See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275441187

Metaphor as the Foundation of

Organizational Studies: Images of
Organization and Beyond

Article in Organization & Environment · February 2012

DOI: 10.1177/1086026611436328

CITATIONS READS

9 271

2 authors, including:

John Jermier
University of South Florida
64 PUBLICATIONS 3,110 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John Jermier on 31 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

436328
ForbesOrganization & Environment
OAEXXX10.1177/1086026611436328Jermier and

Citation Classics and Foundational Works

Organization & Environment

Metaphor as the Foundation of 24(4) 444­–458

© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
Organizational Studies:  Images of sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1086026611436328
Organization and Beyond http://oae.sagepub.com

John M. Jermier1 and Linda C. Forbes2

Abstract
This article is the first part of a Citation Classics and Foundational Works feature focused on
metaphor and organizational studies. The second part of the feature is a personal reflection by
Gareth Morgan on the genesis and impact of his pathbreaking book, Images of Organization (IO).
In this article, we summarize the nature of the contributions made by IO, sketch ways in which
the book has prompted and served as a touchstone for new research on metaphor and orga-
nization, and discuss the application of contemporary metaphorical analysis to the problems of
theory development, research methods, and puzzle solving facing scholars interested in sustain-
ability studies and research on organizations and the natural environment (ONE). We illustrate
how early research that fostered ONE scholarship is marked by the use of particularly powerful
metaphorical language and attention to poetic technique as well as rigorous science.We suggest
how ONE research (and organizational studies in general) can benefit from studying IO and
related literature on metaphorical analysis.

Keywords
Gareth Morgan, paradigm, tropes, root metaphor, analogical reasoning, cognitive science,
theory construction, disciplined imagination, research methodology, positivist empirical science,
organizational discourse analysis, literary method, rhetorical styles, poetic technique, nature
writing, spirituality and the environment, organizational theory, organizations and the natural
environment, critical theory, sustainability studies, Silent Spring, The Ecology of Commerce,
corporation as island

Scholars of organizations have benefitted through the years from key books that map and other-
wise take stock of the field (e.g., Baritz, 1960; Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Clegg, Hardy, & Nord,
1996; March, 1965; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1981; Perrow, 1986; Tsoukas & Knudson, 2003).
These compilations are invaluable because they advance frameworks that organize and highlight
important schools of thought and streams of research. They also tell a story about what warrants
attention in the field—and what does not. This type of accounting for progress in organizational
studies is also conducted through annual reviews, research anthologies, and special issues of

1
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
2
Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT, USA

Corresponding Author:
John M. Jermier, PhD, College of Business, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-5500, USA
Email: jermier@usf.edu

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

Jermier and Forbes 445

journals. These sources are often highly influential in charting the course for future research and
in shaping the imagination of scholars interested in developing and contributing to the field.
In this Citation Classics and Foundational Works feature, we focus attention on Gareth
Morgan’s (1986) Images of Organization (IO), a book that serves many of the important pur-
poses identified above. In addition, IO encourages reflection on the concept of metaphor (and
its role in human thought and scientific work) and on the fundamental root (or generative)
metaphors that underwrite the field’s dominant and emerging theories and perspectives. The
message of IO for researchers, educators, and other students of organization is that all concep-
tual frameworks (including formal theories) result from the elaboration of root metaphors and
that metaphor tends to lock the scholar into a particular train of thought. That is, the metaphors
we begin with and their associated philosophical assumptions have profound consequences for
further thought and action. Thus, metaphor is not merely useful in literary expression and jour-
nalism. It is useful in all intellectual work and is a proper subject of inquiry for any scientific
field seeking to discover its foundations and advance its research.
We are highlighting this book because we think it can serve as a valuable resource for schol-
ars of organization and environment who want to further explore the field’s metaphorical
underpinnings and the related literature that builds on this work. In our view, this is some of the
field’s most creative and methodologically sophisticated material and is indispensable for those
grappling with paradigmatic choices and radical approaches to developing an ecocentric sci-
ence of organizations (see Hoffman & Bansal, 2012).
In this article, we introduce the Feature, which includes Morgan’s (2011) companion piece
that follows (“Reflections on Images of Organization and Its Implications for Organization and
Environment”). We also (a) summarize the nature of the contributions made by IO, (b) sketch
ways in which the book has prompted and served as a touchstone for new research on metaphor
and organization, and (c) discuss the application of contemporary metaphorical analysis to the
problems of theory development, research methods, and puzzle solving facing scholars inter-
ested in sustainability studies and research on organizations and the natural environment (ONE).

The Nature of the Contribution

Even if it had not been cited more than 8,000 times since its initial publication, it is easy to see
how Images of Organization serves as a crucial foundational work for organizational studies. It
offers readers an overview of organizational social science and theories of organization from the
perspective of metaphor, a fundamental element in human language and, more specifically from
several root metaphorical expressions in the language of organization. Therefore, it is useful
for analyzing underlying conceptual processes and linguistic conventions that manifest in
everyday speech about organizations as well as in analyzing the carefully formulated scientific
expressions produced by scholars of organizations.
Using eight root metaphors (organizations as machines, living organisms, brains, cultures, polit-
ical systems, psychic prisons, flux and transformation, and instruments of domination), IO inte-
grates decades of research and offers an approach to the field that holds appeal for both novices and
experts. Commentators have traced the book’s appeal to many factors, from the elegance of the
writing style to the innovativeness of the images of organization that are elaborated. In our view,
IO has also appealed to so many different kinds of readers because of the method of presentation.
Although there is no explicit theory of learning articulated in the text, IO makes use of the method
of comparison and contrast, one of the most natural and powerful forms of human learning (see
Marzano, 2007). By provoking the method of comparing and contrasting metaphors, IO invites
learning at a highly abstract level and also at the more concrete level of key concepts derived from
the root metaphors and combinations of concepts that might not otherwise be brought together.

