Tool 1: Storytelling Audit Template for Tamaraland

Opening: Chasing Stories from Room to Room

Picture this: You're consulting for a mid-sized company. The CEO tells you one story about why the reorganization failed. When you talk to middle managers, you hear a completely different story. The frontline employees? They're telling yet another version. And the story customers are posting online bears almost no resemblance to any of these internal narratives.

Welcome to Tamaraland—every organization with more than two rooms. The metaphor comes from a theatrical production called Tamara, where audience members chase actors through multiple rooms in a mansion, catching fragments of simultaneous storylines but never experiencing the whole play from one vantage point. You cannot be in more than one room at a time. Meanwhile, different stories are unfolding in different spaces, and they're often contradictory, competing, and collectively constituting organizational reality.

This isn't a problem to solve—it's the nature of organizational life. Research on storytelling organizations—including detailed observations of an office supply firm and Disney—showed that organizations are storytelling systems. Stories aren't just communication tools; they constitute the performance system that shapes identity, power, change, and sensemaking. The Storytelling Audit Template helps you map this multi-sited, polyphonic reality so you can work with it rather than against it.

Core Concepts: Understanding the Storytelling Organization

What is a Storytelling Organization?

Every organization is a storytelling organization. Field research in organizations has shown how employees in an office supply firm performed stories in everyday conversations—brief, fragmented, often challenged by listeners, yet constituting collective memory and shared sensemaking. These weren't polished corporate narratives with clear beginnings, middles, and ends. They were terse story performances where speakers assumed listeners would silently fill in major portions of the storyline.

Three characteristics define storytelling organizations:

1. Story Performance, Not Just Story Text

Stories in organizations aren't static texts—they're performances that vary by context, audience, and political purpose. The same "official story" about a new initiative gets performed differently in the executive suite, in department meetings, at the water cooler, and in exit interviews. When you audit organizational stories, you're tracking performances and how they shift across contexts, not just collecting written narratives.

2. Collective Storytelling Systems

Individual organizational members don't possess complete stories. Instead, they contribute fragments to a collective storytelling system where institutional memory supplements individual memories. People perform story bits that others pick up, challenge, revise, and re-perform. The organization's "story" emerges from this distributed, dynamic system, not from any single authoritative telling.

3. Tamara-land Structure

Organizational storytelling unfolds in multiple rooms simultaneously, with different audiences chasing different storylines. Studies of Disney have shown the organization operated as literal and metaphorical Tamara-land: tourists chased stories through themed lands, employees experienced divergent narratives in front-stage and back-stage spaces, and marginalized voices told darker counter-stories the official Disney legend excluded. Your client's organization works the same way—multiple stories happening at once in different spaces, and you can't catch them all from one position.

The Four Types of Stories You'll Find

When conducting a storytelling audit, you're tracking four kinds of stories that interplay in organizational Tamaraland:

1. Precedent Stories (Past-Oriented)

These are "how we got here" stories that organizational members tell to make sense of current situations by referencing past events. They include founding myths, war stories, cautionary tales, and historical precedents people invoke to justify present actions. Consulting work has shown that people performed precedent stories to support or resist change initiatives—"Remember what happened last time we tried this?"

2. Future-Directed Stories (Speculative)

These are the bets, plans, visions, and "what if" scenarios people tell about possible futures. Leaders tell aspirational stories to inspire; employees tell skeptical stories to inoculate against disappointment; consultants tell change stories to mobilize action. Future-directed stories are often antenarratives—fragmented pre-stories that haven't yet crystallized into coherent narratives.

3. Living Stories (Present-Moment)

These are the unfolding, in-process stories happening right now in organizational life. They're embodied, situated, and often unfinished. When you observe a contentious meeting, witness a customer interaction, or watch a team struggle through a problem, you're seeing living story—the raw material before it gets retrospectively narrated into tidier versions.

