Stuff or love? How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowle

Stuff or love? How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowledge in organisations

Daniel G Andriessen¹

¹INHOLLAND University of Professional Education, Diemen, The Netherlands

Correspondence: Daniel G. Andriessen, Centre for Research in Intellectual Capital, INHOLLAND University of Professional Education, Saturnusstraat 2-24, 2132 HB Hoofddorp, The Netherlands. Tel: [phone]; E-mail: [e-mail], www.weightlesswealth.com

^†This position paper is the edited text of a keynote address delivered to the 8th European Congress on Knowledge Management 2007 held on 6 and 7 September in Barcelona, Spain.

Received 12 October 2007; Accepted 15 October 2007.

Top of page

Abstract

This position paper addresses the way knowledge is conceptualised in knowledge management (KM) literature and practice. Using the work of Lakoff and Johnson on metaphors it will show how people use metaphors to think and talk about knowledge. In KM literature at least 22 different metaphors for knowledge are used. Further research shows that these metaphors are primarily Western metaphors while in Eastern philosophy many other metaphors for knowledge are used. The choice of metaphors for knowledge has great influence about the way we think about KM. They determine what we diagnose as KM problems in organisations and what we develop as KM solutions. To illustrate this, this paper presents the results of an exercise set up to determine the effect of metaphors on KM approaches in which two challenging metaphors for knowledge were used: knowledge as water and knowledge as love.

Keywords:

intellectual capital, sensemaking, meaning of knowledge, ontology, philosophy, theory of knowledge

Top of page

Introduction

Intellectual capital is a fascinating term full of contradictions, as it does not refer to capital in the literal sense of the word and is not about intellect either. Yet, it has helped to raise the awareness for the importance of knowledge in organisations among scholars and practitioners, including even the accounting profession. If the term is not used in the literal sense, it must be somehow metaphorical and in my search for an explanation of this phenomenon, I stumbled upon a book that has changed my life. This book (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999) proves beyond doubt that not only intellectual capital is a metaphor, but also that all abstract concepts that we use as human beings derive their meaning from metaphor, including terms like organisation, strategy, human capital, intellectual capital, social capital, and……. knowledge.

Knowledge can only be analysed, talked about, and understood by using metaphors. In our work on knowledge management (KM) you and I use metaphors constantly, often without being aware of it. In my contribution, I would like to explain to you how this works, talk about the many metaphors for knowledge that I found in my research, and elaborate on the important consequences of this fact for our work on KM.

Top of page

We primarily use metaphor to reason about knowledge

The fact that we can only reason about knowledge through metaphors is not a bad thing (or a good thing), it is inescapable; that's how the human mind works. However, the unconscious choice of metaphor has enormous impact on how we reason about knowledge, what is highlighted and what is hidden, what is seen in the organisations as problems and what is understood as solutions.

Let me give you a small example as a starter. Many KM approaches advice companies to make an ‘inventory’ of knowledge, check where knowledge is ‘located’, ‘store’ important or vulnerable knowledge in databases, use intranet technology to improve ‘access’ to knowledge, etc. What is important to see is that knowledge is not literally located and stored. After all, you cannot see it and you cannot grab it and put it in a container. A knowledge inventory is not literally an inventory like the inventory of a warehouse. And access to knowledge is not literally access like you have access to the warehouse. These are all metaphors and they make sense to us because we are very familiar with the KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE metaphor. Resource metaphors are very common in human thought. We use the TIME AS A RESOURCE metaphor very often, for example, when we say ‘I got plenty of time’ , ‘that took three hours’, ‘he wasted my time’ or ‘this will save time’.

Top of page

How metaphors work: the example of time

So how does this metaphor stuff work? To explain how it works and how common metaphors are, let us start with a more neutral concept that is as abstract as knowledge and that we are all familiar with: the concept of time. What do you do when I would ask you to point me where the future is? You will probably point somewhere in front of you. And where is the past? You will probably point behind you. People see the future as being in front of them and the past behind them. This TIME ORIENTATION metaphor is the same all over the world. In our thinking of time we use space as a metaphor and conceptualise the future in front of us and the past behind us. We see the passage of time as the passage along a path from the past to the future. We also use the MOVING OBSERVER metaphor. In this metaphor, each location on the observer's path is a time. The distance moved by the observer is the amount of time passed. This shows in sayings like ‘will you be staying a long time of a short time?’ or ‘how long is your visit?’

