lllll"'ll1llli'vlmflilllmllmltl if _

3 1293 10702 5169 .
iiifiifitfi‘
Michigan State

University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

"Machines, Families, and Militaries: How
Organizational Members Use Language
to Construct Organizational Reality"
presented by
Catherine Lee Helms

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Communication

W V avraca/

Major professor

Date October 291 1985

0-7639 ‘ MS U is an Wank Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. ‘FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

MACHINES, FAMILIES, AND MILITARIES:
HOW ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS USE LANGUAGE
TO CONSTRUCT ORGANIZATIONAL REALITY

BY

Catherine Lee Helms

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

1985

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of
Communication, College of Communication Arts and Sciences,
Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Master of Arts degree.

Guidance JQCZzfifc’L V flair/(IQ? Chairman

Committee:
2

/ 1 ,' ' \
“fl 6 / ;l/YLr/ M -..

 

MA? A7 @fiflflf

ABSTRACT
MACHINES, FAMILIES, AND MILITARIES:

HOW ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS USE LANGUAGE
TO CONSTRUCT ORGANIZATIONAL REALITY

BY

Catherine Lee Helms

The influence of language usage upon the perceptions
of organizational members and, subsequently, upon the or-
ganizing process is explored. Organizing is viewed as a
dynamic process in which members reduce equivocality by
actively and consensually structuring their environment.
Metaphor was selected as the pertinent linguistic device
in this process for its ability to clarify unfamiliar sit-
uations and still allow for diverse interpretations of an
equivocal event. Contrary to the hypotheses, it was found
that as communication among organizational members increased
the similarity of the linguistic features appearing in their
communication (e.g., metaphor) decreases. Furthermore, as
communication increased, the accuracy with which they pre-
dicted each others attitudes decreased. However, meta-
phorical similarity was found to be positively related to

the accuracy of members' attitudinal predictions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank, first of all, Dr. Richard V. Farace
for his unfailing patience and insightful guidance which,
coupled with a wry wit, served to avert a number of poten—
tial disasters during the course of my graduate years. I
would also like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Gerald R.
Miller and Dr. William Donahue for their astute counsel
during the preparation of my Master's Thesis.

I also wish to recognize the contributions of my parents,
Leo and Martha Helms, who provided me with the emotional sup-
port which made everything possible.

And finally, I wish to thank my husband, Rashmi Kothari,
for encouraging me at the low times, rejoicing with me at

the high times, and laughing with me at all times.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Chapter I -- Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . l
The Process of Organizing . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Definitional Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Agreement and Perceived Agreement . . . . . . . 5
Stability v. Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Role of Communication in the
Organizing Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chapter II -— Metaphor as a Powerful
Linguistic Device . . . . . . . . 13
Definition of Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Metaphor and Homogeneity . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Metaohor and Heterogeneity . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter III -- Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Operationalizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Chapter IV -- Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Content Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Statistical Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Chapter V -- Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

References

Notes..................
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix -- Example of Survey Questionnaire
Completed by Respondents . . .

iv

LIST OF TABLES

‘Page

Table 1 -- Frequency of Responses Within

Each Thematic Category . . . . . . . 33

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l -- Illustration of the Theoretical
Model to be Empirically Tested .

Figure 2 -- Illustration of the Revised Model
Based Upon the Data Collected .

vi

42

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Process of Organizing

 

Organizing is a process composed of the patterned be-
havioral interactions of a number of individuals collectively
seeking to specify appropriate responses to their environ-
ment (i.e., to reduce equivocality)l (Deetz, 1982; Hunt,
1972; Monge, 1977; Pacanowsky & O'Donnell—Trujillo, 1983;
Weick, 1979). The process notion of organizing has two im-
plications: (1) it is dynamic, constantly changing and
developing, and (2) it is complex, with many elements which
interact and influence one another simultaneously. The pat-
terned nature of organizational members' interactions point
to the presence of structured relationships (however flex-
ible) that guide and coordinate these interactions. The
search for efficient and effective responses to phenomena
is the motivating factor behind organizing.

The organizing process as outlined above often con-
strains perceptions of stability and predictability by an
organization's members. "Much of what happens in organiza-
tions to individuals, formal units, and informal groups is
chaotic. As members . . . communicate to set and achieve
goals, organize themselves into cohesive units, and establish

social ties and group identities, they often find their

2
here-and-now experiences confusing" (Bormann, 1983, p. 101).
In reaction to the dynamism of the organizing process, or-
ganizational members engage in sense-making behavior in-
tended to impose structure and, consequently, predictability
upon their world (Conrad, 1983). This structure is com-
prised of rules and procedures mandated by the organization
and its members either formally or informally.

Implicit in this conceptualization of organizing is
the idea that individuals actively structure and reinforce
their 'environment'. Not only do they construct and enforce
the rules and procedures enabling them to make sense of and
deal with their environment, they also actively influence
the perceptions (and evaluations) leading to these rules
and procedures. Snyder, Berscheid, and Decker-Tanke (1977)
claim that, "unbeknownst to the perceiver, the reality that
he confidently perceives to exist in the social world has,
in fact, been actively constructed by his own transactions
with and operations upon the social world" (p. 658). In
effect, people externalize their preconceived notions of
what should exist in the world by recognizing only those
events and objects which they've anticipated, and then be-
having as if these are the only events and objects which
actually exist (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Morgan, 1983).
Individuals not only select stimuli, they also manipulate
them to fit into their interpretational frameworks. The
meanings of phenomena are predetermined to a large extent.

The result of the organizing process is a decrease in

the equivocality perceived by organizational members. The

resolution of equivocality leads to feelings of environ-
mental stability (Festinger, 1954; Farace, Monge, &
Russell, 1977), which further engenders perceptions of
environmental control. Organizational members collectively
structure organizational reality, and with definition comes
a sense of control. Three key issues arise from the pro-
cess notion of organizing which the following sections
explore. Each of these issues involves a further breakdown
of how organizational members organize.

First, the definitional process engaged in by organi-
zational members is socially enacted. Social construction
of the environment is motivated by two underlying elements:
(1) the need to conform, and (2) the need to incorporate
'outside' information in developing attitudes.

Second, consensual definition of phenomena occurs on
two levels: (1) actual definitional agreement between or-

ganizational members, and (2) perceived definitional agree-

 

ment between organizational members.

Third, the definitional process, as outlined in the
preceding two sections, enables the organization to maintain
a sense of stability while retaining flexibility. These
three issues are discussed further in the following section.

Definitional Processes

 

In this section a theoretical explanation for why
social construction occurs is presented. Interpretation of
equivocal input arises from the cooperative efforts of a
number of individuals collectively musing upon the meaning

and implications of an act or event (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978;

Weick, 1979; Deetz, 1982). Social Information Processing
Theory, developed by Salancik and Pfeffer (1978), centers
on the collective manner in which much equivocal stimuli
are made sensible.

The social information processing approach pro—

ceeds from the fundamental premise that indivi-

duals, as adaptive organisms, adapt attitudes,
behavior, and beliefs to their social context

and to the reality of their own past and pre-

sent behavior and situation . . . The social

context has two general effects on attitude

and need statements: (1) it provides a direct

cOnstruction of meaning through guides to

socially acceptable reasons for action; (2)

it focuses an individual's attention on cer-

tain information, making that information

more salient, and provides expectations con-

cerning individual behavior and the logical

consequences of such behavior.

Individuals develop many of their attitudes and per-
ceptions of the world on the basis of feedback from, and
interaction with, those around them. Those with whom in-
dividuals associate act as interpretational mediators,
focusing their attention on particular stimuli and influ-
encing the manner in which they attach meaning to that
stimuli.

Directed meaning is constructed, perpetuated, and
modified via communicative interactions among members. They
embark on collaborative efforts to (1) ensure conformity
for themselves in relation to others and of deviates
(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Newcomb, 1953) and (2) obtain ad-
ditional attitudinal and perceptual input from others with

which to devise their interpretation of equivocal phenomena

(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).

Further, the more equivocal events are, the more im-
perative socially processed definitions become (Salancik
& Pfeffer, 1978). Festinger (1954) concluded that the
greater ambiguity of job characteristics, the more the
worker will rely on social comparisons to assess them.
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) discovered that "the more un-
certain the individual is about the correctness of his
judgement, the more likely he is to be susceptible to both
normative and information social influences in making his
judgement" (p. 630). White and Mitchell (1979) found that
in the absence of objective information, employees relied
more heavily on social cues in evaluating aspects of their
work environment.

This brief review of the prevailing literature on
social construction of reality focuses on two components:
(1) individuals' need to conform to their social environment,
and (2) individuals' reliance on others form the trans-
actional activity of sense-making and interpretational re-
inforcement. The following section provides an explanation
for how social consensus occurs.