4. Counter-Stories (Marginalized Voices)

These are the stories official narratives exclude or suppress. They come from marginalized employees, dissatisfied customers, critics, whistleblowers, or anyone whose experience contradicts the dominant story. Analysis of Disney revealed rich counter-stories about labor exploitation, environmental destruction, and cultural imperialism beneath the surface of the happy Magic Kingdom narrative. Every organization has counter-stories—the storytelling audit makes them visible.

Why "Audit" Is the Wrong Word (But We Use It Anyway)

Traditional audits assume you're counting objective things that stay still while you count them. Organizational stories don't work that way. They're dynamic, contextual, and performative. They change based on who's listening, shift mid-telling, get challenged and revised, and morph across spaces. So when we say "storytelling audit," we don't mean a static inventory. We mean a systematic process of tracking story performances across your client's Tamaraland to reveal patterns, contradictions, silences, and possibilities.

The Political Nature of Organizational Storytelling

Stories in organizations are never neutral. They're tools of power, resistance, sensemaking, and change. Field observations have shown employees performing stories to gain political advantage, introduce change, make sense of confusing events, and challenge authority. Managers told stories that reinforced hierarchy; workers told stories that subverted it. Some stories were told openly in meetings; others were whispered in hallways. Some storytellers had authority that made their versions stick; others' versions got dismissed as "just complaining." The audit reveals not just what stories exist, but who has the power to make their stories become organizational truth.

How to Apply It: Conducting the Storytelling Audit

Step 1: Map the Tamaraland

Start by identifying the physical and metaphorical rooms in your client's organization. Physical rooms might be departments, locations, hierarchical levels, customer touchpoints, or supplier interfaces. Metaphorical rooms might be formal meetings versus hallway conversations, official communications versus back-channel gossip, or digital spaces versus embodied interactions. Create a simple map showing these rooms and note: you cannot be in all rooms simultaneously, and different stories are happening in each.

Step 2: Position Story Collectors in Multiple Rooms

You need multiple observers to track simultaneous story performances. If you're a solo consultant, you'll need to move through rooms systematically over time. If you're a team, position people in different rooms. The goal is gathering story fragments from across the Tamaraland, not achieving complete coverage (which is impossible). Instruct collectors to listen for:

• Terse story performances in everyday conversation
• What speakers assume listeners know (the silently filled-in portions)
• Challenges and revisions during the telling
• Who's performing which stories for which audiences
• Which stories get retold frequently versus told once and forgotten

Step 3: Track the Four Story Types

For each room in your Tamaraland map, collect examples of precedent stories, future-directed stories, living stories, and counter-stories. Use a simple matrix:

Room/Space	Precedent Stories	Future-Directed	Living Stories	Counter-Stories
Executive Suite	[Examples]	[Examples]	[Examples]	[Examples]
Middle Management	[Examples]	[Examples]	[Examples]	[Examples]
Frontline Staff	[Examples]	[Examples]	[Examples]	[Examples]

Don't try to capture complete stories. Capture the fragments, the terse performances, the story openings that never get finished. That's the real data.

Step 4: Identify Story Patterns and Contradictions

Once you've collected fragments across the Tamaraland, analyze for patterns:

• Dominant Stories: Which stories get performed most frequently? Who performs them? Which rooms embrace them versus resist them?
• Story Contradictions: Where do stories from different rooms directly contradict each other? (Example: executives telling growth stories while operations tells survival stories)
• Silent Stories: What aren't people talking about? What topics provoke uncomfortable silence when raised?
• Marginalized Voices: Whose counter-stories are getting excluded from the dominant narrative? What happens when they try to tell their version?
• Story Drift: How does the "same" story morph as it moves through rooms? What gets added, deleted, emphasized, or reversed?

Step 5: Map Political Story Work

Stories in organizations are inherently political. People perform stories to gain advantage, resist authority, justify decisions, and shape collective memory. Track:

• Who has storytelling authority? Whose versions get accepted as "truth"?
• How are stories used to support or undermine change initiatives?
• Which stories are used to include people versus exclude them?
• How do power dynamics shape which stories can be told and which must be silenced?

