Beyond words: Visual metaphors that can demonstrate ... · Beyond Words: Visual Metaphors that can Demonstrate Comprehension of KM as a Paradoxical Activity System Jane McKenzie*

& ResearchPaper

Beyond Words: Visual Metaphors thatcan Demonstrate Comprehension of KMas a Paradoxical Activity System

Jane McKenzie* and Christine van Winkelen

Henley Business School, University of Reading, Henley on Thames, UK

Following criticism that, in business and management, metaphor is largely verbal andprimarily used to convey similarity, this paper explores how visual metaphors cancommunicate the anomalous and the paradoxical aspects of KM more concisely thanwords, whilst simultaneously presenting more tacit associations to stimulate creativethinking. It considers a series of 30 assessed posters that aimed to re-present six basic KMparadoxes through imagery that captures both the analogous and the anomalous. Wefound six categories of radial metaphors able to convey paradoxical complexity in aconcise way. This has implications for organizations thinking about how to engage peoplewith both the familiar and the strange. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords metaphors; visual imagery; analogy; paradox; knowledge management

INTRODUCTION

There are a multitude of ways in which peoplecan view the world and thus a multitude ofways in which people attempt to articulate thisview through imagery portrayed in metaphors(Andriessen and Gubbins, 2009).

Metaphors are comparative devices for illu-minating the attributes of one object or activity,by drawing on understanding of another. Inknowledge work, they support communication,comprehension and creative re-conceptualiz-

ation. The opening quote above is metaphorical,implying that visual perception contributes to thecommunicative power of speech. Given that sightrepresents 70% of the sensory input to thought,that is unsurprising. Yet metaphor is oftenconceived of as a matter of words rather thanthought or action (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003).Unfortunately, words can misrepresent complexissues, because linear expression evokes prema-ture responses, and crystallizes meaning, whichbecomes hard to change.

Authors acknowledge that metaphorical think-ing goes beyond words (Morgan, 1997; Lakoffand Johnson, 2003; Proctor et al., 2005) but inbusiness, oral and written routes to comprehen-sion prevail. Visual imagery to communicate the

SystemsResearch andBehavioral ScienceSyst. Res.28, 138 149 (2011)Published online 3 February 2011inWiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com)DOI:10.1002/sres.1078

*Correspondence to: Prof. Jane McKenzie, Henley Business School,University of Reading, Henley on Thames, UKE-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

essence of something is restricted mainly tocreative fields like advertizing, with someexceptions in power-point presentations. Unfor-tunately, when people use evocative pictures inpresentations, they often overload sensory inputby poor choice of images and excessive textdisconnected from the speakers narrative(Mayer, 2001).

Analysis shows that metaphorical businesslanguage mainly conveys similarity. This onlyserves to perpetuate and enrich the known,making the familiar more familiar (Oswick et al.,2002). Similarity and analogy keep us in acognitive comfort zone. Avoiding cognitivediscomfort may reduce resistance to ideas,making it easier to convince the receiver ofparticular points of view, but, it ignores import-ant opportunities to trigger exploration beyondthe known and creative re-conceptualization.The linguistic devices that promote metaphoricalthinking about difference and the unknown vizparadox, anomaly and irony are remarkablyunderprivileged. Yet difference stimulates newconceptualization. When Galileo related theearth to a sphere, the anomalous imagery madethe familiar, strange (Foucault, 1977 in Oswicket al., 2002). To alleviate the cognitive discomfortfrom anomaly and paradox we have to reframe.Reframing involves demolishing limitingassumptions and perspectives to reveal newways of thinking. This is the generative orcreative power of paradox (Hampden-Turner,1990). Paradox helpfully juxtaposes differenceand

provides a means of collapsing false binaryoppositions by revealing common patternsbetween and mutually implicated aspectswithin, supposedly diametrically opposeddomains (Oswick et al., 2002).

All organizing activity is inherently paradox-ical (McKenzie, 1994; Lewis, 2000). Knowledgemanagement (KM) is no exception. Re-concilingdiametrically opposed organizational routinesand human preferences for exploiting the knownfor immediate benefit, whilst simultaneouslyexploring new knowledge for future innovation(March, 1991; McKenzie and van Winkelen, 2004)is a core KM activity. KM expects others to

reframe organizing principles that worked in anindustrial economy where tangible sources ofwealth produced decreasing returns and limitedresources had to be protected and hoarded(McKenzie and Van Winkelen, 2007). In theintangible economy, knowledge is unlimited,sharing can produce increasing returns (Arthur,1996) and hoarding knowledge reduces anorganizations potential for value creation.

