‘And if they were all one member, where were the
body? But now they are many members, but one
body.’ (I Corinthians XII, 19–20)

Introduction

Ever since the early 1980s, concepts such as
‘organizational identity’ and ‘corporate personal-
ity’ have come to the fore in organization studies,
following a surge of interest in symbolic and
ideational dimensions of organizational life (e.g.
Pondy et al., 1983) coupled with a greater atten-
tion to the role of language and metaphor in
representing organizations (Daft and Wiginton,
1979). The ‘organizational identity’ metaphor
in particular has received a huge amount of
academic interest as a device for capturing and
explaining these symbolic and ideational dimen-
sions of organizational life (e.g. Gioia, Schultz
and Corley, 2000a; Whetten and Godfrey, 1998),
but, remarkably enough, its heuristic value as a
metaphor has only marginally been explored. In
a sense, since the watershed article of Albert
and Whetten (1985, p. 293) raised the issue of

whether we can metaphorically project the idea
of an ‘identity’ upon organizations to describe
and explain their dynamics, the field of organiza-
tion studies has moved on, largely ignoring the
theoretical and methodological issues laid bare
herewith.

In fact, while a significant literature on the con-

cept has evolved in recent years (e.g. Academy of
Management Review, 2000; Albert and Whetten,
1985; Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Dutton and
Dukerich, 1991; Whetten and Godfrey, 1998), this
work concerns ‘organizational identity’ as a
metaphor only indirectly, if at all. Yet, researchers
who have acknowledged the concept’s precepts as
a metaphor have only done so in passing, refer-
ring to the ‘extensions’ from individual to organ-
izational ‘identities’ (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1994;
Gioia, Schultz and Corley, 2000b) that serve as a
means of knowledge generation. None have yet
offered a comprehensive account of the mech-
anics and validity of the ‘organizational identity’
concept as a metaphor for the subject that it
supposedly illuminates – one that starts with
developing an understanding of the role and use
of metaphor in organization studies and subse-
quently evaluates the use and heuristic value of
the ‘organizational identity’ concept.

The present article therefore reviews the use

of metaphor in organization theory with the

British Journal of Management, Vol. 13, 259–268 (2002)

© 2002 British Academy of Management

On the ‘Organizational Identity’

Metaphor

1

J. P. Cornelissen

Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCOR), University of Amsterdam,

Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands

This article reviews and evaluates the heuristic status of ‘organizational identity’ as
a metaphor for the generation of knowledge about the subject that it supposedly
illuminates. This is done by drawing out the general uses and utility of metaphors
within organizational theory and research, on the basis of which the article assesses the
‘organizational identity’ metaphor with the objective of providing insight into whether
this particular metaphor is warranted and has any heuristic value for our understanding
of organizational life.

1

Thanks are given to Scott Taylor, Iina Hellsten and

the editor of BJM for their valuable comments upon an
earlier version of this paper.

06_Cornel 26/11/02 1:11 pm Page 259

specific purpose of evaluating and establishing
the validity of the ‘organizational identity’ meta-
phor. The issue in question is the place of
metaphors such as ‘organizational identity’ in
theory building, and their significance in aiding
our understanding of the field of organization
studies. The intent of the exercise is to develop
a solid conceptual foundation that eliminates
observed problems that have arisen as a result of
undue attention to the metaphorical qualities
of ‘organizational identity’, and from which
further research upon the subject addressed by
the metaphor can be cultivated and guided.
The next section starts by outlining the general
use of metaphor in theory development within
the domain of organization studies, followed by
a discussion of a method for controlling and
evaluating its uses.

Metaphor in organization studies

Tied in with different schools of thought upon
metaphor and discourse within the philosophy
of language and linguistics (e.g. Davidson, 1978;
Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Ortony, 1979a), the
initial debates upon the role and use of metaphors
in organization studies are equally clustered around
two poles. Departing from distinct ideological
positions – that is, ‘constructivism’ versus ‘non-
constructivism’ or ‘realism’ (see Ortony, 1979a) –
writers within organization studies initially adopted
distinct views of the underlying epistemology on
which the explanatory account of metaphor is
constructed leading to debates on the workings of
metaphor for (re)presenting organizational life
(see Morgan, 1980, 1983; Pinder and Bourgeois,
1982). A later article by Tsoukas (1991), however,
attempted to remedy the differences between
these earlier debates by outlining the single cog-
nitive process of metaphoric understanding that
underlies both. The method of metaphor for
organization theory that Tsoukas (1991) subse-
quently developed hinges upon a seemingly simple,
yet profound, idea of the working of metaphors
within scientific endeavours (see Bono, 1990;
Boyd, 1979): when generating a metaphor, similar
attributes of phenomena, subjects or domains are
identified to form an analogy (the implied simile),
while dissimilar attributes of the referents are
identified to produce semantic anomaly (see
MacCormac, 1985). As such, in working through

a relational comparison of not normally associated
referents, it can be asserted that a metaphor thus
always implies a statement of similarity – ‘every
metaphor may be said to mediate an analogy
or structural correspondence’ (Black, 1977/1993,
p. 31) – as well as a suggestive hypothesis of com-
parison between disparate concepts (see Morgan,
1980, 1983).