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

446 Organization & Environment 24(4)

Another appealing quality of IO is that it is written from a well-formulated philosophical

position. IO is based on the idea that metaphors are inexorably wrapped up with ontology, epis-
temology, methodology, and ultimately with the process of developing theory. Metaphors are
wrapped up with ontology because our assumptions about the nature of reality condition every
facet of existence. The ontological premise that “organizations are multidimensional, socially
constructed realities where different aspects can co-exist in complementary, conflicting, hence
paradoxical ways,” as Morgan (2011, p. 467) states in his companion essay, has profound impli-
cations for developing strategies to comprehend organizations. In addition, there is a certain
epistemological tone in the presentation that is appealing. This tone is echoed in the companion
piece as Morgan (2011, p. 475) reiterates the key points that

metaphors provide partial insights; that different metaphors can produce conflicting
insights; that in elevating one insight others are downplayed; that a way of seeing becomes
a way of not seeing; and that any attempt to understand the complex nature of organiza-
tions (as with any complex subject) always requires an open and pluralistic approach
based on the interplay of multiple perspectives.

This epistemology is expressed in the conclusion to each chapter in which strengths and limita-
tions of that metaphor are discussed. It is also expressed when Morgan refers to the metaphors
presented in the book as illustrative of a range of possibilities for organizational theorizing and
not as an exhaustive list.
Another angle that appeals to scholars of organizations is the assertion that “metaphor is the
process that drives theory construction and science” (Morgan, 2011, p. 463). Although it is
commonly held that theory development is a process and that theories can be falsified with
empirical evidence, it is not as commonly recognized that theory and method are underwritten
and otherwise constructed from metaphorical imagery. IO illustrates this treatise and lays
important groundwork for understanding the role of metaphor in the process of theory develop-
ment and in the integral choice of research methods. Indeed, IO serves as a reminder that theory
and method can no more transcend metaphor than metaphor can transcend ontology and episte-
mology. Thus, as an innovative excursion into the realm of the deep structure of organizational
studies, IO can be read simultaneously as a well-positioned philosophical treatise, a rich theo-
retical exposition, and a sophisticated methodological exercise.
Importantly, IO also played a major role in legitimating exploration and further elaboration
of frameworks derived from interpretive and radical paradigms (see Burrell & Morgan, 1979).
This occurred at a time when the mainstream of the field was not fully aware of the limitations
of devoting so much attention to work grounded in taken-for-granted mechanistic and organis-
mic root images and when realist ontology and positivist epistemology were seen as the gold
standard for underwriting scientific method. Building on earlier work that revealed the underly-
ing philosophical assumptions in objectivist science, IO challenged the credentials of the field’s
dominant images (mechanistic and living systems) and highlighted the premature closure that
existed. As Morgan (2011, p. 468) states in his reflective essay in response to our question about
whether he was calling for new liberating metaphors as a basis for research: “One of my definite
aims was to help break the bonds of existing thinking and open inquiry to more radical
metaphors.”
In summary, it is reasonable to think that without Morgan’s efforts in producing IO and related
articles (e.g., Morgan, 1980, 1983a, 1983b), the field of organizational studies might have been
substantially delayed in discovering and clarifying its metaphorical foundations. IO has made a
unique contribution to organizational studies by elevating the process of metaphorical thinking

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

Jermier and Forbes 447

to the level of conscious awareness of countless students of organization. Accordingly, as our

sketch in the section below suggests, this work has mobilized scholars of organizations to more
closely examine the foundations of the field and the processes through which new knowledge is
created.

Research on Metaphor and Organization

The Early Years

IO was published 25 years ago in a very different intellectual climate. Lakoff and Johnson’s
(1980) classic, Metaphors We Live By, was widely circulated but cognitive linguistic analyses,
experimental studies in social cognition, and other empirical research defining and establishing
the important role played by metaphor in social thought and attitudes was limited (see Landau,
Meier, & Keefer, 2010). Morgan (1980) based his early work on metaphors on landmark studies
in the philosophy of culture (Ernst Cassirer), ordinary language theory (Max Black), poetic
sociology (Richard Brown), and related frameworks that emphasize the ways human beings
develop and use symbolic constructs to structure and give meaning to their world. The study of
metaphor lacked credibility in the broader social sciences and in organizational studies. Yet as
he states in his reflective essay (Morgan, 2011, p. 460), the idea of forging a link between the
perspectives advanced in Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis (Burrell &
Morgan, 1979) and metaphors of organization truly came easily, “as an intuitive flash of
insight,” while facing a pragmatic career crossroad.
The work prefigured and helped shape an explosion of interest in examining and challenging
the field’s paradigmatic and metaphorical underpinnings. One such stream emerged in the early
1980s as a number of influential organizational studies scholars embraced the theme of homo
symbolicus—an approach to understanding the symbolic character of human life and the primacy
of symbolic representations in all fields of activity, including science. They drew heavily on the
interpretive paradigm, cultural anthropology, and subjectivist methods, launching the field of
organizational culture and symbolism (e.g., Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1985;
Pondy, Frost, Morgan, & Dandridge, 1983). Studies of metaphor and language were integral
parts of the emerging zeitgeist, and IO eventually helped further expand this counter-paradigmatic
movement centered on culture and symbolism.
Although it is outside the scope of this introduction to provide a comprehensive review of the
research on metaphor and organization influenced by Morgan’s early work (which also can be
understood to include research on discourse theory and organization), it is important to sketch
some of the ways this work has been developed. Given the reach of Morgan’s thesis (that meta-
phor inevitably permeates both everyday meaning making and the production of academic
knowledge), it is not surprising that the initial reaction to IO was mixed. Most reviewers recog-
nized the creative flourish that was necessary to produce such a radical reframing of the field,
appreciated the rigor of the subjectivist method that demonstrated the relevance of the humani-
ties to organizational studies, and celebrated the liberating potential of the multiperspectival
approach. However, some reacted negatively to the core idea, as first presented in Morgan
(1980), objecting to the application of metaphors and other figurative language on the grounds
that unconstrained use would retard or even derail more traditional scientific pursuits in the
study of organization (Pinder & Bourgeois, 1982). Others contended that Morgan’s advocacy of
metaphorical pluralism could inadvertently lend support to totalitarian political tendencies
(Tinker, 1986) or expressed concern that the method of metaphor would lead to extreme episte-
mological relativism, undermining the modernist project (Reed, 1990). Even more fundamen-
tally, some cautioned against rampant and naïve use of metaphor in conceptualizing organizational