Andriessen et al.s (2009) systematic analysis ofvisual metaphors concluded that visuals cancommunicate connections and relationships thatwritten language is unable to do. This articleconsiders how visualization can convey theparadoxical nature of KM in a meaningfulway. To do this we explore the common patternsand mutually implicated aspects in thirty of thebest posters submitted for assessment of a post-graduate course which deliberately positions KMas a process of co-ordinating six core paradoxes.The posters test how well students can commu-nicate back to the tutors on a single page,their comprehension of diametrically opposedrequirements and their creative conceptualiz-ation of how the strange helps them reframe thefamiliar and integrate differences into a coherentactivity system.

CONCEPTUALIZING COMPREHENSION

Getting to Grips With Paradox

The very categories we use to simplify ourunderstanding of the world are the source ofparadoxes (Kegan, 1994; Martin, 2007). How weselectively prioritize and classify data, andconvert it to information and knowledge throughassociations, forms our lens on the world. We uselanguage to describe our understanding. Differ-ent experiences and category combinationsproduce different meanings for each of us. Forexample, one aboriginal tribe considers it appro-priate to classify women, fire and dangerousthings within a single category. For them theword balan encompasses all this and more.None of the reasons we might find this bemusingwould even enter the head of a Dyirbal speaker.The reasons are complex, the connotations they

Copyright 2011JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res.28, 138 149 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres

Visual Metaphors that can Demonstrate Comprehension of KM 139

Syst. Res. RESEARCHPAPER

evoke rooted in myth and experience (Lakoff,1987). But inevitably that classification conditionsperceptions and filters new input. As we need tore-concile our personal meaning systems withthe different way others interpret the world,learning and new knowledge emerge. Theknowledge we deem important from that learn-ing process continues to help us filter andrespond to the world. It becomes part of ourvalue system, influences our skills and behaviouras well as shaping perceptions of our ownidentity (Bateson, 1972). Conception and con-tinued learning demands that, as well as buildingon the similarity of our existing knowledge, weexplore difference and change.

To understand how visual metaphors candepict paradox, we must be clear what theyare trying to capture. A single paradox has fourmain characteristics

1. It is a thing which holds in tension two inter-related, but apparently contradictory, priori-ties associated with identity, feelings, prac-tices, ideals, values or requirements.

2. It is constructed by individuals or groupswhen, as they try to grasp situations, theysimplify reality by making either/or distinc-tions which hide complex interdependencies.

3. It comes to light when people interact or reflectand hit up against the frustration of co-existing opposites (Ford and Backoff, 1988;Lewis, 2000). When unresolved it is oftenreferred to as a tension.

4. When re-conciled, the dual propositions ofany paradox, whilst still remaining distinctand different, become mutually re-enforcingelements that simultaneously provide bothstability and change in any system (McKenzie,1994).

Paradoxes are infinite. As Rothenberg (1979)says As old opposites are overthrown, new onesarise in a never ending spiral of self generationparalleling the spiral of increasing knowledge.Hampden-Turner (1990) argues that, in business,organizing for stakeholder value is a process ofcombining important priorities in configurationsthat transcend apparent contradictions betweenthem, integrating them into a dynamic system oflearning i.e. reframing mental schema. Meaning

emerges from connecting facets of increasingknowledge with what has gone before. As thedistinctions become more complex, it becomesimportant to understand the system of interde-pendencies between the different organizingpriorities, but harder to explain all the connec-tions verbally.

Language as a symbolic system for thinkingoften ignores vital nuances and hides multi-directional interdependences. Yet nuancesadhere in tacit knowledge which is hard to putinto words (Polanyi, 1966; Baumard, 1999). Oftenthe right side of the brain, which has a limitedway with words knows things that it cannotsay; concepts are mentally stored in images andfeelings (Robertson, 2002). Sensory perception,emotion, and reason seem to connect concep-tually in image schemas that provide richchained associations between the many situa-tional dimensions required for comprehension(Lakoff, 1987; Damasio, 2006). Experience andpractice also inform the conceptualization pro-cess (Lave and Wenger, 1991). As the knowerverbalizes thought, subtleties of meaning are lost,or re-interpreted, because the receiver attachesdifferent sensory and emotional resonances tospecific words.

