After I called his Harvard Business Review blog post on “storydoing” brilliant and then asked if a common storytelling company could turn into an exceptional storydoing company, consultant Ty Montague tweeted: yes.
He pointed me to his website where I found a decision tree that shows how an organization can transform itself from an overgrown discount carwash and storm door company into to a meaningful, socially compelling brand.
And is where the cow pooh starts to ooze through. Let’s follow the steps for creating a “storydoing” company from scratch. First:
“Form a multi-department working team to lead the development of a story.” Let’s set aside the fact that no committee—pardon, “working team”—ever “developed” so much as a good knock-knock joke, let alone a great corporate story. Let’s say the committee pulls off the impossible. What next? Well, next you’ve gotta ask yourself if the story the committee ginned up defines “an ambition beyond commercial aspiration.” If not …
“Form a multi-department working team to evolve or redefine the story, broadening its relevance.” Yep, another committee—or maybe we send the same committee back to the drawing board—to make the story interesting to anybody besides the company’s shareholders.
“Start working regularly with individual functions to define and prioritize actions based on that story.” And if that doesn’t unify the story-glorification efforts of everyone from the CEO to the dope-fiend in the mailing room, then Montague recommends “an employee engagement and training program, directed by managers across departments.” And what if the company still isn’t doing its story every day in every way? “Create a governance structure to monitor and support aligned action.” Booya!
But wait, you say. After we created all these committees and action-alignment mechanisms and training programs and governance structure, we asked our customers what they think of our awesome new story, and they are evenly split between who knows, and who cares.
No worries, says Montague. You simply “define an en external participation program across social, PR and communications,” and “re-examine the story if engagement remains low.”
And then? “Congratulations!” says Montague. “You are a world class storydoer.”
Montague must have written this schematic in a moment of weakness. Surely the fellow who so articulately defines the difference between the facile telling and the rigorous living of compelling corporate stories doesn’t believe a company can reinvent its authentic identity out of whole cloth. Surely a guy who has studied relevant brands and cultures knows that almost all of them grew out of a brilliant invention, an iconoclastic (and often half-crazy) founder, or the happy historic confluence of a desperate social need and a service that answers it.
Communicator, if you’re not working for a company that fits Ty Montague’s useful definition of “storydoing,” do the best you can to organize and broaden the reach of the stories you do have.
But if you truly want to work for a “storydoing” company—and I think Mr. Montague knows this as well as the rest of us—you’re probably going to have go find one.
The bad news is, there aren’t too many of them. The good news is, they’re really easy to find.
Interesting take. If your overall point is that there is no miracle system or paint by numbers approach to doing this I would agree. Your criticism seems to focus on the flow chart. The flow chart was designed to be a tool to help leaders ask themselves the right questions, not a literal set of instructions. Your gleeful dissection of the language used in it made me smile and i think you are right it could probably use some work. One additional point (probably not well made by me) is that the chart was designed as a companion to the book. The book goes into much more detail than any flow chart ever could on process and includes case histories of companies who are using this process. When you have had a chance to read it I would be happy to answer more questions.
Ty, that’s entirely fair. And on the strength of your general “storydoing” concept, read the book I will, though with an eye made skeptical by many years of studying iconoclastic companies, not one of whom became so when they decided to, midstream.
Back at you after I’ve given your book the consideration it deserves.
I don’t know. I remain skeptical. I’m a consultant, and yet even I think this reeks of consultant-speak. Which is the problem with most consultants, and the major complaint most companies have of them — that they don’t understand the real world of how companies work, i.e., no company is going to expend that kind of time and energy on becoming a “storydoing” company.
It’s like that old joke: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but it takes a long time and the light bulb must really WANT to change. Same is true of culture change. It’s evolutionary, not revolutionary, and the company must really want to change. No consultant-hawked process is going to change a company’s culture from telling stories about itself (in the form of spin) to actually living up to its PR. It can happen, but it’s a complex, time-consuming process and the best a communicator can do is to live within the culture that currently exists while chipping away and championing the little steps that help change the culture.
Robert, that’s definitely the way I see it. But Ty’s description of the “storydoing” company (and its opposite) may help communicators who are chipping away, as it gives them a name for the type of culture they’re aiming for.
Ty, I appreciate your response, and will definitely read the book, with eyes both skeptical and hopeful that I’ll see ONE compelling story of a company that came to understand and live by its story, midstream.
@Robert: Totally agree. I like “storydoing” only to the extent that having a word for the thing we’re going for helps communicators chip away more effectively.
@Ty: Appreciate your good-natured response. Will read your book, and look hopefully but skeptically for ONE organization that has transformed itself midstream.
I don’t believe that storydoing as it’s described here can come from a committee, the marketing department, or even an ad hoc group of well-meaning communicators. In my experience, the only one who can define the story is the person at the top: the CEO. That’s the only person who has enough credibility and sheer uumph to set the direction for the entire organization, explain what their purpose is and then push that story throughout the organization. I can’t see how a bottom-up storydoing exercise would ever gain traction. It has to come from the top and from a person who truly has the passion to back it up. Not an exercise but fundamental belief.
And far from all CEOs could pull this off, I think you’d agree. A company founder obviously has the best shot. After that, a CEO who takes over the company at a critical juncture and thus has everyone’s rapt attention in the context of unavoidable and profound change.
Otherwise?
Let’s start telling and “living” this yarn because it’s good for our brand.
Not going to happen.
Agreed. The founder has the best shot. And I would think the smaller the company the better the chances. All to say that one reason I hated doing formal employee communications is that I hated “selling” this type of storyboarding to the masses. I believe most employees want to do a good job, be the best they can, and go home at the end of the day and be with their families (or dogs or cats or whatever). They don’t “live” the company. They may be extremely grateful for the work, enjoy what they do, and even put in extra work to help the organization. But at the end of the day what they really want to know is how to do their jobs better and get paid a fair wage. Reminds me of the old saw of the stone masons building a church. Most are rock cutters; very few are actually there to build a cathedral. That’s not meant to be cynical, just realistic.