The latter suggestive conjecture that a meta-

phor implies involves its particular use as a ‘useful
heuristic device. That is, the imagery contained in
the metaphor must assist the theorist in deriving
specific propositions and/or hypotheses about the
phenomenon being studied’ (Bacharach, 1989,
p. 497). In effect, as Stepan (1986, p. 268) suggests,
metaphor in science works through evoking
associations among ‘specially constructed systems
of implications’ and its suitability for scientific
purposes comes exactly from this ‘ability to be
suggestive of new sets of implications, new hypoth-
eses, and therefore new observations’.

The use of metaphor in organization studies, as

in other scientific fields, thus involves a strategy
for the accommodation of language with the pur-
pose of eventually revealing as yet undiscovered
features and dynamics of the world (cf. Bono,
1990; Boyd, 1979). This heuristic value of a meta-
phor, once it is granted through a sufficient degree
of similarity between the primary and secondary
concepts, is then primarily established by the
suggestive hypothesis of comparison between
disparate concepts, which in turn gives rise to
assertions and propositions concerning the identity
and dynamics of a particular organizational phe-
nomenon that are subject to further examination
and scrutiny (see also Morgan, 1980, 1983;
Tsoukas, 1991). Importantly, once these suggested
propositions and assertions have been probed and
validated through further research, a metaphor
qua metaphor might then be dispensed with as
though it were ‘a ladder to be kicked away once
the new theoretical plateau has been reached’
(Brown, 1976, p. 174). In other words, once the
suggested hypotheses and assertions have found
some validation through empirical examination, a
metaphor might evolve into a specific, declarative
model of the identity and dynamics of a particular
phenomenon – ‘every metaphor is the tip of a
submerged model’ (Black, 1977/1993, p. 30) –
reduced to and based upon a revealed structural
similarity between the source model and the
targeted subject (Indurkhya, 1992, p. 34).

260

J. P. Cornelissen

06_Cornel 26/11/02 1:11 pm Page 260

The crucial transformation here, as Weick

(1989) and Tsoukas (1991) have already pointed
out, hinges upon the difference between ‘live’ and
‘dead’ metaphors and their role and status within
theory construction and verification. Metaphors
that are entertained in a ‘live’ manner are
characterized by a metaphoric transfer and are
therefore suggestive, and not (yet) declarative, of
a particular organizational phenomenon. Naturally,
as suggested, in the process of theory construction
to verification and testing, metaphorical concepts
are gradually ‘dying’ (Hunt and Menon, 1995;
Pinder and Bourgeois, 1982; Tsoukas, 1991). That
is, in the early phases of conceptual development,
a ‘live’ metaphor acts as a precursor to theory:
as a provisional way of organizing and seeing
organizational reality that lays out the lines for
subsequent theory and observation. At this stage,
metaphor does not refer directly to observables
and empirical organizational entities, but to
hypothetical, provisionally agreed upon entities
(see Sandelands and Drazin, 1989). A trans-
formation into a ‘dead’ metaphor then surmounts
with support for the hypothesis suggested by
the initial metaphoric transfer and a further spe-
cification of the subject denoted by the metaphor.
As a result, ‘dead’ metaphors can be defined as
those concepts that have become so familiar and
so habitual in our theoretical vocabulary that
not only have we ceased to be aware of their
metaphorical precepts, but also have we stopped
to ascribe such qualities to them. Instead, such
concepts have now evolved into, and come to be
treated as established, literal terms involving a
denotation and reference to an empirical organ-
izational object that is relatively precise and
exact, and also lends itself to theory verification
or testing (Tsoukas, 1991).

The foregoing introduction to the use of meta-

phor in organization studies, and the workings of
metaphoric transfer as a vehicle for knowledge
generation in particular, have raised a number of
concerns for the conscious, directed and informed
use of metaphors in organizational theory and
research. As mentioned, pertinent to any use of
metaphor in organization studies is the recog-
nition that, when juxtaposed to a literal description,
a metaphor must go beyond such a description
and be a useful heuristic device (Bacharach, 1989;
Tsoukas, 1991; Weick, 1989). As such, the role of
any particular metaphor in organization studies
is thus not trivial, lest unconditional: the infusion

of metaphor into organization theory needs to
provide for fresh, and previously non-existent,
insights into the reality of organizational life, by
offering a plausible hypothesis of the dynamics
and identity of a particular organizational phe-
nomenon. It follows that, first, metaphors need to
be consciously ‘chosen for their aptness in captur-
ing an as yet unspecifiable range of interconnec-
tions among potential features of the empirical
world which observations lead us to believe exist’
(Bono, 1990, p. 65), and, second, that their use
and heuristic value needs to be explicated and
assessed as ‘an essential part of the task of sci-
entific inquiry’ (Boyd, 1979, p. 362). Unfortunately,
however, there has been little in the way of
methods or prescriptions of metaphor use to aid
organizational theorists in being ‘more deliberate
in the formation of these images and more respect-
ful of representations and efforts to improve
them’ (Weick, 1989, p. 529). As a result, we
observe, many metaphors within the domain
of organization studies, such as ‘organizational
identity’, have not (yet) been sufficiently ex-
plicated or assessed upon their heuristic value for
aiding our understanding of the world of organ-
izations. The present article therefore outlines
a general method of metaphor use in theory
construction within the domain of organization
studies, based upon the process of metaphoric
transfer and understanding outlined above. Aside
from its general implications for organization
theory, this method of metaphor use is of par-
ticular importance for our present concern, which
is to evaluate the aptness and heuristic value of
the ‘organizational identity’ metaphor for organ-
ization theory and research.

