The Depth of Metaphors
(and how spotting them could make you happier at work!)
*********
A blog about metaphors — their depth, their power, how we use them in design and using them as a signal to spot workplace culture and values.
This all starts a bit theoretical, but I then bring in some examples which hopefully help it make a bit more sense, so stick with me!
What is a metaphor?
A metaphor is seeing one thing as another. It’s a linguistic shortcut and comes from the Greek word metaphora — to transfer. But our use of metaphor is much deeper than people often realise. Our use of metaphors also structures how we conceive of the world around us. They can enrich our view of things, but also limit our perspective without us realising they are doing so. The metaphors we use are often chosen because they fit within a more complex mesh of connected or clustered metaphors, which create discourses, which in turn form cultures, worldviews or paradigms.
The metaphor we use will make sense to other people if they also use it in the same way, or if it fits within a discourse or worldview that is already shared.
However, if the person we are communicating with does not share our world view then they may also not understand the meaning we are attempting to convey by using metaphor. This can be confusing or frustrating.
By observing metaphors that other people use, we can also use them as signals to understand the worldview that they are using them from within. This in turn can improve communication and make it less potentially frustrating.
This metaphor is deep. Deep is this metaphor.
The use of metaphors in our everyday language is pretty ubiquitous. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson have demonstrated this really well in their book Metaphors We Live By. For example, emotion is often expressed as direction, with HAPPY IS UP and SAD IS DOWN.
We say ‘I’m feeling down’, or ‘that lifted my spirits’ without ever really considering the fact that we are using a shared metaphor to convey meaning. If someone said ‘I’m feeling wide’ (like a big smile), then it would jar and require additional explanation.
So these metaphors work because they are culturally shared. This is important, because it means that if we use them as a vehicle to convey meaning, then the idea we are conveying will have greater stickability if we use a commonly shared metaphor as the vehicle.
In the book Doughnut Economics, Kate Raworth gives the example of why we use Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to explain economies. She suggests that one reason why the concept of growth as the main metric of success stuck, and has had such power in terms of policy making is because, “The idea of ever growing output fits snuggly with the widely used metaphor of upwards and forwards being good”. We all learned to walk, and the concept of progress is deeply entwined with the metaphor that forwards and upwards is good.
The metaphor has afforded the concept of GDP significant power, regardless of whether or not ‘growth for growth’s sake’ is a value that we subscribe to.
This can all sound a bit obtuse. So I thought I would use a case study as a way into this — and given the rather odd times we are living through, I have gone with the shared experience of this little thing known as the global pandemic.
Covid-19 metaphors and what they tell us.
So, metaphors are deeply meshed into our sense of the world. They also don’t exist in isolation. They feed off each other, they cluster and form discourses.
Have you noticed over the last month or so how often the engagement and response to the global pandemic has been couched in the language of WAR.
This is a powerful discourse made up from collections of metaphors. We need to find some ‘Blitz Spirit’, We are facing an ‘invisible enemy’, we need to ‘protect our frontline workers’.
This metaphor conveys very well the seriousness of our current situation. War is, after all, a pretty serious business. It can evoke strong feelings of ‘we are in this together’.
But using this metaphor also brings other layers of meaning, intended or otherwise. It reinforces the concept of the nation state — it’s ‘us against them’, which in turn can lead to a rise in xenophobia — we are fighting ‘the Chinese Virus’.
It is only when we notice the use of metaphors like this that we can be sensitive to their implications.
There are other metaphors at play in the current crisis as well….
Rainbows have been appearing in windows, painted by the kids who are remaining at home instead of being able to go to school.
Here it’s use is also multi-layered. We are also ‘all in this [bad weather] together’, but this time it is more transitory. The sun will come out, we can hope.
It is an ancient metaphor, but also brings with it the more modern layers of meaning around diversity, LGBTQ rights, rainbow coalitions.
It is a far more positive metaphor to be using during a global pandemic, but it has the same depth of meaning as the discourse of us being ‘at war’.
By using metaphors, we can both simplify the communication of meaning, but we are also conveying layered meaning. And that requires a cultural context to be understood.
Metaphors in Service Design
We use metaphors in our design work all the time. They are a way of framing situations. We use metaphors to structure and enable thinking and communication, to put a lens on a wicked problem.
For example, we have the Service Blueprint. A service is not a blueprint, a blueprint is an architectural drawing. By using this metaphor we are conveying meaning without perhaps even realising it.
What do you think of when you think of the work of an Architect? Perhaps trustworthiness? What about their drawings — perhaps the fact they are static, reliable, evidence-based. These are all useful concepts to apply to an asset that attempts to describe a service.