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

448 Organization & Environment 24(4)

phenomena (e.g., VrMeer, 1994), and Carr and Leivesley (1995) went so far as to claim that
organizational studies scholars frequently invoked the word metaphor inappropriately.
In an attempt to provide a critical appraisal of the use of metaphors in organizational science,
Grant and Oswick (1996a) invited several scholars to contribute chapters to a book dealing with
key issues and new directions for research. This book has become required reading for scholars
interested in the subject. Their introduction to the volume includes an instructive section on
organizational science and metaphor that reviews the literature and raises the question of whether
metaphors should be accorded a positive or negative status. The main argument in favor of
according a positive status, write Grant and Oswick (1996b), is the belief that metaphors have
generative capacity and are, therefore, liberating in orientation. They enable seeing the world
anew and can serve as a tool helpful in overcoming the trap of reifying the social world. They
also outline two arguments in favor of according metaphors a negative status. First, as a result of
their figurative quality, metaphors do not meet standards for exactitude in scientific investigation.
Second, metaphors (particularly the dominant mechanistic and organismic frames) tend to gener-
ate ideological distortion and create “false consciousness” because they fail to highlight structural
conflicts and power inequality. Of course the latter point does not negate the idea that alterna-
tive metaphors could generate at least moments of emancipation or that even the dominant
metaphors, if raised above the level of the taken for granted and incisively critiqued, could gener-
ate new ways of seeing. In the volume’s closing chapter, Morgan (1996) provides a useful expla-
nation of how metaphor works and reaffirms his emphasis on metaphorical analysis as a valuable
tool for liberation and extending the boundaries of organization and management theory.

Two Streams of Research

Research on metaphor and organization has continued to progress and is now mature enough to
include useful attempts to map the terrain, define the orthodoxy, and point to future directions
for research (e.g., Cornelissen, 2005; Cornelissen, Oswick, Christensen, & Phillips, 2008; Inns,
2002; Oswick, Keenoy, & Grant, 2002). In making our own observations about this field of
study, we will draw on these detailed reviews and we highly recommend them. Given space
considerations, however, we focus our attention on two central tendencies or themes in the
research literature: (a) studies examining metaphors in specific organizational settings and (b) stud-
ies detailing how metaphor works and exploring the role of metaphor in the construction of
organizational theories. We also highlight two articles published shortly after IO that we believe
illustrate the approaches to research on metaphor and that serve well as markers. They represent
important streams of literature that have developed from two of the seeds Morgan (1980, 1983a,
1983b, 1986) planted, although we cast them more as contemporaneous studies than as deriva-
tive presentations.
Metaphors in organizational settings. The first theme, examination of the meaning of meta-
phors in specific organizational settings, has a rich history in organizational studies, one that
extends beyond research on organizational culture and symbolism and that includes literature
on organizational discourse (e.g., Grant, Hardy, Oswick, & Putnam, 2004). Through the years,
many researchers have taken a descriptive and critical approach to understand how metaphors
are used in certain settings, focusing on power, control, resistance, and related concepts (e.g.,
Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Hopfl & Maddrell, 1996; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2011; Mantere
& Vaara, 2008; Martin, Knopoff, & Beckman, 1998). For decades, metaphor has also been
considered more normatively from the point of view of its possible role in organizational
development and planned change (e.g., Barrett & Cooperrider, 1990; Burke, 1992; Cornelissen,
Holt, & Zundel, 2011; Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001; Jacobs & Heracleous, 2006; Oswick &
Montgomery, 1999).

