In December 2000, Steve Denning hosted a dialogue on Planet IT on knowledge management for the confidence impaired. As it turned out, most of the contributions were on storytelling. The following is the dialogue that ensued: 

The success of story telling is directly related to the level of organizational trust and the overall credibility of the story teller.

SUBJECT: Storytelling 
FROM: Steve Denning - December 05, 2000
Yes, I agree with you, George, as a starting position that storytelling depends on trust and credibility. But in the real world, levels of trust are usually not all that high in organizations (downsizing, mergers etc) and often the storyteller isn't blessed with instant widespread credibility. The interesting thing about storytelling is that, if you do it right, it can help to overcome these seemingly impossible hurdles. 
Steve Denning www.stevedenning.com 

SUBJECT: Does st depend on trust & culture? I dunno ... 
FROM: Seth Kahan - December 06, 2000 

I am not sure I do agree with you George. But, I'm not sure. Tell me what you think. I am a professional storyteller who uses storytelling in corporate environments, and my work most often involves the IT crowd. 
I have found that when I tell a story I am often telling to a crowd where the initial trust level is low -- and I would say that the culture in general is on the low end in the trust continuum. However, my experience is that a story well told provides a hook that engages people. I think it is because narrative is hard-wired in the human brain providing a response from the audience that is more fundamental than logical thought. 
So,if when you say, "The success of story telling is directly related to the level of organizational trust..." you are saying that storytelling cannot work in a low trust environment I am not sure we are in agreement. Maybe we need to discuss what we mean by storytelling "work"ing. 
And for the other part of your comment: "The success of story telling is directly related to ... the overall credibility of the story teller." I don't know if I agree with that either. I guess we need to discuss what "The success of storytelling" is. Because I have seen stories inhabit the audience's minds even when the credibility of the teller is low. A good telling is like showing someone an optical illusion. You don't have to like the person showing it to you to experience the illusion. I'm interested in your response. 

Seth I agree that a good storyteller with a good story can in some circumstances overcome lack of trust and lack of credibility. But's let not overstate the case. If there is no trust and no credibility, then there is a helluva lot to overcome. The skilled storyteller may find ways to overcome it, but the size of the hurdles should not be underestimated. Would you agree?
Steve Denning www.stevedenning.com 

SUBJECT: Low Trust Culture, yet Stories Still Effective... 
FROM: Seth Kahan - December 06, 2000 

Yes, I agree that "hurdles should not be overestimated." And any change agent worth her/his salt would do all they can to surface those obstacles and be prepared for them before they do any storytelling... or at the very least, take note of them as they rear. Now, I want to further examine what the purpose of the telling is. If I think of telling springboard stories, then the purpose, as I understand it, is to instigate leaps of understanding in the audience's mind. Certainly if the teller has no credibility this is next to impossible to accomplish. 
However, I have had occasion to see storytellers incite "leaps of understanding" as to what it would be like to have more trust in the culture. Here we have a teller who has just met an audience, and is able to establish a modicum of credibility in a short period of time (I am not even sure it is real credibility since their is no history between teller and audience; perhaps it is simply curiousity which causes the audience to attend to the tale). Yet, the teller is operating in a a low trust culture. What's going on here? I'm interested to have you comment. 

SUBJECT: Culture and Individual - where is the leap 
FROM: Lilly Evans - December 06, 2000 

Seth, Steve and George, 
This is an interesting thread and you all pose important questions. My experience in story telling is that it serves two main purposes in organisations. First, if the stories are about "us" then it is the "glue" and "history" that tells us "who we are". In this context, stories are far more powerful than any Rules and Procedures manuals. 
The importance of credibility of story-teller is obvious in this context. The trust needs to be present, but some stories are myths, so I am not really convinced about this one. However, I have come across only one organisation (it was Bank One in early 1990's) who have paid serious attention to the role of "corporate story-teller". Is this changing in your experience? 
Second is the impact of stories on individuals - what Seth called "leap". I have found that this happens in serendipitous ways. Who knows what "clicks" for one individual - some surprising changes were occassioned totally by chance because I said something that was personal to that individual (and I could not have possibly known it in advance). The most important individual changes occurred when I was volnurable in the stories I told. And this means we as storytellers have to be humble and brave. have you done it and what are your experiences in this?
Regards Lilly ---------- 

Dr Lilly Evans Strategic Learning web UK 

SUBJECT: Culture and the indivdual 
FROM: Steve Denning - December 06, 2000 

Lily You ask a couple of questions. 