How Metaphor Conveys Meaning

Metaphors transfer familiar attributes of ourlived experience to unfamiliar situations andconcepts (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999) by bridgingtwo meaningful domains of understanding.Weick considers them a rare tool for creatingcompact descriptions of complex phenomena(1989). They help us convey more associationsbetween mental categories, which are thebasis of our neural circuitry (Kegan, 1994). Theirwealth of meaning enriches perception. Yetmetaphors can also be generative, encouragingre-conception and new perspectives, particularlywhen they show how apparently anomalousexpectations are successfully re-conciled in othercontexts (Weick, 1989; Oswick et al., 2002).Various mental processes help creative re-conceptualization: we extend beyond simplecomparison (Cornelissen, 2005) by selectivelyprojecting unrelated aspects from each concept


140 JaneMcKenzie and ChristinevanWinkelen

RESEARCHPAPER Syst. Res.

into a mental space for blending (Fauconnierand Turner, 2002). We move incompatibleattributes which grab our attention into theblend then create associations that did notexist when the two domains were separate. Next,we add a measure of background knowledge tofill the gaps and complete familiar patterns.Finally, we elaborate from that new combinationof ideas and sensory associations in manydifferent directions exploring off the beatentrack, adding events, experiences and connec-tions which were never part of the originalperceptions.

Lakoff (1987) calls such metaphors radial.These are metaphors structured around acentre-periphery scheme. The central categorydefines the system. It can be linked to manyperipheral sub categories that help make richersense of it. Radial metaphors convey informationabout both consequence and purpose. Theyovercome the conflict associated with differenttheories of causation, each with a distinct logicthat seems incompatible, because they allowmulti-directional models of causation andfeedback. According to Martin (2007) radialmetaphors do three things. By capturing thepossibility of multiple causes, they help usconceive situations in a new ways, and get ourmind around the interdependencies of complexissue. Then we can keep a coherent whole inmind whilst looking in more detail at theindividual parts. This makes them rich inresonant associations for both objects andactivity. Thus they seem suitable for conveyingparadoxical concepts.

Andriessen has pursued a line of researchexploring how metaphors shape our thinkingabout nebulous resources, like knowledge andsocial capital, which contribute to what hecalls Weightless Wealth (Andriessen, 2001;Andriessen, 2008; Andriessen and Gubbins,2009; Andriessen et al., 2009). Knowledge haspotential value for organizations but can beconceptualized differently. For example we canexplain knowledge as stable object or continuousflow of knowing (Blackler, 1995; Sveiby, 2001), innoun or verb, but we cannot show how it can beboth at the same time. Verbal, analogicalreasoning means we can only make sense of

object and action, concept and practice separately(through nouns and present participles, respect-ively). Consequently, when verbalizing themeaning of KM we start with confusion aboutwhat we are harnessing, depending on how wearticulate it. Cognitive bias can colour what wethink of as meaningful in conceptualizing KM.KM is about creating an organizing system inwhich that potential is translated into somethingthat is valuable to the stakeholders. Strategically,organizing should generate greater value thanmarkets because it allows people to address theparadox of specialization and integration (Grant,1996; Spender, 1996). Hence, KM should be abusiness activity for converting individualknowledge and learning into flexible organiz-ational capabilities. These capabilities underpindistinctive competencies that are the basis ofstrategic advantage (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990;Barney, 1991). However paradox arises firstlybecause we are dealing with human activity;people with choices, preferences and values willpay attention to different elements of whatmatters. Secondly, to assure sustainability inresponse to changing external conditions, sys-tems, processes and human activity must simul-taneously incorporate factors which providestability and security as well as allow for internalchange. The individual behaviours, managementstyles, systems and processes that lead to gooduse of current knowledge for stable performancetoday, tend to stifle knowledge creation andthe change needed to adapt to future demands,and vice versa. Thus KM is an inherentlyparadoxical activity.

The Advantage of Visual Images

It has been argued that arts based communi-cation helps people Apprehend the essence of aconcept, situation or tacit knowledge revealingdepths and connections that propositionaland linear developmental orientations cannot(Taylor and Ladkin, 2009). Visual imageryproduces meaning in different ways to language.Unlike words, visual objects do not have aunified stable meaning in the mind of the viewer;meaning is created fluidly in movementand dialogue between the image, the author,




the view and the circumstances of perception(Belova, 2006b). Objects alone convey only part ofthe message. The viewers perspective, thecontext, the juxtaposition of one object withothers and the artful dynamics of their relation-ship all contribute to interpretation. This complexevocative process makes it more powerful fortriggering emotion and actions (Taylor andLadkin, 2009), so impressions are more easilyremembered. The fact that so much is compactedinto the images makes it harder to articulate, butintuitively allows a simultaneous grasp of severalpossibly contradictory meanings. So images arebetter at communicating tacit knowledge(Belova, 2006a). The fixed image provides acommon immutable artefact around which tohave a productive dialogue about detailedinterpretations.