Another metaphor is the MOVING TIME metaphor. In this metaphor the observer stands still and time moves, for example when we say that ‘time flies by’ or ‘the time for action has arrived’. We even use space to measure time when we say: ‘how long does that take?’ The TIME AS SPACE metaphor has served us well and is embedded in our brain. It is the same for almost all people in the world. One exception is known. For the Aymara people of the Andes Mountains in Peru, the future is behind ego and the past is in front of ego (Núnez & Sweetser, 2006). In Aymare language, the word ‘nayra’ means ‘eye/sight/front’, while ‘nayra mara’ means ‘last year’. ‘Qhipa’ means ‘back/behind’ while qhipuru means ‘a future day’. The Aymara do not only use this metaphor in speech but also in their gestures.

However, sometimes the TIME AS SPACE metaphor is flawed. Some characteristics of space in the source domain are not applicable to the target domain of time. Let me give you an example where the TIME AS SPACE metaphor is flawed. We consider passage of time as a path with events as locations on that path. When time goes by we ‘move’ along the path. However, in space there is always another location before or after every location. This never stops. In the source domain of space, infinity is part of the concept of space. In the target domain of time this is not the case. As we know now from science, there was no time before the Big Bang. Time started at the Big Bang. But the idea that time itself started with the Big Bang makes no sense given our common metaphor. That we have difficulty understanding this shows how fundamental the TIME AS SPACE metaphor is for thinking about time.

Another area where the time as space metaphor falls short is when it comes to travelling. In the source domain of space we can travel through space. The TIME AS SPACE metaphor tempts us to think that this attribute of space can be transferred to the target domain of time. This, of course, is not true, but the false idea of travelling in time has produced some great science fiction stories and movies!

So the way metaphor works in our brain is that some characteristics of the source domain (space) are transferred to the target domain (time). These are called metaphorical entailments (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). Not all characteristics of the source domains are transferred and more metaphors may be useful to further conceptualise the concept of the target domain (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The target and source domains of the TIME AS A MOVING OBJECT metaphor.

Full figure and legend (47K)

Intermezzo 1: truth does not exist

• as direct observation does not exist because people always use concepts to describe reality;
• as these concepts derive their meaning from metaphor;
• as half of these metaphors are embodied in our brain and cannot be shut off or altered;
• as the choice of the other half is to a large extent arbitrary;

we will never be able to perfectly describe and understand reality and ego, truth (defined as correspondence with reality) does not exist.

Top of page

Metaphors for knowledge

What the time example shows is that metaphors play a crucial role in the conceptualisation of abstract concepts, that they highlight characteristics and hide others, and that they can fool us when we take them as literal. Knowledge is also an abstract concept. The research I did last year shows that in three of the most quoted texts on KM, at least 99% of all references to knowledge are metaphorical (Andriessen, 2006). In total, I discovered 22 different metaphors for knowledge. Three of those are very dominant in Western KM literature. The KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE metaphor (Figure 2) uses the source domain of resources to help us reason about knowledge. Many attributes of resources are used to reason about knowledge. Knowledge is used in production, it is adding to the production process, it can be stored and shared. One can talk about ‘an amount of knowledge’, and the metaphor allows knowledge to be placed in a view that considers organisations as input/output (logistical) systems. In the English language, some characteristics of resources are not used, like the ‘size’ or ‘ weight’ of knowledge. At the same time some characteristics of knowledge are not covered by the metaphor, like the non-rivalry and non-additiveness of knowledge (Lev, 2001) and the tacitness of knowledge. Through the KNOWLEDGE AS RESOURCE metaphor, knowledge becomes part of a logistic discourse about organisations.

Figure 2.

The KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE metaphor.

