What metaphors do educational organizations typically use to describe their approach to human resources? How well do those metaphors work?

In an attempt to move beyond the boundaries of my provincial educational world, I took this assignment as an opportunity to review human resource metaphors representative of public K-12 schools, community colleges and four-year universities. Desirous of determining whether geographical location, perceived prestige, size and/or socio-economics created commonalities in metaphorical representation, I examined the following organizations: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS), Ashe County Schools, Gwinnett County (Georgia) Schools, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill (UNC-CH), Wake County Public Schools, the University of California at San Diego (UCSD), Iredell-Statesville Public Schools, Chapel Hill-Carboro Public Schools and Central Piedmont Community College(CPCC). Utilizing each institution’s Human Resource homepage as the point of contact, four prevailing metaphors resonated in their documents, descriptors and visuals. Those metaphors include: banking (i.e. institution) , community, athletic teams and living environments.
The banking metaphor manifests itself with such terms as stakeholder, shareholder, institution, balance, external and internal, benefits, offerings and contributions. Both Iredell-Statesville and Central Piedmont utilize these representations. The pervading message is that these organizations are carefully managed. Moreover, the term “shareholder” underscores each institution’s belief of employees as having ownership within the organization. While such terms as benefits and offerings suggest a degree of reciprocity between employer and employee. Even the visuals on CPCC’s site have the look of a 21st Century teller’s cage. Gwinnett County’s metaphor is more blatant. The HR home page is an organizational chart.
This metaphor attests to the structure and mechanisms in place inside the organization. Additionally, it conveys a somewhat austere institutional hierarchy. In terms of recruitment practices, I would envision that individuals who thrive in autonomous situations might experience the restrictiveness, as Morgan discusses, relative to “patterns of authority.”
A second metaphor – more prevalent in the institutions I reviewed – is one of community. MIT has the most pervasive use of the metaphor, referencing the different populations within a community including students, staff, faculty, parents and alumni. The institution also refers to the autonomy and flexibility that professors are afforded. CMS consistently references communities, whether it is in relation to professional learning or the organization of community forums giving input into their new strategic plan. Ashe County also focuses on community through a visual metaphor. Their Human Resource department is assembled in casual clothes, set against the backdrop of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Juxtaposed to the formal image depicted in CMS, Ashe’s metaphor is more focused on a closely knit community, reminding one of an era devoid of federal mandates and district protocols.
These three depictions of the educational organization as community indicate a snapshot of the continuum that Human Resource departments employ as they develop their institution’s recruitment tactics. Further, they reflect an understanding of the desired clientele for each LEA.
A third metaphor focuses on the educational institution as athletic teams. Wake County Public Schools invites candidates to share their skills, talents and energy with the LEA. Even syntax and punctuation on the Human Resource page underscore energy and enthusiasm as sentences are peppered with exclamation marks. Moreover, all pictures on this page represent cooperative learning and group interaction. UCSD uses such terms as competitive and ranking to emphasize the importance of teams to their organization. Chapel Hill – Carboro’s invitational approach, “Come join our team,” leaves little doubt as to their metaphor. Nevertheless, this organization ensures metaphorical clarity by framing institutional information as rankings.
Although some might view the community and team metaphors as one in the same, the team metaphor connotes a level of educational elitism – being able in essence to make the team. Community implies equal work distribution and recognition, whereas teams underscore competitiveness and keeping a running score.
UNC-CH utilizes an environmental metaphor, much akin to Morgan’s depiction of the organismic metaphor. Terms such as thrive, culture and environment are cornerstone to Human Resource’s mission. CPCC dabbles with this metaphor with systems and classification, two additional words relative to living things.
In looking at these four metaphors, I honestly see no emerging patterns. Institutions known for outstanding athletic programs (e.g. UNC-CH) did not consistently utilize a team metaphor. Institutions known for intellectual endeavors (e.g. MIT) steered away from the business metaphor. Organizational size mattered little in terms of the metaphor.
How well each of these metaphors works for the organization is contingent upon multiple factors. Employers must ensure that core values and beliefs are congruent with the metaphor’s message. Potential employees must build their own mental construct of what organizational structure will be appropriate for them to thrive. The organizational metaphor must also translate into a comprehensible operational system for both the institution and the workforce. Finally, the metaphor has to convey strong visual images to all who are part of the institution.