Research on consumer responses to visualimages confirms that pictures do indeed conveymore meaning, in a way that is analogous towriting in more detail (Scott and Vargas, 2007).Advertizing research suggests that peopleappear to interpret detail in a different orderto words. They process visual metaphorsliterally, then figuratively, in relation to theirinterests, motivations and perceptions to create arelevant personal narrative about the picture.This establishes the cognitive comfort zone,without compromising the difference depictedor losing the big picture in the detail. Finallyindividuals try to re-concile conflicting cues(Proctor et al., 2005) so they relate to meaningfulmessages before they experience cognitive dis-comfort.

Visually we absorb multiple features simul-taneously, to better pick out patterns, differen-tiate object from a background (Johnson, 1987) sowe get an overall impression of the whole fromtopdown processing, and fill in the detailsthrough bottomup examination. Radial visualmetaphors capturing multiple causation givespeople the opportunity to work out the implica-tions from a blended glimpse, so to speak.Anyone trying to communicate the big pictureof KM must convey an activity system withinherent tensions. A visual metaphor is advan-tageous because it presents more thought pro-voking material than the short executive sum-

mary most leaders tolerate. Representing radialmetaphors visually offers potential to depictintricate chained connections between the whatand the how of a central theme, simultaneouslyand comfortably, thereby allowing concept andexperience to be absorbed together.

Obviously, in practice, its effectivenessdepends on how much the viewer is preparedto explore the stimuli and engage in a dialogueabout the implications.

The Learning Benefits of Asking for a VisualPresentation

Some argue that using imagery is an essentialpart of developing managers intuitive aware-ness in the face of uncertainty (Sadler-Smith andShefy, 2007). Intuition as a mode of thought ispreverbal. Vision and intuition are non-verbalmodes of understanding associated with crea-tivity and openness to new ideas. Images alsotranscend international language problems.Visual metaphors strong in conveying subtleties,suggest the student has thought deeply aboutmeaningful connections and tried to see howcontradictions can be resolved, rather thansimplified through either/or choices.

As part of a KM course assessment we askedpost-graduate students to find a metaphor toencapsulate six paradoxes. Verbal metaphors tocomprehensively convey an organizing system intension would have considerable interpretativelimitations. We intended images to help studentsthink of strange situations that simultaneouslyhandle contradictory priorities and conveyinterdependencies. If they make explicit theirunderstanding without words, we hoped thetacit associations would be more evocative,interpretation more comprehensive and lessbiased.

It could be argued that visualization as a test ofcomprehension provided better evidence of therich conceptual image schemas that exist beyondwords. In addition, since visuals tap into rightbrain activity it was more likely that imaginativestudents could creatively re-conceptualize orga-nizing requirements. The tutor gets a sense ofstudents grasp of the multi-directional relation-ships between cause and effect.




METHODOLOGY

The KM course is taught as a process of exploringsix paradoxes which research has identified ascreating recurrent tension in organizationaldynamics. Each paradox has one-dimensionassociated with maintaining stability and onethat encourages change. In teaching each para-dox, we make explicit the apparently contra-dictory business activities, identify the root causeof the tension and the KM techniques that mayresolve it. Theory dictates why a resolution of thedifferences matters for performance so thatbusiness can do things right now and do theright things for the future (McKenzie and vanWinkelen, 2004).

The course has been tutored primarily by thesame two people over the whole period, markedand moderated consistently against a standardframework. We situate the KM teaching withinan accepted activity metaphor a learningjourney across a knowledge landscape (Oliverand Roos, 2000), Within that, we frequently referto the fundamental tension between conceptua-lizing knowledge as an object and as a flow(Blackler, 1995). Inevitably these will have someinfluence on source domains the students startfrom. However, it is the peripheral associationsthat they make around the centre which showdepth of comprehension. We also activelyencourage students to choose metaphors thatresonate in their business context and capture thecomplexity of the interdependencies.

The assignment brief asks them to use visualmetaphors to

Prepare a poster that succinctly captures anddemonstrates the essence of KM in anorganization. You should aim to demonstratecreatively the interdependencies betweenvarious aspects of the course and devise acoherent overview of the subject area.