Step 6: Present Audit Findings as Tamaraland Map

Don't present your findings as "the organizational story"—that would deny the polyphonic reality you've discovered. Instead, present the Tamaraland map showing simultaneous, competing storylines. Use visuals showing:

• Different rooms and the distinct stories in each
• Arrows showing how stories move and morph across spaces
• Dominant stories (thick lines) versus marginalized counter-stories (dotted lines)
• Contradictions, gaps, and silences

Your job isn't to resolve contradictions into false coherence. Your job is making the polyphonic reality visible so the organization can work with it.

Step 7: Design Story Interventions

Once the audit reveals the storytelling landscape, you can design interventions:

• Story Bridging: Create forums where people from different rooms can perform their stories to each other
• Counter-Story Amplification: Give marginalized voices platforms to tell their versions
• Story Challenge Sessions: Facilitate conversations where dominant stories can be questioned and revised
• Antenarrative Tracking: Monitor emerging future-directed stories to catch change possibilities early (see Tool 5)

Example: Healthcare System Merger

A regional healthcare system hired me after a merger created massive dysfunction. The storytelling audit revealed why: Hospital A told a precedent story about being the "flagship" with superior clinical care. Hospital B told a counter-story about being the "community hospital" that actually cared about patients versus profits. In executive meetings (one room), leaders performed a future-directed story about "unified excellence." On nursing floors (other rooms), staff performed living stories about resource wars and quality decline. Patient forums (yet another room) surfaced counter-stories about worse outcomes post-merger.

The audit made visible that this wasn't one merger story—it was competing storylines in different Tamaraland rooms with no bridges between them. The intervention involved creating cross-room story sessions where Hospital A and Hospital B staff performed their precedent stories to each other, then co-created new future-directed stories that honored both legacies. Nursing staff finally got to tell their living stories of struggle to executives. Patient counter-stories were integrated into quality improvement initiatives instead of dismissed as "complaints."

Six months later, storytelling patterns had shifted. The organization hadn't achieved false unity—it still had multiple stories in different rooms. But the stories were in dialogue rather than opposition, and marginalized voices had more authority in collective sensemaking.

Key Takeaways

• Every organization is a storytelling organization where stories constitute identity, power, and change
• Organizations are Tamaralands with multiple simultaneous storylines in different rooms—you cannot be in all rooms at once
• Track four story types: precedent stories, future-directed stories, living stories, and counter-stories
• Stories are performances, not texts—they vary by context, get challenged mid-telling, and morph across spaces
• Collective storytelling systems mean no individual holds the complete story; institutional memory is distributed
• Don't resolve contradictions—make polyphonic reality visible so organizations can work with it
• Counter-stories matter—marginalized voices tell crucial stories that dominant narratives exclude
• Use audit findings to design story interventions that bridge rooms, amplify silenced voices, and enable dialogue across difference

Tool 2: Polyphony Errors Diagnostic

Opening: When Organizations Silence Their Own Voices

Picture this: You're in a strategy meeting at a mid-sized tech company. The VP of Product presents "our new direction." An engineer in the back raises a counter-perspective about technical feasibility. The VP smiles warmly: "That's an interesting concern, John. But we've already aligned on this with the executive team." John's voice was acknowledged—then dismissed. The meeting continues as if he hadn't spoken.

Later, you're interviewing John. He tells you this happens constantly. "They ask for our input, but they've already decided. I've learned to just nod along." Other engineers confirm the pattern. Product roadmaps get announced. Engineering concerns get "heard." Nothing changes. Turnover in engineering is 40% annually.

What you've diagnosed: monologism—one of six polyphony errors organizations commit when they mishandle the multiple voices constituting their reality. This tool teaches you to spot these errors with precision and name them clearly so your client can't pretend they're not happening.