Agreement and Perceived Agreement

 

Scheff (1967) developed a two-element model of con-
sensus. He defines social consensus in terms of the levels
of co-orientation achieved. The zero-order level repre-
sents actual agreement or disagreement. The first-order

level refers to perceived agreement or disagreement. So,

 

for example, if two groups of assembly line workers agree

that a new company policy is fair and equitable then there
is a zero-order co-orientation. If each also believes that
the other is in agreement with them, then there is first—
order co-orientation. The model incorporates higher levels
of consensus (for instance, at the second level groups
recognize each others' perception of the other's position);
however, the focus of this paper will be on the zero— and
first-order levels.

Earlier, the dichotomy organizations face between order
and adaptability was noted. It was posited that organiza—
tional members collectively arrive at a response to this
issue. One mechanism used in organizations is to focus on
the attainment of perceived agreement rather than on actual
agreement; on first-order rather than zero—order consensus
(Farace, Monge, & Russell, 1977; Eisenberg, 1983). If mem-
bers believe they are in agreement with one another, regard—
less of their actual position, then the perceptions of
stability and control so necessary to organizational sur-
vival are fostered. Tangentially, on the occasions where
members perceive themselves to be in agreement when they
are not, each will confidently act upon his or her inter-
pretation of the situation. Rather than resulting in chaos,
there is the potential for the organization to reap the
benefits and select among a number of successfully carried
through plans of action instead of becoming fixed to one
standard operating procedure. Organizations are thus able

to retain multiple options in their response to equivocal

stimuli and at the same time encourage perceptions of
stability by organizational members. Weick (1979) calls
this process 'split decision'. "It is the split usage of
retained content that enables the organization or organism
to fit into a particular environment, generate immediate
activity, and still detect the necessity for altered actions
to improve that fit" (p. 219).

It's easy to assume that adaptation is promoted
consistent acts emitted by a tightly run or-
ganization. If people make that assumption,
then evidence of ambivalence and hypocrisy is
treated as a threat to adaptation and survrval
. . . the opposite is true. Ambivalence may
guarantee adaptation in the short run and sur-
vival in the long run. If some faction of the
organization wants to act on the basis of pat
wisdom and some other faction wants to act in
ways that Oppose the past, both factions are
partially correct. More importantly, both
factions should act on behalf of their beliefs.
What is being observed here is simply another
instance of the split decision pattern that
allows the organization to retain both flexi-
bility and stability (p. 244).

 

The next section introduces the function of multiple-order
consensus in the attainment of an effective stable/flexible
balance.

Stability v. Flexibility

 

An organization's struggle to mesh idiosyncratic
responses to equivocality invariably results in an attempt
to institutionalize the various attributional systems of
its members, making them more predictable and, therefore,
more controllable (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). If this auto-
matic response continues unchecked, an organization can find

itself so protectively padded by rules and regulations that

it is unable to sense or adjust to external changes. This
insularity works to retard internal growth as well.

In spite of the overwhelming strain toward the security
of tight control, organizations must somehow maintain a
balance between stability and adaptability, between control
and coordination, and between collective and individual
sense-making. They must develop and maintain a 'sense' of
themselves, their raison d'etre, so as not to be subsumed
by the larger social order or torn apart from within, and to
aid interpretational processes. Yet at the same time they
must remain sensitive enough to detect and react to exceeded
tolerance levels, both externally and internally.

It is through communication (e.g., how language is used)
that this is accomplished. It is the distance between zero-
and first-order consensus which largely determines an organ-
ization's ability to accomplish the above. An organization
which supports diverse attitudes (i.e., low zero-order con-
sensus) allows for a wide range of responses to its environ-
ment. An organization which maintains a strong sense of
purpose and cohesion (i.e., high first-order consensus) en-
genders feelings of stability and predictability. An or-
ganization which incorporates both (low zero-order and high
first-order consensus) has achieved a balance between
stability and flexibility.

The Role of Communication in the Organizing Process

 

The nature of an organization's sense-making agenda

determines the success of the organizing process.

Communicative acts are the means by which sense-making
agendas are constructed, diffused, and transformed. People
are motivated to communicate with others, and through this
communication, to develop stable, socially-derived inter—
pretations of events and their meanings (Festinger, 1954;
Jacobson & Seashore, 1951; Frost & Morgan, 1983).

Social reality is defined by the language
used by the members of the social system.
Language does more than communicate infor-
mation and more than enable the members to
make sense. Language creates the reality.
The 'organization' has no objective reality
(in a positivistic sense), but rather is
created daily by the linguistic enactmEfits
of its members in the course of their every—
day communications between eadh other; that
is, by the way in which its members talk,
hold discourse, share meanings (Evered, 1983,
p. 126).

 

 

 

The definition of a phenomenon is little more than
the culmination of terms used to describe it and names pre-
viously applied to it. "When people collectively try to
shrink the possible meanings attached to an equivocal in-
put, they essentially are negotiating issues of naming and
connection" (Weick, 1979).

Referring to previous passages, organizations and their
members have a tendency to 'over' define and 'under"re-
define. It is to be expected that the labelling procedure
activated by ambiguous stimuli consumes time and effort,
particularly when the variable interpretations of many are
involved. Moreover, once something has been satisfactorily
defined, it is no longer perceived of as uncertain and, sub-

sequently, a sense of control is generated. Consequently,

10

if unchallenged, many social perceptions (i.e., meanings
attached to particular phenomena) would remain relatively
stable.

However, the world is not stable and unchanging. For
an organization to survive, its members must also be able
to gauge and respond to needed changes in their previously
satisfactory definitions.

An emphasis on attaining high first-order and low
zero-order consensus of definitions is one mechanism that
facilitates organizational sensitivity and flexibility. One
effective strategy for fostering perceptions of definitional
agreement (regardless of whether or not actual definitional
agreement exists) is to use unclear language. The more
ambiguous utterances are, the more room is left to infer
the meaning which is in line with their own attitudes and
values. "Strategic ambiguity is essential to organizing be-
cause it allows for multiple interpretations to exist among
people who content they are attending to the same message
(i.e., perceive the message to be clear) . . . Ambiguity
is used strategically to foster agreement without limiting
the number of possible interpretations" (Eisenberg, 1983,

p. 9). "[Purposeful ambiguity] is a potentially useful
message strategy for situations in which either the source
has little information about the attributes of the audience
or he is aware that the receivers have heterogeneous at-
titudes toward the message issue" (Wilson, 1971, p. 3).

In one sense, the normative function of social consensus is

11

being fulfilled. Everyone perceives their attitude as
being reinforced simultaneously with the belief that every—
one else agrees with it. In another sense, the informa—
tive function of social consensus is satisfied.

If a group doesn't have a solidified attitude toward
a subject, yet is predisposed toward a general position, an
ambiguous message will provide them with enough information
to develop an attitude, albeit biased by the original per—
ceptual framework of the group. Steinfatt, Miller, and
Bettinghaus' (1974) research supports the idea that the
greater the ambiguity of a statement, the greater the chance
that one or more of the interpretations of it will not occur
to the receivers. They "would not necessarily be reasoning
with the intended materials, but rather with only those re—
lationships which have occurred to [them]" (p. 317). The
relationships and implications that become apparent to indi—
viduals are influenced by those with whom they communicate
frequently (i.e., the group of which they're a member).

Given an ambiguous statement, some will interpret it
to encourage a move toward change, while others will inter-
pret it as reinforcement for the existing order; all the
while believing themselves to be in agreement (Eisenberg,
1984). At one level, there is the freedom for individual
group interpretation which allows for organizational flex-
ibility. At another level, the perceptions of agreement

lead to a more cohesive organization.

12

Strategic ambiguity, then, is an important mechanism
for coping with the following organizational paradoxes:
stability v. predictability, and organizational v. factional
interpretive frameworks. Metaphorical language is parti-
cularly useful in attaining strategic ambiguity.

Metaphor has long been the exclusive domain of poets
and rhetoricians. Recently, however, social scientists
have recognized the power and pervasiveness of metaphorical
language in everyday communication, especially in the appli-
cation of connotative meaning to equivocal episodes or be-
havior. "When people talk about [metaphor] they usually
talk about its role as a decorative figure of speech, How—
ever, one of the main contributions of modern linguists is
to show that once we penetrate beneath the taken—for-granted
meanings associated with these words, we quickly see that
their role and significance in language and thought is much
deeper and more pervasive . . . Metaphor makes meaning in a
primal way; its role is not just embellishment" (Morgan,
1983, p. 602).

Metaphor will be shown to be a potentially powerful
communicative device in the organizing process. Its char-
acteristics enable it to facilitate maintenance of organi-

zations' stability/flexibility balance.

