Organizations, Garlic, and Telling the Tale
Today I attended a session in the Outreach professional development “Open Minds” series. It was called “Dancing with Garbage: The Art and Science of Making Stories Work,” facilitated by Jo Tyler. I’ll admit I dreaded attending. Today I had a lot to do, and I didn’t have a lot of time to deal with yet another afternoon of Death by PowerPoint.
I was, however, very pleasantly surprised. Very. The session dealt with storytelling in organizations. Not just the dominant stories told by the organizations themselves, but also the shadow stories that cut in some way against the stories the organization tells about itself.
The dominant story of your organization can be found all around you--in the layout of your office building, the placement of people inside their offices (or cubes), in how you are greeted by the reception desk, to the posters, art, and other images on its walls. Look around you: what is your organization’s dominant story?
But is it the only story?
The need for both dominant and shadow (liminal) narratives is a large part of Tyler’s work. The dominant story need not always be bad (and in fact at PSU is quite good), but we lose something by not attending to the shadow stories around us. In fact, the greater the dissonance between the shadow stories and the dominant ones, the more important it is for us to pay attention.
How do organizations do this? Well, though that’s the topic for next week’s session, I actually have a few thoughts about how it’s done now. Let me tell you a story...
It also created one of the most collegial and cohesive work environments I’d ever been in. Everyone had a story, and ideas poured in. Which brings me to the main point I’m hoping we cover next week--how do we create social spaces constructed for listening to these shadow stories in a way that helps and enables the organization to succeed? And how do we build the trust needed so the storytellers come forth?
I was, however, very pleasantly surprised. Very. The session dealt with storytelling in organizations. Not just the dominant stories told by the organizations themselves, but also the shadow stories that cut in some way against the stories the organization tells about itself.
The dominant story of your organization can be found all around you--in the layout of your office building, the placement of people inside their offices (or cubes), in how you are greeted by the reception desk, to the posters, art, and other images on its walls. Look around you: what is your organization’s dominant story?
But is it the only story?
The need for both dominant and shadow (liminal) narratives is a large part of Tyler’s work. The dominant story need not always be bad (and in fact at PSU is quite good), but we lose something by not attending to the shadow stories around us. In fact, the greater the dissonance between the shadow stories and the dominant ones, the more important it is for us to pay attention.
How do organizations do this? Well, though that’s the topic for next week’s session, I actually have a few thoughts about how it’s done now. Let me tell you a story...
Once upon a time, ‘back in the day’ if you will, I worked at an organization where the production of courses for distant students was paramount. Pressures during particular times of the year were very high, and while the organization was really good at saying, “we support you--we’ll back you,” when push came to shove it was often “we’ll just have to manage this one time, for the good of the order...” There was a lot of turnover, because folks felt so totally overworked, felt that they couldn’t take time to professionally develop, and a host of other reasons.
Enter one of my co-workers. A creative, out-of-the box (box? we don’t need no stinkin’ box!) thinker, she hatched a creative idea that took root and blossomed beyond our wildest imaginings. We launched a little “news” magazine called The Garlic. Modeled after The Onion, it was an underground publication, basically making fun of everything and everyone around us in the most ridiculous way. We put the AVP in a Lenin hat, created a fictional Frankenstein of a ‘perfect’ employee, and also wrote one story where the director needed to attend ‘vegetable sensitivity training’ because he kept offering people produce from his garden. In short, it was ridiculous. Full of hyperbole and exaggeration.However, the items we made fun of were things that frustrated us at work (well, maybe except for the produce. That was just funny). Course tanking in enrollments? Simple! Write a story where we enroll everyone attending a football game, and the problem is fixed! Subject-matter experts not delivering content on time? Put in an ad to “grow your own faculty!” Overcrowding an issue? Photoshop your own “bunk desks” to create more space!
Grow your own faculty!
The issues were hilarious, and of course, word got out. However, instead of shutting us down, we were encouraged this medium as an outlet. It was fun, it was safe (being behind password-protection), and better yet, it gave the administrative types the ability to see what irked us without it becoming personally threatening. I’d like to say that some of the items written about were taken care of due to the stories we crafted, but I don’t know if that was ever the case. It did, however, give us a creative outlet for our shadow stories that we didn’t have before. And it prevented those from blowing up in anyone’s face.
It also created one of the most collegial and cohesive work environments I’d ever been in. Everyone had a story, and ideas poured in. Which brings me to the main point I’m hoping we cover next week--how do we create social spaces constructed for listening to these shadow stories in a way that helps and enables the organization to succeed? And how do we build the trust needed so the storytellers come forth?
Hey Stevie. Brilliant and insightful post. It's a good perspective on office culture. "The Garlic" was hilarious and I'm glad that the higher-ups took it in the spirit that it was intended. On the other hand, it was born out of a stressful situation (more for you designers than us techies). Another thought: I'm interested in your inclusion of the "legal notice" at the top. I actually think that I would have enjoyed this session. Are the "Open Minds" sessions open? Or are they limited to Outreach? Is it something that would be of benefit to others?
I think, Allan, that the Open Minds sessions are Outreach-only. But I'm not totally sure, so I will certainly inquire. I think it'd be awesome to have everyone interested come, even if there's a nominal fee for everyone that way.
Oh--and the legal comment was sort of tongue-in-cheeck, given the whole "dominant narrative/shadow narrative" thing. But you're right. It doesn't work. I removed it. :)
Most excellent! I too would have love to have heard this session. Though I'm curious, and you alluded to this in your closing paragraph, whether or not something like The Garlic had an reforming influence on the very issues that inspired it? I love the questions you are asking Stevie - they couldnt be more relevant to the here and now. I've been trying to wrap my head around some very similar concepts of late. If indeed next weeks session will discuss some of the solutions, you can expect the international Stub of mystery to find his way into the crowd ;-)
Excellent post. I'm sorry I missed the days of "The Garlic". It seems I was always missing out on the fun! I have two thoughts. One, exploring your organization means you need to feel comfortable baring your soul and opening yourself up to constructive criticism, both as an individual and as an entire group. The Garlic and their blog are great example of how they have tried to invite honest conversation in a nonthreatening way. Two, I would argue that we don't always have to hide our dirty laundry from our neighbors behind a protected space, depending upon how we choose to air it and the ground rules we establish. A little healthy dialog across departments and institutions may reveal that we have the same dysfunctions, and that we may be able to share some potential solutions (form a support network of sorts). I've linked to some posts Bob Sutton has done on organizations admitting mistakes and Penelope Trunk's personal self-examination in my post here: http://www.personal.psu.edu/lnm105/blogs/cleartext/2008/05/collaborative-intelligence-or.html