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

Jermier and Forbes 449

To illustrate this latter approach, we refer to Sackmann (1989), who conducted a detailed
study of metaphorical expressions in an applied setting—a sales conglomerate based in Los
Angeles, California. She interviewed 52 employees, including top management and a sample
of lower level employees randomly selected from various divisions and different hierarchical
levels. Her objective was to develop a better understanding of what kind of metaphors are
appropriate to promote organizational transformation when corporate survival is at stake. The
organizational change process was divided into two parts: strategic planning (which involved
searching out a new identity and direction for the firm) and an implementation stage (which
involved the rather typical and often extremely taxing initiative of creating and maintaining a
humanistic culture amidst [“housecleaning,” Sackman, 1989, p. 479], downsizing, and other
divestiture activities). According to Sackmann (1989), a metaphor of “philosophizing” was
elaborated to attempt to influence perceptions of the company’s identity and related macro
characteristics during strategic planning while a metaphor of “gardening” (cutting, pruning,
gathering, and planting/nurturing) was elaborated to attempt to influence meaning making
during implementation. This study is interesting for our purposes because it illustrates how
metaphors can be elaborated and apparently effectively deployed in a typical organizational
setting aspiring to enact humanistic transformation following radical structural change. The
empirical content presented in this article is appropriately detailed for the time and tells a
credible story about metaphorical expression at a general level. It differs from current state of
the art studies of metaphor and language use in organizations that emphasize discursive prac-
tices primarily in that it does not provide extensive conversational evidence to support its
claims or much detail about the context.
How metaphors work and disciplined imagination in theory construction. The second theme
(which is focused on how metaphors work and on the role of metaphor in the construction of
organizational theory) includes detailed studies of theoretical distinctions and debates in social
cognition, ranging from perspectives on conceptual metaphor theory to new perspectives on
embodied cognition (see Landau et al., 2010, for review). Our emphasis is on work that uses this
literature to uncover what metaphors do in the process of theorizing. From Gareth Morgan’s
early work to the present, he has stressed that metaphor is the foundation of the human concep-
tual system, a position articulated in Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) classic and one substantiated
by decades of subsequent research (see Gibbs, 2008; Lakoff, 2008). As noted above and in the
companion essay that follows, Morgan conceptualizes metaphor as the process that drives the-
ory construction and science. Most organizational studies scholars working in the area tend to
accept this premise and devote attention to exploring the role metaphor can play in generating
new theory. The emphasis placed on generating new theory rather than on testing and develop-
ing existing theory may be grounded in the belief that organizational studies scholars have
focused far more attention on reductionist empirical methods than on cultivating the theoretical
imagination. In line with this assessment, Morgan (2011) laments the fact that in current scien-
tific work, innovative metaphors that can generate useful insights tend to get lost in the process
of concretizing or tying down the details, a goal displacement that has negative consequences
for both theoretical understanding and practical puzzle solving.
In an article that warrants consideration as a Citation Classics and Foundational Works piece
in its own right, we now turn to Weick’s (1989) study of the process of theory construction in
organizational studies. The theme of the article is seemingly straightforward: “to build better
theory, theorists have to ‘think better’” (p. 529). But, for Weick as for Morgan, this is not a
simple proposition because it means laying down new foundations for thinking imaginatively
and relying on those foundations in attempts to develop theory instead of following the more
traditional handbook. To elaborate: the tone of the article and its compatibility with Morgan’s
views on scientific reductionism are established in the first sentence. Weick asserts that theorists

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

450 Organization & Environment 24(4)

often write trivial theories because their process of theory construction favors methods aimed at
empirical validation rather than broader criteria, such as usefulness. The root of the problem is
that there is little room in the handbook of the positivist epistemologist for anything theoretical
that does not lead directly to empirical validation and definite predictions about the results of
future observations. When scientific communities see validation as the ultimate test of the value
of a theory, steps preliminary to this stage can be degraded. Yet these are precisely the steps
Weick believes generate higher quality theoretical formulations.
Weick’s model of disciplined imagination is his prescription for producing better theory.
Better theory results from more accurate and detailed problem statements that trigger theoriz-
ing, more heterogeneity among thought trials (conjectures about ways to solve theoretical and
practical problems), and more diversity of selection criteria used to evaluate conjectures. Weick
compares his model to the process of natural selection in the theory of evolution and settles on
the notion of artificial selection because the theorist (or more precisely a community of theo-
rists) guides the evolutionary process. In contrast with traditional theory construction activities,
the disciplined imagination recognizes that because organizations are so complex, dynamic,
and difficult to observe, theorists must be guided through all stages of the process by “indirect
evidence and visualizations of what they [organizations] may be like, often captured in meta-
phors” (Weick, 1989, p. 529). Better theorizing necessitates that tools such as metaphors be
embraced and used creatively to enrich each step of the process and enhance the variety.
Recently, organizational studies scholars have taken up the challenge issued by Weick,
Morgan, and others to identify what would be necessary to more fully liberate the imagination in
theory construction activities (e.g., Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011; Cornelissen, 2006; Cornelissen
et al., 2008; Oswick et al., 2002; Oswick, Fleming, & Hanlon, 2011). Three things are clear from
this research: (a) there is some dissatisfaction being expressed with the limited amount of new
theory being generated, (b) metaphor and other forms of analogical reasoning are increasingly
being seen as central to all aspects of new theory construction, and (c) some influential scholars
are calling for greater attention to methodological issues concerning the identification and analy-
sis of metaphors, including more rigorous qualitative and quantitative assessments.
We view these developments as largely consistent with Morgan’s early work because in
responding to the call for new theories, scholars are recommending more explicit recognition of
the role for metaphor in the process of theory construction and in the analysis of phenomena in
organizational settings. In focusing on methodological issues, they are emphasizing the impor-
tant distinction between generative root metaphors and surface or decorative metaphors. As
Morgan (2011, p. 468) puts it, “Innovative theory building and problem solving does not just
rest in finding a cute new metaphor.” The field of organizational studies should be able to con-
tinue to benefit greatly from coordinated attempts to produce new generative root metaphors,
apply disciplined imagination in theory construction, and even explore the significance of other
tropes, such as anomaly, paradox, and irony (see Oswick et al., 2002).

