Effective leadership hinges on the ability to view organizational challenges from multiple perspectives. Gareth Morgan's eight metaphors of organization gives leaders a versatile set of lenses to examine challenges. In this piece, I introduce each of the organizational metaphors, their significance, and how to use them for strategic reflection.
Morgan’s metaphors are not mere constructs but practical tools that enhance decision-making. Similar to Bolman and Deal’s 4-frame leadership model, the power lies in their diversity and applicability. By viewing organizational challenges through multiple lenses, leaders can develop nuanced strategies and uncover blind spots. Their true value emerges when you actively apply these varied perspectives to tackle concrete problems.
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
— F. Scott Fitzgerald
Leaders should regularly ask themselves: "Which metaphor best explains my current challenge?" This helps avoid the trap of 'one-size-fits-all' thinking and develops multi-frame thinking and problem-solving.
The 8 metaphors of organization
Organizations as machines
…most organizations are bureaucratized in some degree, for the mechanistic mode of thought has shaped our most basic conceptions of what organization is all about.
For example, when we talk about organization we usually have in mind a state of orderly relations between clearly defined parts that have some determinate order. Although the image may not be explicit, we are talking about a set of mechanical relations. We talk about organizations as if they were machines, and as a consequence we tend to expect them to operate as machines: in a routinized, efficient, reliable, and predictable way.
…The problem is that the mechanical imagery tends to underplay the human aspects of organization and to overlook the fact that the tasks facing organizations are often much more complex, uncertain, and difficult than those that can be performed by most machines. [1]
Is your pursuit of efficiency killing innovation?
This metaphor views organizations as efficient systems where each part (or person) has a specific role, like cogs in a machine. It’s often associated with bureaucracy and hierarchical, command-and-control structures.
The machine metaphor isn’t just about efficiency; it’s a specific way of viewing people and organizational life. It assumes predictability, reliability, and that people can be fine-tuned like mechanical parts.
The mechanistic view, associated with Taylorism and factories, works in routine and stable environments. However, it can unravel in complex, volatile contexts.
During peacetime, military organizations operate mechanistically, with clear hierarchies, standardized procedures, and strict discipline. However, in war or insurgency, this structure can break down. The Iraq War revealed how rigid military structures failed to address the fluidity of modern warfare. Units had to abandon top-down command structures for more decentralized, flexible approaches.
This metaphor urges leaders to ask, Where is predictability necessary? and Where must flexibility reign? Treat it as a starting point — not an end goal — recognizing that complexity requires organizations to adapt.
In rigid environments (e.g., manufacturing), ensure systems are efficient. But where creativity and human engagement are essential (e.g., tech startups), let the machine metaphor dissolve.
Reflection
- Identify three processes. Then ask: Is this making us more efficient or more rigid?
- To what extent does this situation require mechanical efficiency?
- Are standardized processes crucial here?
- Could over-emphasis on efficiency limit flexibility?
Organizations as organisms
We find ourselves thinking about them as living systems, existing in a wider environment on which they depend for the satisfaction of various needs. And as we look around the organizational world we begin to see that it is possible to identify different species of organization in different kinds of environments.
Just as we find polar bears in arctic regions, camels in deserts, and alligators in swamps, we notice that certain species of organization are better "adapted" to specific environmental conditions than others. We find that bureaucratic organizations tend to work most effectively in environments that are stable or protected in some way and that very different species are found in more competitive and turbulent regions, such as the environments of high-tech firms ... [1]
Are you adapting to your environment or shaping it?
Here, organizations are seen as living systems that adapt to their environments to survive and grow. This metaphor emphasizes change, responsiveness, and the organization’s need to align with its environment, like living organisms adapt to their ecosystems.
Organizations, like organisms, are shaped by their environments. This raises a key question: Are they truly adaptive, or do they appear so while reinforcing the status quo? The metaphor assumes adaptability is natural, but in reality, organizational ‘adaptation’ can mask deep resistance to change.
Kodak is a classic example. As the digital age emerged, it appeared adaptive, dabbling in digital photography. But the organization was locked into the mental model of film-based photography. The superficial adaptation wasn’t enough to overcome entrenched mental models.