CHAPTER II

METAPHOR AS A POWERFUL LINGUISTIC DEVICE

Definition of Metaphor

 

Through the years, theorists have debated the defini—
tion, functions, and components of metaphor. A theoretical
continuum has arisen which ranges from contentions that all
language is metaphorical (that anything symbolic qualifies
as a metaphor) (Carlyle, 1927) to claim that only those
linguistic configurations that conform to rigorous standards
are metaphoric (Searle, 1979). Whatever the stance one
adopts, there seems to be general agreement that a primary
purpose of metaphor is to equate two literally unlike things
so that additional understanding and comprehension are brought

to at least one of them (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

 

1979; Fraser, 1979; Kreftling & Frost, 1984; Black, 1979;
Ortony, 1975; Pondy, 1983).

Richards (1936) devised a succinct and comprehensive
'language' for discussing metaphors: 'Tenor' is the tOpic
under discussion; 'Vehicle' is the metaphorical term being
used; 'Ground' refers to what the tenor and vehicle have
in common; and 'Tension' refers to the dissimilar char—

acteristics of the two.

13

14

Searle (1979) discusses metaphor from a linguistic van-
tage. He distinguishes between the speaker's intention (what
he calls the utterance meaning) and the literal meaning of
the words, sentences, and expressions (termed the word mean—
ing). Based on these two concepts he devised a strategy
for interpreting metaphorical statements:

(1) Where the utterance is defective if

taken literally, look for an utterance mean-
ing that differs from sentence meaning, (2)
when you hear ' tenor ' is ' vehiCle ', to
find.possible utterance meanings look for
ways in which ' tenor ' might be like

' vehicle ', and to fill in the respect

in which ' tenor ' might be like ' vehicle ',
look for salient, well-known, and distinctive
features of ' vehicle ' things, and (3) go
back to the ' tenor ' and see which of the
many candidates for the ground are likely
or even possible properties of ' tenor '

(p. 114).

In other words, people exposed to a metaphorical statement
first decipher it literally. If the literal sentence is
nonsensical, then they search for metaphorical meaning by
comparing the tenor and vehicle for insight into the ground
and, consequently, comprehension of the figurative, or ut-
terance, meaning.

This above position has theoretical support, but little
empirical support (Fraser, 1979; Glucksberg, Gildea, &
Bookin, 1982). An alternative explanation is presented by
Black (1979) who adopts an interaction view of metaphor.

In context of a particular metaphorical state-

ment, the tenor and vehicle 'interact' in

the following ways: (a) the presence of the

primary subject the tenor incites the hearer

to select some of the secondary subject's the
vehicle properties; (b) invites him to

15

construct a parallel implication—complex that

can fit the primary subject; and (c) recipro-

cally induces parallel changes in the secondary

subject (p. 29).
Black's view has gained both empirical and theoretical sup-
port (Levin, 1979; Shon, 1979; Glucksberg, Gildea, & Bookin,
1982; Gardner & Winner, 1979). The interaction view suggests
two things: One, that the metaphorical influence is bi-
directional. That is, the tenor affects the meaning attri—
buted to the vehicle and is affected by the use of that
vehicle. Second, rather than determining figurative meaning
only after exhausting the plausible literal meanings, people
simultaneously take into account both the utterance and
word meanings of a sentence.

While attempting to conceptualize metaphors, many ty-
pologies and metaphor models have been deduced. Ortony (1975)
proposed a functional typology of metaphors. He claimed

that metaphorical language performed three functions:

(1) Metaphor enables the prediction of a
chunk of characteristics in a word or two
that would otherwise require a long list
of characteristics individually predicated
the Compactness thesis . . .(2) Metaphor
enables the predication by transfer of
characteristics which are unnameable the
Inexpressibility thesis . . .(3) Because
of a metaphor's greater proximity to per—
ceived experience and consequently its
greater vividness, the emotive as well as
the sensory and cognitive aspects are more
available, for they have been left intact
in the transferred chunk the Vividness
thesis (PP. 47-50).

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) have devised a metaphorical

typoloqy in which (1) orientational metaphors are abstract

16

phenomenon conceptualized as bodily experiences of the

physical world. Concepts are structured linearly (e.g.,

'his spirits rose'); (2) ontological metaphors involve the
projection of physical characteristics onto areas of experience
which have a non-physical status (e.g., 'the idea was hard

to swallow'); and (3) structural metaphors lay characteristics
of one structured experience or activity onto another (e.g.,
'time is money').

Fernandez (1972) developed a typology which focuses on
aspects similar to Lakoff and Johnson's. According to
Fernandez, (l) structural metaphors encourage translation be—
tween realms on the basis of some structural isomorphism or
relational similarity of parts (e.g., 'rain of blows'); and
(2) textual metaphors facilitate assimilation on the basis
of similarity in feeling tone (e.g., 'inflamed passion').

Finally, a typology has been constructed which divides
up metaphors on the basis of their novelty (Black, 1979;
Paivio, 1979; Cohen, 1979). Black (1979), for instance,
distinguishes between dormant metaphors (e.g., 'falling in
love') and active metaphors (e.g., 'he fought like a tiger').
Dormant metaphors have become cliches while active metaphors
are relatively unique. He contends that an active metaphor
has two important variables: (1) emphasis; the degree to
which the metaphor cannot be adequately replaced (similar

to Ortony's Inexpressibility thesis); and (2) resonance;

 

the degree to which the metaphor encourages implicative

elaboration (parallel to Ortony's Vividness thesis). The

17

greater the emphasis and resonance of a metaphor, the
stronger and more active it is.

There have been writings on both active and dormant/
dead metaphors. Berggren (1962) warns against the abuse of
metaphor (i.e., the creation of dead metaphors), defining it
as the loss of tension between the tenor and vehicle. The
metaphor is turned into, not only a literal truth, but the
literal truth about the principal subject in question. For
instance, the mechanistic metaphor of organizations qualifies
as a dead, or dormant, metaphor because many of its users no
longer recognize or acknowledge the dissimilarities between
mechanical parts comprising a machine and human parts com—
prising an organization (i.e., the tension between the tenor
(organization) and the vehicle (mechanical device) has dis—
appeared). In essence, advocates of this metaphorical view
of organizations perceive organizational members as unfeeling,
replacable components of a machine; employees don't just
resemble mechanical parts, they are mechanical parts.

Searle (1979), however, contends that dead metaphors
"have become dead through continual use, but their continual
use is a clue that they satisfy some semantic need" (p. 98).
Black (1979) supports this with the statement that a purpose
of metaphor is to "remedy a gap in the vocabulary" (p. 33).
If the metaphor is apt then “the new sense introduced will
quickly become part of the literal sense" (p. 33).

With regard to active metaphors, Paivio (1979) claims

that there are three important concepts which determine the

18

strength of what he calls novel metaphors (to be used inter—
changeably with active metaphors); (1) the similarity of the
attributes of the tenor and the vehicle; (2) the propor«
tional relation of a number of elements in the statement;
and (3) the perception of a new entity which is distinct
from the related elements considered separately. Krefting
and Frost (1984) write that "novelty appears to depend on
both frequency of use and tension between vehicle and topic
. . . richness of implications is a function of the com—
plexity of the ground shared by vehicle and tOpic . . . the
more extended the metaphor, the more ground vehicle and tOpic
are likely to share" (p. 8).

In acknowledgement of the numerous diSparate concepts
ualizations of metaphor, the definition to be used focuses
on the major integrating feature of metaphors. Metaphor is
the description of some phenomenon in terms of another, where
there are shared as well as distinct characteristics between
the two phenomena.2 Moreover, for the purposes of this
paper, the interaction View of metaphor will be adopted.
Additionally, attention will be focused on the dormant/active
distinction of metaphors.

Metaphor and Homogeneity

 

There are many theorists who argue that the use of meta-
phorical language enables organizational members to success-
fully reduce equivocality by facilitating the social develop-
ment and perpetuation of a cohesive sense of organizational

reality (Asch, 1958; Ortony, 1975; Pondy, 1983).

19

The use of metaphors in organizational dialog
plays a necessary role in helping organization
participants to infuse their organizational ex—
periences with meaning and to resolve apparent
paradoxes and contradictions, and that this in—
fusion of meaning or resolution of paradox is a
form of organizing. In this sense, the use of
metaphors helps to couple the organization, to
tie its parts together into some kind of mean—
ingful whole; that is, metaphors help to or—
ganize the objective facts of the situation in
the minds of the participants (Pondy, 1983,

p. 157).

Metaphors facilitate the organizing process in two ways.
First, they are a useful device for moving from the known
to the unknown.