1. "I have come across only one organisation (it was Bank One in early 1990's) who have paid serious attention to the role of "corporate story-teller". Is this changing in your experience?" Well, Lily, the fact is that I got into storytelling for one simple reason. I was a desperate man. None of the analytic or abstract tools of persuasion that I had used in my whole career were working. Then I stumbled on the power of storytelling and so used it more and more until it was pretty much the whole show. 
This is the journey at the World Bank that I describe in my book, The Springboard. I think other companies are now getting into storytelling for the very same reason. The CEOs of the world are all in a dilemma: they are sitting on organizations that must change, but they have great difficulty in persuading the organization to change. 
Change is inevitable, yet the organization is immovable. So they are desperate. They try to coercive methods but these are very unpleasant and costly. And so they wonder: is there another way? Fortunately there is. And so you see big mainstream organizations like IBM, Disney, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Siemens, Aventis, and so on, all suddenly getting very very interested in storytelling. So yes, things are definitely changing. 

2. You ask: "The most important individual changes occurred when I was vulnurable in the stories I told. And this means we as storytellers have to be humble and brave. have you done it and what are your experiences in this?" Absolutely. This goes back to the issue of credibility. When a presenter comes on, claiming to know it all and having the answers, the audience instinctively backs off, as it senses that this doesn't ring true. It has heard these kinds of people before and it knows where this leads! 
When the storyteller admits his/her mistakes and vulnerabilities, then the audience may react in a different way, thinking: this person is someone like me - I am going to listen to and see what is said. Storytelling itself is indirect and oblique approach in which teller and listener co-create an experience, which is quite different from abstract debate which is by its nature adversarial - someone wins and someone loses, so both lose.
Rapport between the teller and listener is key to making storytelling happen and so making oneself vulnerable can be helpful. Understanding thus usually doesn't "come in the front door" through a direct approach -- the battering ram -- but instead often sidles up on us and approaches us shyly and come in through the back door of the mind. Thus I've tried in my book, The Springboard, to tell not only about the times when storytelling worked out really well, but also the dumb mistakes I made, and the times when the storytelling utterly bombed. I am hoping in this way to convey the full pictured of the checkered lives we actually lead, rather than what we read about in textbooks, or what is presented by aggressive presenters. Does this respond to your questions? 

Steve Denning www.stevedenning 

Steve, Thank you. 
Much of what you say rings the bells for me. Early on in the process of nurturing into existence the Change Support Network in BP Exploration I came across two books that were very helpful in bringing the true power of storytelling in the work environment to me. First one was by Max du Pre "Leadership Jazz" and the second by David Armstrong "Managing by Storying Around". I recommend them both highly! Lilly 

Lilly, Say more about Bank One. I don't know about their work with corporate storytelling. I am interested in this topic very much. By the way, I moderate a listserve on "storytelling in business" and would welcome interested folks. You can subscribe by sending an email to: Storytellinginbusiness-Subscribe@Egroups.Com (include the hyphen, don't need subject or text) You also said, "The most important individual changes occurred when I was volnurable in the stories I told." My honest response to that is that this is true in all areas of my life, not just business. How profound! Not that it is easy to be vulnerable, but the payoff is clear. I believe this is the type of behavior that facilitates honesty, and makes possible genuine progress. Well done. 

Seth, I am not the best person to tell you about Banc One (as the overall company is called) or even Bank One, Cleveland. I have been only a visitor at a specific time in their life there. Out of the visits I have been blessed with making very good friends and not just learning about the company. I am happy to share with you what I wrote about this at the time. The most revealing thing for me was the fine balance and interplay in action of their corporate principle "Uncommon Partnership". It meant that Strategy and Information were owned by the Head Office while People and Process were entirely in the hands of local units. And the experienced managers in Cleveland were great people managers who really understood the power of specific stories - to the point of creating Cookbooks for specific areas where there appeared to be lot of demand across the company as a whole! Since then things have changed. How fundamental that change is I do not really have any idea. I will certainly have a look at your egroup - thank you for the pointer and invitation. Perhaps someone else can add here? Lilly

