Leadership and management, how different are these?



One of the major concerns, arguably the major concern, of today’s employers is to ensure their companies the appropriate level of leadership. Apparently, organizations are relentlessly trying to pursue this objective, but its attainment is indeed revealing to be in practice a sorely difficult feat. Companies at large are finding it extremely difficult to recruit externally or develop from within effective, strong leaders insofar as leadership can really be considered as the Holy Grail of the modern business world.

During the last decades, many Authors have plead the case in favour of a marked distinction between leadership and management adducing a plethora of arguments essentially aiming at confining management to administrative and executory tasks and elevating leadership to the sublime.

Are habitually defined leaders those who have followers, offer a vision and set direction,   facilitate decisions, are charismatic, use their heart, are proactive, influence others by selling, like striving, take risks and break the rules, use conflict, are concerned about what is right, give credit and take the blame. By contrast, managers are supposed to have subordinates, seek objectives, plan details, make decisions, use their formal authority and their head, are reactive, persuade by telling, like action, minimize  risks, make and are compliant to rules, avoid conflict, are concerned with being right, take credit and blame the others.

These distinctive features, differently typifying and characterizing leadership and management, are habitually used by those who advocate the existence of a clear divide between management and leadership to support this idea and stress the worth of leadership to the detriment of management.

The significance of the features associated with leadership and which should thus characterize good, strong leaders are self-evident. Since these aspects are directly concerned with the organizations’ human capital, whether employers could count on a relatively large number of people in possess of these features, these would undeniably find it relatively easier to attain competitive edge. The need for organizations to avail themselves of individuals having these valuable and remarkable characteristics is hence totally justified.

The problem with leadership and more in particular with its habitually alleged complete separation from management, relates to the confusion this distinction risks generating. Depicting managers and leaders as having two completely different characteristics and objectives might induce to believe that the roles of leader and manager actually relate to two different posts. Their activities and missions are indeed not mutually exclusive; by contrast, in every organization these should ideally coincide as a matter of course. The term “leader” is in fact mainly used to refer to a person’s qualities and features, it does not represent a job title which can be included as such in the grading and pay system of an organization.

Irrespective of the circumstance that one may believe that leadership is an inborn, rather than a learnable feature, its idea is not associated with technical skills, but rather with a set of personal qualities. A distinctive feature whose practical manifestation emerges from the way a person behaves, approaches difficult situations, the relationships with others and his/her job.

Employers cannot afford to recruit leaders and managers as if these were two different roles to be covered within their business; otherwise the role of managers would not only be drastically emptied but would also make no practical sense. Employers need managers who are and act as leaders: individuals capable to provide their staff a vision, and influence, induce and enhance employee engagement and motivation. Leaders should ultimately be nothing else than good effectual managers.

In an organization it is habitually possible to distinguish four main categories of employees, namely the shop floor, professionals, managers (from mid- to senior-) and executives (board included). Leaders can be actually identified at all the levels of the organizational hierarchy. The leaders included in the mid- to upper-scale of the organizational order are usually known as formal leaders, whereas those belonging to the shop floor and professional categories (or more in general those not covering any management role) are usually termed informal leaders. All of these individuals, like the other employees, are clearly filling a specific role and position within the business; the difference is that these individuals, albeit not having an official managerial authority, have followers and the capability to influence their colleagues, whereas the others, formally appointed managers included, do not.

As a general rule, employers should not underestimate the significance of the support and contribution which informal leaders can respectively give and make to organizational success and should hence try to approach and ally with these, rather than consider them as a threat.

The fact that the current management may show not to have the leadership abilities the employer would have expected and desired these to have should not really come as a surprise. Individuals are different one another; yet, at times individuals can differently interpret the role of manager. The real problem may not be posed by the fact that managers are not good strong leaders; it may rather be caused by the circumstance that employers use to appoint as managers people before assessing whether these are already or have the potential to evolve into good, strong leaders. Once the wrong choice has been made it is obviously extremely tricky for employers to go back so that these cannot do nothing else than shoulder the cost for their wrong decision and try and control the likely negative consequences.