They allow the transfer of coherent chunks of

characteristics -- perceptual, cognitive, emo—

tional, and experiential -- from a vehicle which

is known to a topic which is less so. In doing

so they circumvent the problem of specifying

one by one each of the often unnameable and

innumerable characteristics; they avoid dis-

cretizing the perceived continuity of experience

and are thus closer to experience and con-

sequently more vivid and memorable (Ortony,

1975, p. 53).

Second, just as other communication forms serve to
socially construct reality, so metaphors perform the same
service more economically. As organizational members sift
through behavioral patterns, social and political situations,
and environmental events, they collectively enact parti-
cular sequences of stimuli. Together they search for a
sensible interpretation of these to reduce experienced equi-
vocality and enhance perceived stability. It is during this
process of searching that metaphors are especially powerful.

Salient characteristics of the phenomenon are metaphorically

articulated (Asch, 1958); a suitable encompassing metaphor

20

arises from this cumulative process; is seized upon (as-
suming it successfully alleviates perceived equivocality);
and a snowball effect ensues (i.e., the diffusion of the
appropriated metaphor). For example, a popular organiza-
tional metaphor is the military (Cooney, 1978; Weick, 1979).
'Military' organizations "do battle" rather than compete.
Instead of hiring employees, they "recruit them". Events
and situations are defined by the major metaphor; in this
case, the military.

When the stimulus is encountered in the future, it is
recognized in the terms previously predicated and, as such,
is easily identified and interpreted. Moreover, organiza-
tional members are much more comfortable encountering the
phenomenon because they can infer unobserved characteristics
and categorize similar yet previously unknown phenomena,
thereby increasing predictability and a sense of security
in their now more structured world.

Given these characteristics, it logically follows that
if unfamiliar phenomena are talked about via the original
perceptual metaphor (Berggren, 1972), other organizational
members will be provided with the same mechanism for inter-
pretation; easing and homogenizing their comprehension of
the unknown phenomenon.

In essence, theorists emphasize the role of metaphor in
producing a clear and homogenous perception of equivocal
events in organizations. Billow (1977) represents this posi-

tion when he writes, "the creation of metaphors may lead to

21

greater intellectual clarity . . . unfamiliar or abstruse
ideas can be more readily comprehended when expressed in
terms of the familiar and more concrete" (p. 83).

In sum, the organization and its component groups de-
fine and are defined via the descriptive and evaluative com-
ments being made about the situation. In this way organiza-
tional stability is established, and metaphor provides a
facile means of accomplishing this.

Metaphor and Heterogeneity

 

Although metaphorical assertions induce organizational
cohesiveness in the sense that everyone is attending to the
same analogy, it can be superficial cohesiveness. (It is
superficial in instances of perceived agreement and actual
disagreement.) It is its very superficiality which simul-
taneously promotes organizational stability and organiza-
tional flexibility. Metaphors are strategically ambiguous
in that they establish perceptions of agreement while at the
same time preserve multiple interpretations. The various
individual interpretations are heavily influenced by group
beliefs and norms. Diversification is furtherd by the dif-
fering degrees of interest a group displays toward a topic
(Newcomb, 1953). Pondy (1983) claims that "because of its
inherent ambivalence of meaning, metaphor can fulfill the
dual function of enabling change and preserving continuity"
(p. 164). Along the same lines, Berggren (1962) holds that
"metaphor constitutes the indispensable principle for inte-
grating diverse phenomena and perspectives without sacrificing

their diversity" (p. 237).

22

The conceptualization of metaphor's role in the or-
ganizing process as an arbiter between stability and flex-
ibility fits in well with the interaction view of metaphor.
Metaphor acts as a perceptual filter. It does not merely
compare obvious similarities between the tenor and the
vehicle, but introduces new meaning to both by construing
the one in terms of the other (Black, 1979; Berggren, 1962).
Taken one step further, metaphor interacts with the prin-
ciple subject to produce new meaning, and also interacts with
the individual's cognitive framework to flavor that new mean-
ing. Moreover, as stated previously, a major determinant of
an individual's perceptual framework, especially in an or-
ganizational context, is an individual's group membership(s).
In other words, construction and interpretation of metaphor
are influenced by the organization and the major metaphor it
promotes, as well as by the composition and character of the
group(s) to which individuals belong. Social consensus
enacted by intimates is more compelling than that of strangers
or acquaintances (Newcomb, 1953). As much as a major metaphor
organizes perceptions of phenomenon there still exists per-
sonal proclivities, primarily structured through group ties,
which react to that metaphorical organizing in different ways.

Metaphor, by its very ambiguity allows for a range of
interpretations, which isn't possible in clear, literal
speech. In doing so, it defines for individuals the socially
accepted version as well as giving new information, both

tempered by group perceptual frameworks. This, in turn,

23

facilitates diverse perceptions which lead to organizational
flexibility.

Metaphorical allusion precludes and abets perceptual
consensus (i.e., social conformity) which further leads to
confidence in the organization's definition of itself (i.e.,
stability). It is the diverse, group-influenced interpre-
tation of metaphor which allows for organizational adaptive
responses.

Furthermore, diversity is enhanced as groups go about
'acting' on the basis of their perceptions, thereby rein-
forcing their particular interpretation of the metaphorical
analogy. People attend to external stimuli to define and
reinforce internal states (i.e., emotions, perceptions, at—
titudes, etc.). Therefore, individuals' own behavior serves,
at least partially, as an indication and reinforcement of
the perception which leads them to act in that way.

As such, metaphor is more than an effective method of
arriving at diverse consensus. External stimuli determine
metaphorical use which, in turn, determines the recognition
of external stimuli. "When we describe the workings of emo-
tions, ideas, or trends of character, we almost invariably
employ terms that also denote properties and processes al-
ready observable in the world of nature . . . We say that
a man thinks 'straight'; that he faces a 'hard' decision;
that his feelings have 'cooled'" (Asch, 1958, p. 86). Sub-
sequently, "the metaphoric assertions men make about them-

selves or about others influence their behavior" (Fernandez,

24

1972, p. 42). In other words, the objects or activities
from which metaphorical terms are chosen are bounded by
what actually exists in the environment. In turn, the
metaphorical terms adopted restrict and guide what is per-
ceived in the environment, how it's interpreted, and what
behavior follows in reaction.

The issue arising from this discussion, one which
needs to be empirically tested, is whether metaphors in
fact do contribute to the forming and processing of percep-
tions and attitudes in a group setting. If so, do they
operate in accordance with the following theoretically pre-

scribed model?

Similarity of Amount of Discrepancy

+ . . -
metaphors (———> communication 6% between actual

and perceived
1\ consensus
4‘

 

Figure 1. Illustration of the Theoretical
Model to be Empirically Tested

In the next section, the proposed model is broken down
into hypotheses and the specified variables are operation-
alized. Also included is an explication of the statistical
analyses to be performed upon the data and a description of

the subject pool from which data is to be gathered.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Hypotheses

 

Assuming that metaphorical language functions within
the organizing process as theorized, the following three
relationships are hypothesized. The first two hypothesis
deal with amount of communication and metaphoric similarity:
Hypothesis #1: The degree of similarity between members'

perceptions of metaphors will increase

as the amount of communication between

members increases
Hypothesis #2: The degree of similarity will increase

more for active metaphors than for dor-

mant metaphors as communication increases
The relationship between amount of communication and simi-
larity of active and dormant metaphorical language points
up the ambiguous nature of metaphors. Dormant metaphors
have become cliches through their continual usage. This
usage points to members' perceptions of these metaphors as
particularly apt expressions of salient aspects of their
organizational environment. Dormant metaphors are typically
organizations' central metaphor(s). Becuase of their embed-
dedness, dormant metaphors aren't expected to vary dramati-
cally across group boundaries.3

On the other hand, active metaphors would seem to be a

response to specific and relatively idiosyncratic events

25

26

within the organizational environment. The 'uniqueness'

of the event produces perceptions of equivocality in the
members facing them. The equivocality causes the enact-
ment of the definitional process. As members integrate

new information, they talk about it. Their talk is influ—
enced not only by already existing major metaphors of the
organization, but also by the unique characteristics of the
focal event. This uniqueness prompts the creation of new
and unique metaphors. Due to the consensual nature of the
defining process, these active metaphors will be shared by
those who have participated in the talk. Additionally, those
who communicate with one another more frequently are likely
to engage in defining activities with one another more fre—
quently. They are thus exposed to the same sets of active
metaphors.

The coexistence of relatively similar sets of dormant
metaphors and diverse sets of active metaphors illustrates
the accomodating nature of metaphors. Dormant metaphors
interact with the various group environments resulting in
differential focusing and interpretation of an organiza-
tion's major metaphors. This in turn leads to a branching
effect apparent in the different active metaphors the groups
develop to cope with the events occurring around and within
them.

Hypothesis three focuses on the relationship between
amount of communication and the discrepancy between zero-

and first-order consensus.