Core Concept: Bakhtin's Polyphony Framework for Organizations

Mikhail Bakhtin studied how Dostoevsky created novels where multiple characters spoke with equally authentic voices—no single narrator dominated, no voice was reduced to serving the author's message. He called this polyphony: genuine multi-voicedness where voices remain distinct, argue with each other, and resist merging into false harmony.

Organizations are also polyphonic systems—executives, middle managers, frontline workers, customers, suppliers all speak from different positions with different valid truths. But unlike Dostoevsky's artful polyphony, most organizations commit systematic errors that destroy authentic multi-voicedness. Bakhtin identified these errors by analyzing bad novels. We apply his framework to diagnose organizational dysfunction.

The Six Polyphony Errors: What to Look For

1. Monologism: Forcing One True Story

Definition: When an organization insists there's only one valid voice, one correct perspective, one official story—and all other voices must either align or stay silent.

What it looks like in practice: You're in a strategy meeting. The VP presents "our new direction." An employee raises a counter-perspective. The VP responds: "That's an interesting concern, but we've already decided." The employee's voice was acknowledged, then dismissed. Monologism isn't always loud and authoritarian—sometimes it's polite and final.

Diagnostic tells: Listen for phrases like "We're all on the same page now" or "Let's move past this debate" that signal one voice has won and all others must fall silent. Watch for the pattern of "acknowledge but dismiss"—"I appreciate your perspective, BUT we need to stay aligned with corporate messaging." That little word "but" erases everything before it.

Why it's costly: Monologism drives out your best people (who have their own voices and won't suppress them indefinitely), kills innovation (which requires challenging dominant narratives), and creates organizational brittleness (when only one story is allowed, the organization can't adapt when that story fails).

What to tell your client: "You're committing monologism. You ask for diverse input, then communicate that only one voice ultimately matters. This is why your innovation pipeline is empty and your best engineers are leaving."

2. Finalization: Closing People's Stories Prematurely

Definition: When an organization treats people's stories as finished, categorizing them in ways that prevent growth, change, or surprise.

What it looks like in practice: You're interviewing Sarah, a long-time employee. She says "I'm just not a data person." Her manager nods: "Sarah's more of a people person." Sarah's story is finished—she's been categorized. But when you dig deeper, you discover Sarah taught herself Excel macros last year to solve a workflow problem. Her story isn't finished; it's been prematurely closed.

Diagnostic tells: Watch for how organizations tell finished stories about people, departments, or initiatives. "Marketing is always creative but unrealistic." "Operations is detail-oriented but resistant to change." "That team tried collaboration once and it didn't work." These are finalized narratives that prevent evolution.

Why it's costly: Finalization locks people into boxes that no longer fit (if they ever did), prevents organizational learning (if stories are finished, there's nothing new to discover), and creates self-fulfilling prophecies (people become what you've decided they already are).

What to tell your client: "You're finalizing your people's stories. You've decided who they are and closed the book on their potential. That's why talented people leave—they can't grow in a place that's already decided they're finished."

3. Theoretism: Abstracting People Into Categories

Definition: When an organization substitutes abstract categories for living voices, making people administratively manageable but humanly invisible.

What it looks like in practice: A CEO shows you a dashboard: "Our employee engagement score is 68%. Industry average is 71%. We need to improve 3 points." You ask to talk with actual employees. He looks puzzled: "But we have the data. Why would we need anecdotal information?" This is theoretism—abstracting living voices into measurable categories until the human disappears.

Diagnostic tells: Performance reviews that reduce complex people to ratings ("John is a 3 on leadership, 4 on technical skills"). Engagement surveys that replace actual conversations. Any time numbers substitute for voices, you're seeing theoretism. The organization prefers theory (abstract categories) over reality (messy human voices).

Why it's costly: Theoretism makes organizations blind to what's actually happening (dashboards show green while people are suffering), creates disconnected leadership (executives managing numbers, not leading humans), and destroys trust (people know when they've been reduced to data points).