Arguably, these are also completely inappropriate when describing a service. Services are not static, and the information you have on the page to try to describe them is definitely not the full picture of what you can expect on the ground, at best it is a snapshot, but more likely it represents an idealised view, even if it is an ‘as is’ diagram.
This is why in design work we have to keep reminding ourselves, as Simon Wardley does such a good job of, that the ‘map is not the territory’. He would of course argue (rightly) that some maps are more effective metaphors than others!
This is because people don’t behave in the same way that the little boxes on a page describe. People delivering services are messy and their behaviour fluctuates. They develop workarounds and their ability to complete tasks is contextual. It will change if they have had an argument with a partner the night before, or if they have drunk too much coffee, or if they are simultaneously trying to home school children!
Another metaphor buried in this service design artefact is that of the theatre. We talk about Frontstage and Backstage.
What do we think about when we think of theatres? Maybe the fact that there is a script, or that the activity is rehearsed, or that people have roles that they need to stick too. Again, all could be true of a service, but equally it could very well not be!
The artefact is not the outcome. The glossy Discovery report is not a design outcome in this enviroment, the design outcome is the decisions that get taken once it has been read.
Metaphors in the workplace
So, metaphors are signals. They carry more meaning than they might appear to at first glance. They can also cluster into discourses (like in our example of being ‘at war’ with a virus).
I often talk about the book New Power by Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms. It is brilliant at pulling apart how these various cultures or discourses are at play within organisations. Both in terms of comparing different organisations, but also looking at how organisations can change over time.
They use this framework below to talk about the values that sit within different discourses/paradigms in the workplace.
I find this framework really helpful. Although I personally find the use of the word ‘old’ and ‘new’ a bit pejorative. It’s true insomuch as the ‘new’ value set has only been seen in companies in more recent times. However, it also suggests that one is better than the other, as we usually think of new replacing the old. Whilst I might affiliate more to the set on the right, they are both highly contextual and need to be used at the right time.
In the book the authors use it to explore how start-ups are similar in some ways to new political movements and how companies also need to move between these paradigms as they grow. There is a reason why Google changed its motto from ‘Don’t be Evil’ to ‘Organise the world’s information’.
Paul Edwards, the Stanford academic used a similar framework when he spoke about ‘Closed Worlds’ and ‘Green Worlds’ in his book The Closed World. He used the analogy of The Iliad or the Odyssey, i.e. siege mentality or heroic quest mentality.
Heimans and Timms use the technology metaphors of Tetris vs Minecraft to convey a very similar idea. The top down closed world in which you make the pieces fit, or the open collaborative adventure with few rules.
The real value of this framework for me is to help us understand the perspectives of people who might affiliate more with one side over the other, or to recognise the cultural context of one organisation over another.
Spotting the signs
So if what this framework shows us is a value set, and if it is true that metaphors are signals, can we listen for these signals to suggest to us the values that our colleagues, clients or competitors might be working to? If so, then perhaps it will help us to manage our own communications, to avoid those metaphors that jar and cause friction.
If you prefer the language of ‘blitz spirit’ over ‘rainbows’, perhaps if I recognise this, I can work more effectively with you?
Have you heard these phrases used in the work place? They are all metaphors, and as such they can signal the value sets that come from the discourses they reside in.
Some metaphors see work as a military engagement, a closed system or as a hierarchical establishment with a single leader and a passive congregation. There are also metaphors that rely on nature or community for meaning.
Again, my point here actually isn’t about whether one is ‘better’ than the other. My point is that by spotting the signals people use, we can be mindful of which metaphors won’t sit comfortably within the worldview of the person we are communicating with.
Just as talking about ‘people as resources’ might irritate me at work, I am also sure that there are plenty of people who are irritated by a Service Designer talking about ‘creative space’ or ‘ideas that flow’. The jarring of these metaphors when used to convey meaning can frustrate, and ultimately will make us less effective.
Does this mean we need to change our language, to become something we are not? Of course not! But by being mindful of the power of the metaphors we use, and by aligning them to how people structure their own values in the workplace, we can use them to get better at communicating.
Using the same rationale, hearing metaphors that jar with you personally also becomes less of a threat to your values. Positioned in this way, we can recognise that the discourse being used is just a different one to the one we’re more comfortable with. I have even been known to use the word ‘resources’ to mean people in some meetings — and have managed to do so without feeling like I have sold a piece of my soul!
So there it is, in summary:
1. Metaphors shape our existence. Spotting them allows you to be mindful of the depth of meaning they carry.
2. We use Metaphor in design work all the time. They are a tool. They can help us frame complex problems or convey meaning, but like all tools we need to learn how and when to use them well.
3. Metaphors are signals that can help us understand values within organisations. When we recognise these values we can be more effective in our work, which could potentially also make us happier!