Executives and directors should definitely pay much more attention to the way managers are identified before these are formally appointed. By establishing clear practices and introducing sound and effective assessment methodologies HR can clearly effectually support all the organizational functions in the process, where appropriate availing itself of the contribution of external consultancies.

Leadership should ideally not be a commodity common to a restricted and limited number of executives and managers; at a predetermined satisfactory level, all of the managers of every organization should ideally possess leadership abilities. On a daily basis employees are in constant contact with their line managers, it is with them that these mainly interact and it is hence by these and their behaviour that they are influenced the most.

It cannot be a priori excluded that some managers might occasionally find it easier managing rather than leading by reason of being extremely busy with their daily tasks. During hectic periods, managers might find it preferable, that is, more practical having recourse to traditionally labelled managerial approaches to the detriment of the leadership ones. For instance, telling rather than selling and holding the existing road rather than taking a new one may be preferred by managers under some circumstances to ensure that the pre-set deadline is met.

This may clearly not invariably be the case, but employers should also take into due consideration the circumstances under which managers work on a daily basis in order to properly evaluate, assess and judge their leadership abilities. The reference is not here to situational or contingent leadership, but rather to the particular circumstances and time constraints which may account for managers being prompted and consequently decide to manage more and lead less. At times managers might hardly perceive of having been recruited for their leadership abilities and that their work is actually that of being a leader. Individuals covering management roles, especially during periods of economic downturn and slowdown, are possibly supposed that their employer just want them to yield the expected results, and hence focus on and personally strive to attain the pre-set objectives.

Before and in lieu of complaining about the scarce level of leadership showed by their managers, criticism however completely justified, CEOs, directors and executives should first and foremost show to be good and strong leaders themselves. These can hardly assume that their subordinates may have the qualities and capabilities they should excel in the most, whether they do not. It is very unlikely that whether executives and directors were good leaders these would have not positively influenced the way their reports, that is to say the business managers, behave. Especially at management level it is sorely common to see individuals tending to emulate and follow the example of their bosses, to wit: executives and directors. Despite some managers may have some inborn leadership features these might feel prompted to change their instinctive behaviour and give these up, whether resulting in open contrast with the leadership or management style used by their superiors. In the first instance, the real leadership abilities facilitators are in fact managers and executives at all levels.

The quest for the Holy Grail is still underway, but it is important for employers to have clear what they are seeking and when and where to better search.

Longo, R., (2014), Leadership and management, how different are these?; Milan: HR Professionals, [online].

Can informal leaders help employers to shape organizational culture?

 

Organizational culture is typically intended as the set of assumptions and distinctive shared values and beliefs developed over time within an organization. So rooted and pervasive these components are perceived to be within the organizational settings as to be intended and considered by employees as norms. In practice these values, beliefs and set of assumptions are mostly, but not exclusively, reflected in the behaviour exhibited in the workplace by each individual. In actual fact it is also by observing the way employees behave that individuals coming from the external environment can identify what type of actions, conduct and values are typical of any given work environment. So firmly associated is organizational culture with actions, rather than words or writings that corporate culture is also very often referred to as “the way we do things around here.”

 

 

 

In theory, it should be a direct and primary employer’s accountability identifying and deciding the values which should be fostered and endorsed within the business in that these values should also support the attainment of the organizational strategy and as such enable employers to more smoothly attain their planned objectives and aim. Employers usually use to devise and simultaneously implement different initiatives in order to make employees aware of the values and norms underpinning the business culture and of the way the organization is expected individuals to behave within the organizational settings.

 

 

 

Employees tend to attach a growing significance to practical actions and behaviour, rather than to, for instance, internal marketing initiatives and campaigns. Whatever the content of the message an employer may try to get across, what really counts in the end is, and will invariably be, what the employer by means of its managers does, by no means what this and its management say. The inconsistency eventually emerging between what it is said and what it is actually done within the business, will surely be tantamount by individuals to the employer lack of consistency and integrity; employers should hence constantly talk the talk and walk the walk.