Metaphor, Organization, and the Natural Environment

Literary Method and Silent Spring

The ONE research literature is inherently multidisciplinary. It is based on ecology and environ-
mental science, biology, organizational social science, and other scientific disciplines.
Interestingly, as we will illustrate, it also has deep roots in the literary arts and humanities, as
metaphor and other tropes are ubiquitous in the field. Although it can be argued that tropes
shape the literature of any discipline, research that fostered ONE scholarship is marked by the
use of particularly powerful metaphorical imagery and poetic technique. And, there is evidence

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

Jermier and Forbes 451

that some scholars explicitly crafted figurative language to enhance the appeal and impact of
their work. For example, Rachel Carson’s (1962) Silent Spring, well known to ONE scholars
and often cited as the book that launched the contemporary environmental movement, effec-
tively reached a broad audience by fusing rigorous science with literary art techniques. Carol
Gartner (2000), a noted literary scholar specializing in Rachel Carson’s writings, elaborates on
this point:

Carson uses a lawyer’s arsenal of classic rhetorical argumentation to make her case but
augments it with a writer’s mastery of poetic technique. The beauty of her writing style
beguiles the reader into reading and assimilating material that is both intellectually diffi-
cult to understand and emotionally difficult to accept. (pp. 104-105)

Beyond using the best scientific evidence available to make a substantive case against the
overuse of pesticides, Carson selected vivid and often disturbing language and metaphors. With
this style, she created moving and lingering dystopian images. Indeed, the very title of her book,
Silent Spring, has created one of the most memorable and didactical images in modern literature.
In developing her main theme, calling into question the idea that synthetic chemicals could be
targeted to selectively kill pests and weeds, she wrote,

These sprays, dusts, and aerosols are now applied almost universally to farms, gardens,
forests, and homes—nonselective chemicals that have the power to kill every insect, the
“good” and the “bad,” to still the song of birds and the leaping of fish in the streams, to
coat the leaves with a deadly film, and to linger on in soil—all this though the intended
target may be only a few weeds or insects. Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down
such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life?
They should not be called “insecticides,” but “biocides.” (Carson, 1962, p. 18)

In invoking (for rhetorical purposes) the language and image of “biocides,” Carson subtly
linked her argument against the widespread use of insecticides to the Cold War and the nuclear
winter many feared could result. This move served to underscore the gravity of her message (see
Glotfelty, 2000). Each chapter of Silent Spring contains a powerful blend of literary imagery and
accessible scientific description and explanation. Often, her chapter titles tell a story in their own
right, provoking reader’s emotions. To wit, her third chapter, “Elixirs of Death,” uses paradox to
link elixir (an agent that can cure all) with death (cf. Gartner, 2000). The blend in her writing of
credible scientific information and poetic flair through metaphor (and other figures of speech and
literary techniques) moved scholars and millions of citizens alike to identify more strongly with
nature and natural systems.

Literary Method and ONE Literature

Carson’s (1962) Silent Spring is undoubtedly in a class of its own. It is not difficult, however, to
think of other classic environmental studies that have deeply influenced ONE scholarship and
that are marked with literary brilliance, such as Carolyn Merchant’s (1980) The Death of Nature,
Bill McKibben’s (1989) The End of Nature, and Paul Hawken’s (1993) The Ecology of
Commerce. In a vividly descriptive text, Hawken (1993) analyzes the role of business and its
relationship with the natural environment. Like Carson’s Silent Spring, through strong research
and skilled rhetorical technique, he has moved many readers to new ways of thinking about the
roles and responsibilities of contemporary business (see Forbes & Jermier, 2010). His literary
acumen shines brightly in the chapter titled “The Death of Birth.” This particular chapter led the

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

452 Organization & Environment 24(4)

late Ray Anderson, Founder and long-time CEO of Interface Carpets, to a personal transforma-
tion in ecological consciousness. In speeches, interviews, lectures, and other public presenta-
tions, Anderson (2009) often confessed that his reading of Hawken’s book made him feel
“indicted as a plunderer, a destroyer of the earth, a thief, stealing my grandchildren’s future”
(p. 14). Anderson’s widely circulated epiphany story has, in turn, affected the ecological con-
sciousness of many ONE students and scholars.
In the same chapter, Hawken discusses efforts to convince business leaders to cease their
campaign against limits to economic growth and to rethink taken-for-granted notions of pros-
perity. He employs the underlying image of a “sound economy” and the metaphor of “prosper-
ity as limitation” to liberate thinking about economic growth and sustainable progress.
Hawken’s use of these images draws attention to and illustrates the often contested nature of
metaphors. Building a sound economy requires that humans respect natural limits and find new
ways to thrive without threatening nature’s diversity and our own genetic heritage. As Hawken
(1993) puts it,

Business must change its perspective and its propaganda, which has successfully por-
trayed the idea of “limits” as a pejorative concept. Limits and prosperity are intimately
linked. Respecting limits means respecting the fact the world and its minutiae are diverse
beyond our comprehension and highly organized for their own ends, and that all facets
connect in ways which are sometimes obvious, and at other times mysterious and com-
plex. If our economy is “limited” by inclusion as part of the greater closed system of
nature, those limits are not more necessarily constricting to a sound economy than a blank
canvas was to Cézanne or a flute to Jean-Pierre Rampal. (p. 35)