27

Hypothesis #3: As the amount of communication among
members increases, the distance between
their actual and perceived (zero— and
first-order) consensus decreases

Previous research has indicated that as individuals com—
municate more their attitudes coalesce, either as a function
of attraction, intensity of attitude, or both (Newcomb,
1953; Scheff, 1967). As individuals communicate they are
also being exposed to additional information about the other
person and his or her attitudes. It follows from these two
premises that attributional accuracy (e.g., a low degree of
discrepancy between actual and perceived consensus) will in-
crease as communication increases.

The final two hypotheses concern the relationship of
metaphoric similarity and the distance between actual and
perceived consensus.

Hypothesis #4: As the degree of similarity of members'
perceptions of metaphors increases, the
distance between their actual and per—
ceived consenses decreases

Hypothesis #5: The degree of similarity will increase
more for active than for dormant meta-
phors as distance decreases

Assuming that similarity of active metaphors varies closely

with amount of communication, then those that are frequently

communicating with one another are exchanging and sharing
the same active metaphors. They are not only focusing upon
the same phenomena, they are also interpreting it in the
same manner. Given these similar orientations, the accuracy

with which they ascribe attitudes to one another will in-

crease .

28

Conversely, those individuals who seldom communicate
have different sets of peculiar experiences, and use dif—
ferent active metaphors to describe them. They attribute
attitudes to one another using more general information.
They base these attributions upon stereotypes which may or
may not be accurate when applied to specific individuals.
So their perceptions of the other's attitudes, being
grounded in more general level information, do not system—
atically correspond with the actual degree of consensus.

Organizational cliches (i.e., dormant metaphors) are
shared by all organizational members and, because of their
deep-seatedness within the organizational culture, they are
relatively stable over time and across situations. There-
fore, the sharing of a dormant metaphor does not differen-
tiate individuals and groups from each other, and does not
indicate that additional information is selectively avail-
able to particular individuals and groups with which to
improve attributional accuracy.

Operationalizations

 

To test the proposed model, the four variables need
to be measured and their relationships analyzed. The fol-
lowing operationalizations were used in this process.
Operationalization of the first two variables (simi-
larity of metaphors and degree of novelty) was accomplished
in two stages. In the first stage, approximately ten per-
cent of the organization was asked to describe the informa-

tion flow within their organization in interviews.

29

The interviews were transcribed and the metaphors occurring
in the interviewees' talk identified.

In the second stage a set of questionnaire items were
constructed which asked the respondents to indicate their
perceptions of each metaphor identified in the interviews
as either new and unique (active) or old and well—worn
(dormant). (All members of the organization participated
in the second stage.) This section of the questionnaire
was presented in a matrix format, where the list of identi-
fied metaphors appeared down the side and the categorical
headings ('novel' and 'cliche', respectively) were placed
across the top. The respondents were charged with indi-
cating (1) whether each metaphor actually occurred in con-
versations among housing staff, and if so, (2) if they per—
ceived the term to be a creative description (active) or
an old and much used description (dormant).

The variable 'degree of metaphorical similarity' was
then calculated by tabulating both the number of metaphors
with a checkmark in the 'novel' column and the number of
metaphors with a checkmark in the 'cliche' column. The
variable 'degree of novelty' was computed by taking the dif-
ference between the number of checkmarked dormant metaphors
and the number of checkmarked active metaphors; the higher
the value, the greater the degree of novelty (or activity).
In both cases, the task was performed only for those pairs
of respondents who had identified each other as being fellow

communicators in the communication section of the questionnaire.

30

For Operationalization of the 'amount of communica-
tion' variable, all members of the organization were asked
to list the seven staff members with whom they talked the
most.5 They were then asked to indicate the number of hours
per month they communicated with each person on the topic
in question (e.g., information flow). The number of com-
munication hours specified served as the 'amount of com—
munication' variable value.

The fourth variable (discrepancy between actual and per-
ceived consensus) was operationalized in the following
manner: All employees were asked (1) to indicate their
attitude toward the topic on a 7-point Likert scale, and
(2) to predict the topical attitude then by each communi-
catee listed on their communication roster (also on a 7-
point Likert scale).6 Actual consensus was computed by
subtracting a respondent's own attitude score from the
attitude score indicated by that respondent's communicatee
on her/his own survey. Perceived consensus was computed by
subtracting a respondent's communicatee prediction score
from that communicatee's prediction score for the respondent.
Discrepancy was calculated by subtracting the 'actual' dif-
ference from the 'perceived' difference. A visual demon-
stration of this process is below:7

(other attitude score) — (respondent attitude score)

Actual consensus

31

(other prediction score) — (respondent prediction score)

Actual consensus

(perceived consensus) — (actual consensus)

Discrepancy

"Degree of novelty" also appeared in the fifth hypothesis
and was operationalized in the same manner as in the second
hypothesis. (See Appendix A for an illustration of the
questionnaire.)
Sample

Data were gathered from 36 full-time and part—time
employees in the University Housing Department of a large
Midwestern university. They were the staff of two dormi-
tories; one large (27 employees) and one small (9 employees).
Occupations covered included Resident Director, Graduate
Advisor, and Resident Assistant.

Procedure

 

Two staff people (a Resident Director and a Resident
Assistant) were interviewed from the smaller dormitory and
three staff people (a Resident Director, a Graduate Advisor,
and a Resident Assistant) were interviewed from the larger
dormitory. These individuals were chosen by their superiors
on the vasis of their volubility. The objective of the in-
terviews was to elicit talk about the information flow with-
in the organization. The metaphors of the interviewee oc-
curring during this talk were noted and later incorporated

into the survey questionnaire.

32

The questionnaire was composed of three main sections.
The first section was the communication roster. The second
section consisted of the attitude items. The final section
included the list of metaphors and required their identifi—
cation by respondents.

A set of surveys were sent to the Resident Director of
each hall who then distributed them to the Graduate Advisors
and Resident Assistants at their weekly staff meeting. Col-
lection of the completed surveys occurred the following week
at the next staff meeting.

The data coding process began with the assignment of
identification codes to each respondent. Then, for each
communicatee listed by the respondent, the number of similar
active and dormant metaphors was calculated. The two atti-
tude items and the communication item were in numerical
form initially so no transformations of calculations were
needed prior to data entry.

The data were entered onto floppy diskettes with a
Radio Shack Model IV microcomputer using a data entry soft-
ware program developed by Jim Resh and Richard V. Farace
(copyright 1983). Once all of the data for both halls
were entered and their entry-accuracy verified, the files
were uploaded to a mainframe computer. The statistical
analyses were performed using SPSS (Statistical Package

for the Social Sciences).

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Content Analysis

 

Although the actual metaphors generated in the inter-
views were not directly used in testing the hypothesis, it
is interesting to review them. A number of themes were
apparent in the metaphorical language occurring in the in-
terviews. (In the sense used here, 'themes' refer to areas

of concern and/or attitudes toward information flow.)

TABLE 1

Frequency of Responses Within Each Thematic Category

Theme Novel Cliche
Obtaining/Relaying 148 212
Way it Was Used 108 130
Structuring 85 73
Overload 55 90
Necessary Info. 50 80
Useless Info. 23 50
Underload 18 21

The most popular theme was Obtaining and/or Relaying

Information. It was reflected by such terms as 'grapevine'

33

34

'shoot the bull', 'spoon-feeding', and 'get straight from
the horse's mouth'. Note that many more of these terms
were considered cliches than were considered novel. This
may be due, in part, to the frequency with which this con-
cern arises in people's talk. It is also interesting to
note that the two Resident Directors' speech was where the
majority of these types of metaphors were generated. Is
the metaphor's popularity, then, a reflection of 'manage-
ment's values and concerns or vice-versa?

The next most popular theme was the Manner in Which
Information was Used once obtained. This concern was ap—
parent in terms like 'stay on track', 'evaluative tool',
'enforce rules', and 'down the road'. Here, too, there is
a discrepancy between the frequency with which these terms
were considered novel and the frequency with which they were
considered cliche. Again, the amount of time spent com-
municating this concern may be responsible for the greater
number of cliches. The generation of these terms was fairly
equally shared by all the interviewees.

The three themes which followed next in preference are,
respectively (1) the Way Information is Structured, (2)
the Presence of Too Much Information (i.e., information over-
load), and (3) the Necessity and Usefulness of Certain In-
formation. Terms reflecting this first theme were 'see
things as black and white', 'chain of command', and 'filtered
information'. Interestingly, the number of terms considered

novel and the number of terms considered cliche were similar.

