Tame Stories

In a previous article, I started writing about storytelling in a context of myths, narratives and a complex process of emergence from a group of people. This makes storytelling to an appropriate form for sensemaking.

The storytelling metaphor / method is sometimes used in a pretty different way from this understanding. It is more unidirectional, structured, transporting a predefined purpose.

This form makes is a very different setting. For my purposes, I will call it tame storytelling.

Tame stories are not inherently bad; they serve a purpose in maintaining stability and reinforcing established practices. However, their primary limitation is that they lack the ambition or open-ended exploration needed for organizational sensemaking. Tame stories provide certainty and structure, but they do little to enhance situation awareness or reveal weak signals – those subtle, early indicators of change that could inform strategic adaptation.

This interaction is not dynamic and cooperative, it is goal-oriented, one-sided, it distinuishes between the story teller and the audience.

I present two popular examples of tame story telling.

Steve Denning’s Approach to Storytelling is tame: Persuasion and One-Sided Narratives

As an example, I will use Steve Denning’s approach as an example of tame storytelling. Steve Denning is a well-known advocate of storytelling in business, particularly for leadership, knowledge management, and organizational change. His approach focuses on the strategic use of storytelling to drive alignment, persuade audiences, and ease resistance to change. While effective in achieving predefined goals, Denning’s method can be one-sided, prioritizing the storyteller’s objectives over genuine dialogue or emergent sensemaking.

A Tool for Persuasion

Denning’s storytelling model is centered around narratives designed to influence. His key types of stories include:

Springboard Stories: Short, engaging stories designed to inspire change by illustrating a successful transformation. These stories are meant to be easily retold and adapted by audiences.
Knowledge-Sharing Stories: Used to simplify complex ideas and make information more accessible.
Leadership Stories: Crafted to inspire and guide employees toward a shared vision.
Brand Stories: Used in marketing to create emotional connections with customers.

His storytelling is goal-driven, meaning the primary aim is to guide listeners toward accepting a particular conclusion or action.

One-Sided Approach

While Denning’s storytelling approach is highly effective in reducing resistance and gaining buy-in, it has inherent limitations* due to its predefined purpose and unidirectional nature.

Weakening Resistance Rather Than Encouraging Dialogue: Denning’s method focuses on making change palatable rather than engaging in open-ended exploration. Instead of fostering organizational sensemaking, it smooths over resistance by presenting narratives in ways that make them difficult to contest. This can be useful in managing change but limits the ability of audience to critically engage with or shape the evolving story.
Easing Acceptance for a Predefined Purpose: Stories in this model are carefully crafted to drive an intended conclusion rather than explore possibilities. This aligns with corporate objectives but often suppresses alternative perspectives, reinforcing a single narrative rather than accommodating complexity. Employees may accept the story because it is compelling, not necessarily because it reflects a full or accurate picture of reality.
Ignoring Weak Signals and Organizational Complexity: Because Denning’s storytelling is outcome-driven, it does little to surface weak signals – subtle indicators of change, risk, or opportunity that emerge from decentralized sensemaking. It prioritizes coherence over complexity, making it less effective in highly uncertain or ambiguous situations where multiple narratives need to be explored.

Unlike emergent storytelling, which allows for bottom-up contributions and multiple perspectives, Denning’s use of stories follows a top-down structure. While effective in persuading audiences, it does not lend itself to the wild, open-ended sensemaking needed for organizations to navigate uncertainty.

User Stories are tame: a constructed user perspective of a predefined purpose

User stories are a widely used technique in agile development and product management, intended to capture the needs of end-users in a simple, structured narrative format. Typically written from the perspective of a user, they follow a formula such as:

> *As a [user], I want [feature or functionality] so that [benefit or outcome].*

While user stories aim to center the user’s needs, in practice, they are often one-sided and pursue a predefined purpose set by the storyteller (e.g., product manager, or product owner).

Why User Stories Are Often One-Sided

The User Perspective Is Often Constructed, Not Emergent. User stories are written by product teams, not actual users. While they attempt to represent real needs, they often reflect assumptions, business goals, or the storyteller’s vision rather than genuine user experiences. Since user stories are crafted within the constraints of business objectives and technical feasibility, they may filter out inconvenient complexities or diverse user perspectives.
A Predefined Purpose: The structured nature of user stories simplifies decision-making and helps teams align around a common goal, but this also means they steer development in a predetermined direction rather than inviting open-ended exploration. Developers are encouraged to accept the story as written, rather than challenge its framing or introduce alternative narratives.
Lack of Weak Signal Detection and Deep Sensemaking: User stories reduce ambiguity but, in doing so, suppress early warning signs or emergent insights that could indicate shifting user needs.

Unlike emergent storytelling or sensemaking methods, which collect multiple narratives to reveal patterns, user stories fixate on a single, anticipated path, often missing unexpected or weak signals from real-world user behavior.

Example: How User Stories Reinforce a Predefined Path

Imagine a company developing an AI-powered chatbot for customer service. A typical user story might be:

> *As a customer, I want an AI chatbot that can answer my questions instantly so that I don’t have to wait for human support.*

On the surface, this seems user-centered. However, it reflects the company’s assumption that users prioritize instant AI responses over other potential needs (e.g., personalized service, human escalation). In reality, some users may prefer slower but more accurate responses or may not trust AI for certain queries.

By structuring the need in a way that favors the company’s solution (AI chatbots), the user story reduces debate and alternative explorations, making it easier for the team to justify their planned implementation.

Rewilding Stories?

Again: tame stories are not bad – they just serve a different purpose than my main topic in this series, which is mastering complexity. But they do not feel right – kind of distorted, mutilated to fit machine logic. They can help for their intended purpose. But they have lost most of their transformative potential, the power to deal with complexity.

Stories can do so much more if you embrace the complexity they bring. What happend whe we start rewilding our stories?

Atlassian. n.d. “User Stories | Examples and Template.” Atlassian. Accessed February 28, 2025. https://www.atlassian.com/agile/project-management/user-stories.
Cohn, M. 2004. User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley Signature Series. Addison-Wesley.
Denning. 2005. The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative. John Wiley & Sons.