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

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

Formal Models

Formal models are further developed and refined than metaphors and intuitive models. As opposed to metaphors, formal models are more discretely and distinctly articulated. Explicit assumptions and objectives are initially very evident, but can become hidden and implicit later as more formal models are developed and used (Barr et al. 1992). A second distinction is that formal mental models have lost the emotion contained in the original metaphors and models.

In developing formal models from metaphors, ambiguous language is replaced by more context specific language and linguistic heuristics that are understood by those similarly educated or indoctrinated within the organization (Clark, 1985). The common understanding that is developed fosters more effective internal communication within the organization, but may hinder external communication and understanding of external events (Clark, 1985). As the formal models become increasingly detailed and formalized, problem solving becomes more efficient. The formal nature of such models may be further reflected in the development of written policies and procedures designed to standardize activities. This increased formalization requires more definitive specification of assumptions and objectives, thus narrowing the range of problem solving situations to which the model can be applied (Sowa, 1984). Thus, more ambiguous models may be more useful for generalist managers and entrepreneurs solving higher level problems with broader domains.

Finally, formal models are thought to be objective, rational and reflect an accurate representation of the world. Such is not always the case nor need it be. Formal models need only be useful and robust (Little, 1970). An unchallenged formal model, accepted as "truth" and not simply as a heuristic, can freeze a perception of the world for individuals within a firm and/or lead to provincial or myopic perspectives (Hesse, 1980; Mason & Mitroff, 1981; Morgan, 1980). A dangerous cognitive stability (Korzybski, 1958) can result and potentially damage the organization's ability to adapt (Barr et al., 1992). Companies or industries exhibiting cognitive stability may then, in turn, provide the opportunity for entrepreneurs with new models and metaphors, thus beginning a new cycle of "creative destruction" (Schumpeter, 1934).

Physical Articulation

Articulation is typically viewed as expression through the use of language. We suggest that articulation can also be expressed through action. As individuals come to ideas and attempt to express them explicitly, the concept, language and the model develop sequentially and interactively enroute to action (MacCormac, 1985). At each stage of development, action may directly ensue. Individuals may commence action based upon understandings from unambiguous formal models or directly from ambiguous metaphors and intuitive models.

The path directly from intuitive models to action is a particularly interesting one and, perhaps, a commonly taken one. When entrepreneurs create mental models, their models may be immensely complex and ineffable, because they are largely open-ended and intuitively complete conceptualizations (Sowa, 1984). Communicating such conceptualizations verbally may be overwhelming and intractable. Effective language may not be available. Taking the path direct from the intuitive model stage can provide an articulation in itself and allow for learning to take place in the process. Weick (1979) describes this process as "enactment" and retrospective "sensemaking."