 

Business founders and leaders invariably aim at developing, shaping, influencing and possibly controlling organizational culture; the seminal allies they can count on to this extent are traditionally represented by their managers. Managers are in fact the individuals who have the highest visibility within the organization, those who know everyone, or virtually everyone, within the business (albeit this might not invariably be the case in big corporations) and those who have consequently the chance to talk and stay in contact with the largest number of individuals in the organization. Unquestionably, managers are in a position to potentially take the role of those who can influence organizational culture the most; notwithstanding, this is not necessarily, invariably the case in practice.

 

Individuals are likely to genuinely follow a manager whether this shows to have good leadership abilities. With specific reference to this aspect, it is particularly important to discern between the apparent respect which may derive from the hierarchical role a manager holds and the genuine respect which a manager is able to command by virtue of his/her leadership abilities. Individuals clearly take into account what managers say, but more often than not this is due to the formal role and position they hold within an organization. It would clearly be different whether managers would be able to inspire and lead other people by virtue of their personal qualities, rather than by reason of their status. Leaders nonetheless, that is to say the individuals who have the features and characteristics enabling them to be appreciated and listened to by the other people and capable to exert confidence, trust and admiration on others, are not necessarily managers. Whether this should rather be the case, leaders would be actually called informal leaders, where the term “informal” derives from the circumstance that these individuals in actual fact do neither hold a management nor a responsibility position within the organization. More often than not, these gifted individuals are unaware of the influence they exert on other people and of the remarkable practical consequences their influence actually has. As a matter of fact they naturally attract followers even though they have never attended specific coaching or training programmes to gain and develop these features.

 

Informal leaders are individuals who have the innate ability to influence the other employees’ decisions, perceptions and behaviour. Notwithstanding, these do not necessarily benefit of an organization-wide visibility and might not be hence in the position to exert their influence over the entire staff. This may be due to a number of different factors such as the organization size or the type of role these formally cover.

 

 

Irrespective of the level of visibility these might or might not have within a business, and independently of their awareness or unawareness of the influence they are able to exert over other individuals, informal leaders are invariably seen and perceived by their peers as a model and an example to imitate. Even though these individuals are not doing it intentionally or deliberately, they are able to exert a certain influence on the way their followers behave and have thus the potential to help their employers to foster the desired behaviour and to consequently contribute to shape and develop the desired business culture. 

Albeit the influence exerted by these individuals on their peers is essentially stemming from their personal traits and innate features, the circumstance that these do neither fill any formal management position nor have any responsibility role might in many instances also contribute to let them gain more easily the other employees confidence and trust. Whether employers, in a bid to obtain their full support to shape corporate culture and influence staff behaviour, should confer informal leaders a formal responsibility, their followers or part of these might suddenly stop following. In some instances, this move might even be tantamount by some of their peers to a form of betray.

 

Informal leaders are usually appreciated and admired for the way they naturally and instinctively behave, perform and relate to others so that whether their behaviour coincide with that which the employer aims at fostering within the business, their effectual support may be obtained somewhat of easily and spontaneously. This clearly represents the ideal situation, but in practice such a desirable circumstance does not invariably occurs; employers need hence to do their utmost to gain these individuals’ support. Nonetheless, employers have to be particularly cautious when trying to attain this objective; every attempt to manipulate or suddenly award informal leaders an official management role or responsibility is in fact likely to fail at best and to trigger more detrimental consequences at worst.

 

Prudence has thus to be considered as a mandatory prerequisite to the attainment of the desired aim. As discussed earlier, informal leaders are first and foremost considered as leaders just because they have some special qualities, but also because they behave righteously and perform well. Considering that these individuals are habitually valuable employees, the circumstance these are, often involuntary, perceived as leaders should hence by no means risk jeopardizing their professional growth and development.