Full figure and legend (76K)

The KNOWLEDGE AS ASSETS metaphor (Figure 3) uses the source domains of assets to help us reason about knowledge. Several attributes of this accounting term are used including that knowledge can be controlled by the enterprise, generates future economic benefits that flow to enterprise, is identifiable, that its costs can be measured, that it is used in production, and deserves a place in the reporting system of the enterprise. Through the KNOWLEDGE AS ASSETS metaphor, knowledge becomes part of an accounting discourse about organisations.

Figure 3.

The KNOWLEDGE AS AN ASSET metaphor.

Full figure and legend (82K)

The KNOWLEDGE AS PROPERTY metaphor (Figure 4) makes it possible to use knowledge in the legal discourse about organisations. This metaphor makes it possible to reason about the ownership, value and exclusiveness of knowledge. It highlights the legal rights aspects of knowledge, its transferability and its options to commercialise is.

Figure 4.

The KNOWLEDGE AS PROPERTY metaphor.

Full figure and legend (73K)

What is interesting is that different writers are using different metaphors for knowledge, which reveals a different conceptualisation of, or view on knowledge (see Figure 2). American writers Davenport and Prusak predominantly use the KNOWLEDGE AS STUFF metaphor. Japanese writers Nonaka and Takeuchi predominantly use the KNOWLEDGE AS THOUGHTS OR FEELINGS metaphor (Andriessen, 2006). This reflects both a cultural difference and a difference in view on KM (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Difference in metaphors between Davenport & Prusak (1998) and Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) (Andriessen, 2006).

Full figure and legend (95K)

Top of page

Metaphor analysis can reveal insufficient or false argumentation

Now you may ask ‘so what? What is relevance of this for my work on KM?’ My answer would be that the consequences are enormous. Metaphors highlight and hide in a way that we are not aware of. Let us take another look at the KNOWLEDGE AS CAPITAL metaphor. Here is a list of attributes of capital in the source domain of capital (see Table 1). Many of these attributes are transferred to the target domain of knowledge by many writers in the field of intellectual capital. These transformations seem indisputable, until we start to realise that it is a metaphor we are using, and that we actually need some argumentation to claim that the attribute of the source domain is applicable in the target domain. Is having more knowledge always better? Can knowledge really be owned? Can it be valued? Does it have to be put on the balance sheet? Is it additive? Is it a stock? And why must it be measured to be able to manage it?

Table 1 - Entailments of the CAPITAL metaphor.

Full table

The opposite is also true; many authors go at length to explain that a certain characteristic of capital is not applicable in the target domain of knowledge, not being aware of the fact that we are dealing with metaphor. An example is the non-rivalry of knowledge as in the quote: ‘knowledge is the only resource that is not used up when it is used’. When we realise we are dealing with the KNOWLEDGE AS RESOURCE metaphor here, this remark becomes a non-statement. The only thing you are saying about knowledge when you say it is not used up is that the attribute of a resource in the source domain of rivalry is not transferable to the target domain of knowledge. So what? Many attributes of source domains are not transferable to target domains!

Top of page

The KNOWLEDGE AS STUFF metaphor helps dehumanise organisations

So the metaphorical analysis of KM literature can uncover insufficient or false argumentation. Now let us adopt for a moment a more critical approach. With the widely used KNOWLEDGE AS STUFF metaphor we are committing an act of, what Gustavson has called, ‘thingification’ (Gustavsson, 2001). We act as if knowledge is a thing. This has many advantages because things can be counted, controlled, and managed. However, things are also objective and neutral, so the metaphor assumes that knowledge is objective; that it can be stored and retrieved without any distortion; that it can be transferred from one human being to another without interpretation.

Furthermore, things have no feelings, require no moral, can be moulded, malformed, and thrown away. So while the KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE metaphor highlights that knowledge is important in organisations, at the same time it hides that knowledge is about people that need to be empowered and be treated with respect. The language of KM based on KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE is mechanistic, dehumanised, cold. It talks about ‘gathering’ knowledge, ‘storing’ knowledge, ‘distributing’ knowledge as if it has nothing to do with people. It provides management with even more means to control organisations in a mechanistic way, often with IT as the main tool. By the way, many studies have shown that this IT-dominated approach to KM has limited effectiveness, but that is not the point I try to make here. My argument is that this instrumental approach to KM, that only treats knowledge as a tool, contributes to the further dehumanisation of organisations that is taking place in modern society.