A method of metaphor use

To establish and guide a process of systematic
uses of metaphor in theory construction, the
article furthers prior work of Tsoukas (1991) and
Hunt and Menon (1995) amongst others. The
application of this method thus specifically con-
cerns ‘live’ metaphors, as these figure in theory
construction (Tsoukas, 1991), and as their use
needs to be harnessed, directed and controlled
in an explicit and more self-conscious manner in
order to avoid predictive and explanatory impotence
(Weick, 1989). The central thrust of this article
is thus not whether metaphor exists and should

On the ‘Organizational Identity’ Metaphor

261

06_Cornel 26/11/02 1:11 pm Page 261

be used in theory construction, but rather how
metaphorical language can be used in such a way
as to contribute to our mapping and understand-
ing of real mechanisms and identities of organ-
izational phenomena. It follows from this that
metaphors have to go beyond being merely
literary illustrations in order to use metaphorical
thinking in such a way as to eventually reveal
generic properties (e.g. Bono, 1990; Boyd, 1979;
Hesse, 1995; Montuschi, 1995). The matter here is
one of transcending the mere illustrative-cum-
rhetoric level (at which acceptance of a metaphor
is a matter of uncritical intuition and unexamined
prejudice), in order to yield knowledge, which can
be rationally assessed and accepted.

The method presented in this article dwells

upon Schön’s (1965) procedure of displacement
where a familiar concept is ‘carried over as a
projective model for a new situation’ (Schön,
1965, p. 49). As Schön (1965) and Montuschi
(1995) outline, this process of displacement, which
is at the heart of metaphoric transfer, can be
described according to a scheme articulated in
four different stages: transposition, interpretation,
correction and spelling out. In the first trans-
position stage, a concept of a source domain is
projected upon a new target situation by ‘estab-
lishing a relation of comparability between old
and new contexts’ (Montuschi, 1995, p. 317). In
the case of a metaphor, this comparability houses
in a first ‘declarative assertion of existential
equivalence’ (Hunt and Menon, 1995, p. 82)
where similar attributes of phenomena, subjects
or domains are identified to form an analogy
between the primary and secondary subject. This
is not to say that metaphor is equivalent to simile;
nonetheless, it is true that the existence of such
a similarity is presupposed by the metaphor.
An analogy or simile simply exists as a necessary,
though not sufficient, condition for the existence
of a metaphor (e.g. Black, 1962, 1977/1993;
MacCormac, 1985; Ortony, 1979b; Tsoukas, 1991,
1993). The second stage of interpretation then
moves beyond the stated and explicated common-
places of the primary and secondary concepts
(through transposition), and suggests the pro-
jection and assignment of further implications
from the source domain to the target domain
as potentially descriptive and explanatory of the
reality and dynamics of the subject in case. As such,
once a metaphor is thus granted through a suffi-
cient degree of similarity between its implications

and the subject under investigation, the use of
it in primarily investigative or theoretical spirit
offers not a declaration but a further hypothesis of
comparison: that there are important predicates
in the relevant context for the ‘filling in’ or
specification of the metaphor – that there are,
in other words, further significant theoretical
connections to be forged between the domains
involved. The possible resistance that then might
result from transferring and matching these
further implications to the primary subject in
question (often requiring a stretching or shifting
of meaning) is called correction. Correction thus
also involves a first determination of whether
these additional features, and thus the metaphor,
are apt and fitting to the subject under con-
sideration, in turn giving rise to suggestive
assertions and hypotheses that are subject to
further critical examination. Finally, when, after
repeated testing of these further assertions and
hypotheses, a ‘concept shows itself to be perfectly
“adapted” to the new context’ and can be said to
have been ‘spelled out’ (Montuschi, 1995, p. 317),
the heuristic value of the metaphor in capturing
the reality and dynamics of organizational phe-
nomena has become evident. Alternatively, when
a metaphor fails to meet the criteria implied in
this four-stage process – i.e. a sufficient degree
of similarity in transposition, and a suggestive and
subsequently validated hypothesis of comparison
through the interpretation, correction and spelling-
out stages – it has little if any heuristic value (and
should thus be replaced by an alternative concept
or metaphor in consideration of the subject under
investigation):

‘The old theory, or a familiar concept, might func-
tion as sets of condensed expectations projected
onto a new situation. The aim is that of ‘naming’
aspects of the new situation, for which we do not
have a pre-existing terminology. The fulfillment
of expectations is the result of a step-by-step
appraisal of how appropriate, and applicable,
the old context is to a new puzzling situation.’
(Montuschi, 1995, p. 320)

The above four-stage process of metaphor use
provides for a systematic and step-wise method
for controlling, as well as explicating and evaluating,
the use of metaphors in organization studies. The
next section illustrates the use of this method
by dissecting and evaluating the ‘organizational
identity’ metaphor.