 

Spending time with these naturally talented people can enhance managers’ confidence to discuss more thoroughly and explicitly with them, in order to elicit their support, about the behaviour, values and beliefs the organization aims at fostering and promoting within the firm. To this extent, having recourse to metaphors and figurative language can definitely enable managers to be clearer and to approach the issue in a more informal way. These conversations can indeed help managers not only to know informal leaders opinion about corporate culture, but also that of their colleagues, which they are extremely likely to know, and to eventually redress their views about the way corporate culture is fostered and endorsed within the business.

 

Managers can also take advantage of the circumstance that informal leaders are held in high esteem to approach them when they are conversing with their peers in order to be involved in these group discussions and progressively gain a direct knowledge of the employees’ idea about the organization and its culture. This is indeed a powerful way for formal leaders to be known more in depth by staff in somewhat of an informal fashion and be appreciated and recognised as leaders themselves.

 

All too often employees have a wrong and negative image of their manager, and even more markedly of the business executives, just because they do not actually know these and perceive these as distant. Informal leaders can reveal to be precious employers’ and more specifically managers’ partners to this extent. What matters the most is ensuring that everything is done with transparency; creating two-way communications opportunities and averting which informal leaders may be perceived by their colleagues as playthings or as instruments in the employer hands is definitely crucial. Whether this should be the case, employers have to be ready to face the remarkable and at times even irreversible effects produced in the aftermath of the existence of such circumstances.

 

Whether managers should deem informal leaders to also have the capabilities to officially take managerial responsibilities and should hence decide to confer them a formal management role, provided that these are actually interested in it, this move would enable managers to stably benefit of the knowledge these individuals have of the other employees feelings and to secure the support of effective, staunch allies in the process of developing and shaping organizational culture.

 

The traits and personal attributes accounting for informal leaders to be considered and perceived as such by their colleagues are habitually represented by: honesty, integrity, sincerity, transparency and consistency. The way these individuals approach and perform their job, to wit: their level of performance, dedication, enthusiasm and energy, in many instances and to different degrees, typically also plays a considerable role. It is indeed the simultaneous existence and combination of these features and attitudes which explains why it is very likely that employers may receive an appreciable benefit from the contribution provided by these individuals in the process of developing and shaping organizational culture. 

Informal leaders can also reveal to be particularly important as employers’ partners when these have to introduce some changes within the business, even more so when change is concerned with corporate culture or “the way we do things around here.” A mundane but significant example of this is represented by the introduction of a new technology. Training informal leaders first, putting these in the position to feel sorely comfortable in the use of the new working system and ascertain the significance of its benefits, will certainly reveal extremely useful and important. Informal leaders by virtue of their natural personal attitudes will be invariably willing to help others and explain them the employer’s reasons for change, contributing thus to smooth the execution phase of the overall change process. Yet, involving these individuals in the change procedure from the very beginning enables employers to receive their genuine and full support from the outset and consequently helps organizations to more effectively contrast the restraining forces to cultural change eventually emerging during the unfolding of the process.

 

Unfortunately, informal leaders not invariably coincide with the “good guys”; at times it can also occur that are the “bad guys” those who inspire their peers, are perceived by these as a model and regrettably attract followers. This is indeed a very bad situation, likely to cause employers to experience particularly unpleasant hardships.

 

Albeit it clearly depends on the circumstances, the process by means of which managers should try to reverse the situation is in general similar to that suggested for these establishing good relationships with and receiving support from the “good guys.” Exacerbate the use of the disciplinary leverage is unlikely to enable employers to firmly and effectively overcome the problem. Individuals might feint to change in order to avoid penalties and avert to risk losing their job or part of their salary, but in practice resorting to coercive measures is unlikely to produce long-lasting results. In order to effectively solve the problem managers should therefore try to communicate and liaise with these individuals and find out what actually is behind their undesirable behaviour. More often than not resentment for past events, perception of unfairness and inequalities, particularly stressing working conditions, problems with their line managers and other similar circumstances can be at the basis of individual disappointment and rebellious behaviour. The causes of such a negative behaviour can be in some instances associated with the deterioration of organizational climate at large; employers are fostering a type of culture which for some reasons is completely differently perceived by the employees. These express hence their dissatisfaction and uncomfortableness exhibiting a type of behaviour that is the exact opposite of that fostered and expected by the employer. When those who misbehave, nonetheless, are informal leaders, who are assumed to invariably have a number of followers, the negative impact and consequences are likely to be even more catastrophic. 