Seth
You ask what's going on when a storyteller "who has just met an audience, is able to establish a modicum of credibility in a short period of time (I am not even sure it is real credibility since their is no history between teller and audience; perhaps it is simply curiousity which causes the audience to attend to the tale). 
Yet, the teller is operating in a a low trust culture. What's going on here?" I think what's going on is the audience makes another leap of faith, in a slightly unexpected direction. My view of things is that we go through life necessarily making leaps of faith in people and things we trust, and we avoid -- often unconsciously -- making those leaps when we have had bad experiences in the past. Sometimes we make mistakes - we make leaps of faith in people who disappoint us or we fail to make a leap of faith in someone who could really help us. C'est la vie. 
When an unknown storyteller shows, the audience may see him/her as one of the untrustworthy bunch that they have been having all these problems with, or they may see him/her as someone in another category, who seems to be talking differently, understandably, empathetically, in ways that remind them of people they have successfully trusted in the past (their mother, their father, their friend or whatever). There may thus be a tiny crack or opening through which the newcomer may pass and so engage the audience in making a new leap of faith. If the storyteller doesn't abuse the opportunity, the audience, or some of them, may unexpectedly spring to new level of understanding. Does this make any sense to you? 

Steve Denning www.stevedenning.com 

Yes, Steve, it does make sense to me. In fact, it is through these "tiny cracks" and "openings" that hope for the future comes. In an organization that desperately needs to change yet finds itself enmeshed in dysfunctional behavior patterns, it can be difficult to get past the cynicism of the masses. Yet, like grass in the cracks of the cement sidewalk, fresh thoughts, ideas and even ways of being can spring up, eventually cracking the old pavement and replacing it with something new and more natural... like being vulnerable, admitting mistakes, joining together to wonder about the future, as you and Lilly discussed in a neighboring thread. 

SUBJECT: Storytelling and Gossip 
FROM: Lilly Evans - December 07, 2000 

I have a question. What is the difference between storytelling and gossip? Reason for linking these two is that in the last week or so there have been several references to the importance of gossip in organisations. The impetus this time (much earlier we talked about the water cooler gatherings) came from a report prepared for the Industrial Society (in London). It was immediately picked up by the columnist in FT (Financial Times) and also by a BBC Reporter in The Sunday Times. What do you think is happening here? Lilly 

Lilly, When I think of the difference between storytelling & gossip, I think of the intent and the form. I recognize there are places where the boundaries between the two can be fuzzy. Intent: Storytelling as I have used it and been exposed to it has specific purposes such as: 

* catalyzing change across an organization 

* building community & rapport 

* discovering and articulating meaning 

* assisting staff to convey ideas I haven't given much thought to the intent behind gossip, but suspect it is most oftent not the same. Format: Organizational storytelling operates within the framework of an acceptable public agenda, so it is often carried out in groups and may involve thought leaders working together in a public way, such as a meeting or presentation. Again, without having given gossip a lot of thought, it occurs to me that gossip often takes place away from the scrutiny of thought leaders operating together in public places. good question . . . 

Seth, thank you for the definitions. They raise for me the nest set of boundaries. As you describe it, storytelling is intended to be a public activity. It also appears to me that you see gossip as 'unregulated' private pursuit. The juxtaposition reminds me of Government and NGOs! What am I missing? Lilly 

To all in the thread: When I posted my comment it was based on my experience with organizations who spend lots of time and money talking about things, but little effort on implementing. It's not an attack on the method - storytelling, but rather on the follow-up process where so many think that by talking about an issue, it becomes resolved. I would be interested in understanding the dynamics of organizations who embraced storytelling successfully verses others who didn't. I don't think that every storytelling engagement is successful, so what makes it so? I realize that my comments have come across somewhat negative. 
This is not a reflection on the method, for I think it can be very effective. Rather it is a commentary on the inability of organizations to follow up on its change "dreams". One final question. How does the storyteller's position weigh in the effectiveness? By position, I mean employee, manager, or consultant. 
Thanks for the feedback. This has been educational and informative!!