262

J. P. Cornelissen

06_Cornel 26/11/02 1:11 pm Page 262

Explicating and evaluating the
organizational identity metaphor

Against the background of the method of meta-
phor in organization theory presented, to call
organizations and organized sets of behaviour an
‘organizational identity’ is to evoke the normal
identity-system of implications (see Cassam, 1999;
Edwards and Potter, 1992; Furnham and Heaven,
1999; Goffman, 1959; Mackenzie, 1978; Popper
and Eccles, 1977) to be transferred to the group
and behaviour in question. The implications in
question thus shape our notion of the subject, i.e.
the collective beliefs and actions of an organized
group, while themselves subject to meaning change
in the process of application. In the case of the
‘organizational identity’ metaphor, the implications
brought into the comparison are derived from
social psychology engaged with the study of an
individual’s identity. Juxtaposed to the concept of
self sui generis, identity is generally seen within
social psychology to focus on the meanings com-
prising the self as an object, to give structure and
content to the self-concept, and to anchor the self
to social systems (e.g. Blumer, 1969; Cassam,
1999; Edwards and Potter, 1992; Furnham and
Heaven, 1999; Gecas, 1982; Goffman, 1959).
Correlated with such different ontological stances
(e.g. interactionism and behaviourism versus
mentalistic accounts) and conceptualizations (e.g.
social identity theory, psychodynamics, post-
modernism, symbolic interactionism) of identity
in social psychology (e.g. House, 1977), there has

also been a degree of ubiquity and variance in
the implications that have been drawn into the
comparison (Pratt and Foreman, 2000b). Table 1
presents, based upon a review of the ‘organizational
identity’ literature, the salient implications of
identity that have repeatedly been projected –
through the metaphor of ‘organizational identity’
– upon organizations.

The implications drawn into the comparison, as

mentioned in Table 1, have all been considered, to
a greater or lesser extent, suggestive of the sub-
ject of ‘organization’ under consideration. The
result of such transfers, then, is new implicative
complexes that suggest original ways of looking at
organization, namely in terms of ‘organization as
identity’ (and that, as mentioned, should normally
be followed by a specification of hypotheses
and assertions that are subject to further critical
examination). For example, the transfer of the
implications of ‘spatial and temporal continuity’
and the ‘unique (individual) character’ suggestively
turns organizations into unique, coherent and
stable sets of activities, values and people (e.g.
Albert and Whetten, 1985; Van Rekom, 1997).
However, returning to the method of metaphor
outlined above, before we can start to consider
the possible hypotheses of comparison suggested
by the ‘organizational identity’ metaphor within
the ‘interpretation’ and ‘correction’ stages, we
first need to consider the necessary element of
similarity between the primary and secondary
concepts (drawn together within the metaphor)
in the ‘transposition’ stage. In this first stage, as

On the ‘Organizational Identity’ Metaphor

263

Table 1. The comparison of implication complexes in the ‘organizational identity’ metaphor

Primary subject

Secondary subject

Suggested heuristic

Selected references

ORGANIZATION IS

IDENTITY

←

Spatial and temporal

Organization as an ordered,

Christensen and Cheney (1994),

continuity in physical

unified and relatively

Albert and Whetten (1985)

features/behaviour

permanent role-system

←

Unique and distinctive

Unique characteristics and

Larçon and Reitter (1979),

(individual) character traits

features giving company

Albert and Whetten (1985)

specificity, stability, and
coherence

←

Coherence between

Predictable and coherent

Czarniawska-Joerges (1994),

individual’s experience/thought

beliefs and actions of

Gioia, Schultz and Corley

and action

organized groups

(2000a)

←

Claimed central character

Classifying/representing and

Albert and Whetten (1985),

distinguishing the organization

Albert (1998)

←

. . .

|

-Selfhood

MacKenzie (1978)

|

-. . .

Note: a distinction is made between mappable and non-mappable features, symbolised by an arrow (

←

) and a blocked line (

|

-)

respectively (three dots indicate that none of the categories is exhaustive).

06_Cornel 26/11/02 1:11 pm Page 263

mentioned, the onus lies on identifying a suffi-
cient degree of similarity between the primary
and secondary concepts that would warrant the
metaphor’s further use (through the following
phases) as a heuristic device in theory construction.
The implied simile within each metaphor (based
upon a drawing together of implications grounded
in perceived analogies of structure between two
subjects belonging to different domains) there-
fore needs to be rendered explicit – by way of
paraphrasing or converting the metaphor into a
statement of similarity (Scheffler, 1979, p. 82) –
and becomes then the proper subject for a first
determination of the appropriateness of the
metaphor in case (Pinder and Bourgeois, 1982).
Metaphors that survive such critical examination
in the transposition stage can then progress to the
interpretation and correction stages to consider
their heuristic insights into the subjects to which
they refer (based upon analysis and research pro-
voked by their further hypotheses of comparison).

When considering the ‘organizational identity’

metaphor in detail, however, it appears that
because of the little if any degree of similarity
between the primary and secondary concepts,
there is no existential warrant or ground for its
use. While, interestingly, theorists and researchers
have rushed into the interpretation (as indicated
in Table 1 by the ease with which a whole range of
suggestive comparisons have been made based
upon further salient attributes and predicates from
the secondary identity concept that supposedly
can be projected upon the target domain of organ-
ization), correction and even spelling out

2

stages,

the metaphor’s use cannot be granted in consid-
eration of the little if any degree of isomorphic

similarity between attributes of ‘organization’
and ‘identity’. Mackenzie (1978) elucidates this
observation by pointing out that it is logically
impossible to equate a collective (i.e. organization)
with an individual-level construct (i.e. identity)
and therefore to postulate a ‘collective identity’.
Undergirding this position, MacKenzie (1978)
argues that the implication of ‘selfhood’ or the
‘claimed central character’ within the psycho-
logical construct of ‘identity’, for instance, proves
impossible to transfer to a collective, brought
about by the problem of how to speak of a
singular identity in a collective, a collective self or
a singularity of collective action.