 

Devoting these individuals attention and giving them the chance to be heard is clearly important. Yet, giving these individuals the opportunity to express themselves and openly relate their negative experiences as regards their and their peers life within the organizational premises, can reveal to be a priceless opportunity for establishing a positive link between employers and these employees and jointly investigating and identifying effective remedies and win-win solutions, ultimately leading to restore mutual trust and respect.

 

 

 

In these specific cases thinking to offer formal responsibility positions to this type of informal leaders could reveal to be particularly detrimental. It could be deemed as spreading a message based on everything but integrity, other employees could think that it takes to misbehave to gain visibility and get promotions. Such an organizational move could be tantamount in the extreme to organizational suicide.

 

 

 

After a while, whether these individuals should completely redress their behaviour and become genuinely and effectively supportive of the business cause, it would clearly be correct and appropriate to offer them, as to the other employees, growth and development prospects. These decisions should invariably be based on strong and objective grounds and preferably only after a considerable length of time has passed from the misbehaving informal leaders’ “redemption.”

 

 

 

All in all, the circumstance that de facto informal leaders influence organizational culture can be considered as an axiomatic fact. These can be ultimately associated with the good and evil of organizational culture; informal leaders can indeed make or break it. These individuals can either effectually support and help employers to develop and shape corporate culture, or play a negative role building and raising strong, insurmountable barriers to its development. In both cases, managers need to be extra vigilant and devote the required efforts to the identification and development of the right measures, and eventually countermeasures, to support employers in the achievement of their intended objectives and aim.

 

 

 

Constructive or disruptive that the informal leaders’ activity can reveal to be, these individuals have to be invariably approached and an open and transparent two-way communication process established with them in order to understand their position, reconcile the two eventually different points of view and try to receive their genuine support and help.

 

 

Longo, R., (2012), Can informal leaders help employers to shape organisational culture?; Milan: HR Professionals [online].

Metaphor as a leadership enhancer and persuasive communication tool

One of the most important skills, arguably the most important skill, a leader must possess is definitely represented by the ability to communicate effectively. In order to convey their vision, ideas, interest and enthusiasm, enthuse their followers with these and spur them to action, leaders have to be first and foremost outstanding communicators. Metaphors and figurative language can definitely help leaders to develop and master this art.

Metaphors can indeed prove to be a completely valuable and effective tool for business leaders both when holding conversations with employees within the organisational settings and when carrying on a conversation with other interlocutors outside the business premises. Having recourse to metaphors can in fact effectually help leaders to attract the other people interest in, and let them focus their attention on, some specific features or aspects of the message they want to put across (Morgan, 1997).

According to Weick (1979), leaders by means of figurative speech, which enables them to explain in a simpler fashion the corporate mechanism and theories, can effectively contribute to create and establish “healthy cultures.”

The efficacy and significance of metaphors and storytelling for shaping corporate culture and influencing individual behaviour within the organisational settings can definitely be taken as axiomatic (James and Minnis, 2004). Organisations are becoming so metaphor-dependant insofar as these could even not properly work without having recourse to them (Mitroff and Kilmann, 1975).

By enabling business leaders to clearly describe their organisations and better relate these to the external environment, figurative language represents a powerful tool for creating a positive culture, favour individual comprehension of the organisational mechanism and foster relations in the workplace (Van Engen, 2008).

Figures of speech and stories show to be particularly effectual to communicate complex ideas in order to employees understand and learn these more quickly and firmly engrave their meaning on their minds. After all, individuals having brilliant ideas but being unable to clearly communicate these and enthuse their followers with them could actually hardly be considered as leaders. The lack of communication skills is clearly due to pose substantial limits to the value and significance of the message a leader may try to get across; the recipients may in fact gain a partial or incomplete comprehension of what is actually meant by the leader.