The challenge for students is to find radialmetaphors rich enough to differentiate andintegrate, and illustrate coherence despite differ-ent and anomalous causes. Over the past 5 years,over 300 students have attempted this assess-ment. In line with Hampden-Turners (1990)expectation that value creation comes from the

synthesis of apparently conflicting opposites intoa coherent system, creative synthesis is rewardedin the marking process.

The criteria for an A grade state that a studentwill have considered the implications of inter-connections between the key paradoxes we teach,demonstrated originality of thought and shownrelevant inclusion/linking of concepts/theoriesfrom outside KM to add depth to the thinking.Where the metaphor used images associatedwith the products of the students business,the familiar objects were credited with creatingstrong emotional resonances for corporateviewers. At times this also created compensatinglimitations because they were somewhatmechanistic and instrumental for examplejigsaw puzzles, cars.

A 10% sample was deemed sufficient for thisexploratory research. By using the previouslyawarded marks to select the sample we weremaking a deliberate choice of imagery whichmost comprehensively re-presented (or commu-nicated back) to the tutors the mutually impli-cated aspects of the system. This seemed to be avalid proxy measure for selecting which meta-phors could capture paradox and difference.

Together, the tutors re-examined 30 postersawarded an A grade over the last 5 years toidentify the central concept of the radial meta-phors chosen to represent the essential activitysystem. The richness of the peripheral chainingand the experiential evidence were considered asdemonstrating how creatively the student hadconceptualized the mutually implicated aspectsof paradox. We discussed how the metaphorflexed to convey tension and its re-conciliation(we called this the generative trigger). We alsoexamined a random sample of 10 posters withmiddle range marks and a small sample of poorperforming posters to compare how metaphorwas used within these posters. This helped us toconfirm the distinctions between what makes anevocative visual artefact and those whichappeared not to communicate the necessaryrange of attributes.

In principle, we were exploring how visualmetaphors could convey the social (communi-cation), symbolic (comprehension) and psycho-logical (re-conceptualization) dimensions of




reality with respect to knowledge (Steen, 2010).Our analysis suggests that the enactment of thestudents understanding falls into six categories:

1. Natural objects in ecologies2. Processes designed to synthesize3. Metaphors associated with friction and power4. Connecting web metaphors5. Gaming metaphors6. Journey metaphors

There was one very clever anomaly whichplaced emphasis on the creative power of reflec-tion to change ones perspective.

ANALYSIS OF THE METAPHORS IN EACHCATEGORY

The six tables below cluster the radial metaphorsby what is central to them. Like all categories, thisclustering is a sense-making mechanism. Unde-niably some posters contain elements occurringin other groups. For example, water inevitablyplayed a different role in several scenarios.Where this has arisen, we have placed them intothe group that is most representative of the storythat they are conveying. It depended on whetherthe element helped make sense of the system orwas the principle generating the nature of the

system. The former would be chained dimen-sions of the central theme, so part of theperiphery (Lakoff, 1987). At times we havereferred to the short explanatory text accompa-nying the poster to stay true to the focus of thestudents reasoning (Tables 16).

The last poster (Table 7) was distinctivebecause so much was compressed into oneglimpse that it created immediate cognitivediscomfort (Oswick et al., 2002). It is summarizedin Table 7. Essentially the viewer was presentedwith a single picture in four different formats.The cleverness of the poster was the artfultrompe-doeil created by manipulating a bisec-tion of two halves of a scene containingreflections in a pond. This completely challengedthe viewers perspective on reality, because closeexamination highlighted anomalies that couldonly be re-conciled through personal reflection.As such it was strong on creative conceptualiz-ation and comprehension, but perhaps not aspowerful as a communication mechanism.

DISCUSSION

Keeping in mind the fact that students weretrying to grasp an intangible and paradoxicalactivity system by depicting tangible objects in asingle picture, it is interesting to consider why

Table 1 Natural objects

Central metaphor Generative trigger forre-conceptualization

Representation ofperipheral associations

Water in differentphase states ice, snow,fluid, vapour, molecule

Transitions between objects in differentforms and flow. Support for life.

Different states of H2O need differentactivities to use it effectively.

Tale of two gardeners Ecology of growth. Plant systemsand conversion from seed to plant.

Different types of garden formal andwild come from different nurturingapproaches.

Trees seeds and roots Natural transitions in growth cycle.Objects changing state naturallythrough predetermined routes andseasons.

Roots leaves and branches aredistinctions that fuel the richness ofknowledge; seeds encapsulate theessence of similarity and difference.