35

This could be because certain sets of peOple are much more
concerned with this aspect of information flow than other
sets. The people for whom this theme was more of a con-
cern would discuss it more which would account for greater
integration of certain metaphorical items into their vo-
cabulary (e.g., a high percentage of cliches). Those
people for whom this theme wasn't a great concern may still
have regular contact with their 'concerned' peers which is
why they've heard the terms before, but don't consider them
to be common terms. This reasoning is somewhat supported
in that only one interviewed individual provided the majority
of the metaphors appearing in the questionnaire.

Metaphorical terms in which the fourth theme is ap-
parent are as follows: 'keeping head above water', 'burn-
out', and 'flooded'. Terms reflecting the fifth theme were
'practical how-to', 'know what's up', and 'what's the scoop'.
The difference between the amount of novel and cliche re-
sponses were similar to the amount in the second most popular
theme, probably for much the same reason. The metaphors
displaying the fourth theme were generated equally by all
five interviewees, while metaphors reflecting the fifth theme
were generated in a fairly concentrated manner by two of
the interviewed individuals.

The final two themes are somewhat similar in content.
They are (1) Information Which is Useless, and (2) the
Absence of Information (i.e., information underload). Ex-

amples of metaphorical language displaying the former theme

36

are 'garbage mail', 'waste of time', and 'bible that no-
body reads'. The discrepancy between the number of novel
and cliche responses follows the pattern of the first,
second, fourth and fifth themes. Just as there were rela-
tively few responses to this theme's metaphors, so there
were very few metaphors reflecting this theme appearing in
the interviews. (Note that the one condition may have ex—
cerbated the other' that the fewer metaphors appearing in
the interviews, the lesser the opportunity to respond to
this theme in the questionnaire.) The least popular theme
was represented in such words as 'information gaps' and
'cut-off from things'. Here, too, there's little discre-
pancy between the number of novel and cliche responses along
with the generation of these metaphors by only a few indi—
viduals.

Overall, there were consistently more metaphorical
terms checkmarked as cliche than as novel. Also, there was
a propensity for some respondents to checkmark a very large
proportion of the listed metaphors as occurring in their
talk and for others to checkmark only a very few. The ques—
tion then arises whether, given the questionnaire format
used, the responses were actual representations of amount
of metaphorical usage; whether individuals differ that
markedly in their use of figurative language. Another in—
teresting avenue of questioning is whether the popular meta—
phors and themes are dictated by the upper levels of the or-
ganization; whether they originate at the lower levels and

spread up; or whether they spread horizontally.

37

Statistical Analyses

 

Scatterplots were constructed for each relationship
and it was apparent from these that all of the relation—
ships shared the following qualities: (1) they are linear
(which validates usage of regression techniques) and (2)
there are several outliers (which depress the correlational
values for each relationship).

Alpha was set at p j .10 because of the exploratory
nature of this study. The hypotheses were tested using re-
gression techniques. This analytical method was chosen for
two reasons: (1) Regression analysis is more appropriate
for survey research where there are no manipulated variables,
and (2) The variables are continuous rather than categorical
and so are more compatible with the regression technique
(Pedhazur, 1982).

In the first hypothesis a positive relationship between
similarity of metaphor sets and amount of communication was
proposed. This was not supported in the data. The correla-
tion between the two variables is -.08 (p=.24). When a par~
tial correlation is calculated, controlling for the influence
of the interaction between amount of communication and degree
of metaphorical novelty, the correlational value is -.31
(p=.003) for the hypothesized relationship. In other words,
as the degree of similarity between members perceptions of
metaphors increases, the amount of communication between
members decreases to a statistically significant degree.

The effect size of the similarity and communication

38

relationship, to be reported in terms of R2, is .09 (i.e.,
9% of the variance in metaphorical similarity is explained
by degree of communication). The confidence interval (set
at 95% confidence level) around the correlational value is
P (-.61 :_r:f.01).

The second hypothesis is an interaction hypothesis;
predicting that as communication among members increases the
degree of active metaphorical similarity will increase at
a faster pace than dormant metaphorical similarity. Ac-
cording to this hypothesis, degree of metaphorical similarity
is dictated by the interaction of two variables: amount of
communication and degree of activity. As the amount of com-
munication increases, the distance between the degree of
active and dormant metaphorical similarity becomes more pro-
nounced. This hypothesis' prediction of a positive relation-
ship between degree of overall metaphorical similarity and
the interaction variable (amount of communication by degree
of activity) was not supported. The correlation between the
two variables is -.42 (p=.001). This means that as communi-
cation increased and the degree of metaphorical novelty in-
creased, the degree of overall metaphorical similarity de-
creased. The effect size of this relationship is R2=.17.

The confidence interval around this value is P (-.69 itif.15).

In the third hypothesized relationship, amount of com-
munication is negatively related to the distance between
actual and perceived consensus. The calculated correlation

of .01 (p=.465) does not support this hypothesis. However,

39

when the two interaction variables are controlled for
through partial correlation (the interaction between com—
munication and activity variable, and the interaction be-
tween discrepancy and activity variable), the hypothesized
relationship is significant with a correlation of .32 (p=
.002), although not in the hypothesized direction. So, as
communication increases, the distance between members' actual
and perceived consensus also increases. The effect size for
the communication and discrepancy relationship is .10 and
the confidence interval around this value is P (.02 :1“:
.62).

Hypothesis four predicts a negative relationship between
metaphorical similarity and consensual discrepancy. This
relationship is strongly supported in the data with a cor—
relation of -.34 (p=.001) and an effect size of .11. Thus,
as hypothesized, as the degree of metaphorical similarity
increases the distance between members' actual and perceived
consensus decreases. The confidence interval around the
correlational value is P (-.63 :_r: —.05).

The last hypothesis proposed the following relation—
ship: as the degree of consensual discrepancy decreases the
increase of active metaphorical similarity will be more
dramatic than the increase of dormant metaphorical similarity.
Initially, the data did not support this hypothesis. The
correlation between overall metaphorical similarity and the
interaction between discrepancy and activity was -.28,

contrary to the positive relationship expected. However,

40

with degree of metaphorical activity controlled for, the
partial correlation is .19 (p=.04). In other words, as
degree of metaphorical similarity increases, the size of
the interaction between consensual discrepancy and meta—
phorical activity also increases. The effect size of this
relationship is .04 and the confidence interval around the
correlation is P (-.13 j_r: .51).

It wasn't possible to correct for correlational atten—
uation due to measurement error in any of the relational
values because three of the variables (communication, active
metaphor sets, and dormant metaphor sets) are measured with
single items and the correction equation requires multiple
item measurements.

It also wasn't possible to calculate reliability scores
for three of the operationalized variables, again because
they were single item measurements. The reliability coef—

ficient for the two-item attitude scale is .28.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

This study was conducted in an effort to uncover some
factors influencing the way in which organizational members
construct and act out organizational reality. It was pro-
posed that as communication among members increases the
similarity between the metaphors that they use in their com-
munication also increases, particularly for active metaphors.
Furthermore, as communication increases the discrepancy
between how members perceive each others' attitudes and
what those attitudes actually are diminishes. Finally, the
magnitude of this discrepancy is also negatively influenced
by the similarity of members' metaphor sets, especially
active metaphor sets.

Revising this model to fit the data, it appears that
as communication among members increases their perceptions
of metaphorical similarity decrease, particularly for dor-
mant metaphors. Moreover, as communication among members
increases the distance between actual and perceived atti-
tudinal advocacy also increases. The degree of this dis—
crepancy decreases as metaphorical similarity increases,
especially for active metaphors. The modified model is pre—

sented next.

41

42

Similarity Amount of I + \ Discrepancy

_ ‘\
of metaphors .(—————fi> communication I

— 4‘

Figure 2. Illustration of the Revised Model
Based Upon the Data Collected

Limitations

 

There are a number of limitations in the manner in which
this study was constructed and implemented which should be
considered before the implications of the findings are dis-
cussed. First and foremost is the relative lack of general-
izability due to (l) non-random sampling (all staff members
of each dormitory were asked to participate), (2) a small
subject pool, and (3) non-representativeness of the subject
pool (unlike typical organizational members, the respondents
were all under 25, the majority were full-time students and
worked part-time, and because of the nature of their job,
they lived at their place of employment). Because of the
small sample size, which reduces statistical power, the
probability of a Type II error is increased (i.e., of not
finding an effect when one actually exists).

Another potential problem is that the people inter-
viewed were selected by the two Resident Directors as
being especially articulate and influential individuals.

It would have strengthened the study if the interviewees
had been randomly selected. It might have provided a more

representative set of metaphors.

43

Additionally, there was some indication that the
complexity of the questionnaire confused some respondents
and prevented them from completing it accurately.