One of the most important benefits of metaphor is indeed that to add dimension to a speech so that this can be better understood (Van Engen, 2008). Yet, according to Charteris-Black (2005), metaphors represent a strong element and feature of persuasive discourse.

Whether, as most likely, figures of speech are by no means included in the agenda of any business leader, it should be the case for these to redress their view about this potentially powerful means and try to make some efforts to find the time to better investigate and hopefully learn to master the usage of figurative language.

The role of mangers is indisputably of paramount importance and, although to different degrees according to the circumstances, it can be averred that their influence at large upon organisational culture is sorely remarkable (Greiner, 1983). Properly mastering figures of speech would definitely enable managers to craftily “cast vision and shape culture” (Van Engen, 2008) and to create a mutual vision and values which ultimately influence the entire workforce (Burns, 1978; Smircich and Morgan, 1982).

Leaders who have the skills and capabilities to transform organisational systems and individual expectations, that is to say transformational leaders, have all a common denominator: a vision. Amongst the tools which transformational leaders use to create a vision and give meaning to organisations there also invariably is figurative language (Smircich and Morgan, 1982).

Leaders having recourse to figures of speech in order to capture individual attention actually activate a process which can be considered to some degree far superior to that of communicating in more concrete terms and can indeed attain far superior results: they can in fact generate emotions in their recipients. As posited by Fox et al. (2001), “emotions experienced at work are highly relevant and may affect motivation, organizational citizenship behaviour, performance appraisal, and negotiation outcomes.”

The main benefit of metaphors, which make it easier for followers to understand and relate to the vision, is that the final picture produced by its representation is formed by more than its essential components (Hamburger and Itzhayek, 1998).

One of the most compelling and successful examples of representation of a vision by means of a metaphor is definitely represented by the Disney Enterprises case.

To explain the essence and mechanism of his firm Walt Disney used the metaphor of the organisation as drama. The business was thus the theatre, the employees were the actors, acting according to the role assigned to each of them, the customers were the audience, the dress code was the costuming and tickets boots were the box offices (Smith and Eisenberg, 1987).

In order to every employee effectively and consistently play his/her part, it is necessary that the metaphor works as a real catalyst to which every single individual, at all levels, can clearly relate to. The vision is not created the moment it is expressed or unveiled, the transformational leader and every manager basically needs to act and behave according to that vision and refer to the metaphor used, to which all of the other employees also have to refer to as a common reference. This is the only way for the vision and the metaphor successfully contributing to the new organisational culture development, which is in turn translated into new strategies, practices and behaviour (Collins and Porras, 1994). It is by means of observation, self-interaction and social interaction that individuals can correctly and consistently understand their corporate world and behave accordingly (Bate, 1984).

Disney Enterprises is also a good example of how effectively figurative language develops and grows within organisations consistently with corporate culture, which it essentially aims at supporting.

The optimistic stories circulating at Disney were as craftily and as carefully prepared as their legendary characters; whereas stories contrary to the universal stereotype of happiness, which were eventually circulating within the business, were drastically and promptly repressed. As long as he was in life Walt was the unique official spokesperson for his business and really seldom he allowed someone else to speak in his place.

The stories artfully constructed by Disney, and which he did everything he could to ensure would have lived on, actually shaped Disney Enterprises organisational culture and enabled him to effectively endorse and foster the behaviour that the organisation, or rather himself, was expected from his employees (Boje, 1995).

It would be at this stage interesting to investigate why metaphors and figures of speech represent so powerful communication tools. It is very likely that the success of metaphors and storytelling actually rests with more than one factor. The success of storytelling can be first and foremost explained by the circumstance that our lives are stories on their own and therefore individuals easily tend to relate to these (James and Minnis, 2004). Moreover, craftily devised stories can indeed turn a “yawny business lesson into a life-or-death struggle” (Austin, 1995). Yet, figurative language has the power to touch the right chord that reaches the essence of a person’s being (James and Minnis, 2004).