Trees growing in woods Transitions and continuity in agrowth cycle. Objects changing statenaturally, seasonality.

Different phases of a cycle requiredifferent conditions andinterventions to support life.

Gaia Cycle of life Ecology sustainability throughpurposeful human intervention.

As words around a virtuous circle.




these radial metaphors appeared to meet theassessment criteria more effectively than others.

Unsurprisingly, nature provided a rich vein.Sustaining life requires pre-determined elements

of structural form to have an inbuilt capacity toadapt; structures in which stability and changeco-exist simultaneously are credible and readilyacceptable through examples like DNA and

Table 2 Synthesis



Cooking Familiar process with infinitepossibilities to synthesize differentflavours.

Ingredients have different flavours,textures and nutritional value. The recipeprovides a predictable process. Heat andthe creative inspiration of the cook helpintegrate contrasting flavours andcontradictions into a tasty proposition.

Ship and crew Journeying against the elementsrequires co-ordinated crew.Changeable weather creates tensions.

Rowing teams, ships and their crew,Formula 1 racing cars with their teams areall hard objects which only move smoothlyand master the elements when differentareas of expertize are effectivelyco-ordinated and harmonized to producesmooth and suitably rapid motion.

Shipshape Four aspects of a working aircraftcarrier that need to be weighed up andbalanced.

The car as it contributesto the driving experience

Imagining the impact of a differenttype of propulsion system. Fuel intomovement affects personal drivingexperience.

A rowing team swirlingwater with their oars oneither side

Steering through knowledge flowsrequires balanced pulling together,with an inspirational cox.

Jigsaw Constructing big picture from mess toorder. Tension represented, by lack offit between puzzle pieces.

In the picture.

Table 3 Friction and power



Ships propeller Mechanism for shifting fluid togenerate energy.

Redesigning the propulsion system toachieve better balance of activity.

Wind as energy Harnessing an unpredictable naturalforce. Object plus movement.

Humans engaged with different weatherstates calm and storm.

Water as energy inlandscape

Phase transitions. Various elements on the landscape.

Fast breeder nuclearreactor

Sustainability through conflict. Heat and polarity managed by control rodsin the reactor.

KM as a move fromunsustainable to renewableenergy generation

Sustainability from harnessing naturalresources.

Migration from depleting resources of theindustrial economy to renewableresources.

Oil in fast cars Reducing friction produces betterperformance.

Oil exploration and oil usage.

Volcanic earth Deeply hidden but measurable sourceof upheaval.

Implicit underground power source.




Table 4 Connecting webs



Information Management Symbols that drive a know it, share it,improve it campaign around people ina network.

Implicit in the network connections.

Cross border connections Multiple evocative images of KMpractices superimposed on a worldmap.

Evolution of humanconsciousness

Developing response to the worldthrough relationships.

Maturing changes personal orientation topriorities.

Linking Brains Connections between mental models. Written into picture as loops betweenbrains.

Table 5 Games metaphors



Wallet and monetarysystem

Different aspects of knowledge aswealth carried together.

Separation of tensions withoutre-conciliation.

Snakes and Ladders game Cyclical journey to a central ideal withups and downs.

The tools that work for and againstprogress.

Knowlopoly (knowledgemonopoloy)

Competition through knowledge.Cyclical progress to greater wealth.

Contrast with monopoly. The various toolsthat help create wealth.

Table 6 Journey



Road and journey Possibility of new experiences. Eitheror choice of direction. Divertingaround obstacles. Implicit in the objectsscattered around the landscape.

Navigation, adventuremap of journey

Possibility of different routes to sameend. The map is not the journey.

Skiing community in Alps Peaks and valleys of knowledgelandscape.

Archipelago to virtualweb

Connecting disparate islands throughhuman intervention.

Association between inside and out, tacitand explicit knowledge.

Table 7 A highly compressed metaphor



Mirrored perceptions inlandscape of reality

Changing perceptions. Things are notwhat they seem at first glance.

Mirrored reflections in a lake force themind to see things differently.




evolutionary theory. Some of the source domainsare intuitively obvious e.g. trees and knowledgehave a long historical connection. Howeverpicturing them over a life cycle offers manymore associations. Natural metaphors candemonstrate how different properties are impli-cated as elements transition from one state toanother while the essence remains constant e.g.water to ice or gas, or seed to plant. They candepict difference and variation in different timescales held together by the common thread of theelement in its ecology. They represent latentenergy and give the viewer a chance to ponderthe how to access the energy that holds thesystem connections together. There are so manyresonances with the way KM must resolve thetension between structural and human capital,the present and the future, exploiting andexploring knowledge, that they richly conceptu-alize how these facets could work synergisticallyrather than as diametrically opposed domains.

