Critique on "Language, Metaphors Stories: Catalysts for Meaning Making in Organizations" written by Ricketts, et.al

How do organizations exploit language-specific metaphors and stories to expand desired meanings?

Stories told and the meanings drawn through product stories and descriptions are a phenomenon in sustainable business development and this phenomenon has been discussed by the researchers. While reading Ricketts, et.al's article, I had reasons to negate the ideas presented within the article contrasting and resembling real experiences. 

Languages have the potential to affect human thoughts by defining cultures and their codes (Zlatev and Blomberg, 2015). Therefore, certain countries or organizations can exploit the languages to construct the desired worldviews (Shashkevich, 2019). This specific critique provides a critical insight into the article "Language, Metaphors Stories: Catalysts for Meaning Making in Organizations" written by Ricketts, et.al, and published in the year 2003 which discusses the role of using specific metaphors and stories to expand desired meanings. The authors discuss the use of these techniques as tools and instruments to "make sense of world experienced" by academia and business organizations. The authors claim that these tools and instruments have the potential to bring change in the long developmental process within organizations.

The abstract of the article succinctly describes the purpose of the paper and provides highlights of the research question. Also, the abstract is well aligned with the title of the article and the conclusion provided at the end. The abstract is not lengthy and explicitly supports the reader in having an initial view of what has been presented in the article.

To evaluate, the authors have introduced the topic with evidence in practice for the metaphorical representation of the United States of America. On the basis of social constructivist theory, the authors identified that there are three dimensions that influence the learning and making of a change within an organizational setup; namely, “the choice of the content, the context in which the relational image is created, and the community that influences its ultimate proliferation or extinction.” This viewpoint is also supported by evidence from different countries. For instance, the word “extremists” have a long history but after 9/11 this word is repeatedly used to define all those who carry the acts of terrorism. Somehow, the world tried to define the Muslim community as being responsible for acts related to terrorism (Angel M et al., 2004). However, since terrorists can be of any origin and intention; therefore, we saw a shift from lifting up this label from the Muslim community (Primoratz, 2018). Similarly, the word "Fortune 500" is used to refer to the companies that earned more revenue in a fiscal year. Consequently, the argument gets approved that words have specific associations, narratives, and narrators (Planchuelo et al., 2022).

Furthermore, the author's viewpoint is confirmed through evidence that “language is the reflection of culture”. For instance, business organizations have their specific slogans and narratives that define these organizations in terms of their functioning and vision. To elaborate, Apple Inc. has the slogan “Think it”. This slogan helps the organization in preaching its role in markets as an “innovator”. Similarly, the authors maintain that “the use of language, metaphor, and stories all provide aid” in constructing new forms and meanings. This argument finds its support in the fact that organizations do have their vision and mission statements. These vision and mission statements serve to define their organizational structure and organizational culture. For instance, organizations can invent new terminology or phrase to define their need or vision. An instance can be quoted from online marketplaces like Amazon. Amazon’s slogan “Work Hard, Have Fun, Make History” became appropriate in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic when the company not only survived for itself but created work and employment opportunities for people across the globe.

To add to this, the authors argue that within the organization invention or any particular use of words is need-based. For instance, the authors write, “the organizations may use the word “member” instead of “employee”. As a result of shifting the word employee may take a new meaning”. I believe that this argument is relatively weak in its construction of logic because the term “employee” is also as consistently used as any other similar term. The use of the word “member” may be intentional for encouraging collaboration but this does not mean that the word “employee” may be taken negatively. To evaluate, the word “member” is not a substitute for the word “employee” because both words are used in their particular context. Member refers to a team while employee refers to the whole organizational structure. An individual can be a member of multiple teams within an organization (van de Brake et al., 2018). However, I agree with the authors that changing the terminology can give new meanings to the organizational structure because words have the power to create empathy (Pdxscholar and Sakai, 2019).

While talking about the metaphorical aspect of language, I believe that the claim of the authors is justified that “Metaphors allow framing existing realities into new opportunities.” Similarly, in another study, Nagy maintains, “By using analogies, metaphors create mental images that assist in interpreting the world” (2014).

To conclude, the article covers all the possible aspects of theoretical concepts associated with the main argument. The design and the methodology of the study are descriptive in construction. The arguments have been presented logically with illustratively. Most of the time, the arguments can be cross-matched with similar research in social behavioral science studies. Overall, the article has been professionally written with enough background information and deep analysis. Also, the author's credentials and associations have been mentioned at the end. Consequently, this feature adds to the credibility of the article.

 

Reference list

Angel M, Rabasa, Benard, Chailk and Thaler (2004). The Muslim World after 9/11. The RAND Corporation.

Nagy, H.I.-M. (2014). 37 37 Harold Itkin -Miklós Nagy Theoretical And Practical Use Of Metaphors In Organizational Development And Beyond Theoretical And Practical Use Of Metaphors In Organizational Development And Beyond. [online] Available at: https://pmr.uni-pannon.hu/articles/3_4_itkin_nagy.pdf.

Pdxscholar, P. and Sakai, M. (2019). Relationship Between Empathy and Language Relationship Between Empathy and Language Proficiency in Adult Language Learners Proficiency in Adult Language Learners Part of the Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, and the First and Second Language Acquisition Commons. Portland State University. [online] doi:10.15760/etd.7031.

Planchuelo, C., Buades-Sitjar, F., Hinojosa, J.A. and Duñabeitia, J.A. (2022). The Nature of Word Associations in Sentence Contexts. Experimental Psychology, 69(2), pp.104–110. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000547.

Primoratz, I. (2018). Terrorism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). [online] Stanford.edu. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/terrorism/ [Accessed 19 Apr. 2019].

Shashkevich, A. (2019). The power of language: How words shape people, culture. [online] Stanford News. Available at: https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/22/the-power-of-language-how-words-shape-people-culture/.

van de Brake, H.J., Walter, F., Rink, F.A., Essens, P.J.M.D. and van der Vegt, G.S. (2018). The dynamic relationship between multiple team membership and individual job performance in knowledge-intensive work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(9), pp.1219–1231. doi:10.1002/job.2260.

Zlatev, J. and Blomberg, J. (2015). Language may indeed influence thought. Frontiers in Psychology, [online] 6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01631.

‌‌