War of Words, Words of War: Ethical Implications of Combat Metaphors in Business

Importance and Key Contribution: Rindova, Becerra, and Contardo (2004) conceptualize the competitive interplay among organizations as a language game. They contend that “competitive wars” are shaped by the language of war... [ view full abstract ]

Importance and Key Contribution: Rindova, Becerra, and Contardo (2004) conceptualize the competitive interplay among organizations as a language game. They contend that “competitive wars” are shaped by the language of war that goes well beyond simply the metaphor of war. They call into question the power of institutional forces devoid of the discourse they encapsulate. Our contention is that the use of war-like language may have a corrupting effect first on practitioners and then, in turn, on the practice of business. The use of “war” metaphors in business, evident in organizational discourse, appears to contradict the established mantra of positivity required for effective leadership, promising instead to “bring forth in the participants that natural aggressiveness which can make them more committed, more efficient and thus eventually more productive” (Emmanuel, 2000, p. 10). Leaders who operate with a siege mentality or foxhole management style, who believe organizations are beleaguered by enemy combatants, real or imagined, may make a host of unsavoury decisions. We demonstrate the dangers to organizations of the language of war which may lead to pernicious ethics.

The emotional aspects of groups and organizations has been extensively researched by scholars, beginning with Freud’s (1955/1921) seminal work on “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” in which his dominant analogy for organizations/groups is the army. The war metaphor, of course, is central to the authority of the army; and also cements the bonding in what is an adversarial environment, between competitive, aggressive individuals, focused on joint identification with the person and mission of the leader. The army’s most pressing purpose (including “defence”) is in the focusing of its aggression conducted by the leader. The organization itself becomes a container for and of aggressive emotions. The war metaphor elevates emotion from being an act of aggression to one of duty. Leaders expect and demand compliance from subordinates, and within this conceptualization, aggressive emotion is harnessed in the service of the “common good”. Freud (1955/1921) hypothesizes a suspension of individual conscience with a joint reliance upon the leader as the ethical authority. The Orwellian Big Brother is the endpoint: but it means that all ethical decisions are deferred to the wisdom (assumed, often misguided) of the big boss.

Some organizations are constructed as adversarial environments and use metaphors that reflect the warlike nature of the business environment. Metaphoric expressions of war emotionalize a subject by demarcating an “enemy” (Küster, 1978, p. 74, as cited in Koller 2004, p. 2). The language of war may also allow for moral disengagement/distancing. People may use moral disengagement/distancing to do unpalatable things.

Metaphors need to be taken much more seriously and are fundamental to the conduct of business. Metaphors are linguistic devices that represent one thing in terms of another. Metaphor is central in language and understanding (Kress, 1985). Zaltman and Zaltman (2008) consider deep metaphors to be unconscious frames people use that influence their thinking and behaviour. Terms used in business are important in that they can have a major effect in shaping perceptions of events. Use of the language of war can identify the enemy. Grounded in cognitive neuroscience, they find that metaphors are central to cognition, to thinking and knowing. They report that on average people use six metaphors per minute of speech (Zaltman, 1996).

Strategic planning in business borrowed many ideas and practices from the military, in particular from Clausewitz, considered to be the father of modern military strategy (Grant, 1991). Madansky (2005) lists 29 business leadership books based on successful military leaders (e.g., Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Machiavelli). The metaphor of business as war, a competition to be won, is pervasive. Competition in modern business has shifted from natural and industrial resources to information and knowledge resources (McManus, 2008). Koller (2004) believes that the language of war masculinizes business discourse, crowding out more feminine virtues such as co-operation, understanding, nurturing.

Theoretical Base: We examine the issues raised in this paper through the lens of guild ethics, rather than the more usual professional ethics, based on Pope’s (2016) conceptualizations concerning the involvement of professional psychologists in torture in places such as Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantánamo. According to Pope (p. 51) “Professional ethics protect the public against abuse of professional power, expertise, and practice, and hold members accountable to values beyond self-interest. Guild ethics place members’ interests above public interest, edge away from accountability, and tend to masquerade as professional ethics.” Guilds were organizations established in medieval times for the purpose of trade. Membership of a guild enhanced members’ social standing. Guilds protected their members and in turn expected their members to observe guild standards and morals. In our paper, the guild is the business/organization. Guild ethics are internally focussed on members of the guild whereas professional ethics have a societal focus. The language of war facilitates a pernicious ethics designed to insulate organizations/leaders from the conscious and unconscious consequences of their actions. We conceptualize this deviated ethical stance through the lens of “guild ethics”.

Research questions and method: Our overarching issue for research is: If business is “war”, does that conceptualization allow for different ethical standards just as in war? This leads to three research questions:
RQ1: How do organizations conceptualize business as war?
RQ2: What are the consequences of using war metaphors in business?
RQ3: Is there evidence of different ethical standards in organizations that conceptualize business as war?

Based on five case studies, the research comprises a textual analysis of the language of war in business, assembled from a variety of sources (newspapers, social media, etc.). We deliberately selected extreme cases to illustrate our arguments and to demonstrate the potentially damaging effect of accepting the use of metaphors of war in business. In analysing metaphors of war, we also examine use of the rhetorical device of in-group/out-group polarization. Our five cases are: (1) Volkswagen (Ferdinand Piëch); (2) Greenpeace, (3) Ryanair (Michael O’Leary); (4) Trump’s war (Donald Trump) and (5) FIFA (Sepp Blatter). Our text-analysis analytical framework comprises six elements: (i) the family (i.e., the in-group); (ii) the enemy (i.e., the out-group), (iii) the language of war, (iv) followers (of the leader), (v) the outcome and (vi) ethical standards.

Findings: Our paper provides evidence of the use of the language of war in business which we believe is compelling. We show how business ethics (ethics of the guild) are conceptualized differently to professional / personal ethics. We argue that such different ethical standards are facilitated by conceptualizing business as war.

Implications: If business is conceptualized as war there is a risk that lower ethical standards are considered acceptable in business. Documenting such practices, and highlighting the consequential ethics risks entailed, can alert the business community to these risks.

References

Emmanuel, F. (2000). La Question Humaine. Paris: Editions Stock.

Freud, S. (1955). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. In: Strachey, J. (Ed.) The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XVIII, 1921. London: Hogarth Press.

Grant, R.M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formation, California Management Review, 33(3): 114-135.

Koller, V. (2004). Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A Critical Cognitive Study. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kress, G. (1985). Ideological structures in discourse, In van Dijk, T. A., (ed.) Discourse Analysis in Society, Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 4. London: Academic Press. (pp. 27-42).

Madansky, A. (2005). Is war a business paradigm? A literature review, Journal of Private Equity, 8(3): 7-12 .

McManus, T. (2008). The business strategy/corporate social responsibility “mash-up”." Journal of Management Development, 27(10): 1066-1085.

Pope, K. S. (2016). The code not taken: The path from guild ethics to torture and our continuing choices. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 57(1): 51.

Rindova, V. P., Becerra, M. and Contardo, I. (2004). Enacting competitive wars: Competitive activity, language games, and market consequences. Academy of Management Review 29(4): 670-686.

Zaltman, G. (1996). Rethinking market research: Putting people back in. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3): 424-437.

Zaltman, G. and Zaltman, L.H. (2008). Marketing Metaphoria: What Deep Metaphors Reveal about the Minds of Consumers, Harvard Business Press.

Language of war, Metaphor, In-group, out-group polarisation, Guild ethics [ view full abstract ]

Language of war, Metaphor, In-group, out-group polarisation, Guild ethics