergent nature of change and let this aspiration go. Back to Top Organizations as instruments of domination Morgan suggests organizations are often used as instruments of domination that further the selfish interests of elites at the expense of others, and there is an element of domination in all organizations. Morgan continues, reviewing significant theoretical perspectives on domination, including Weber (1947), who was particularly concerned by the trend towards increasing bureaucratization and rationalization, which he saw as a very great threat to the freedom of the human spirit and the values of liberal democracy. For Marx (1976) domination is generated by the quest for surplus value and accumulation of capital. Morgan argues that the real value of these perspectives is that they show how even the most rational and democratic forms of organization can result in modes of domination where certain people acquire and sustain a commanding influence over others, often through subtle processes of socialization and belief. Discussing global dominance Morgan suggests that of all organizations multinationals come closest to realizing Max Weber's worst fears with regards to how bureaucratic organizations can become totalitarian regimes serving the interests of elites, where those in control are able to exercise power that is "practically unshatterable." Citing Drucker (1995), given "pension fun socialism" the "owners" are not really in a position to know what is happening, especially on a detailed level, because multinationals usually control a network of subsidiary companies. Power is firmly concentrated in the hands of senior management. Strengths include the fact that the metaphor draws our attention to the double-edged nature of rationality. For example, actions that are rational for increasing profitability may have a damaging effect on employees' health; what is rational for one organization may be catastrophic for another. As to limitations the metaphor can add to the polarization between social groups if domination is interpreted as an aim rather than an unintended result. It can also lead to blaming individual decision makers rather than seeing that the "logic" of the whole system needs to be addressed. It can also be seen as too extreme. Back to Top Implications for Practice The ability to "read" and understand what is happening in an organization is a key managerial competence. Morgan describes two key processes: a diagnostic reading, to gain as comprehensive understanding as possible; What is happening? What understanding or lessons can we take away from the experience? How can we use the knowledge we have gained? and a critical evaluation that integrates key insights. By creating a kind of storyline that brings together our diagnostic insights in a meaningful way to advance our objectives. From a manager-consultant's perspective the challenge of using multiple readings is to convert them into a storyline that can help us deal with the complexity of the situation. A storyline implies a course of action. Using Metaphor to Manage in a Turbulent world Morgan argues that managers have to get beneath the surface and understand what is happening at a deeper level. Citing Heisenberg, understanding ultimately rests in the ability to recognize how many different phenomena are really part of a coherent whole. Genuine understanding cuts through surface complexity to reveal an underlying pattern. Morgan stresses that theories become building blocks, not fixed answers. It is vital that we know what they are and the strengths and limitations that they express. Back to Top