Implications

 

Amount of communication was expected to be a signifi-
cant factor in the proposed theoretical model. This was
the case, but not in the predicted relational directions;
the expected positive relationship with metaphorical simi-
larity was negative and the expected negative relationship
with discrepancy was positive. The cause for this could be
located in the methodology. For instance, the responses
to the communication item were prompted by a request to
specify the number of hours spent communicating on informa-
tion flow per month. The definition given for information
flow was considered by a number of respondents to be vague
and ambiguous. The amount of room evidently left in the
provided definition for individual interpretation could have
influenced the hypotheses in which communication was a
variable. Also influencing the communication variable value
was the fact that it was measured with one item, and if that
item was flawed in any way, the value obtained is inaccu-
rate .

However, due to the strength of the relationships of
which communication is a part, the cause is probably theor—
etical in nature. For instance, rather than there being an
increase in metaphorical similarity as communication in-

creases, it might be the case that the less individuals

44

speak to one another the greater reliance upon, and so
attention to, the metaphor as an orientation device (e.g.,

a way of discovering another's topical position and/or
establishing some common ground). This interpretation re-
ceives support from the results of the second hypothesis; the
less individuals communicate, the more dormant metaphorical
similarity, rather than active metaphorical similarity, be-
comes prevalent. In other words, not only is there greater
reliance on the metaphor as a linguistic device for reducing
uncertainty when speaking with someone infrequently communi-
cated with, but the metaphors used are the cliched ones;

the ones in which there's more of a chance for recognition
and familiarity by one's communication partner. When speak-
ing with someone communicated with frequently there is a
greater pre-established base of similar knowledge and ex-
perience. One does not need to fall back on, or even pay
attention to, figurative language to communicate effectively.
And new or unique metaphors, unless very powerful, either
escape notice or are forgotten because of their relative
infrequency. Thus, the reduction in importance and acknow-
ledgement of metaphorical language. It is also possible
that idiosyncratic events, rather than impelling members to
create new metaphors, cause heavier reliance upon the old
metaphors, or that by the time active metaphors are diffused
throughout the group, they are no longer considered active

by group members.

45

It was predicted that as communication between indi-
viduals increased, the more accurate would be their pre~
dictions of each others' attitudes. According to the data,
the opposite is true. The cause for this could be due to
the methodology employed, as discussed earlier, but it is
more likely due to the variables' relational conceptualiza-
tion. For instance, it has been shown in previous research
that similar individuals are more attracted to each other
and so communicate more. If so, then it's possible that as
people communicate more and more with those they consider

attractive, they over-assume their similarity. They may

 

focus on attitudes they share, generalizing to both the in-
tensity of similarity and to the content of attitudinal simi-
larity (i.e., assume that they have similar attitudes on
other topics as well). If this is true then the respondents'
prediction of each others' attitudes on information flow (a
topic which may not be commonly discussed) may be more of a
reflection of what they think the others' attitudes are due
to their interpersonal attractiveness than an objective
evaluation based on others' known characteristics.

The relationship between attitudinal discrepancy and
metaphorical similarity (relative to the amount of metaphorical
activity) was as hypothesized.

At this stage in the investigation into the types of
language constructs occurring in peoples' communication (such
as active and dormant metaphors), it may be more appropriate

to adopt a research method which utilizes respondents

46

perceptions rather than providing the investigator with

 

actual conversational transcripts and giving him/her the
responsibility to distinguish between the types of language
constructs appearing in peoples' talk.

Future Research

 

Further research into the influence of various language
constructs upon reality construction is valuable and worth—
while. The alternative variable relationships discussed in
the previous section need to be further investigated. Do
unfamiliar communicators rely upon figurative language to
establish a common orientational base? Do familiar communi—
cators ignore the figurative language that ideas are couched
in and attend more to content? Do familiar communicators
over-generalize attitudinal similarity?

Comparative studies could include investigation into a
number of different linguistic constructs to determine not
only their relative influence but also how they interact,
counteract, and are embedded within each other. For in-
stance, one could devise a study about the influence of myths,
stories, and metaphors upon perceptions of organizational
culture where metaphors are abbreviated references to stories
and stories are outward manifestations of myths. Another
example is a study which investigates whether story-telling
and metaphor-making are primarily individual traits, group
traits, or organizational traits.

There are strong relationships between the linguistic

and communication behavior constructs apparent in this study.

47

Not only do these relationships need to be further explored,
but so do relationships between other linguistic and com-

munication behavior constructs.

REFERENCES

48

NOTES

1Equivocality, in this context, refers to the
number and complexity of the available interpretations
of and responses to a phenomenon or an event. As the
amount and complexity of potential responses increases,
equivocality increases.

th should be noted that other figures of speech
are encompassed in this definition, specifically, simile
and analogy. This is a deliberate and not unprecedented
inclusion (see Morgan, 1983, pp. 602, 605).

3'Groups' is loosely defined as sets of individuals
who communicate frequently with one another.

4'Management style' is an example topic. The actual
topic used will be determined by its perceived importance
to organizational members.

5Rogers and Kincaid (1981) found that a 7—person
roster was the most effective length for a sociometric
survey. It is short enough to prevent respondent fatigue,
but long enough to adequately represent the respondent's
personal network.

6The 'attitude' scale will consist of only two items:
one item aimed at measuring the perceived importance of the
topic, and the other item a general attitude measure. The
scale is brief because each respondent will be using it re-
peatedly (e.g., for every listed communicatee). The inclu-
sion of a perceived salience item allows the researcher to
statistically control for any confounding effects of per-
ceived topical importance.

7For example, suppose Respondent A specified an atti—
tude score of 5 for himself and predicted an attitude score
of 6 for Respondent B. Respondent B, on the other hand, in-
dicated an attitude score of 3 for herself and predicted an
attitude score of 7 for Respondent A. The actual consensus

49

between Respondents' A and B is '5 - 3', or '2'. The per-
ceived consensus between them is '6 - 7'. or '1' (the
absolute value is used). The discrepancy variable value
is '2 - 1'. or '1' (again, the absolute value is used).

50

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asch, S.E. "The Metaphor: A Psychological Inquiry." In
Person, Perception and Interpersonal Behavior, pp. 86-
94. Edited by R. Taguiri and L. Petrullo. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press, 1958.

 

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of

Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., Inc.,
I966.

 

Berggren, D. "The Use and Abuse of Metaphor." Review of
Metaphysics 16 (1962): 237-257.

 

 

Billow, R.M. "Metaphor: A Review of the Psychological
Literature." Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 84, No. l
(1977): 81—92.

 

Black, M. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1962.

 

Black, M. "More About Metaphor." In Metaphor and Thought,
pp. 26-37. Edited by A. Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1979.

 

Bormann, E.G. "Symbolic Convergence." In Communication
and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach. Edited
by L.L. Putnam and M.E. PacanowSki. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications, 1983.

 

 

Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences. 2nd Edition. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

 

Conrad, C. "Organizational Power: Faces and Symbolic Forms."
In Communication and Organizations" An Interpretive
Approach, pp. 173-194. Edited by L.L. Putnam and M.E.
Pacanowsky. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1983.

 

Cooney, J.E. "'Marketing Warfare' Seeks Military Link for
Sales Campaigns." Wall Street Journal (April 28, 1978):
25.

 

Deetz, S.A. "Critical Interpretive Research in Organizational
Communication." The Western Journal of Speech Communica-
tion 46 (Spring, 1982): l3l~l49.

 

51

Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H.B. "A Study of Normative and In—
formational Social Influences Upon Individual Judgement."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51 (1955):
629-636.

 

Eisenberg, E.M. "Ambiguity as a Strategy in Organizational
Communication." 'Communication Monographs, Vol. 51, No.
3 (September, 1984): 277-290.

 

Eisenberg, E.M. "Strategic Ambiguity in Organizations."
Paper presented at the May 1983 Annual Meeting of the
International Communication Association (Dallas, Texas).

Evered, R. "The Language of Organizations." In Organiza-
tional Symbolism. Edited by L.R. Pondy, P.J. Frost, G.
Morgan, and T.C. Dandridge. Greenwich, Connecticut:
JAI Press, Inc., 1983.

 

Farace, R.V., P.R. Monge, and E.M. Russell. Communicating
in Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, 1977.

 

Fernandez, J.W. "Persuasions and Performances: Of the Beast
In Every Body . . . And the Metaphor of Everyman."
(1972): 39-60.

Festinger, L. "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes."
Human Relations 7 (1954): 114-140.

 

Fraser, B. "Interpretation of Novel Metaphors." In Metaphor
and Thought, pp. 173-187. Edited by A. Ortony.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

 

Frost, P.J. and G. Morgan. "Symbols and Sensemaking: The

Real-ization of a Framework." In Organizational Symbolism.
Edited by L.R. Pondy, P.J. Frost, G. Morgan, and T.C.
Dandridge. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., 1983.