Landscape metaphors similarly allow thejuxtaposition of contrasting objects in tension.Hills and valley can represent knowledge andignorance and the entrainments of such thingsare very productive for thinking about KM. Theyhave the potential to show how people cansurmount structural obstacles by learning. How-ever, physical progress across the landscapetends to imply either/or choices en route, as thetraveller decides which way to tackle theproblem. Reframing paradox requires both/and choices.

Synthesis metaphors, in contrast, suggest howdifferent elements in combination can becomemore than the sum of their parts, presenting areframing of fragmented domains into a coherentwhole. Few people would talk of KM in terms ofcooking or rowing because the words wouldsound improbable, but familiar and quite dis-tinctive activities can provoke new perspectives.Games also represent many different facets as anintegrated but risky process, though they do notrepresent the full synthesis.

Things that reduce friction (e.g. oil), and/orincrease power (e.g. wind, water, sun andvolcanos) are consistent with the idea thattension can be creative, natural energy can beharnessed, unfreezing can create change. Natural

forces evoke recognition of knowledge as a forcefor good or ill depending on the human capacityto use it productively. Web metaphors demon-strate the importance and contribution of multi-directional connections and relationshipsbetween people, places and ideas, with orwithout the intervention of technology.

Clearly each category privileges differentaspects of comprehension; some are better atstimulating re-conceptualization than others. Thedistinction between these A grade posters andthose with middle range marks, in terms of theuse of metaphor, was the coherence of the story.Moderately rated posters offered some connec-tions between picture elements, but lackedcoherence because they lacked a central meta-phor to show how the disparate elements workedtogether. The student then had to revert to wordsto explain the relationship between pictorialelements and where the paradoxes and tensionsexisted. This lack of coherence made it lessintuitive for the viewer to integrate the ideas,which lost the big picture essence of KM. Othermid-range posters contained simple metaphorsthat depicted selective aspects of KM but ignoredmany conflicting activities. They may havepresented anomalous and analogous elementsin one glimpse, but the interdependencies weresimplistic. Finally posters marked low containedsimple depiction of the KM requirements withlittle simultaneous representation of similarityand difference.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Conducting this analysis has confirmed thatvisual radial metaphors are a useful way to assessstudent comprehension of a paradoxical systemlike KM in a concise way. The artefact of the posterbecomes a novel trigger for conversation thatevokes tacit associations without the bias ofverbal description. Visual imagery that simul-taneously represents the anomalous with thefamiliar can be a trigger for creative re-concep-tualization in a world where assumptions aboutorganizing are rooted in the industrial model ofmanaging tangible rather than intangible knowl-edge resources. We hope that the students ideas




may help practitioners reflect on how to com-municate KM to others without always resortingto the familiar. Further work is required toexplore issues such as the effect of colour withinthe visual metaphor, the impact of the visuals onnon-KM experts, and the poster effectiveness increating dialogue. However, this proof ofconcept longitudinal data analysis suggests thatthere would be merit in pursuing these studies.

REFERENCES

Andriessen D. 2001. Weightless wealth: Four modifi-cations to standard ic theory. Journal of IntellectualCapital 2(3): 204214.

Andriessen D. 2008. Stuff or love: How metaphorsdirect our efforts to manage knowledge in organiz-ations. Knowledge Management Research and Practice6(1): 512.

Andriessen D, Gubbins C. 2009. Metaphor analysis asan approach for exploring theoretical concepts. Thecase of social capital. Organization Studies 30(8): 119.

Andriessen D, Kliphuis E, Mckenzie J, Van Winklen C.2009. Pictures of knowledge management. Develop-ing a method for analysing knowledge metaphors invisuals. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management7(4): 405414.

Arthur B. 1996. Increasing returns and the new worldof business. Harvard Business Review 74(4): 100109.

Barney J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competi-tive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99120.

Bateson G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: A Revolu-tionary Approach to Mans Understanding of Himself.Chandler Publishing Co and imprint of RandomHouse: New York.

Baumard P. 1999. Tacit Knowledge in Organizations.Sage: London.

Belova O. 2006a. The event of seeing: A phenomen-ological perspective on visual sense-making. Culture& Organization 12: 93107.

Belova O. 2006b. Speaking for themselves? Problema-tising the production of meaning in visual artefacts.Culture & Organization 12: 3749.