SUBJECT: Reply to Wow! 
FROM: Steve Denning - December 09, 2000 

George First, let me thank you for sparking the rich dialogue on storytelling! Very interesting. You ask a couple of questions: 

1. "I would be interested in understanding the dynamics of organizations who embraced storytelling successfully verses others who didn't. I don't think that every storytelling engagement is successful, so what makes it so?" Well, to my knowledge, there aren't many organizations that have embraced storytelling as a change methodology. 
Even my experience at the World Bank, as described in my book, The Springboard, which is generally taken to be a spectacularly successful implementation in an exceedingly difficult environment, there has been no explicit official adoption in the organization of storytelling as a methodology. It was just something that happened. Most of the managers and staff were not explicitly aware that they were involved in "storytelling", any more than the 6 billion people in the world are aware that they spend most of their waking hours telling and listening to stories.
We are like fish in water who are unaware of the water. There have been a few other examples where storytelling was used by savvy managers. Disney. David Armstrong in his book, Managing by Storying Around. 3Com. But not too many. Storytelling has had a flaky ephemeral non-serious image to it, that has not made it too respectable in business circles. This is now changing. 
It is probably less the few successes of the storytelling such as at the World Bank than it is the totally ineffectiveness of anything else that has led to the interest in storytelling. People are desperate because nothing else works. 
When you have to persuade large numbers of people to completely change everything they have thought and done for many years, nothing else works. Giving a reason doesn't work. Ordering compliance doesn't lead to enthusiastic implementation. Replacing the people is hugely expensive and slow. So managers are desperate. Storytelling is an answer. In their desperation, managers are starting to listen. 

2. You ask: "How does the storyteller's position weigh in the effectiveness? By position, I mean employee, manager, or consultant." As discussed elsewhere in this dialogue, the credibility of the storyteller is the important dimension, and job title may have a bearing on this, but not by definition or necessarily. 
If the storyteller has high credibility either personally, or because in that organization, that position has inherited credibility, then the storyteller can take advantage of that, and proceed right away with the storytelling.
If however the storyteller has low credibility, either personally through repuation or because of inherited reputation from the position that he/she occupies in a low trust environment, then the storyteller will probably have to do something to get the audience to listen before launching into the story. What those measures are discussed elsewhere on this dialogue, but basically involve finding a rapport the audience's current problems and at least getting their attention. 
Is this responsive? Steve Denning www.stevedenning.com 

Lilly, you write: "thank you for the definitions." Beware, I am not proposing any assumptions here, but writing "out loud" in the spirit of joint discovery! you write: "The juxtaposition reminds me of Government and NGOs!" Whoa! That's provocative! I don't think of the difference between gossip and storytelling that way. For example, NGOs are not afraid to be public themselves. And I expect they like to 

* catalyze change in organizations 

* building community & rapport 

* discover and articulate meaning 

* assist staff to convey ideas I guess the term "public" is what brought this analogy foreward. When I used that word I meant that corporate storytelling often takes place out on the open and in large groups. I most often think of gossip as something that happens in small groups and has some amount of secrecy attached to it. Seth  SUBJECT: Storytelling and gossip 
FROM: Steve Denning - December 09, 2000 

Lilly 
Yes an interesting question! I didn't see the FT or the Sunday Times. Are these pieces available on the web? On storytelling, I have been talking mainly about the purposeful telling of stories to achieve a specific objective. One of the ways that storytelling achieves its objectives is by fueling the huge river of informal communications that is always flowing organizations and communities, whether visible or not. 
"Gossip" is normally used to refer to a part of this huge river of informal communications going on at water coolers, coffee shops, cafeterias, in corridors and offices, ie everywhere. The dictionary says a gossip is "a person who chatters or repeats idle talk and rumors, esp. about the private affairs of others". Thus it usually has a pejorative sense to it. 
The stories are being told as expressing the mild or greater disapproval of the speaker. And the intent is generally to uphold the current norms of the existing community or group and to point out the deviation in a disapproving sense. Gossip thus can help hold a group together. But it can also prevent innovation and creativity. It can often be very funny. But it can also be narrow minded. 
Since the storytellingi that I, and I think Seth, are talking about is storytelling to change communities and organizations, this kind of storytelling is often in opposition to those who share gossip from the perspective of the "old way". But among the apostles of the "new way" of doing things, gossip will tend to be about "those who don't get it" or "those who are doing it wrong" and so on. 
This kind of gossip will be in support of the purposeful storytelling. 
Is this helpful? Steve Denning www.stevedenning.com 

