Metaphors and mental models: sensemaking and sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities

Journal of Management, Nov-Dec, 1995 by Hill Robert C., Michael Levenhagen

It is also proposed that action can constitute articulation. In ambiguous situations, entrepreneurs may choose to articulate concepts through actions aimed at eliciting an interpretable response. This type of articulation does not establish shared understanding by itself. It can, however, provide a meaningful first articulation for entrepreneurial enactment. Later verbal articulations can provide a framework for developing shared understanding through retrospective sensemaking (Weick, 1979).

For researchers, the model proposed here serve two main purposes. First, the model is designed as an aid to understanding cognitive processes and communications in innovative and entrepreneurial organizations. Second, the model suggests some interesting possibilities for future research. Entrepreneurial and more innovative organizations may use more intuitive models, using metaphors as guiding rules. Such an approach aids in coping with ambiguity and is more flexible, allowing for adaptation to a less certain environment. More efficiency oriented organizations are likely to pursue more formalized, detailed and precise models. As suggested by Smeltzer & Fann (1989) individuals in entrepreneurial organizations may communicate differently from those in more mature organizations. Metaphorical may be an important element to examine for differences in such communications. If such communications are more effective in setting direction and motivating others (as suggested by Astley & Zammuto, 1992; Conger, 1991), it may be valuable to investigate the potential for performance differences in firms based on the extent to which metaphoric reference is used. A final interesting question for research is the fit between mental models and organizational structure. Intuitively, one might expect increased formalization of mental models to be associated with increased formalization of structure, but this has not been empirically validated.

References

Anderson, C. & Paine, F. (1975). Managerial perceptions and strategic behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4): 811-823.

Apter, M.J. (1982). Metaphor as synergy. In D. Miall (Ed.), Metaphor: Problems and perspectives. Atlantic Highland, NJ: Humanities Press.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A. (1978). An organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Astley, W.G. & Zammuto, R.F. (1992). Organization science, managers and language games. Organization Science, 3(4): 443-460.

Barr, P.S., Stimpert, J.L. & Huff, A.S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 15-36.

Berger, P.L. & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Bird, B.J. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3): 442-453.

-----. (1989). P. 41 in Entrepreneurial behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

-----. (1992). The operation of intentions in time: The emergence of the new venture. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(1): 11-20.