So far we have seen that metaphors are inescapable thinking devices for abstract thinking and that they are often used without us being aware of them. Yet, they determine the way we think about KM by highlighting certain attributes of knowledge and hiding others. The KNOWLEDGE AS STUFF metaphor further strengthens the idea that organisations are machines with input, throughput and output, and put more power into the hands of managers that want to control these machines. This is unhealthy for employees and often ineffective for companies.

Top of page

Alternative metaphors for knowledge

So what are some of the alternatives? What other metaphors for knowledge can the KM movement adopt to help create more humane and effective organisations? Here we may find some inspiration in the East. In a recent study (Andriessen and Van den Boom, 2007), we highlighted different metaphors for knowledge between West and East. The West was represented by the top-10 KM literature. In the Arab countries and Asia, there is very little English literature on KM so we decided to look at knowledge in four major religions: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism. Although these religions are very different, they have in common that they tend to see knowledge as spirit and wisdom, as unfolding truth, as illumination or enlightenment of an underlying, deeper reality and, in Japan, as essence-less and nothingness. Furthermore, these religions highlight the unity of knowledge and action and see knowledge creation as a continuous, self-transcending process. These metaphors for knowledge are difficult to translate into management actions and that is exactly the point. Maybe for a good role of knowledge in organisations we need less management, not more…

Top of page

Studying the effects of metaphors on KM

I wanted to know what exactly is the impact of choosing a certain metaphor for knowledge on the ideas about KM in organisations so I did a small exercise (Andriessen, 2007). I organised two workshops on KM in a department of the Dutch central government. In the first workshop, 15 employees were invited, in the second workshop 15 managers. In both workshops I asked the participants to identify a number of problems related to KM in their organisation and think of a number of solutions. However, I asked them to do this using a particular metaphor for knowledge. First I asked them to do this using the KNOWLEDGE AS WATER metaphor. This resulted in a number of problems and solutions (see Table 2). As you can see, most of these are in line with the mechanistic approach to KM as outlined earlier.

Table 2 - Results of the KNOWLEDGE AS WATER metaphor.

Full table

Then I asked them to do the same, but this time using a metaphor that is much more in line with an Eastern view of knowledge. I asked them to discuss problems and solutions regarding knowledge while thinking of KNOWLEDGE AS LOVE. What happened was quite remarkable. The topic of conversations changed completely. Suddenly their conversations were about relationships within the organisation, trust, passion in work, the gap between their tasks and their personal aspirations, etc. (see Table 3).

Table 3 - Results of the KNOWLEDGE AS LOVE metaphor.

Full table

So by introducing a new metaphor, the diagnosis of the current situation changed completely. Moreover, it shifted from problems related to the accessibility of knowledge, to problems related to the preconditions for knowledge work and the well-being of the knowledge workers in the organisation. A similar thing happened when the groups started to talk about possible solutions. The solutions that were proposed had to do with improving the quality of the collaboration within the organisation and the working conditions of the knowledge worker.

Intermezzo 2: problems do not exist

This small exercise is a good illustration that problems do not exist. Problems are not phenomena waiting out there in reality to be observed. This implies that is nonsense to ask questions like ‘what is the problem in this organisation?’ A problem is a gap between an existing and a preferred situation (Ist and Soll). And as both the perception of the existing as the perception of the preferred situation depends on how you prefer to look at it, a problem is by definition subjective. The concepts you choose to diagnose an organisation, and the underlying metaphors that they are based on, determine the way you perceive the situation as well as how it should be. Or, as Professor Joseph Kessels once phrased it: ‘a problem is an interpretation of a feeling of discomfort’ (Kessels, 2005).