FROM: George Trudel - December 10, 2000 

Steve, First, you answered my rhetorical questions in your response to the WOW! memo. Thanks. As far as the comparision between storytelling and gossip, I think primarily of the emotional attributes of each. Effective story telling arises out of genuine enthusiasm, animation and honesty, while gossip is surrounded by negativity, discord and innuendo. 
George 

Steve, 
Yes, the comments on the Industrial Society report and FT piece on gossip are on the web. First I saw in The Times and second was written by Lucy Kellaway - tongue in cheek! I find it interesting to see just between a few of us how many facets can be found to simple distinction between storytelling and gossip. Does this matter to most people in the companies? 
Lilly 

Here here below are the main points of the FT article on gossip by Lucy Kellaway. My own thoughts on the discussion, even though it is supposed to be tongue in cheek to some extent, would be: 
- I agree with Lucy Kellaway concerns about equating knowledge sharing with gossip. The motivation of gossip is not sharing of knowledge but upholding of local norms of behavior and is usually pejorative not constructive. She doesn't seem too aware of the downsides of gossip. 
- I am less happy about the implicit conclusion that doing work and talking with colleagues are separate activities (stop talking and get back to work!) when in fact some kinds of talking with colleagues can be the most important way of doing work and getting results. 
It depends what the talk is about. Steve Denning www.stevedenning.com 

Lilly, 
You note how many facets were found to a simple distinction between storytelling and gossip and ask: does this matter to most people in the companies? My take is that it might sound like someone splitting intellectual hairs, but in practice it does matter if you are trying to understand how to use these tools of language - narrative or abstract - to achieve certain kinds of practical results in the real world. Thus I certainly was quite unaware until recently of the incredible power of springboard storytelling and so did not take advantage of it until recently. 
Understanding the tool and how it differed from something like gossip enabled me to use it more intelligently and get a great deal benefit from it. It made the difference between success and failure. Also being aware of the nature of gossip, and my own involvement in it, has helped me recognize its downsides more clearly, and this has assisted me in dealing with people who are not supporting the changes I have been promoting. 
Neither of these gains would matter to someone who is just going along with whatever is happening in an organization, as decided by someone else "up above". But if you are interested in changing an organization, then understanding how the different types of narrative work turns out to be critical piece of the needed equipment. So I would say, yes, the distinction does matter if you want to operate effectively in the complex and changing environments that organizations represent today. 
Do others have views on this? Steve Denning www.stevedenning.com 

Steve, 
You hit organizational nerve centers with your comment about communications and the fact that the piece-work mentality of "stop talking and get back to work" is still prevalent. Managers seeking to "protect their turf" and hoard skills and access to knowledge stifle the "corporate voice". I define the corporate voice as the message that is emitted out of the organization through its employees. 
There are several aspects to the corporate voice, including the formal voice, the personal voice, the technical voice and the social voice. Think of these voices combining into a choir of corporate knowledge. If any voice is stifled, then the sounds of discord appear between the voices and the corporate image is tarnished. 
For example, if the formal voice, through marketing contacts, exclaims the best-of-breed service, yet two employees publicly and openly deride the marketing strategy, because it was never communicated internally, then it is evident to any witness that the organization has internal communications problems. When I speak with employees, I always try to ascertain how the informal network runs. If the primary fuel source is gossip, more than one of the voices is stifled. Conversely, if the primary fuel source is communications and knowledge sharing, with an emphasis on learning, the voices are harmonic and the organization has greater success.

p.s. Steve, you do get up early! 

George 
You say: "There are several aspects to the corporate voice, including the formal voice, the personal voice, the technical voice and the social voice." This is an interesting formulation. What it implies, perhaps, is that the corporate voice is never a single voice but a conglomeration of voices which overlap to a greater or lesser extent. 
Each of the component voices may have two components, the abstract component (like "This company provides best of breed service") along with narrative components (like "I rang up the company and someone immediately answered and was helpful"). 
My own take is that while we presume, as a result of our schooling etc, that people are paying more attention to the abstract component, in reality they are often paying more attention to, and put more reliance on, the stories. If this is true, the corporate image is mainly the collection of stories that people tell about the company. 
Would you agree? Steve Denning www.stevedenning.com 