By the early 1990s, through reflection on the field’s anthropocentric paradigmatic underpin-
nings, organizational studies scholars realized that a vast literature had been developed that paid
virtually no attention to the natural environment (see Jermier, Forbes, Benn, & Orsato, 2006).
Although several published studies called attention to this fact and advocated development of
alternative theoretical frameworks grounded in ecocentric thinking, Shrivastava’s (1994) state-
ment of the problem was perhaps the most compelling. Arguing that the concepts and language
of organizational studies were narrow, economistic, and antinaturalistic (denatured), thereby
“[precluding] the discipline from addressing the central concerns of environmentalism that deal
with degradation and extinction of natural resources” (p. 711), he developed the metaphor of
“organizational theory as castrated male.” The concept of CASTRATED is used as a mnemonic
symbol to organize his critique of the field. The letters stand for “Competition, Abstraction,
Shallowness, Theoretical Immaturity, Reification, Anthropocentrism, Time Independence
(Ahistorical), Exploitable, and Denaturalized” (p. 711)—his interpretation of what characterized
the field, its biases, and its limitations. Shrivastava countered by proposing that the greening of
organizational studies could be facilitated by adopting an “ecologically grounded concept” that
would take an “eco-biosphere view of organizational environments” (p. 720).
This study provides an excellent example of how a field can be reoriented and reshaped by
following Morgan’s (1980) approach to metaphorical analysis, beginning with reflection on par-
adigmatic underpinnings and linking to puzzle solving in the realms of both theory and practice.
There are many other examples of metaphors driving the narratives of contemporary ONE schol-
arship that have been or will be highly influential (e.g., “The Natural Step,” Karl-Henrik Robert,
see http://www.naturalstep.org; “Natural Capitalism,” Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999; “Cradle-
to-Cradle,” McDonough & Braungart, 2002; “Corporate environmentalism as greenwashing,”
Ramus & Montiel, 2005; “Earth as small planet,” Stead & Stead, 2009; “Earth as Gaia,” Waddock,
2011; “Corporate environmentalism as sustainability,” Hoffman & Bansal, 2012), but focused

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

Jermier and Forbes 453

studies on the effects of underlying metaphors and other tropes in the ONE literature are rare. As
we discussed earlier, one of the important roles metaphor can play is that of supporting the
development of theory construction. As Morgan and others have argued and demonstrated (also
see Keulartz, 2007), when metaphors are appreciated as more than linguistic ornaments, they
can be valuable tools used in the creation and conceptualization of novel ideas. Moreover, those
metaphors that are in use can be critically examined to determine how they are directing thought
and action.
Audebrand’s (2010) recent article warrants attention along these lines because it demonstrates
not only the need for new metaphors but also recognition of the challenges faced when attempt-
ing to overcome limiting, deeply entrenched metaphors. The focus of the article is on sustain-
ability in strategic management education but it raises broader concerns and questions about the
field of organizational studies. Despite signals of meaningful change, such as sustainability
related subjects being added to conventional textbooks, Audebrand contends that there are major
obstacles to enacting deeper ongoing change in the field when it comes to integrating sustain-
ability themes. The reason is that the dominant, root metaphor of war is so pervasive in strategic
management thought and theory that it undermines attempts to reorient the field (also see
Oreskes, 2011, on metaphors of warfare in dealing with climate change). He argues that mean-
ingful change will require the generation and adoption of new root metaphors as well as new
forms of educator awareness and responsibility. The powerful presence of the war metaphor and
the hold it has on the field of strategic management, however, are only part of the problem.
Audebrand (p. 425) notes that “the challenge is even greater since the war metaphor is embedded
in a complex network of metaphors that include anthropocentrism, individualism, patriarchy,
mechanism and progress (as well as their derivations).” This is a good example of how the
“forcefulness” of metaphors builds when they are part of a “whole system” or an “ecology” of
metaphors (Keulartz, 2007, p. 44).
We have attempted to demonstrate through some examples that metaphor has been and is a
particularly powerful force in environmental studies and in ONE research. But we also think
there is a need for much more development. To this end, we believe more cross-disciplinary
engagement holds considerable promise for ONE scholarship. Scholars in the fields of geogra-
phy, environmental history, environmental studies, and environmental science, among other
areas of study, are debating the relative merits of various metaphors. While few in this broad
literature argue that there is one best metaphor that will adequately foster the advancement of
needed theory, many do concur with Morgan’s approach and advocate double vision or multiple
perspectives. For example, Keulartz (2007) argues that metaphors and other discursive tools
can serve as “diplomatic devices that facilitate interaction between different disciplines and
discourses” (p. 27).

Logocentric Empirical Science and Song Bird Logic

Many organizational studies scholars have been aware of the central role language plays in all
facets of theory construction and development for years despite what Van Maanen (1995, p. 134)
in his insightful essay refers to as the field’s “logocentric tradition of empirical science.” In this
dominant tradition, “we cultivate and teach a writing style or nonstyle that values limited meta-
phor, simplicity, and a formal, if not mathematical precision.” Certainly, this statement is less
true of organizational studies research today than it was 15 years ago. Alternative paradigms and
methods have reached a stage of development that can convey mainstream credibility, and
metaphorical and discourse analysis, as discussed above, have begun to reach their stride.
However, we wonder to what degree Van Maanen’s (1995) characterization of and reaction to
the field still holds:

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

454 Organization & Environment 24(4)

I am appalled at much of organization theory for its technocratic unimaginativeness. Our

generalizations often display a mind-numbing banality and an inexplicable readiness to
reduce the field to a set of unexamined, turgid, hypothetical thrusts designed to render
organizations systematic and organization theory safe for science. (p. 139)