Top of page

KM is an instrument of power

This small exercise shows that the metaphor for knowledge chosen has an enormous impact on the perceived KM problems and proposed solutions. In addition, when asked what metaphor they preferred it turned out that management in general preferred the KNOWLEDGE AS WATER metaphor and employees the KNOWLEDGE AS LOVE metaphor. In fact, most employees expressed a particular dislike of the KNOWLEDGE AS WATER metaphor. As we have seen, KNOWLEDGE AS WATER stresses the possibilities to control and manage knowledge, while KNOWLEDGE AS LOVE emphasises the working conditions of knowledge workers. So each of the two groups, managers and employees, preferred the metaphor that was in alignment with their own interests: management and control vs improved working conditions. This is an important point, ladies and gentlemen, as it shows that KM is not a neutral concept. Depending on the metaphors for knowledge it is based on, a KM approach serves the interests of particular groups within an organisation. When a KM approach is based on the KNOWLEDGE AS STUFF metaphor (and most KM approaches are) it will probably be in the interest of management and not in the interest of employees. KM is an instrument of power.

Top of page

Conclusions

What I have been trying to show you is that in our theorising and thinking about knowledge and KM, metaphors play a crucial role. The problem is that these metaphors often stay hidden in the realm of our unconscious thought. Yet, they decide what we identify as knowledge problems and KM solutions. If we want to advance the field of KM, we must bring our metaphors for knowledge to the surface. Therefore, I would like to encourage you to do a small exercise when reading this copy of KMRP. When you read an article, write down some of the verbs the author uses related to knowledge. What is even more fun is when you also start to count them. This way you will discover the dominant metaphors for knowledge the author is using. There is a big chance that this will be the KNOWLEDGE AS STUFF metaphor. To facilitate this process I have developed a simple scoring form (see Appendix). Then, when you have finished the article, reflect on it using one simple question: What would have been the outcome of the research if we see knowledge not at stuff but as love?

Top of page

References

1. Andriessen DG (2006) On the metaphorical nature of intellectual capital: a textual analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital 7, 93–110. | Article |
2. Andriessen DG (2007) Knowledge as love; how metaphors direct the way we manage knowledge in organizations. In Proceedings of the 5th Critical Management Society Conference, 11–13 July, Critical Management Society, Manchester, UK.
3. Andriessen DG and Van den Boom M (2007) Intellectual capital and east-west variations. In Proceedings of the McMaster World Congress, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
4. Davenport TH and Prusak L (1998) Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
5. Gustavsson B (2001) Power over meaning; unlearning and human values. In Management of Power – Ethical and Values Aspects (CHAKRABORTY SK, Ed), pp 339–358, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
6. Kessels JWM (21-9-2005) A problem is an interpretation of a feeling of discomfort. Andriessen, Daniel G, Personal Communication.
7. Lakoff G and Johnson M (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh. Basic Books, New York.
8. Lev B (2001) Intangibles: Management, Measurement and Reporting. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
9. Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford.
10. Núnez RE and Sweetser E (2006) With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science 30, 401–450.

Top of page

Appendices

Appendix

Knowledge Management Metaphor Analysis Scoring Form

This list of metaphors for knowledge is taken from the data used for Andriessen (2006). You can apply it to identify the metaphors for knowledge used in papers and presentations. The list contains verbs related to knowledge and the underlying metaphor they derive their meaning from. The metaphors are grouped into categories. Some categories are divided into sub categories indicated behind each verb.Table A1

Table A1.

Full table

Top of page

About the author

Daniel G. Andriessen is Professor of intellectual capital at INHOLLAND University of professional education, The Netherlands, and director of the INHOLLAND Centre for Research in Intellectual Capital, a research group set up to study the impact of the intangible economy on people and organisations (www.inholland.com). Before joining INHOLLAND, Dr. Andriessen worked as a management consultant for KPMG for more than 12 years. He was the founder of KPMG's Knowledge Advisory Services Group in 1997, together with Professor Dr. René Tissen. Daniel received his Ph.D. degree at Nyenrode University in The Netherlands and he holds a masters degree in political and administrative science at the Free University, Amsterdam. He suggests you check out his website (www.weightlesswealth.com) and mail him your feedback.