David M. Boje
Published in 1998
Academy of Management, Research Methods Forum #3, (Fall) Robert Gephart,
Stories are being studied as if they were objects. Subjects are asked to retell a story to an interview who either records it verbatim or checks of some scaled questions about the story: "did it have a hero?" "Is the big boss made m ore human?" The key assumptions are: (1) the presence of the interviewer does not materially change the telling of the story, (2) the story is being retold in ways similar to how it is performed in the natural context, (3) the performance context i s not very important to understanding the meaning and import of the story, and (4) the story is not intertextual in its relation to other stories or embedded in more historical ways.
Methodologically, stories are being approached as artifacts and not
as constitutive of organization. Epistemologically, this assumes that organizations
exist outside or as "other" to the storytelling context. Methodologically
this leads to such tactics as scoring the story, which serves to displace
the "actual" story and reconstitute it as a qualitative code or a surrogate
measure of non-story variables (e.g. counting the types of claims as evidence
for certain other features of o rganization). After, giving examples of
stories-as-objects method, we will examine an alternative, stories-in-context
methods, I will conclude with the relevance of the postmodern turn in qualitative
research to this distinction of methods. In short, th e methodological
practices need to transition so stories may be viewed as constitutive of
organizational realities, rather than mere measures of something else.
Stories-as-Objects Methods. In our field, the earliest studies treated stories-as-objects in ways that raise several method problems:
(2) Storytellers themselves were objectified as they recited bits of organizational lore as mere "in-place metering devices" (Pondy & Boje, 1981), and
(3) Stories were collected like so many artifacts without a sense of their contextual embeddedness.
This resulted in stories being defined as integrated totalities,
in voices being ignored in the studies, and stories being taken out of
context. Martin et al (1983), for example, abstracted stories from books,
the stories were told with beginnings, mid dles, ends and morals. Martin
et al (1983) sought to trace how markedly similar story texts, abstracted
from organizational histories and CEO biographies manifested themselves
in different types of organizations without examining how the stories were
us ed or whose voice was privileged in their telling. There was also no
direct field observation or systematic on-site data collection to unravel
the origins or import of the story. Wilkens (1979) dissertation relied
upon story-interviews, (but also did no t record the text of the stories
or the performance context) as raters registered reconstructed accounts
on survey scales. There is also the problem of voice. Early case histories
also relied upon second- and third-hand accounts of stories, typically
to ld from management’s point of view. For example, Clark’s (1972) historical
(saga) accounts of organizational uniqueness were texts without performance
data. Similarly, Lombardo’s (1986), and McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison’s
(1989) interviews with 86 execu tives as they recalled stories provided
interesting life-history work, but did not afford a behavioral analysis
of in situ performance or other voices. In sum, stories-as-objects investigations
do not weave direct field observation or systematic on-site data collection
to unravel the origins or import of the story, the voices of the story,
or the contextual import of each story.
Stories-in-Context Methods. There has been overlooked, early work
done on storytelling in organizations from other disciples. In folklore,
Kirshenblatt-Gimglett (1975), Hymes (1975), Jones, Moore, & Synder
(1988), and especially Georges (19 69, 1980a, 1980b, 1981) that looked
at the undifferentiability of story and context. Organizational folklorists
point out convincingly, "the story" has no existence apart (and is indeed
inseparable) from the context during which the story is pe rformed. It
matters if a manager or a subordinate is telling a story. It matters if
stories are being told to outsiders such as in the current research. One
group's version of the story can oppress and marginalize others.