The persuasive power of figurative speech can be basically explained by a three-step process: story, understanding and shared meaning. The process starts with one or more leaders telling a story whilst followers are listening. This leads to a better and more comprehensive understanding of the ideas and concepts which were previously known just in part and not genuinely fully understood by employees. Finally, individuals within the group use the shared meaning of the metaphor to better understand and acquaint themselves with other organizational concepts and ideas (Kaye and Jacobs, 1999).

By reaching every individual within an organisation, storytelling enables employers to achieve a cohesive sharing of meaning which is otherwise difficult or impossible to achieve to a so full extent (James and Minnis, 2004). The real significance and benefit of this process is represented by the belief that figurative language generates and the commitment this is able to elicit (Powers, 1983).

As showed by the Walt Disney example, figurative speech used by a remarkably charismatic “actor” can actually stimulate followers’ emotions and perceptions (James and Minnis, 2004).

 

The effectiveness and power of metaphors can actually be expressed by means of figurative language itself. Metaphors and figurative language can in fact be considered as somewhat of an assistance company, assisting you – managers and leaders – anytime, everywhere to be a more effective and persuasive leader and to more consistently shape organisational culture and receive employee support.

There are really a number of reasons for managers and leaders definitely needing to become much more than simply acquainted with figurative language. Figures of speech can also prove to be particularly beneficial under some circumstances such as in those situations requiring a new start or to reassure employees during a crisis (Kaye and Jacobson, 1999), not necessarily meaning by crisis a financial crisis. Metaphors are indeed very helpful also to sell products, stimulate good ideas and most of all design, develop and review organisational culture (James and Minnis, 2004).

The significance and value of figurative language for managers and leaders result amplified and strengthened by the importance Schein (2004) associates with the role these play in shaping, developing and controlling organisational culture. Taken for granted that the main and truly important task performed by leaders is to create and manage culture, Schein (2004) maintains that leaders’ talent is represented by their capability to “understand and work with culture” and destroy it when these deem it dysfunctional. Rather differently, Hatch (1997) stresses the importance of corporate culture positing that managers and leaders need to manage and lead with “cultural awareness” rather than manage culture. To this extent, just to provide a clearer image and generate emotions, Legge (1995) explains the management of culture resorting to the metaphor “riding a wave.” “The best the surf-rider can do is to understand the pattern of currents and winds that shape and direct the waves. He/she may then use them to stay afloat and steer in the desired path. But this is not the same as changing the basic rhythms of the ocean” (Legge, 1995).

Amongst the benefits of figurative language, cannot be really overlooked the positive effects it can produce by helping organisations to improve the relationships existing between managers and their staff. Figures of speech can help leaders to be perceived as more human and reduce distance between these and their followers, especially whether they use metaphors to recognise their past errors and laugh at them. The stories based on lessons learned through “mistakes, failures and derailments” are indeed among the most effective and powerful metaphors contributing to individuals growth and to some extent development (Kaye and Jacobson, 1999). Individuals tend to engrave stories on their memory and recall them promptly when they consider that these could prove to be useful to overcome some current issues or problems.

In perfect adherence to Aristotle’s ethos, it can be argued that business leaders attain more effective levels of credibility when telling stories revealing their personal fallibility. Individuals are in fact most likely to genuinely listen to a manager explaining his/her own mistakes and the lessons learned from his/her real experience, rather than to a manager giving prescriptive instructions (James and Minnis, 2004).

Metaphors and storytelling are really potentially powerful tools enabling managers and leaders to use these for a wide range of reasons, amongst them to: explain and shape corporate culture, modify and control individual behaviour, ease problem-solving and decision-making processes, manage change, plan strategy, enhance leaders’ image, transfer knowledge and train and develop future leaders (James and Minnis, 2004).

What matters the most is invariably wisely and honestly use metaphors and figurative language and categorically avert to use these to beguile and deceive employees. Whether this should be the case trying and win back their trust would prove to be, using figurative language, “a mission impossible.”

It can properly be concluded with Macleish (Hypocrite Author) that “a world ends when its metaphor dies.”

Longo, R., (2012), Metaphor as a leadership enhancer and persuasive communication tool, Milan: HR Professionals, [online].