Steve,
you say that having right distinctions has helped you to appreciate the value of specific techniques (cf Springboard storytelling). I agree totally. Hence, I am trying to deepen oura ppreciation for the impact retention of stories can have in the organisation. I have found that strong organisational cultures are often characterised by a few 'corporate myths'. How do you see storytelling relating to corporate myths? How would you distinguish them clearly? 
Lilly 

Lilly 
You ask: "How do you see storytelling relating to corporate myths? How would you distinguish them clearly?" I define myth on my website as "a traditional story of unknown authorship, ostensibly with a historical basis, but serving usually to explain some phenomenon of nature, the origin of man, or the customs, institutions, religious rites of a people: myths usually involve the exploits of gods and heroes." In our culture, myth is often used in the sense of a story or belief that is not true. E.g. "seven myths about knowledge management". 
When a story resonates with listeners, it tends to get retold over and over again, and the protagonist tends to acquire in the retellings a halo that can perhaps resemble a corporate hero, and so the story can start to acquire some of the characteristics of a "myth" in non-corporate culture. 
If the story so told has a basis in fact, then it won't deserve the pejorative sense of myth. A similar term that tends to lack the pejorative implication of "myth" ie that the story isn't true is "legend". I define "legend" as a story handed down for generations among a people and popularly believed to have a historical basis, although not verifiable". Thus you have the legends about King Arthur as well as the legends of Watson did in the early days of IBM, and so on. 
I am not sure that you can distinguish clearly between the storytelling I advocate and myths. I certainly advocate telling stories that are true. So in this sense there may be a difference. But I am hoping that the stories I tell will be repeated over and over again and become in effect the myths or legends of the organization. 
Is this helpful? Steve Denning www.stevedenning.com 

Steve, George,
What a fascinating exchange! Just to digress - Steve will thre be a full library og the exchanges available for download in the end? If not planed, can you mention it to the technical people 
- I would like to be able to refer to some of these materials later. Thank you both! Back to the topic. Corporate Voice, as you describe it George, strikes me as being analogue with there being created WIRED connections in the brain. These are the pathways of lowest resistence that get created as the result of building up of the same neurons firing until they reach the quantum potential - at that point the pathway is wired! This is how learning occurs and also explains why unlearning is so difficult - you do not unlearn, you have to learn to lay alternative pathway and it needs to be overall shorter! 
I have by now strayed into the linkages with neurophysiology and into the work of Prof Gerald Edellman and Prof Antonia Damasio. They are btw both great storytellers. This linkage gives rise to the possibility that the Corporate Voice (CV) as you are both discussing it is an expression of the Corporate Brain (CB). The more connected the CB is the stronger CV. The more CVs are heard and the more different voices are raised the better connected CB gets. This in turn makes the overall organisation better able to adapt and learn. Does this make sense? If so, do you think it is worth developing further? 
Lilly 

Lilly 
You asked whether there will be a full set of q&a. I will inquire. I am trying to keep a full set in Word format for myself, but it's hard to keep up. I agree that the neuroscience findings are an interesting analogy and should be pursued. One of the aspects that I find interesting is how the different parts of the brain interact together at different speeds and intensities, so that what we think about as thinking or consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg, or rather volcano, of contending forces. 
So yes, I think the analogy is worth pursuing in understanding corporate brains and voices.

Steve Denning www.stevedenning.com 

Steve, 
yes very helpful. I think this links to my message in the thread above as well. You say towards the end "I certainly advocate telling stories that are true." I am interested to learn what is your test for truth? 
Lilly 

Lilly 
You ask what is my criterion for truth in storytelling? Well, nothing very fancy or philosophical. I am just saying that one should try to make what one says consistent with all the facts that one knows about at the time of the telling. As I explain in The Springboard (chapter 11), one can't tell the whole truth about anything. Any story is inevitably a selection of the known facts. And there may well be facts which are unknown to the teller at the time of the telling and which will eventually show that the story was not consistent with all the facts. But the storyteller can't be worried about that eventuality. He or she should aim merely to make sure that the story is not inconsistent with any known facts. Or if one deliberately extrapolates or imagines fictional stories, one explicitly admits that they are imaginary. If one does that, one is doing one's best to tell the truth. 
Does this help? Steve Denning