"We’re going to run them out of business and buy that building, which we’re going to bulldoze. After that, we’ll salt the earth. Then we’ll go after their families,” Larry Ellison, executive chairman of Oracle, once reportedly declared in reference to a competitor. This kind of statement epitomizes the aggressive war metaphors that often appear in corporate communication. And while it’s a particularly colorful example, it’s hardly exceptional. In acquisition announcements, CEOs regularly frame their strategies as battles to be won. In 2006, then-CEO of the McClatchy Company, Gary Pruitt, told investors and analysts, “The stakes have never been higher … and we dare not go into battle with anything less than the best.” In a 2015 conference call with analysts, executives at Infinera Corporation were “armed with an end-to-end offering.” In a 2013 call, Veeco Instruments described the mobile market as a “battleground,” and in 2009 First Solar described their acquisition move as an “offensive” aimed at overtaking competitors.
CEOs frequently use war metaphors to convey confidence, strength, and an aggressive approach to competition. Phrases like “declaring war on inefficiency” or “fighting for market share” project readiness to take bold actions and dominate the market. These metaphors simplify complex strategies into vivid imagery, making communication easier.
But is this language actually effective when addressing financial analysts, a critical audience? Our research, forthcoming in the journal Organization Science, reveals that war metaphors often have the opposite effect, leading analysts to interpret them as signals of undue risk and aggression rather than strength.
What War-Like Language Actually Communicates
Our study analyzed 999 acquisition announcements made by publicly traded U.S. firms between 2004 and 2016. We focused on acquisition conference calls where CEOs explained their strategic decisions, using transcripts from the calls to examine the language they employed. Specifically, we looked at how frequently war metaphors were used and their effect on financial analysts’ reactions. The independent variable was the use of war-related language, which we measured through identifying metaphorical expressions related to war. Our dependent variable is how positive (or negative) analysts were about the acquisition in their reports following the CEO’s presentation, which we measured by analyzing the ratio of positive to negative emotion words.
Our research revealed a surprising truth: War metaphors, often used to project strength, actually trigger negative reactions from financial analysts, increasing the likelihood of a poor reception to strategic announcements. Specifically, if CEOs used one percentage point more war-related words in their presentation, the analysts’ reports were no less than 20% more negative compared to announcements that did not use such language.
The reason for this negative reaction is rooted in how war metaphors shape perceptions of risk. War language evokes imagery of conflict, destruction, and high stakes, which can trigger emotional responses associated with danger. Analysts, whose role is to assess both risks and rewards, may interpret this language as a sign that the company is engaging in overly aggressive, high-risk behavior. Instead of conveying strength, war metaphors lead analysts to perceive the company as lacking restraint or making reckless strategic moves. This heightened perception of risk ultimately leads to a more negative assessment.
When Leaders Should Especially Avoid Military Metaphors
The negative effect of war metaphors was amplified in specific circumstances. As such, it is particularly critical that firms in these situations avoid such language.
For instance, we found that the effect was especially strong in highly concentrated markets, where a few dominant players control most of the market. In these contexts, analysts tend to expect cautious, strategic actions. War metaphors raise concerns about unnecessary aggression that could destabilize the market.
Similarly, firms with large market shares faced even more negative reactions when using war-related language. Analysts may worry that these firms are taking unnecessary risks, potentially destabilizing the market or provoking retaliatory actions from competitors. For firms already holding a dominant position, projecting further aggression through war metaphors can signal overconfidence or a lack of competitive restraint, leading to increased potential volatility.
Additionally, our research showed that the broader market environment plays a crucial role in shaping how war metaphors are received. We found that during periods of heightened market volatility, as measured by the VIX Index (commonly referred to as the “fear index”), the negative effect of war-related language was even more pronounced. When the VIX was high, reflecting increased concern and uncertainty among investors, war metaphors in corporate communication triggered a notably stronger adverse reaction from analysts. In contrast, when the VIX was low and market conditions were calmer, the negative impact of these metaphors was less severe. This suggests that aggressive language amplifies analysts’ concerns about instability and recklessness in volatile market conditions, where risk aversion is higher.
The key takeaway for corporate leaders is that metaphorical framing isn’t just a stylistic choice — it can profoundly influence how stakeholders, especially financial analysts, perceive strategic decisions. Rather than relying on war metaphors, which can signal undue risk, executives should carefully select language that aligns with the expectations of their audience and the competitive environment in which they operate. For firms in highly concentrated markets or those with significant market power, avoiding language that evokes conflict or aggression is crucial. Instead, executives might consider metaphors that emphasize collaboration, long-term stability, or measured ambition — this can help foster a more favorable response from analysts, who are looking for signs of strategic prudence, not reckless competition.
João Cotter Salvado, Professor at CATÓLICA-LISBON and Donal Crilly, Professor at London Business School