3

Any attempt

at surpassing this logical impasse then amounts
to reification of ‘organizational identity’ as a
separate entity (e.g. Gioia et al., 2000a, 2000b;
Whetten and Godfrey, 1998) – disconnecting it
from the aggregate of individual characteristics
and actions that constitute organizations, which,
it needs to be recognized, in explaining away
individual agency is not true to the real charac-
teristics and actions of individuals in an organized
group. That is, such reification of ‘organizational
identity’ then suggests that the concept has been
given a ‘metaphysical’ status (Levitt and Nass,
1994) presuming a ‘facticity’ with which this
alleged independent entity confronts individual
actors in such a way as to ignore how collectives
such as organizations are produced and reproduced
through individual actions (see also Czarniawski-
Joerges, 1994).

It follows that the use of the ‘organizational

identity’ metaphor, despite its apparent beguil-
ingly suggestive nature (e.g. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 2000) as well as its continuing and
widespread use (e.g. Whetten and Godfrey, 1998),
is not granted and should thus be replaced by an
alternative concept or metaphor (e.g. ideology,

264

J. P. Cornelissen

2

Gioia, Schultz and Corley (2000b) recently argued

that the ‘organizational identity’ concept should now
be disconnected in theory and research from individual
identity as the covering or secondary concept, and that
the field should as such progress beyond metaphorical
‘as if’ transfers and comparisons for knowledge gen-
eration towards considering ‘organizational identity’ as
a separate model involving a structural similarity with
the subject of organizations and organizational behav-
iour. This suggestion implies, as is characteristic of the
‘spelling-out’ stage, that whereas initially while enter-
tained as a ‘live’ metaphor organizational behavior and
individual and collective sense-making were essentially
described and explained ‘as if’ or ‘as like’ ‘identities’,
aspects and dimensions of organizations should now
come to be seen ‘as’ identities (see also Whetten and
Godfrey, 1998).

3

Following MacKenzie’s (1978) analysis, the claim here

concerns the existential incompatibility between the
individual identity and collective organization con-
structs, which is something different from saying that it
is reasonable and legitimate for organizations to create
narratives that imply a unified whole or an ‘identity’
(e.g. Cheney, 1991; Martin et al., 1983). The crucial
difference here, as Levitt and Nass (1994, p. 240) have
already outlined, is that although such narratives of
‘identity’ might be construed and issued by organ-
izations, an organization cannot ‘narrate itself into
‘personhood’: ‘organizations that refer to themselves as
entities with the same ontological status or character-
istics as “persons” are a priori employing non sequiturs’.

06_Cornel 26/11/02 1:11 pm Page 264

‘gemeinschaft’, society) that not only provides
for insights into the explanandum targeted by the
‘organizational identity’ metaphor, i.e. the mean-
ing and interlocking of ideational and behavioural
aspects of organizational life, but is also based
upon a degree of ‘existential equivalence’ (Hunt
and Menon, 1995, p. 82) that makes the drawing
of the metaphor possible in the first place.

To illustrate this point, and by implication the

need for a metaphor to meet the necessary criterion
of a sufficient degree of structural similarity (in
the transposition stage) (before entering into
the stages concerning the transfer of further
implications that may be suggestive of the target
domain involved), Table 2 presents an explication
of the ‘relationship marketing’ metaphor. This
‘relationship marketing’ metaphor is, in contrast
to the ‘organizational identity’ metaphor, indeed
grounded in a sufficient degree of similarity
between interpersonal relationships (in the source
domain) and the targeted subject of interactions
and behaviors between selling and buying parties
in commercial settings (as made explicit and
symbolized by an open line in Table 2) (see
Iacobucci and Ostrom, 1996, p. 55). Beyond these
structural analogies or isomorphisms between
the domains of marketing and interpersonal
relationships, warranting the conjoining of im-
plications of both subjects within the ‘relationship

marketing’ metaphor, the interpersonal relation-
ship literature has also brought with it a number
of suggestive implications (symbolized by an
arrow in Table 2) that have generated imaginative
conjectures about marketing practices in many
commercial settings in the post-industrial age
(e.g. Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995). Through these
conjectures that revolve around the notion of a
‘social structure’ existing between individuals or
parties (within friendships, marriages, families
etc.) that carries beyond the manifest, behavioural
exchanges between them, the metaphor has upon
further analysis effectively started to shed light
upon the types of ‘relationships’ existing in many
commercial settings including industrial or busi-
ness marketing (i.e. business-to-business) (e.g.
Kothandaraman and Wilson, 2000), services
marketing (i.e. service provider-to-client) (e.g.
Iacobucci and Ostrom, 1996), and consumer
marketing (i.e. business/brand-to-consumer)
(e.g. Fournier, 1998).