The organism metaphor is most useful when leaders ask: Are we really adapting, or clinging to obsolete models under the guise of adaptation? You must dig into underlying assumptions.
Reflection
- Draw your organization's 'evolutionary tree.' What adaptations have you made, and what's your next evolution?
- How much adaptability is needed in this situation?
- How significant are external environmental factors?
- Are we evolving fast enough to meet changing demands?
Organizations as brains
If one thinks about it, every aspect of organizational functioning depends on information processing of one form or another. Bureaucrats make decisions by processing information with reference to appropriate rules. Strategic managers make decisions by developing policies and plans that then provide a point of reference for the information processing and decision making of others.
…Organizations are information systems. They are communication systems. And they are decision-making systems. We can thus go a long way toward understanding them as information processing brains! [1]
Is your organization learning, or just accumulating information?
In this metaphor, organizations are intelligent systems capable of learning and processing information. The focus is on organizational learning, problem-solving, and decision-making, resembling a brain's cognitive processes.
It highlights the complexity of learning and decision-making in organizations, and also reveals a paradox: intelligence can lead to paralysis. Just as brains suffer from overthinking, they become overwhelmed by complexity, analysis paralysis, or a failure to act decisively. Distributed intelligence—an ideal many leaders strive for—is difficult to achieve because most organizations are wired for control rather than empowerment.
The Toyota Production System (TPS) exemplifies this metaphor in its approach to continuous improvement. Toyota empowers employees at all levels to think, learn, and contribute to organizational intelligence. Any worker can pull the Andon cord to stop production if they spot a quality issue. This distributed decision-making mimics the brain's ability to process information and respond to stimuli at multiple levels.
But it also reveals the challenges of this metaphor. During the 2009-2011 recall crisis, Toyota's decentralized structure led to slow response times and communication breakdowns. The very system that made it innovative and efficient also made it difficult to address large-scale, systemic issues quickly.
The brain metaphor should prompt leaders to consider the tension between autonomy and coherence. They should ask: How can we enable learning and creativity without descending into chaos? How can we balance distributed intelligence with the need for swift, coordinated responses to major challenges?
They must balance decentralized decision-making with clear priorities and alignment across the organization.
Reflection
- Map your organization's communication networks. Where does information flow freely, and where are the blockages?
- Is this primarily a learning or information processing challenge?
- How effectively is knowledge being distributed throughout the organization?
- Are we facing information overload or analysis paralysis?
Organizations as cultures
Shared values, shared beliefs, shared meaning, shared understanding, and shared sense making are all different ways of describing culture. In talking about culture we are really talking about a process of reality construction that allows people to see and understand particular events, actions, objects, utterances, or situations in distinctive ways.
These patterns of understanding help us to cope with the situations being encountered and also provide a basis for making our own behavior sensible and meaningful. [1]
Is your culture a competitive advantage or a straitjacket?
This metaphor views organizations as social constructs formed by meanings, rituals, symbols, and values that shape behavior and identity.
Culture is hailed as the glue that holds organizations together, but Morgan’s metaphor exposes a deeper, troubling reality: it is also a trap. The stories, rituals, and norms that unify a group can become the bars of a cage, preventing meaningful change. Culture operates like a shadow system—what is left unsaid or unexamined is more powerful than explicit values.
Enron had a culture of extreme risk-taking and high-stakes competition. Internally, it celebrated “outperformers,” driving a culture of ruthless ambition. That culture, unexamined and unchecked, led to the company’s collapse. It wasn’t just individual actors who were corrupt—the culture rewarded extreme behaviors.
Leaders must not just craft culture; they must interrogate it. Instead of asking, What are our values? leaders should ask, What behaviors do we actually reward? Those who don’t challenge undesirable aspects of their culture will find it dictates behavior in uncontrollable ways.
Amazon’s leadership principles is a good example of shaping culture at the behavioral and tactical level.
Reflection
- Write your organization's 'origin story.' What myths are holding you back, and which are propelling you forward?
- How significant are cultural factors here?
- Are shared values helping or hindering?
- Is there a gap between our claims and actual behaviors?
Organizations as Political Systems
Most people working in an organization readily admit in private that they are surrounded by forms of "wheeling and dealing" through which different people attempt to advance specific interests. However, this kind of activity is rarely discussed in public. The idea that organizations are supposed to be rational enterprises in which their members seek common goals tends to discourage discussion of political motive. Politics, in short, is seen as a dirty word.