What to tell your client: "You're committing theoretism. You've replaced human voices with survey scores and performance ratings. Your dashboard says engagement is 68%, but five people quit this month because they feel invisible. The theory is hiding the reality."

4. Secondhand Discourse: Corporate Zombie Language

Definition: When an organization speaks in borrowed language—corporate jargon repeated without meaning, empty of authentic voice.

What it looks like in practice: Sit in any corporate meeting: "Let's circle back to align our synergies." "We need to leverage our core competencies to drive value-add solutions." This is secondhand discourse—language borrowed from elsewhere, repeated without meaning, dead on arrival. No actual human would spontaneously speak this way.

Diagnostic tells: Ask someone to explain what they just said in their own words. If they struggle or simply repeat the corporate phrase, you've found secondhand discourse. Listen for mission statements that could apply to any company. Watch for emails that sound like they were written by a committee of buzzword generators.

Why it's costly: Secondhand discourse kills meaning (nobody knows what anyone actually means), prevents real communication (can't solve problems if can't speak authentically), and signals cultural decay (when people can't speak in their own voice, something is deeply wrong).

What to tell your client: "You're using secondhand discourse. Nobody in your organization speaks in an authentic voice—it's all corporate jargon and borrowed buzzwords. This isn't communication; it's ventriloquism. And it's why nothing you say lands with employees."

5. Carnival Suppression: Killing Playful Challenge

Definition: When an organization eliminates spaces where hierarchy temporarily dissolves, where people can playfully challenge authority, where the official story gets mocked.

What it looks like in practice: You're observing a leadership team. Everything is serious, formal, hierarchical. Nobody jokes. Nobody playfully teases the CEO. You notice people tensing when anyone tries humor. Later, an employee tells you: "We used to have fun here. Now everything feels dangerous."

Diagnostic tells: Notice what can't be joked about. Can employees playfully tease leaders without fear? Is there humor in meetings, or only nervous laughter at approved jokes? Can someone make a satirical comment about corporate initiatives without being marked as "not a team player"? Healthy polyphony needs carnival—moments when the normal order gets questioned through play.

Why it's costly: Carnival suppression makes organizations brittle (no safety valve for pressure), kills creativity (innovation requires playing with ideas), and breeds resentment (when you can't laugh at authority, you start to hate it).

What to tell your client: "You've suppressed carnival. Your organization is humorless, hierarchical, and tense. People can't playfully challenge authority, so they're either silently resentful or actively planning their exit. You need spaces where the official story can be mocked without consequence."

6. Dialogue Avoidance: The Meeting After the Meeting

Definition: When an organization stages the appearance of multi-voiced conversation while ensuring genuine dialogue happens nowhere official.

What it looks like in practice: You observe a leadership team meeting. Discussion seems productive. Afterward, you hear clusters of people in hallways having the REAL conversation: "We can't actually say what we think in there." The meeting was performance. Dialogue was avoided.

Diagnostic tells: Meetings that feel performative, conversations that never reach conflict, decisions that everyone "agrees" to but nobody commits to, and the constant refrain "Let's take this offline." When the real conversation happens after the official meeting ends, you're witnessing dialogue avoidance.

Why it's costly: Dialogue avoidance means decisions get made without genuine thinking-together (so they fail in implementation), creates cynicism (people stop believing anything real happens in official spaces), and wastes massive time (the same conversation happens over and over in hallways because it never really happened in the meeting).

What to tell your client: "You're avoiding dialogue. Your official meetings are theater—the real conversations happen in hallways after. This is why your decisions never stick and your implementation always fails. You're not actually talking to each other where it counts."

How to Apply It: Conducting the Polyphony Errors Diagnostic

Step 1: Observe Across Multiple Settings

Don't rely on interviews alone. Sit in meetings. Read emails. Listen to hallway conversations. Walk the floor. Eat lunch in the cafeteria. You're looking for patterns of how voices get handled—welcomed, dismissed, categorized, deadened, mocked, or avoided.