Discussion

The use of analogies and metaphors to point
out the awareness of resemblances serves ‘the
purposes of science’ (Kaplan, 1964, p. 265), and it
is this recognition that has led to increased

On the ‘Organizational Identity’ Metaphor

265

Table 2. The comparison of implication complexes in the ‘relationship marketing’ metaphor

Primary subject

Secondary subject

Suggested heuristic

Selected references

MARKETING IS

RELATIONSHIPS

–interactions between

–interactions between parties

Morgan and Hunt (1994)

parties
–symmetry-asymmetry

–symmetry-asymmetry of roles,

Iacobucci and Ostrom (1996)

of roles, valence,

valence, interdependence,

interdependence, social-

social- or work-related basis

or work-related basis

–. . .

←

social contract

Relationship between parties

Saren and Tzokas (1998)

in commercial settings stretches
beyond the mere interactions
and exchanges between them

←

commitment, trust and

Emotional disposition of

Morgan and Hunt (1994),

emotional bonding

parties towards one another,

Fournier (1998)

inclination to nurture and retain
the commercial relationship

←

cooperation and partnering

Inter-dependence and mutuality

Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995),

between parties in the

Kothandaraman and Wilson

commercial relationship

(2000)

←

. . .

|

-. . .

Note: a distinction is made between pre-existent, mappable and non-mappable features, symbolized by an open line (–), an
arrow (

←

) and a blocked line (

|

-) respectively (three dots indicate that none of the categories is exhaustive).

06_Cornel 26/11/02 1:11 pm Page 265

attention within organization studies to the role
of metaphor in theory development (Hunt and
Menon, 1995; Tsoukas, 1991, 1993; Weick, 1989).
Despite this increased attention, however, there
has been little, if any, prescription to aid theorists
in the use of metaphor when studying and
theorizing about organizations (Weick, 1989).
Therefore, the article has outlined a method of
metaphor in theory construction and has
illustrated its use through an evaluation of the
‘organizational identity’ metaphor. At the heart
of this method lies the perspective that in working
through a relational comparison of not normally
associated referents, a metaphor always implies a
statement of similarity (similar attributes of
phenomena, subjects or domains are identified to
form an analogy), as well as a hypothesis of
comparison (dissimilar attributes of the referents
are identified to produce semantic anomaly)
between disparate concepts. Upon evaluation, the
‘organizational identity’ metaphor has not
passed both hurdles, as there is little if any degree
of isomorphic similarity between the individual-
level construct of identity and the collective-level
construct of organization, making its further use
for theory and research within organization
studies unwarranted.

One obvious suggestion coming out of the

analysis presented is that once paraphrased into a
statement of similarity and comparison, each of
the implications within a metaphor in the organ-
izational field needs to be tested on its own merits
(in account of the subject under consideration)
through further analysis and research, and not
simply assumed to hold because it holds in or is
associated with the metaphor (Pinder and Bourgeois,
1982, p. 643). This continuous assessment of the
selection of salient properties and implications
accompanying a metaphor proves essential, as at
times the beguiling nature of metaphors and the
connotations of the metaphorical term have proven
more important than its actual denotation, and as
metaphors can thus be misleading when they
interrelate entities that not only have no bearing
of similarity with one another, but are also not
suggestive of the subject under consideration.

The notion of a contingency perspective has

emerged at various points in the above analysis.
This viewpoint is theoretically respectable in
the light of the method of metaphor presented,
where metaphors can be evaluated and used in a
reasonably systematic, directed and thoughtful

manner on the basis of the process and criteria
presented (a sufficient degree of isomorphism
premised on the implied simile and the heuristic
value given in by the comparison that it draws
between disparate concepts). In this article, we
have illustrated the use of this method by dissect-
ing and evaluating the ‘organizational identity’
metaphor within organization studies, and, by
doing so, have shown the wider relevance and
utility of this method for evaluating and assessing
new and existing metaphors in organization theory.

Apart from their predictive and explanatory

potency for organization theory and research
within the confines of the academic world, we also
want to raise attention to the political and social
consequences of metaphors when transferred to
and adopted within the managerial arena. As
Stepan (1986) notes, metaphors that have origin-
ally been considered upon their intellectual or
cognitive roles in science, might also carry ‘social
and moral consequences’ (Stepan, 1986, p. 275).
One particular concern in this regard is that
managers, when adopting a metaphor or concept
from organization theory, tend to shape and com-
modify its original scientific content into a simple
set of ideas, thereby compromising the original
and nuanced conceptualization of the metaphor
in case (Astley and Zammuto, 1992). When again
considering the ‘organizational identity’ meta-
phor, managers might reduce this metaphor to
the single extension of ‘a monolithic structure of
feeling and thought’, which, when conceived in
that way, can then be used as a rhetorical and
political device, as a matter of managerial
manipulation, venturing delicately to put people
together in a bundle. In such a managerial trans-
lation of the ‘organizational identity’ metaphor,
an overarching set of values and beliefs is
presumed to exist and to transcend individual
members of the organization, perhaps from such
a managerialist perspective with the aim of giving
them some sense of purpose and directing their
creative energies towards the realization of cor-
porate objectives. Willmott (1993) considers such
an approach as ‘totalitarian’: in such a man-
agerialist account, ‘organizational identity’ offers
a self-disciplining form of employee subjectivity
by asserting that ‘practical autonomy’ is conditional
upon the development of strong ‘collective
identities’ and, to that end, promotes employee
commitment to a monolithic structure of feeling
and thought. Following Willmott’s (1993) analysis,

266

J. P. Cornelissen

06_Cornel 26/11/02 1:11 pm Page 266

rather than offering individuals free choice
of values and identifications, the managerially
induced and overarching ‘organizational identity’
might then come to dictate the source(s) of
identification in an attempt to hamper an
individual’s ‘misdirected’ identification with rival
ends or values and to impute and maintain a sense
of organizational coherence and co-operation
(see also Albert, 1998).