Our Methods Have Moved On. Using stories as indictors to get at cultural variables is passe (See reviews by Boje, Alvarez & Schooling, 1998; Boyce (1995, 1997), Kaye (1996) and research by Boje (1991, 1995), Jones (1991), Brown (1986), Gepha rt (1991), Jordan (1997) etc.). Martin’s (1990) more recent work deconstructs the micro in situ story of a pregnancy in economic, gender, and racial contexts (See also Martin & Knopoff’s in press deconstruction of gender in Weber). Wilkens & Tho mpson (1991) have also moved to a more multi-storied position by looking at fine-grained differences in storytelling behaviors. The field is currently questioning synthetic and totalized author-accounts based in stories-as-objects theory. Hatch (1997) ha s also moved to a multinarrator position looking at you the author narrates. My own work (1991) challenged the stories-as-objects tradition in collecting tape recordings of stories told in situ, defined stories at partial, fragmented, and extended across multiple conversations involving many folks.
What are the methodological implications? If stories are defined
as wholes with beginnings, middles, and ends then much that is important
about stories is not being researched. For example, in partial tellings,
stories are coded so that outsiders do n ot know what is being told. In
partial tellings, the collective combines to tell the fuller story, but
across time and in different spaces. The implication is that researchers
need to track stories across settings and capture its invocation even where
f ew story features are visible. This was the basic assumption of the office
supply study (Boje, 1991): to look at glosses, more terse tellings, and
shifts in the telling of events to construct different power alignments.
I had to trail around my particip ants and record who said what to whom
and when and where. Methodologically this involves attempts to hear the
story as naturally told by a variety of culturally meaningful groups or
actors, not just key informant, who oftentimes is the CEO.
Stories-As-Constituting Organizations. Stories are not indicators, they ARE the organization. . The insight that stories constitute organization (and environment) became a "storytelling organization theory" (hereafter, STO) of the fir m. For example, in a historical study of Disney (Boje, 1995), where even the story of Walt’s signature and who was the author of Mickey Mouse had hegemonic tellings. By hegemonic I mean the hierarchical domination of one story over another in ways that are outside active awareness. The key features of STO are: organizational storytelling is the collective rehistoricizing (memory) of the institution; the STO is an ongoing (re)negotiation as the present is unfolded into the past (attention), and the (re) visioning (expecting) the future (Boje, 1991: 111, 1995: 1000); the organization is a storytelling system in the co-production of new "synchronic" stories formed by successive encounters between researchers, managers, employees, customers, vendors, and pa ssersby, with each powerfully-influencing the construction; the telling of the simultaneous stories of their fragmented contextually-based, encounters with one another (Gabriel, 1995); and storytelling is fundamental to power and knowledge shifts. Stori es-in-context research is the favored method of the STO model. Research conducted to date, ranges from Boje’s office supply (1991) and Disney (1995) studies, Boyce’s (1995) study of a non-profit organization, Kaye’s (1996) extension to OD, and Czarniaws ka,s (1997) Swedish public sector organizations.
it becomes incumbent upon the researcher in this field to demonstrate empirically how stories are told within the organization (Weick & Browning, 1986; Hatch 1997). Rather than studying stories as uniform understandings, in STO, understandings are quite disparate, negotiated, on-going, and hegemonic. Hegemonic, in the sense that some voices, interpretations, and restoryings are more privileged than others in subtle ways (Barry & Elmes, 1997). Listeners (including researchers) may draw very di fferent points from a story than the teller imagined. Important organizational behavior is devoted to negotiating the "official" story-line interpretation and collectively processing the many sides to stories to make sense of organizational chan ge. Current methods need to attend to partial tellings, terse-tellings, and the interplay of alternative tellings of similar themes. As outsiders, researchers often lack contextual experience and are not in a position to read between the lines of a seemi ngly innocent story.
Why has this view emerged? I think it comes down to story voice and ownership. In the recent studies, there is more attention paid to who owns the story of an organization. Do we take CEOs as the key informants? Do we contrast insider stories with ou tsider stories collected from customers and vendors? What happens when workers and managers tell different stories? The attention to ownership has resulted in definitions of stories that are polysemous and polyvocal, and a focus on the disputed meanings that define the organization as a "storytelling organization" (as in the Tamara metaphor of the storytelling organization). The implication of this trend is for methods that include many voices in the production of the research text. Recent w ork is looking at the storied encounters of multiple storytelling organizations (Boje et. al, 1998; Boje, 1998). The transition is also taking place because stories change in the telling over time and place. The in situ storytelling approaches traces on-g oing and very proactive set of practices whereby organizational participants restory and rehistoricize prior events to reinterpret the meaning of present and anticipated future events.