Step 2: Create an Error Matrix

For each polyphony error, document specific examples:

• Monologism: When/where does one voice dominate? What phrases signal dismissal?
• Finalization: Whose stories are finished? What categories limit people?
• Theoretism: Where do numbers replace voices? What abstractions hide reality?
• Secondhand Discourse: What jargon dominates? Where is authentic voice absent?
• Carnival Suppression: What can't be joked about? Where is play missing?
• Dialogue Avoidance: Where do "meetings after meetings" happen? What stays unsaid?

Step 3: Name the Errors Explicitly

Don't soften your diagnosis. Your client needs to hear: "You're committing monologism. Here's what it looks like. Here's what it's costing you." Use Bakhtin's terminology—it gives you authority and precision. The errors have names. Use them.

Step 4: Connect Errors to Business Impact

For each error you diagnose, show the cost: turnover rates, innovation pipeline failures, implementation breakdowns, customer complaints. Polyphony errors aren't theoretical—they have measurable economic shadows (use Tool 7 to quantify hidden costs if needed).

Step 5: Prioritize Which Errors to Address First

Most organizations commit multiple polyphony errors simultaneously. You can't fix everything at once. Help your client see which error is creating the most damage and start there.

Key Takeaways

• Polyphony errors are predictable and diagnosable—use Bakhtin's framework to name them precisely
• Every organization commits some errors—but the patterns and severity vary
• Errors compound each other—monologism leads to finalization leads to dialogue avoidance
• Naming errors creates accountability—clients can't ignore what you've named clearly
• This is diagnostic work, not solution work—Tools 3-6 help address what you've diagnosed here

Tool 3: Tamaraland Navigation

Opening: The Merger That Wasn't (But Was)

Picture this: You're consulting for a company six months post-merger. You start in the Executive Room. The CEO tells you: "Integration is going smoothly. We're one company now. Culture alignment is excellent." You take notes, nodding.

Next, you visit the Sales Room. A different story: "We still don't know which CRM system we're supposed to use. I have accounts in both databases. Customers are confused about who to call. Nobody will make a decision."

Then the Engineering Room: "Their code standards are amateur—we can't merge the codebases. But leadership keeps pushing for 'one unified platform.' It's technically impossible with the time and resources they're giving us."

Finally, the Customer Service Room: "Customers are furious. They get transferred between 'old company' and 'new company' reps. We're apologizing constantly for problems we can't explain. Morale is terrible."

Four rooms. Four completely different stories about the same organizational reality. This is Tamaraland—and you, the consultant, cannot be in all rooms at once. You experience fragments, contradictions, and competing truths. Welcome to organizational reality as it actually exists.

Core Concept: Understanding Tamaraland

The metaphor comes from a 1980s theatrical production called Tamara, staged in a Los Angeles mansion. Multiple storylines unfolded simultaneously in different rooms. Audience members chose which actors to follow, chasing them from room to room. You caught fragments—never the whole story. Different audience members experienced completely different versions of the play based on which rooms they chose.

Organizations work exactly this way. Leadership experiences one organizational reality. Frontline employees experience another. Customers experience yet another. Marketing sees opportunities; operations sees constraints. Remote workers inhabit different spaces than office workers. Each room tells its own story, and those stories often contradict each other.

This isn't a problem to solve—it's the nature of organizational life. Tamaraland navigation means working with multi-sited reality rather than trying to force it into false unity. You're not searching for one true story (it doesn't exist). You're helping your client navigate multiplicity skillfully.

When Tamaraland Navigation Goes Wrong: Common Mistakes

Mistake 1: Picking One Room as "True"

Consultants often privilege one room's perspective as the "real" story. Usually the executive room—because that's who hired you and who has authority. But when you treat the executive narrative as truth and all other rooms as "resistance" or "misunderstanding," you've become an agent of monologism (Tool 2's first error).