In line with this, to what extent do ONE scholars privilege the logocentric tradition in theory
construction and development? To what extent is our thinking still captured by anthropocentric or
reformist paradigm assumptions and root metaphors that lead us to celebrate incremental change
and marginalize radical perspectives on change? To what extent are we aware that the choices we
make at the level of metaphor and language have consequences for theory construction and puzzle
solving? Nature writer Curtis White (2007) argues that those interested in stopping environmental
destruction must be careful not to place too much faith in the best empirical evidence, quantitative
reasoning, and the language of science and bureaucracy. When we approach environmentalism
with this mindset, soon “we no longer have a forest; we have ‘board feet.’ We no longer have a
landscape, a world that is our own; we have ‘valuable natural resources’” (p. 22). In effect, we lose
the poetic, the aesthetic, the moral, the spiritual, and it is these sources, according to White, that
are our strongest foundation for confronting the bulldozers, confronting the chainsaws, confront-
ing Monsanto. It is song bird logic that prevails.
Many ONE scholars, including us, do not wish to abandon the language of traditional,
empirical science or concede that the reformist agenda will inevitably hijack more ambitious
environmental initiatives and lead to a dead end. What business does in meeting their legal and
moral obligations with respect to the environment is crucially important. We are learning valu-
able lessons for progressive environmentalism by studying (using varied methods) all moments
of corporate environmentalism. However, it does seem crucial that we avoid the false certainty
that objectivist methods can provide. It seems equally crucial that we not limit our agenda to
managerialist solutions to greening capitalism because assessments of today’s environmental
problems raise doubts about the efficacy of strictly reformist approaches. The fields of ONE
research (and organizational studies in general) need new thinking about organization and envi-
ronment. In our view, this is not a good time to accept assimilation into the conservative main-
stream of the field or to rest on the dominant metaphors that guide so much theory development
and everyday puzzle solving. We can continue to elaborate those metaphors and tie them
down more securely, as Morgan (2011) notes in his companion essay is typical of normal sci-
ence. A higher priority should be placed on generating new metaphors or least on being conver-
sant with metaphors that are being developed in related fields.

Creating New Metaphors

The metaphor of nature as island is an example that has received considerable attention across
fields. This is not a new idea. It has long captured the human imagination and is often equated
with utopia (Philippon, 2004; see also Keulartz, 2007). Contemporary interest in this metaphor
focuses on extending classic theories of the biogeography of islands (see MacArthur & Wilson,
1967), which attempt to explain how species are distributed in relation to space and time. But,
island biogeography is about more than actual islands.

It is also about metaphorical islands: areas of the environment that have become isolated
from their surroundings, either through natural means, cultural means, or some combina-
tion of the two. What holds for an island in the Galapagos, in other words, also holds for a
distant mountaintop, a prairie pothole, or a square mile of old-growth timber left standing
in the middle of a clear-cut. (Philippon, 2004, p. 268)

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

Jermier and Forbes 455

In an era of high connectivity and global reach, would the trope “corporation as island,” if
mixed with the right amount of irony and paradox, provoke new thinking? Would it encourage
scholars and other puzzle solvers to think about what can be ripped from existing, degraded
environmental conditions, insulated by a moat, and steered toward utopian ideals? For those
scholars of organizations interested in developing new metaphors, we hope the material
presented in this article will be useful. Of course, we believe scholars can benefit greatly
from reading Gareth Morgan’s (2011) reflections on new metaphors of organizations and the
natural environment in the companion piece that follows. Interestingly, in addition to recog-
nizing how new thinking and new theory can develop by systematically attempting to create new
metaphors, Morgan is also clear in stating that there is much to be gained from addressing the
limitations and distortions created through existing metaphors that have been widely used to
rationalize environmental degradation. Gains can be achieved through both avenues.
New thinking and new theory in the field of organizational studies can develop following
many avenues, including some that do not pay systematic attention to the field’s metaphorical
underpinnings. However, the message of this feature, in short, is articulated best by Morgan in
his early work (1980, 1983a, 1983b, 1986, 1996) and reiterated and expanded in the companion
essay: better theory, research methods, and puzzle solving can always result from deeper reflec-
tion on and critical assessment of a field’s metaphorical foundations.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Alvesson, M., & Wilmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropri-
ate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 619-644.
Anderson, R. (2009). Confessions of a radical industrialist: Profits, people, purpose—Doing business by
respecting the earth. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Audebrand, L. K. (2010). Sustainability in strategic management education: The quest for new root meta-
phors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 413-428.
Baritz, L. (1960). The servants of power. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Barrett, F. J., & Cooperrider, D. L. (1990). Generative metaphor intervention: A new approach for working
with systems divided by conflict and caught in defensive perception. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 26, 219-239.
Boxenbaum, E., & Rouleau, L. (2011). New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and scripts in
organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 36, 272-296.
Burke, W. W. (1992). Metaphors to consult by. Group & Organization Management, 17, 255-259.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London, England:
Heinemann Educational Books.
Carr, A., & Leivesley, R. (1995). Metaphors in organization studies: A retreat to obscurantism or ideology
“in drag”? Administrative Theory & Praxis, 17, 55-66.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.). (1996). Handbook of organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2005). Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management
Review, 30, 751-764.