Gardner, H. and E. Winner. "The Development of Metaphoric
Competence: Implications for Humanistic Disciplines."
In On Metaphor, pp. 121-140. Edited by S. Sacks.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

 

Glucksberg, S., P. Gildea, and H.B. Bookin. "On Under-
standing Nonliteral Speech: Can People Ignore Metaphors?"
Journal of Verbal Learningpand Verbal Behavior 21 (1982):
85-980

 

Jacobson, E. and S.E. Seashore. "Communication Practices in
Complex Organizations." Human Relations Research in
Large Organizations #3 (1951).

 

 

52

Krefting, L. and P.J. Frost. "Unravelling Webs, Surfing
Waves, Wildcatting: A Multiple Metaphor Perspective
on Managing Organizational Culture." (In press)

Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:
University of Chicago Pfess, 1980.

 

Levin, S.R. "Standard Approaches to Metaphor and a Proposal
for Literary Metaphor." In Metaphor and Thought, pp.
129-135. Edited by A. Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1979.

 

Morgan, G. "More on Metaphor: Why We Cannot Control Tropes
in Administrative Science." Administrative Science
Quarterly 28 (1983): 601-607.

 

 

Newcomb, T.M. "An Approach to the Study of Communicative
Acts." Psychological Review, Vol. 60, No. 6 (1953):
393-399.

 

Ortony, A. "Why Metaphors are Necessary and Not Just Nice."
Educational Theory, Vol. 25, No. l (1975).

 

Pacanowsky, M.E. and N. O'Donnell-Trujillo. "Organizational
Communication as Cultural Performance." Communication
Monographs, Vol. 50 (June, 1983): 126-147.

 

 

Paivio, A. "Psychological Processes in Comprehension." In
Metaphor and Thopght, pp. 151-157. Edited by A. Ortony.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

 

Pedhazur, E.J. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research.
2nd Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1982.

 

Pondy, L.R. "The Role of Metaphors and Myths in Organization
and in the Facilitation of Change." In Organizational
Symbolism, pp. 157-170. Edited by L.R. Pondy, P.J.
Frost, G. Morgan, and T.C. Dandridge. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press, Inc., 1983.

 

 

Richards, I.A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London: Oxford
University Press, 1936.

 

Rogers, E.M. and D.L. Kincaid. Communication Networks. New
York: The Free Press, 1981.

 

Salancik, G.R., and J. Pfeffer. "A Social Information Pro-
cessing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design."
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 (June, 1978):
225-246.

 

53

Scheff, T.J. "Toward a Sociological Model of Consensus."
'American Sociological Review, Vol. 32 (1967): 33-46.

 

Schon, D.A. "Generative Metaphor and Social Policy." In
Metaphor and Thought, pp. 254—270. Edited by A. Ortony.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

 

Searle, J.R. "Metaphpr." In Metaphor and Thought, pp. 93-
128. Edited by A. Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1979.

Snyder, M., E. Berscheid, and E. Decker-Tanke. "Social Per-
ception and Interpersonal Behavior: On the Self-Fulfil-
ling Nature of Social Stereotypes." Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 9 (1977): 656—666.

 

Steinfatt, T.M., G.R. Miller, and E.P. Bettinghaus, "The
Concept of Logical Ambiguity and Judgements of Syllo-
gistic Validity." Speech Monographs, Vol. 41 (November,
1974): 317-328.

 

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G & C
Merriam Co., 1979.

Weick, K.E. The Social Psychology of Organizing. 2nd Edition.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley PubliShing Co., 1979.

White, S.E. and T.R. Mitchell. "Job Enrichment Versus Social
Cues: A Comparison and Competitive Test." Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, No. l (1979): 1-9.

 

Wilson, G.B. "Purposeful Ambiguity as a Persuasive Message
Strategy." Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University,
1971.

APPENDIX

54

APPENDIX A

Example of the Survey Questionnaire Completed by Respondents

In the following pages you will be questioned on the
topic of the information flow system as it exists among the
hall staff and University Housing administrators. As used
in this survey, information flow refers to (1) where a piece
of knowledge originates, (2) how it is passed along (i.e.,
speed of transmission, accuracy of relayed information, mode
of transfer, telephone, face—to-face, staff meetings, etc.),
and (3) how it is used or implemented.

Below is a set of directions to follow in completing
the survey:

I. Communication Section

A. Write your name on line 1 under the first
column. On the same line, under the second
column, indicate the approximate total num—
ber of hours you spend talking about infor-
mation flow (per month).

B. Then, on lines a - g, list the seven indi-
viduals you speak with most frequently,
and the amount of time you spend per month
talking with each of them on information
flow.

II. Attitude Section

A. On line 1, indicate your own responses to

the two statements (placed at the top of

the two columns) using the coding scheme
provided.

55

B. Then, on lines a - 9, indicate your pre-
diction of the listed individuals responses
to the same two statements.

 

III. Descriptive Language Section

A. The instructions for this section are on
the first page of the section.

56

III.

Below are a list of terms used to describe the information
flow among the staff of the University Housing Program.
Please indicate (by a checkmark in one of the two columns)
the descriptive terms that you are familiar with (i.e., that
either you use when you talk about information flow or that
others use when they talk about aspects of the information
flow system).

The column with the heading "Novel" refers to the uniqueness
or inventiveness of the terms. Place a checkmark in this
column (1) if the term(s) on that line actually occur in con-
versations among staff, and (2) if you think the term(s) are
creative descriptions.

The column with the heading "Cliche" refers to the triteness
of the term(s) on that line (i.e., they are well-worn). Place
a checkmark in this column (1) if the term(s) actually occur
in conversations among staff, and (2) if you think the term(s)
are 91g and much used descriptions.

 

If the term(s) on a line don't occur in conversations about
the information flow in the University Housing Program, don't
place a checkmark in either column.

 

NOTE: These terms are all taken out of context so if you
aren't familiar with them they may not make sense.
If this is the case, simply skip that term and go
on to the next one.

 

TERM(S) REFERRING TO THE INFORMATION FLOW NOVEL CLICHE

l. garbage mail

 

2. grapgvine

3. up to speed

4. evolution of procedures

5. fluke

6. best thing since sliced bread
7. gaps

8. pick up on information

9. formal information gathering/‘
dissemination

 

57

TERM(S) REFERRING TO THE INFORMATION FLOW

NOVEL'

CLICHE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. informal information gathering/
dissemination ‘ ' “

11. one-on-one's

12. keeping your head above water

13. cut-off from things

14. under public scrutiny

15. boxes everything up

16. important to pass on

17. see things as black and white

18. shoot the bull

19. break things down to their
common denominator

20. stay on track

21. sticking by closely

22. evaluative tool

23. bible that nobody reads

24. bottom line

25. slip by/slipped my mind

26. going behind peoples' backs

27. off the wall

28. chain of command

29. agenda

30. gripes

31. spoon feeding

32. get straight from the horse's mouth‘

33.‘ liaison

 

58

TERM(S) REFERRING TO THE INFORMATION FLOW

CLICHE

 

NOVEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34. the big picture

35.‘ cost ofmistakeS'd

36. telephone tree

37. waste of time

38. running hall like a business
39. practical how—to

40. know what's up

41. trial and error

42. carried out

43. screwed up

44. what the scoop is

45. in a bind

46. keeping up

47. bounding peOple

48. down the road

49. upeto-date

50. what's going on

51. burn-out

52. enforce rules/procedures
53. word of mouth

54. information spreading
55. junk mail

56. step over the edge

57. ramming down peoples' throats
58. filtered information

 

59

TERM(S) REFERRING TO THE INFORMATION FLOW NOVEL CLICHE
59. flooded
60. breakdown

61. channeling information

HH

cos.w woos

mdnosoH< venom

yahoo

u UHmHsanomnmm\wsoH<mHosn
u >BUH<mHmsw

u UHmmmHmm

u mnHOBQHK UHmmono

GmbWNl-‘O

ao HsmHomnm Koch Hmmposmm. pHmmmm QHHon
duo mppuopHHmwm saacmu cummfi own: mdmnml

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sober
zczwmw ow mocwm mmwze w. arm Hmmcm 0m H5: w. HsmouamnHOS mHos
nozzczHoweHoz oz Hz: mouamnHos MHos Hm H5 dUHm mmpmnnl
wowzwaHoz mboz Avon m ouconH Odo H5 Soon Hm mmmmonH<m
Bosnsv fler mommnwamsfl. mom ommHonsn.

H. H.B H N w p m H m w a m m
m H N w a m H m w a w m
U .H .N w p m H N w a m m
o- H,.~ w n _m H N w a m m
m H N w n m H m u a m m
m H N w p .m H w w a m m
m H N u _a w H N u a m m

H N w a ,m H m u A m m