Concluding comments

The article has argued that as organization theorists,
we need to fully appreciate the connection between
observable phenomena and the use of language,
metaphors and theoretical concepts if we are to
avoid the confusion that can result from borrow-
ing or mindlessly applying metaphors. Through-
out our discussion, we have recognized that the
difference between metaphorical language and
literal language is one of degree rather than kind
(Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Pinder and Bourgeois,
1982), and that it is virtually impossible to avoid
metaphors altogether. Nonetheless, the article has
emphasized that metaphor always implies a state-
ment of similarity and a hypothesis of comparison
between disparate concepts which can be
rendered explicit and evaluated to determine the
appropriateness and heuristic value of the meta-
phor in case. When indeed warranted and judged
insightful to the subject investigated, metaphors
can prove enormously productive of further
theoretical advances and empirical observations
within organization studies (Burrell and Morgan,
1979): by sparking off inquiry and directing
researchers to explore links that would otherwise
remain obscure. However, following in Gouldner’s
(1970, 31ff) footsteps, although we must consider
the fresh insights that each metaphor may bring
us, involving its heuristic potential for theory
development, we must equally be aware that each
metaphor may smuggle hidden or unconscious
assumptions into organizational theory from its
domain of origin, and that it may even carry a
hidden cargo of dubious implications.

References

Academy of Management Review (2000). Special Topic

Forum on Organizational Identity and Identification, 25(1).

Albert, S. (1998). ‘The Definition and Metadefinition of

Identity’. In: D. A. Whetten and P. C. Godfrey (eds), Identity
in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations,
pp. 1–13. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Albert, S. and D. A. Whetten (1985). ‘Organizational Identity’.

In: L. L. Cummings and B. M. Shaw (eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, pp. 263–295. AI Press, Greenwich.

Ashforth, B. and F. Mael (1989). ‘Social identity theory and

the organization’, Academy of Management Review, 14,
pp. 20–39.

Astley, W. G. and R. F. Zammuto (1992). ‘Organization

Science, Managers, and Language Games’, Organization
Science, 3, pp. 443–460.

Bacharach, S. B. (1989). ‘Organizational Theories: Some

Criteria for Evaluation’, Academy of Management Review,
14, pp. 496–515.

Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors. Cornell University

Press, Ithaca.

Black, M. (1979/1993). ‘More about Metaphor’. In: A. Ortony

(ed.) (1979/1993), Metaphor and Thought, pp. 19–43.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and

Method. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bono, J. J. (1990). ‘Science, Discourse and Literature: The

Role/Rule of Metaphor in Science’. In: S. Peterfreund (ed.),
Literature and Science, pp. 59–89. Northeastern University
Press, Boston, MA.

Boyd, R. (1979). ‘Metaphor and Theory Change’. In

A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, pp. 356–408.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Brown, R. H. (1976). ‘Social theory as metaphor: On the

logic of discovery for the sciences of conduct’, Theory and
Society, 3, pp. 169–197.

Burrell, G. and G. Morgan (1979). Sociological paradigms

and organizational analysis: Elements of the sociology of
corporate life. Heineman Educational Books, London.

Cassam, Q. (1999). Self and World. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society:

Managing multiple identities. University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia, SC.

Christensen, L. T. and G. Cheney (1994). ‘Articulating Identity

in an Organizational Age’. In S. A. Deetz (ed.), Communi-
cation Yearbook, pp. 222–235. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1994). ‘Narratives of Individual

and Organizational Identities’. In S. A. Deetz (ed.),
Communication Yearbook, pp. 193–221. Sage, Thousand
Oaks.

Daft, R. L. and J. C. Wiginton (1979). ‘Language and Organ-

ization’, Academy of Management Review, 4, pp. 179–191.

Davidson, D. (1978). ‘What metaphors mean’, Critical Inquiry,

5, pp. 31–48.

Dutton, J. E. and J. M. Dukerich (1991). ‘Keeping an eye

on the mirror: image and identity in organizational
adaptation’, Academy of Management Journal, 34,
pp. 517–554.

Edwards, D. and J. Potter (1992). Discursive Psychology. Sage

Publications, London.

Fournier, S. (1998). ‘Consumers and their brands: Developing

relationship theory in consumer research’, Journal of
Consumer Research, 24, pp. 343–373.

Furnham, A. and P. Heaven (1999). Personality and Social

Behavior. Arnold, London.

On the ‘Organizational Identity’ Metaphor

267

06_Cornel 26/11/02 1:11 pm Page 267

Gecas, V. (1982). ‘The Self-Concept’, Annual Review of

Sociology, 8, pp. 1–33.

Gioia, D. A., M. Schultz and K. G. Corley (2000a).

‘Organizational Identity, Image and Adaptive Instability’,
Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 63–81.

Gioia, D. A., M. Schultz and K. G. Corley (2000b). ‘Where Do

We Go From Here?’, Academy of Management Review, 25,
pp. 145–147.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.