Depending on which of the definitions you accept, stories-as-objects
and stories-in-context, the findings and substantive focus of a study would
change. The former, stories-as-objects approach takes an etic (outsider
imposes the categories and interpr ets the stories outside their performance
context such as in an interview or survey) rather than the currently-favored,
emic (insider has the categories and stories are performed within their
lived context) perspectives.
The Postmodern Turn. In postmodern storytelling research, the focus
is to link local story to embedded social, economic, and cultural context
The postmodern turn has several key method assumptions. First, humans as
storytelling animals act towa rd their organization and environments based
upon their storied interpretations of self, other, organization, and environment.
Second, story making is a collective process of social interaction in which
story meanings change over time. Third, story mean ing changes with the
context of the telling as storytellers select, transform, and reform the
meanings of stories in light of the context of the telling. Fourth, in
STO theory the individual is part of the collective enterprise of constructing
and transf orming stories told to the world and stories of the environment
being constructed. This is different from a structural-functionalist model
of organizations in which story functions as measures of variables of an
abstract structure. Fifth, the inquirer is a story-reader who upon entering
the story-making world changes the story-making processes by being there
The method implications of the postmodern turn is the need to trace
how supposedly universal and ideological understandings are evoked-rhetorically
and resisted in the narrative moment in organization documents, speeches,
and other texts. Postmodern e thnography, for example, is a cooperatively
evolved text between researcher and insider, that foregoes the tale of
the past as error and denies the myth of the future as utopia" (Tyler,
1986: 138). The "Present-day ethnographers hope to separ ate themselves
from the history of Western conquest and reject the earlier ethnographies
as hopelessly biased" (Vidich & Lyman, 1994: 26). Boyce and Fraknklin
(1997) argue that a similar turn can be made in organization studies.
Stories-as-object methods lead to the development of indicators and
a concern for generalizability, whereas stories-in-context methods lead
to thicker descriptions of storytelling practices and settings. Upon initiating
thicker descriptions, I think storytelling behavior will be viewed as a
collective enterprise. When this happens, studies, which take a key informant
approach, will become more problematic. Storytelling is organization. The
next agenda for a postmodern turn is to look at the embeddedness of STO
in the storied environment.
1997 "Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse." Academy of Management Review, 22(2) 429-452.
Boje, David M.
1991 "Organizations as storytelling networks: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm." Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 106-126.
1995 "Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as ‘tamara-land. ‘" Academy of Management Journal. 38 (4), 997-1035.
1998 "How critical theory and critical pedagogy can unmask Nike’s labor practices." Paper presented at the August meetingsof the Academy of Management meetings, San Diego.
Boje David M., Rossana C. Alvarez & Bruce Schooling
1998 "Storytelling in organizational theory," Book chapter in book
Boje, David M., John Luhman, Don Baack, students of QM course
1998 "Hegemonic tales of the field: A telling research
encounter between storytelling organizations. Accepted for publication
1995 "Collective centering and collective sense-making
in the stories and storytelling of one organization." Organization Studies.
16 (1). 107-137.
1997 "Organizational story and storytelling: a critical
review." Journal of Organizational Change Management. 9(5): 5-26.
Boyce, Mary & Carol Ann Franklin
1997 "From integration to racial justice: organizational
learning in the YMCA." Journal of Organizational Change Management.
1986 "Sense making and narrative forms: Reality construction
in organizations" In Thayer (Ed) Organizational Communication Emerging
Perspectives I, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Clark, B. R.
1972 "The organizational saga in higher education."
Administrative Science Quarterly. 17: 178-184.
Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.)
1994 Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage.
1995 "The unmanaged organization: Stories, fantasies
and subjectivity." Organization Studies, 16(3): 477-501.
1969 "Toward an understanding of story-telling events."
Journal of American Folklore. 82: 314-328.
1980a "A folklorist’s view of storytelling." Humanities
in society. 3 (4), 317-326.
1980b "Towards a resolution of the text/context controversy."
Western Folklore. 39: 34-40.
1981 "Do narrators really digress? A reconsideration
of ‘audience asides’ in narrating." Western Folklore. 40: 245-252.
Gephart, R. P.
1991 "Succession, sensemaking, and organizational
change: A story of a deviant college president." Journal of Organizational
Chage Management. 4: 35-44.
Hatch, M. J.
1996 "The role of the researcher: An analysis of
narrative position in organization theory" Forthcoming Journal of Management
1975 "Breakthrough into performance." In D. Ben-Amos
and K. Goldsteir (eds.), Folklore: Performance and communication.
11-74. Paris: Mouton.
Jones, Michael Owen
1991 "What if stories don’t tally with the culture?"
Journal of Organizational Change Management. 4(3): 27-34.
Jones, M. O., M. D. Moore, and R. C. Synder
1988 (Eds.) Inside Organizations: Understanding
the human dimension. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jordan, Ann T.
1997 "Critical incident story creation and culture
formation in a self-directed work team." Journal of Organizational Change
Management. 9(5): 27-35.
1995 "Organizational myths and storytelling as communication
management." Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management
1996 Myth-makers and story-tellers. Sydney,
NSW, Australia: Business & Professional Publishing Pty Ltd.
1975 "A parable in context: A social interactional
analysis of storytelling performance." In D. Ben-Amos and K. Goldsteir
(eds.), Folklore: Performance and communication. 105-130. Paris:
Lombardo, M. M.
1986 "Values in action: The meaning of executive
vignettes.: Technical report no. 28 (November), Center for Creative Leadership,
Greensboro, N. C.
1990 "Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression
of gender conflict in organizations." Organization Science 1(4): 339-359.
Martin, J. & K. Knopoff
in press "The gendered implications
of apparently gender-neutral theory: Re-reading Weber." In E. Freeman &
A. Larson (Eds.), Ruffin lecture series (Vol. 3): Business Ethics and
Martin, J. & D. Meyerson
1988 "Organizational cultures and the denial, channeling,
and acknowledgment of ambiguity." In L. R. Pondy, R. J. Boland, Jr. , &
H. Thomas (Eds.), Managing ambiguity and change. 93-125, New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Martin, J. & M. E. Powers
1979 "Skepticism and the true believer: The effects
of case and /or base rate information on belief and commitment." Paper
presented at the meetings of the Western Psychological Association, Honolulu,
Martin, J., K. Patterson, and R. Price
1979 "The effects of level of abstraction of a script
on accuracy of recall, predictions and beliefs." Research paper No. 520,
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
Martin, J., M. S. Feldman, M. J. Hatch, and S. B. Sitkin
1983 "The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories."
Administrative Science Quarterly. 28: 438-453.
Martin, J., K. Patterson, W. Harrod, and C. Siehl
1980 "Memory for the content of scripts presented
at varying levels of abstraction." Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Montreal, September.
McCall, M. M., M. M. Lombardo, and A. M. Morrison
1989 The lessons of experience. New York:
Harper & Row.
Tyler, Stephan A.
1986 "Post-Modern Ethnography: From Document of the
Occult to Occult Document" pp. 122-140 in J. Clifford and G. Marcus (eds.)
Writing Culture: the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Vidich, Arthur J. and Stanford M. Lyman.
1994 "Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology
and anthropology," pp. 23-59 in Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln
(Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage.
Weick, Karl E. & Larry Browning
1986 "Arguments and narration in organizational communication."
Journal of Management, 12: 243-259.
Wilkens, Alan L.
1979 "Organizational stories as an expression of
management philosophy: Implications for social control in organizations."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Wilkens, Alan and Michael P. Thompson
1991 "On Getting the Story Crooked (and Straight)".
Journal of Organizational Change Management. vol. 4, no. 3: 18-26.