Blackler F. 1995. Knowledge, knowledge work andorganizations: An overview and interpretation.Organization Studies 16(6): 10211046.

Cornelissen JP. 2005. Beyond compare: Metaphor inorganization theory. Academy of Management Review30(4): 751764.

Damasio A. 2006. Descartes Error. Vintage books:London.

Fauconnier G, Turner M. 2002. The Way We Think.Conceptual Blending and the Minds Hidden Complex-ities. Basic Books: New York.

Ford JD, Backoff RW. 1988. Organizational change inand out of dualities and paradox. In Paradox andTransformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organi-zation and Management, Quinn RE, Cameron KS.(eds.) Ballinger: Cambridge MA; 81121.

Grant RM. 1996. Towards a knowledge based theory ofthe firm. Strategic Management Journal 17(14): 109122.

Hampden-Turner C. 1990. Charting the Corporate Mind.Blackwell: Oxford.

Johnson M. 1987. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basisof Meaning, Imagination and Reason. University ofChicago Press: Chicago.

Kegan R. 1994. In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demandsof Modern Life. Harvard Business School Press: Bos-ton.

Lakoff G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. WhatCategories Reveal About the Mind. University of Chi-cago Press: Chicago.

Lakoff G, Johnson M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. TheEmbodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought.Basic Books: New York.

Lakoff G, Johnson M. 2003. Metaphors We Live By.University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Lave J, Wenger E. 1991. Situated Learning: LegitimatePeripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press:Cambridge.

Lewis MW. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a morecomprehensive guide. Academy of ManagementReview 25(4): 760776.

March J. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organ-izational learning. Organization Science 2(1): 7187.

Martin R. 2007. The opposable mind. How successfulleaders win through integrative thinking. HarvardBusiness Press: Boston MA.

Mayer R. 2001. Multimedia learning. Cambridge Uni-versity Press: Cambridge UK.

McKenzie J. 1994. Paradox the Next Strategic Dimension.Using Conflict to Re-energized Your Business. McGrawHill: Maidenhead.

McKenzie J, van Winkelen C. 2004. Understanding theKnowledgeable Organization: Nurturing KnowledgeCompetence. Thomson Learning: London.

McKenzie J, van Winkelen C. 2007. Knowledge man-agement for a changing world. Challenges for thirdgeneration knowledge practice. International Journalof Knowledge, Culture and Change Management 8(8): 114.

Morgan G. 1997. Images of Organization. Sage: London.Oliver D, Roos J. 2000. Striking a Balance: Complexity and

Knowledge Landscapes. McGraw Hill: MaidenheadUK.

Oswick C, Keenoy T, Grant D. 2002. Metaphor andAnalogical Reasoning in Organization Theory:Beyond Orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review27(2): 294303.

Polanyi M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Routledge andKegan Paul: London.




Prahalad C, Hamel G. 1990. The core competence of thecorporation. Harvard Business Review 68(3): 7991.

Proctor T, Proctor S, Papasolomou I. 2005. Visualizingthe metaphor. Journal of Marketing Communications11: 5572.

Robertson I. 2002. The Minds Eye. Bantam: London.Rothenberg A. 1979. The Emerging Goddess. University

of Chicago Press: Chicago.Sadler-Smith E, Shefy E. 2007. Developing intuitive

awareness in management education. Academy ofManagement Learning & Education 6(2): 186205.

Scott LM, Vargas P. 2007. Writing with pictures:Towards a unifying theory of consumer repsonseto images. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3): 341356.

Spender JC. 1996. Making knowledge the basis of adynamic theory of the firm. Strategic ManagementJournal 17 (Special issue): 4562.

Steen G. 2010. Knowlede as metaphor: Problems andperspectives for KM. European Conference on Intellec-tual Capital. Portugal.

Sveiby K-E. 2001. A knowledge-based theory of thefirm to guide strategy formulation. Journal of Intel-lectual Capital 2(4): 344358.

Taylor SS, Ladkin D. 2009. Understanding arts-basedmethods in managerial development. Academy ofManagement Learning & Education, 8(1): 5569.

Weick KE. 1989. Theory construction as disciplinedimagination. Academy of Management Review 14(4):516531.




Copyright of Systems Research & Behavioral Science is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Beyond words: Visual metaphors that can demonstrate ... · Beyond Words: Visual Metaphors that can Demonstrate Comprehension of KM as a Paradoxical Activity System Jane McKenzie*