This is unfortunate because it often prevents us from recognizing that politics and politicking may be an essential aspect of organizational life and not necessarily an optional and dysfunctional extra. In this regard, it is useful to remember that in its original meaning the idea of politics stems from the view that, where interests are divergent, society should provide a means of allowing individuals to reconcile their differences through consultation and negotiation.
For example, in ancient Greece, Aristotle advocated politics as a means of reconciling the need for unity in the Greek polis (city-state) with the fact that the polis was an "aggregate of many members." Politics, for him, provided a means of creating order out of diversity while avoiding forms of totalitarian rule. [1]
Are you playing politics, or is it playing you?
The political metaphor confronts the fact that all organizations are arenas of power and influence, complete with alliances, conflicts, and competition. It focuses on how individuals and groups use power to achieve their goals. This is not just about overt struggles but also about subtle ways it operates.
Politics isn’t always dirty; it’s necessary for survival. Leaders must understand they are always involved in it, whether they like it or not. For instance, a power vacuum can create chaos. When leaders abdicate their roles as power brokers, informal structures emerge to fill the gap, often creating silos and dysfunction.
The question is not whether to play, but how to play ethically. Map out the informal power structures and engage strategically to align power with your organization’s goals.
For a deeper dive into this metaphor, check out what creates sources of power in organizations. Another useful framework is Bolman-Deal's political frame of leadership.
Reflection
- Sketch your organization's 'political map.' Where does power reside?
- To what extent are power dynamics influencing this situation?
- Are conflicting interests at play?
- How can I align diverse stakeholder needs?
Organizations as psychic prisons
Human beings have a knack for getting trapped in webs of their own creation. …This metaphor joins the idea that organizations are ultimately created and sustained by conscious and unconscious processes, with the notion that people can actually become imprisoned in or confined by the images, ideas, thoughts, and actions to which these processes give rise.
The metaphor encourages us to understand that while organizations may be socially constructed realities, these constructions are often attributed an existence and power of their own that allow them to exercise a measure of control over their creators. [1]
What unseen barriers are holding your organization captive?
This is one of Morgan's more provocative metaphors. It suggests that organizations trap their members in certain ways of thinking, routines, and mental models, leading to self-limitation and dysfunction. It shows that we can become prisoners of our own beliefs and structures.
Organizations unconsciously imprison themselves in narratives of their own making. These prisons are self-imposed, and breaking free requires confronting uncomfortable realities about the organization’s identity.
IBM’s near-collapse in the 1990s was due to a psychic prison built around the idea that hardware was king. The company had built its identity around mainframes and was unwilling to embrace the shift to software and services. Only by confronting this entrenched belief and reinventing itself did IBM survive.
In the end, my deepest culture-change goal was to induce IBMers to believe in themselves again — to believe that they had the ability to determine their own fate, and that they already knew what they needed to know. It was to shake them out of their depressed stupor, remind them of who they were — you’re IBM, damn it! — and get them to think and act collaboratively, as hungry, curious self-starters.
— Lou Gerstner
Leaders should ask, “What prisons have we built for ourselves?” Whether it’s an attachment to a specific product line, business model, or management style, they must break free from limiting narratives. This means challenging the very assumptions that made the organization successful.
Reflection
- List your organization's 'unquestionable truths.' Now, critically examine them.
- Are we constrained by our assumptions and past successes?
- What "unquestionable truths" should we challenge?
- How open am I to radically different perspectives?
Organizations as flux and transformation
Imagine a whirlpool in a river. While possessing relatively constant form, it has no existence other than in the movement of the river. The analogy illustrates how an explicate order flows out of the implicate order in accordance with a coherent process of transformation.
This theory, which has provided a means of resolving many problems in modern physics, has important consequences, for it suggests that in order to understand the secrets of the universe we have to understand the generative processes that link implicate and explicate orders.
…remember the whirlpool. Think about what it might take to change its configuration. Because that's what the following ideas are ultimately about. They seek to explain the nature of organizational whirlpools. Why do they exist? How do they sustain themselves? What can be done to influence their course? [1]
Are you surfing the waves of change, or being tossed about?