Doubleday, New York.

Gouldner, A. (1970). The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology.

Basic Books, New York.

Hesse, M. (1995). ‘Models, Metaphors and Truth’. In:

Z. Radman (ed.), From a Metaphorical Point of View:
A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Cognitive Content of
Metaphor, pp. 351–372. DeGruyter, Berlin.

House, J. S. (1977). ‘The three faces of social psychology’,

Sociometry, 40, pp. 161–177.

Hunt, S. D. and A. Menon (1995). ‘Metaphors and

Competitive Advantage: Evaluating the Use of Metaphors
in Theories of Competitive Strategy’, Journal of Business
Research, 33, pp. 81–90.

Iacobucci, D. and A. Ostrom (1996). ‘Commercial and

interpersonal relationships: Using the structure of interper-
sonal relationships to understand individual-to-individual,
individual-to-firm, and firm-to-firm relationships in com-
merce’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13,
pp. 53–72.

Indurkhya, B. (1992). Metaphor and Cognition. Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry. Chandler

Publishing Company, San Francisco.

Kothandaraman, P. and D. T. Wilson (2000). ‘Implementing

relationship strategy’, Industrial Marketing Management,
29, pp. 339–349.

Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Larçon, J. P. and R. Reitter (1979). Structures de pouvoir et

identité de l’enterprise. Nathan, Paris.

Levitt, B. and C. Nass (1994). ‘Organizational Narratives

and the Person/Identity Distinction’. In: S. A. Deetz (ed.).
Communication Yearbook, pp. 236–246. Sage, Thousand
Oaks.

Mackenzie, W. J. M. (1978). Political Identity. Penguin Books,

Harmondsworth.

MacCormac, E. R. (1985). A cognitive theory of metaphor.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Martin, J., S. M. Feldman, M. J. Hatch and S. B. Sitkin (1983).

‘The Uniqueness Paradox in Organizational Stories’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, pp. 438–453.

Montuschi, E. (1995). ‘What is Wrong with Talking of

Metaphors in Science?’. In: Z. Radman (ed.), From a
Metaphorical Point of View: A Multidisciplinary Approach
to the Cognitive Content of Metaphor, pp. 309–327.
DeGruyter, Berlin.

Morgan, G. (1980). ‘Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving

in organizational theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly,
25, pp. 605–622.

Morgan, G. (1983). ‘More on metaphor: why we cannot

control tropes in administrative science’, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28, pp. 601–607.

Morgan, R. M. and S. D. Hunt (1994). ‘The commitment-trust

theory of relationship marketing’, Journal of Marketing, 58,
pp. 20–38.

Ortony, A. (ed.) (1979a). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Ortony, A. (1979b). ‘The Role of Similarity in Similes and

Metaphors’. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought,
pp. 186–201. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pinder, C. and V. W. Bourgeois (1982). ‘Controlling Tropes in

Administrative Science’, Administrative Science Quarterly,
27, pp. 641–652.

Pondy, L. R., P. J. Frost, G. Morgan and T. C. Dandridge (1983).

Organizational Symbolism. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Popper, K R. and J. C. Eccles (1977). The Self and its Brain:

An Argument for Interactionism. Springer Verlag, Berlin.

Pratt, M. G. and P. O. Foreman (2000a). ‘Classifying Man-

agerial Responses to Multiple Organizational Identities’,
Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 18–42.

Pratt, M. G. and P. O. Foreman (2000b). ‘The Beauty of and

Barriers to Organizational Theories of Identity’, Academy
of Management Review, 25, pp. 141–152.

Sandelands, L. and R. Drazin (1989). ‘On the Language of

Organization Theory’, Organization Studies, 10(4),
pp. 457–478.

Saren, M. J. and N. X. Tzokas (1998). ‘Some dangerous axioms

of relationship marketing’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6,
pp. 187–196.

Scheffler, I. (1979). Beyond the Letter: A Philosophical Inquiry

into Ambiguity, Vagueness and Metaphor in Language.
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Schön, D. A. (1965). Displacement of Concepts. Tavistock

Publications, London.

Sheth, J. N. and A. Parvatiyar (1995). ‘The evolution of

relationship marketing’, International Business Review, 4,
pp. 397–418.

Stepan, N. L. (1986). ‘Race and gender: The Role of Analogy

in Science’, Isis, 77, pp. 261–277.

Tsoukas, H. (1991). ‘The Missing Link: A Transformational

View of Metaphors in Organizational Science’, Academy of
Management Review, 16, pp. 566–585.

Tsoukas, H. (1993). ‘Analogical Reasoning and Knowledge

Generation in Organization Theory’, Organization Studies,
14(3), pp. 323–346.

Van Rekom, J. (1997). ‘Deriving an operational measure of

corporate identity’, European Journal of Marketing, 31,
pp. 410–422.

Weick, K. E. (1989). ‘Theory Construction as Disciplined

Imagination’, Academy of Management Review, 14,
pp. 516–531.

Whetten, D. A. and P. C. Godfrey (eds) (1998). Identity in

Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations.
Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Willmott, H. (1993). ‘Strength is Ignorance; Slavery is

Freedom: Managing Culture in Modern Organizations’,
Journal of Management Studies, 30, pp. 515–552.

268

J. P. Cornelissen

06_Cornel 26/11/02 1:11 pm Page 268