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

456 Organization & Environment 24(4)

Cornelissen, J. P. (2006). Making sense of theory construction: Metaphor and disciplined imagination.
Organization Studies, 27, 1579-1597.
Cornelissen, J. P., Holt, R., & Zundel, M. (2011). The role of analogy and metaphor in the framing and
legitimization of strategic change. Organization Studies, 32, 1701-1716.
Cornelissen, J. P., Oswick, C., Christensen, L. T., & Phillips, N. (2008). Metaphor in organizational research:
Context, modalities, and implications for research—Introduction. Organization Studies, 29, 7-22.
Forbes, L. C., & Jermier, J. M. (2010). The new corporate environmentalism and the ecology of commerce.
Organization & Environment, 23, 465-481.
Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., & Martin, J. (Eds.). (1985). Organizational culture.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gartner, C. B. (2000). When science writing becomes literary art: The success of Silent Spring. In
C. Waddell (Ed.), And no birds sing: Rhetorical analysis of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (pp. 103-125).
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2008). Metaphor and thought: The state of the art. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 3-13). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, C. B., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2001). Metaphors and meaning: An analysis of the concept of
teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 274-303.
Glotfelty, C. (2000). Cold war, Silent Spring: The trope of war in modern environmentalism. In C. Waddell
(Ed.), And no birds sing: Rhetorical analysis of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (pp. 157-173). Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C., & Putnam, L. L. (Eds.). (2004). The Sage handbook of organizational
discourse. London, England: Sage.
Grant, D., & Oswick, C. (Eds.). (1996a). Metaphor and organizations. London, England: Sage.
Grant, D., & Oswick, C. (Eds.). (1996b). Introduction: Getting the measure of metaphors. In D. Grant &
C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 1-20). London, England: Sage.
Hawken, P. (1993). The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. H. (1999). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution.
New York, NY: Hatchett Book.
Hoffman, A. J., & Bansal, P. (2012). Retrospective, perspective, and prospective: Introduction. In P. Bansal
& A. J. Hoffman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on business and the natural environment (pp. 3-25).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hopfl, H., & Maddrell, J. (1996). Can you resist a dream? Evangelical metaphors and the appropriation
of emotion. In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 200-212). London,
England: Sage.
Inns, D. (2002). Metaphor in the literature of organizational analysis: A preliminary taxonomy and a
glimpse at a humanities-based perspective. Organization, 9, 305-330.
Jacobs, C. D., & Heracleous, L. T. (2006). Constructing shared understanding: The role of embodied meta-
phors in organizational development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 42, 207-226.
Jermier, J. M., Forbes, L. C., Benn, S., & Orsato, R. J. (2006). The new corporate environmentalism and
green politics. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 618-650). London, England: Sage.
Keulartz, J. (2007). Using metaphors in restoring nature. Nature and Culture, 2, 27-48.
Lakoff, G. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
metaphor and thought (pp. 17-38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological
Bulletin, 136, 1045-1067.
Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2011). Organizations as discursive constructions: A Foucauldian approach.
Organization Studies, 32, 1247-1271.

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

Jermier and Forbes 457

MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The theory of island biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical discursive perspec-
tive. Organization Science, 19, 341-358.
March, J. G. (Ed.). (1965). Handbook of organizations. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional
labor: Bounded emotionally at the body shop. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 429-469.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruc-
tion. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York,
NY: North Point Press.
McKibben, B. (1989). The end of nature. NY: Random House.
Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. San Francisco:
Harper & Row.
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 25, 605-622.
Morgan, G. (1983a). More on metaphor: Why we cannot control tropes in administrative science. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 28, 601-607.
Morgan, G. (Ed.). (1983b). Beyond method: Strategies for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, G. (1996). An afterward: Is there anything more to be said about metaphor? In D. Grant &
C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 227-240). London, England: Sage.
Morgan, G. (2011). Reflections on Images of Organization and its implications for studies of organization
and environment. Organization & Environment, 24, 459-478.
Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. (1981). Handbook of organizational design. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Oreskes, N. (2011). Metaphors of warfare and the lessons of history: Time to revisit a carbon tax? Climatic
Change, 104, 223-230.
Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the process of
organizational theory-building. Academy of Management Review, 36, 317-337.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2002). Metaphor and analogical reasoning in organizational theory:
Beyond orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review, 27, 294-303.
Oswick, C., & Montgomery, J. (1999). Images of organization: The use of metaphor in a multinational
company. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 501-523.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York, NY: Random House.
Philippon, D. J. (2004). Conserving words: How American nature writers shaped the environmental move-
ment. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Pinder, C. C., & Bourgeois, W. V. (1982). Controlling tropes in administrative science. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 27, 641-652.
Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J., Morgan, G., & Dandridge, T. C. (Eds.). (1983). Organizational symbolism. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Ramus, C., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Business
& Society, 44, 377-414.
Reed, M. (1990). From paradigms to images: The paradigm warrior turns post-modernist guru. Personnel
Review, 19, 35-40.
Sackmann, S. (1989). The role of metaphors in organization transformation. Human Relations, 42, 463-485.
Shrivastava, P. (1994). Castrated environment: Greening organizational studies. Organization Studies, 15,
705-726.
Stead, J. G., & Stead, W. E. (2009). Management for a small planet. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

458 Organization & Environment 24(4)

Tinker, T. (1986). Metaphor or reification: Are radical humanists really libertarian anarchists? Journal of
Management Studies, 23, 363-384.
Tsoukas, H., & Knudson, C. (Eds.). (2003). The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1995). Style as theory. Organization Science, 6, 133-143.
VrMeer, R. (1994). Postmodernism: A polemic commentary on continuity and discontinuity in contempo-
rary thought. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 16, 85-91.
Waddock, S. (2011). We are all stakeholders of Gaia now: A normative perspective on stakeholder thinking.
Organization & Environment, 24, 192-212.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14,
516-531.
White, C. (2007). The idols of environmentalism. Orion Magazine, 26(4), 18-23.

Bios
John M. Jermier is Professor of Organizational Behavior and Exide Professor of Sustainable Enterprise
Research at the University of South Florida, Tampa. Most of his research has focused on developing critical
theory perspectives on organizations and on social science research methodology. His current interests
center on organizational greening and environmental policy. He is co-founding editor (with Paul
Shrivastava) and current co-editor (with Richard York) of Organization & Environment.

Linda C. Forbes is Associate Professor of Organizational Studies at the Ancell School of Business at
Western Connecticut State University in Danbury, CT, USA. Her research interests include cultural studies
and symbolism, environmental philosophy and policy and varieties of qualitative inquiry.

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 31, 2015

View publication stats