This metaphor views organizations as constantly evolving entities emerging from complex, dynamic processes. It emphasizes change, unpredictability, and the continuous interplay of forces.
It captures the inherent unpredictability of organizations. The key idea is that order is emergent—arising out of chaos rather than being imposed top-down. It’s not just about embracing change, but also understanding that attempts to control transformation can backfire. Control, from this perspective, is an illusion; leaders can only guide the conditions for change.
The evolution of Netflix from a DVD rental company to a streaming giant was not the result of a single, top-down strategy but an emergent, responsive process. The company repeatedly tested and adjusted its approach in response to new technologies and consumer behaviors, embracing transformation at each step.
Leaders should focus less on controlling change and more on creating the context. This means supporting a culture of experimentation, iteration, and failure.
Reflection
- Identify your organization's 'change catalysts' and 'stabilizing forces.' How can you balance them?
- How much is continuous change a factor in this situation?
- Am I trying to control change, or flow with it?
- How can I create stability amid transformation?
Organizations as instruments of domination
Throughout history, organization has been associated with processes of social domination where individuals or groups find ways of imposing their will on others. This becomes clearly evident when we trace the lineage of the modern organization from its roots in ancient society, through the growth and development of military enterprise and empire, to its role in the modern world.
Consider, for example, the incredible feat of organization, planning, and control required to build the Great Pyramid at Giza. It is estimated that its construction involved work by perhaps 10,000 persons over a period of twenty years. The pyramid is built from over 2.3 million blocks of stone, each weighing two and one-half tons. These had to be quarried, cut to size, and transported over many miles, usually by the Nile river, when it was in flood. When we admire this and other pyramids today it is the incredible ingenuity and skill of the early Egyptians that strikes us from both an aesthetic and an organizational standpoint. From another standpoint, however, the pyramid is a metaphor of exploitation, symbolizing how the lives and hard labor of thousands of people were used to serve and glorify a privileged elite. [1]
Is your leadership liberating or oppressing?
The instrument of domination is probably the darkest of Morgan’s metaphors. It highlights the exploitation, control, and subjugation that can be inherent in organizational life. In this view, organizations are tools used to exert control for the benefit of a select few.
Domination is often invisible—baked into systems, structures, and well-meaning initiatives. Leaders who fail to recognize this dynamic can unknowingly reinforce it under the guise of efficiency or performance.
Amazon’s labor practices are a stark example of this metaphor. The company’s obsession with efficiency, tracking worker performance through algorithms, and pushing employees to their limits has sparked accusations of exploitation. The systems designed to maximize output become tools of oppression.
Leaders must confront the uncomfortable truth that their decisions may reinforce systems of domination. Ethical leadership requires acknowledging these dynamics and actively working to create systems that prioritize human dignity over pure efficiency.
Reflection
- Revisit a recent decision. Who benefited? Who was disadvantaged?
- Are there potential negative impacts on certain groups?
- How equitable are our current approaches?
- Am I reinforcing harmful power structures?
Reflection exercise using the metaphors
Consider a specific challenge you’re facing. Rate each metaphor’s relevance on a scale of 1-5 (1 = not relevant, 5 = extremely relevant). Then, answer the corresponding questions for each. Use the insights to inform your approach.
Interpretation
- High Scores (4-5): These metaphors are highly relevant to your situation. Focus on them when developing your strategy.
- Medium Scores (2-3): These metaphors have some relevance. Consider how they might offer alternative viewpoints.
- Low Scores (1): These metaphors are less relevant now, but keep them in mind as the situation evolves.
Action Steps
- Identify your top two scoring metaphors. These are your primary lenses for viewing the challenge. For each, list three specific actions you can take based on that perspective.
- Look for tensions or contradictions between your top-scoring metaphors. How can you balance these perspectives?
- Consider the low-scoring metaphors. Are you missing an angle by disregarding this perspective?
Reflection on reflection
- How does viewing your challenge through multiple metaphors change your understanding of it?
- What new solutions or approaches have emerged?
- Do you consistently score low on any metaphors? What does this reveal about your leadership style or culture?
Sources
- Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization.
- Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2017). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership.
- Senge, P.M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
- Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership.
- Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations.
- Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning.