Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-vq995 Total loading time: 0.4 Render date: 2021-10-17T04:33:44.157Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

2 - Metaphor and embodied realism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2011

Loizos Heracleous
University of Warwick
Claus D. Jacobs
Universität St Gallen, Switzerland
Get access


In this chapter we outline the key theoretical antecedents to crafting strategy through embodied metaphors, primarily in terms of two domains: metaphor and embodied realism. In particular, we discuss metaphor as a creative force, beginning from the cognitive/semantic dimension, moving to the spatial, and then the embodied dimension. Further, given that crafting strategy through embodied metaphors has in practice taken place in the context of organization development interventions, we discuss the theoretical development of metaphor in this context. We finally address the paradigm of embodied realism in relation to social constructionism, so that embodied realism can be more specifically positioned. These theoretical antecedents will form the backdrop for subsequent discussion in subsequent chapters, for example of the concept of crafting strategy as a practice of recursive embodied enactment, in Chapter 4.

Metaphor as a creative force

The linguistic turn in the social sciences has portrayed language as fundamentally constructive and constitutive of social reality, rather than merely representative and functional (Wittgenstein, 1967). In organization studies, the constructive view of language thus seeks to explore the communicative practices of organizational actors and their role in the intersubjective construction of meaning through social interaction (e.g. Alvesson and Karreman, 2000; Barry and Elmes, 1997; Ford and Ford, 1995; Gergen and Thatchenkery, 1996; Heracleous and Barrett, 2001).

Crafting Strategy
Embodied Metaphors in Practice
, pp. 21 - 41
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. 2000. Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36: 136–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle, . 1991. On rhetoric (Kennedy, G.A., transl.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Armenakis, A. and Bedeian, A. 1992. The role of metaphors in organizational change. Change agent and change target perspectives. Group & Organization Management, 17: 242–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astley, W. G. 1985. Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, F. J. and Cooperrider, D. L. 1990. Generative metaphor intervention: A new behavioral approach for working with systems divided by conflict and caught in defensive perception. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26: 219–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, F. J., Thomas, G. F., and Hocevar, S. P. 1995. The central role of discourse in large-scale change: A social construction perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31: 352–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, D. 1994. Making the invisible visible: Using analogically-based methods to surface unconscious organizational processes. Organization Development Journal, 12(4): 37–47.Google Scholar
Barry, D. and Elmes, M. 1997. Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of Management Review, 22: 429–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Black, M. 1993. More about metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–43.Google Scholar
Bougon, M. G. 1992. Congregate cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 369–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. M. 1992. Cognitive mapping and repertory grids for qualitative survey research. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buergi, P. and Roos, J. 2003. Images of strategy. European Management Journal, 21(1): 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, W. W. 1992. Metaphors to consult by. Group & Organization Management, 17: 255–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calori, R., Johnson, G., and Sarnin, P. 1994. CEOs' cognitive maps and the scope of the organization. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 437–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, I. and Mackaness, W. 2001. Management “intuition”: An interpretative account of structure and content of decision schemas using cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies, 38: 147–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleary, C. and Packard, T. 1992. The use of metaphors in organizational assessment and change. Group & Organization Management, 17: 229–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, J. 2004. What are we playing at? Theatre, organization and the use of metaphor. Organization Studies, 25: 705–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, J. 2005. Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 30: 751–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, J. 2006. Organization theory: A case study of the organizational identity metaphor. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 683–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijk, T. A. V. 1988. Social cognition, social power and social discourse. Text, 8: 129–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, L. 1985. In defence of organization theory: A reply to the critics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. 1986. For positivist organization theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Doyle, J. R. and Sims, D. 2002. Enabling strategic metaphor in conversation: A technique of cognitive sculpting for explicating knowledge. In Huff, A. S. and Jenkins, M. (eds.), Mapping strategic knowledge. London: Sage, 63–85.Google Scholar
Eden, C. 1992. On the nature of cognitive maps, Journal of Management Studies, 29: 261–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. 1996. Action research for management research. British Journal of Management, 7: 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, M. W. 1993. Principles of cognitive psychology. Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ford, J. D. and Ford, L. W. 1995. The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20: 541–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, H. 1993. Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. 1999. An invitation to social construction. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Gergen, K. J. and Thatchenkery, T. J. 1996. Organization science as social construction: Postmodern potentials. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32: 356–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, D. and Oswick, C. (eds.), 1996. Metaphor and organizations. London: Sage.
Heracleous, L. 2004. Interpretive approaches to organizational discourse. In Grant, D., Phillips, N., Hardy, C., Putnam, L., and Oswick, C. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Discourse. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 175–92.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L. and Barrett, M. 2001. Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 755–78.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L. and Jacobs, C. 2008. Understanding organizations through embodied metaphors. Organization Studies. 29(1): 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heracleous, L. and Marshak, R. 2004. Conceptualizing organizational discourse as situated symbolic action. Human Relations, 57: 1285–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, P. M. 1986. From ambushes to golden parachutes: Corporate takeovers as an instance of cultural framing and institutional integration. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 800–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, M. A. 1989. Using imagery to facilitate organizational development and change. Group & Organization Studies, 14: 70–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P. and Johnson, G. 1994. Exploring the mental models of competitive strategists: The case for a processual approach. Journal of Management Studies, 31: 525–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inns, D. 2002. Metaphor in the literature of organizational analysis: A preliminary taxonomy and a glimpse at a humanities-based perspective. Organization, 9: 305–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, C. and Heracleous, L. 2006. Constructing shared understanding – the role of embodied metaphor in organization development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(2): 207–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joas, H. 1996. The creativity of action. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind : The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. and Lakoff, G. 2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13: 245–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, 1: 39–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortonty, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press, 202–51.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Marshak, R. 1993. Managing the metaphors of change. Organizational Dynamics, 22(1): 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of perception. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphor and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 660–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, G. 1983. More on metaphor: Why we cannot control tropes in administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 601–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, G. 1986. Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. 1996. An afterword: Is there anything more to be said about metaphor? In Oswick, C. and Grant, D. (eds.), Metaphor and organization. London: Sage, 227–40.
Oswick, C. 1996. Insights into diagnosis: An exploration using visual metaphors. In Oswick, C. and Grant, D. (eds.), Organisation development: metaphorical explorations. London: Pitman. 137–51.Google Scholar
Oswick, C. and Grant, D. (eds.), 1996. Organisation development: metaphorical explorations. London: Pitman.
Oswick, C. and Montogomery, J. 1999. Images of an organization: The use of metaphor in a multinational company. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12: 501–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., and Grant, D. 2002. Metaphorical and analogical reasoning in organization theory: Beyond orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review. 27: 294–303.Google Scholar
Palmer, I. and Dunford, R. 1996a. Coflicting uses of metaphors: Reconceptualizing their use in the field of organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 21: 691–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, I. and Dunford, R. 1996b. Understanding organisations through metaphor. In Oswick, C. and Grant, D. (eds.), Organisation development: metaphorical explorations. London: Pitman, 7–15.Google Scholar
Pinder, C. C. and Bourgeois, V. W. 1982. Controlling tropes in administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 641–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pondy, L. R. 1983. The role of metaphors and myths in organization and in the facilitation of change. In Pondy, L. R., Frost, P.J., Morgan, G. and Dandridge, T. C. (eds.), Organizational symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 157–66.Google Scholar
Robinson, A. H. and Petchenik, B. B. 1976. The nature of maps: Essays toward understanding maps and mapping. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rohrer, T. 2007. The body in space: Embodiment, experientialism and linguistic conceptualization. In Ziemke, T. Zlatev, J. and Frank, R. (eds.), Body, language and mind, Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sackmann, S. 1989. The role of metaphors in organization transformation. Human Relations, 42: 463–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schon, D. 1993. Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, 137–63.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. 1993. Analogical reasoning and knowledge generation in organization theory. Organization Studies, 14: 323–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1990. Introduction: Cartographic myths in organizations. In Huff, A. S. and Jenkins, M. (eds.), Mapping strategic thought. Chichester: Wiley, 1–10.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1967. Philosophical investigations, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Worren, N., Moore, K., and Elliott, R. 2002. When theories become tools: Toward a framework for pragmatic validity. Human Relations, 55: 1227–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats