A Storyteller’s Confession

I’ve been trying to infiltrate the halls of power for decades. My secret mission is to increase the diversity of thought by teaching those without a voice how to tell their stories and by teaching leaders how to find and retell untold stories that broaden everyone’s understanding.

I confess, I’m not as interested in increasing the bottom line as I am in finding ways to sustain as many bottom lines to support as many people as possible.

That puts me at odds with the cherished assumption that business is all about doing more with less – specifically less people. Because I like people, I want to improve people’s lives and save the environment at least as much as I want to increase profit.

And I’m not a nut. I know we need to protect the success of the organization. But I trust that all the metrics, quantitative analysis, and algorithms that exist solely to show how to do more with less aren’t going away. They will continue to do what they need to do.

But we do need to embrace a new paradigm where people count at least as much as numbers. And we do that through sharing our stories.

Storytelling is a form of generosity vital to collaboration. When people are forced to be transactional it kills the magic of growing faith and trust by showing faith in others without demanding quid pro quo payback. The most inspiring stories narrate self-sacrifice, helping without pay back, showing good faith, and illustrating moral norms. We don’t build trust when the terms and conditions of signing up include multi-page inventories of all that might go wrong. Every set of terms and conditions I’ve read told me a rather dark story of distrust of myself and a bullet proof shield of selfishness.

Two years ago, I started coming clean about my concerns about the ethics of those who want to learn storytelling in order to control narratives rather than engage multiple narratives. Not surprisingly, most businesses who called me decided to hire someone else after I started talking about the ethics of storytelling. Learning the ins and outs of storytelling is like going to magic school. I think any teacher who doesn’t show students about the dangers of avoiding dark magic is being irresponsible.

One of the blessings of being up front about my “secret mission” is that some of the businesses who call are even more interested than before. I’ve got a new book coming out that articulates how competitive narratives tend to treat collaborative narratives like competition. In Drinking from a Different Well: How Women’s Stories Change What Power Means in Action, I tap into the genius of women’s narratives about power, the way men misunderstand female contexts, as well as a coherent way to blend male and female power in the workplace to redefine success in a way that protects people, profits, and the planet.

Gendered narratives represent preferences not competencies. Sexual dimorphism suggests that when evolution must protect a paradox (protecting us AND them) nature/nurture often splits the difference by ensuring both matter––but in different degrees.

Protecting “them” is a bit more important to women and protecting “us” is a bit more important to men. When women end up in positions that don’t offer enough power to protect “them,” we feel powerless and evade promotions that will only make it worse. The term moral distress explains a lot about why women leave positions of power. If we don’t have the power to do the right thing, it makes us feel powerless.

This is not just women, of course; anyone who prefers collaborative narratives over competitive narratives ends up being treated like the competition when it comes to control and power. It’s one of the things that I’m working on right now.

How do we blend both competitive and collaborative narratives? What needs to change in the way we make decisions? How do we deal with our own hypocrisy?

I include myself. Only by investigating the difference between what we say we want (safe planet, healthy people, etc.) and what we actually do to achieve it (I don’t compost for instance) can we figure out how to close the gap. Your thoughts?

I will soon start blogging on differentwell.com if you want to sign up to hear about my new book Drinking From a Different Well: How Women’s Stories Change What Power Means in Action.

 

Truth in Storytelling

When I wrote the first edition of The Story Factor twenty years ago, I began with the idea that people don’t want more information. They want faith in you and your positive intentions. I never suspected that two decades later we’d be discussing an explosion of stories that intentionally undermine this faith. Without the conventional power of weaponry to achieve their goals, certain groups have learned to harvest the twin powers of stories and technology. These weaponized stories persuade neighbors to attack each other as enemies. They undermine trust and often trick us to act against our own best interests. Now that technology amplifies the frequency and reach of malicious storytelling, the power of malicious storytelling to destroy social cohesion is more evident than ever. These results call on all storytellers to double-check that the stories we tell do not erode our ability to balance competing needs.

The good news is that stories only get better when a teller digs deep to reveal capital “T” Truths that that engage, describe, and explore real-life ethical issues. I knew a retired preacher, now dead, who complained to me that writing the history of his church only produced a flat, boring story. I innocently suggested, “Then you aren’t telling the whole truth because in my experience telling the whole truth makes every story more interesting.” He responded, “You mean I should tell about the S&M affair I had with a female preacher from the next town over?” Stunned, all I could say was, “Well, it already sounds more interesting.” It’s an extreme example, and no, his affair didn’t make it into the church’s history. But I share this story in the hope it will help you remember that withholding truths to control a narrative is a recipe for flat stories. Interesting stories take on ethical dilemmas, paradoxical truths, and lift our gaze from the transactional to the transcendent. Sanitized stories are boring.

Digital storytellers now seem to be rediscovering this fertile ground after initial attempts to mechanize, accelerate, and simplify storytelling produced lackluster results. One approach I admire provides a personal Bitmoji avatar to illustrate real-life paradox with image-based stories we can drop on top of real-life photos or video to add more meaning. For instance, the Bitmoji avatar that shakes off fear before walking across hot coals, then celebrates a very short while before his or her feet burst into flames. The “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dilemma is a paradox we have all experienced. Drop this Bitmoji sequence onto a wedding or graduation photo on Snapchat and the reminder that joy and suffering are usually a package deal can make us feel more connected.

Chatbots, on the other hand, have trouble with paradox and universal dilemmas. From the get-go, I’m wary of the ethical implications of designing a bot with the precise goal of tricking humans to believe a machine is also human. Even more worrisome is the idea that this trick is often achieved by teaching humans to think so much like machines that we can’t tell the difference. Chatbots tend to simplify paradox into binary options that discourage any inquiry that might undermine the bots programmed goals. Natural language processing can obviously be automated. But how could we possibly develop a machine that won’t oversimplify moral paradoxes? It’s not surprising that initial attempts, like Microsoft’s experiment with the chatbot on Twitter named Tay (“thinking about you”), quickly learned to maximize the speed of response rates with racist, sexist, and Nazi-sympathizing posts.

From the beginning of time, humans have recorded organic wisdom with stories to guide real-life personal choices. Today it seems that a search for organic wisdom, or even a road less traveled, is blocked by increasing arrays of algorithmic chutes and ladders designed to lead us to travel only the roads that are profitable to the road builders. (As opposed to the original Snakes and Ladders game from the second century bc that illustrated karma by characterizing good deeds with ladders and evil deeds with back-sliding snakes.) This algorithmic distortion means you can search the internet for advice to treat any chronic disease, and the solutions you find are typically controlled by whichever group profits most from your misfortune.

It’s no accident that creative people increasingly protect a certain amount of time spent without screens, to experience nature, and cultivate transcendental perspectives using meditation and ritual. These people don’t hate technology. They simply see solid advantages to ensuring their brains can still sense transcendent truths as well as invent rational equations. Ursula Le Guin, whose stories mined real-life conundrums, once said:

“Commodified fantasy takes no risks: it invents nothing, but imitates and trivializes. It proceeds by depriving the old stories of their intellectual and ethical complexity…Profoundly disturbing moral choices are sanitized, made cute, made safe. The passionately conceived ideas of the great storytellers are copied, stereotyped, reduced to toys, molded in bright colored plastic, advertised, sold, broken, junked, replaceable interchangeable.”

Ancient Aramaic tales of genies (jinn) feature tricksters with supernatural powers who grant extravagant wishes purely to teach a character how to watch what he wishes for. Now that we have manufactured supernatural technologies that reach exponentially larger audiences and grant extravagant wishes at the press of a button, we are relearning the hard way to watch out what we wish for.

Certainly there are those who will argue that business is not responsible for keeping moral stories alive. But one thing I know deep in my bones from more than twenty years of teaching stories in the business environment is that facing a moral conflict and taking a stand builds trust much faster than sidestepping these issues. In order to stand out your stories need to show what you stand for.

It is emotion, not numbers, that keep us engaged, drive us to protect the weak, fund philanthropy, and fuel our search for justice, equity, and meaning. Just because it is impossible to quantify the long-term payoffs of moral actions doesn’t mean they aren’t worth the investment. And just because you want to make a profit doesn’t mean you need to engage in the dark arts to do so.

Tomorrow: Magic School for Storytellers

 

Excerpt from Chapter 12, 3rd ed. of The Story Factor (2019)  AUDIBLE VERSION HERE