Better approach: Treat all rooms as offering legitimate perspectives on organizational reality. The executive story is one valid view. So is the frontline story. So is the customer story. They don't have to agree—they're seeing from different vantage points.

Mistake 2: Trying to Create One Unified Story

Many consultants see Tamaraland's multiplicity as a communication problem: "They're not aligned! We need clearer messaging!" So they craft one official narrative and push it through all rooms. This is like trying to make all audience members at Tamara experience the same play—it defeats the point.

Better approach: Help the organization function as Tamaraland. Create bridges between rooms so stories can dialogue, but don't force false unity. The goal isn't one story—it's stories that can speak to each other across difference.

Mistake 3: Assuming You Can See Everything

You can't. You're bound by time and space like everyone else. You experience fragments. Consultants who claim comprehensive understanding are either lying or deluded. Part of Tamaraland navigation is acknowledging: "I can only be in one room at a time. I'm catching fragments, like everyone else."

Better approach: Be transparent about your partiality. Tell your client: "I've visited four rooms. There are probably twelve more I haven't seen. Here's what I'm hearing in the rooms I can access." This honesty builds trust and models the humility organizations need.

Tamaraland Navigation in Practice: Real Scenarios

Scenario 1: The Innovation Initiative Nobody Wants

The Situation: Leadership launched an "innovation initiative" with great fanfare. You visit different rooms:

• Innovation Team Room: Enthusiastic, generating ideas, feeling empowered, talking about "transformation"
• Department Head Room: Skeptical, seeing innovation as extra work on top of actual jobs, wondering "who has time for this?"
• Frontline Room: Resentful, thinking "Here comes another corporate program that will fade in 6 months while we do the real work"
• Customer Room: Unaware any innovation initiative exists, still experiencing the same old problems

Typical consultant response: "There's a communication problem! Leadership needs to explain the innovation initiative better!" This assumes the Innovation Team room has the true story and other rooms just don't understand yet.

Tamaraland navigation response: All four rooms are right. The Innovation Team genuinely feels empowered. Department heads genuinely experience overload. Frontline workers genuinely have initiative fatigue. Customers genuinely haven't seen change. These aren't contradictions—they're different valid perspectives from different organizational positions.

Your navigation strategy:

1. Show each room what other rooms are experiencing (don't tell them they're wrong)
2. Help the Innovation Team hear the initiative fatigue story without getting defensive
3. Help frontline employees see the genuine strategic pressure leadership faces
4. Create forums where different rooms can speak directly to each other
5. Navigate toward innovation that honors multiple perspectives—not one imposed from above

Scenario 2: The Remote Work War

The Situation: Post-pandemic, your client is fighting over return-to-office policy. Each room has a completely different story:

• Executive Room: "We need people back for collaboration and culture. Innovation doesn't happen on Zoom."
• Parent Room: "Remote work gives me life balance I can't surrender. I see my kids. I save commute time. I'm more productive."
• Facilities Room: "We're paying for empty office space—it's financially wasteful. Either use it or close it."
• Extrovert Room: "I'm dying without in-person energy. Zoom drains me. I need human connection."
• Introvert Room: "I'm finally productive without office chaos. Open offices were torture. Remote work lets me actually think."
• Junior Employee Room: "I'm not learning. Nobody mentors remotely. My career is stalling."

Typical consultant response: Recommend a hybrid policy as "compromise." But compromise between incompatible needs doesn't actually serve anyone—it just distributes dissatisfaction evenly.

Tamaraland navigation response: This isn't a problem with one solution. It's multiple legitimate needs in tension. Executives genuinely observe collaboration problems. Parents genuinely need flexibility. Introverts genuinely thrive remotely. All true simultaneously.

Your navigation strategy:

1. Make the multi-room reality visible—show how office wars are Tamaraland conflicts
2. Don't aim for one policy that satisfies everyone (impossible)
3. Instead, help the organization develop room-aware policies recognizing different legitimate needs
4. Maybe: Core collaboration days for some roles, full remote for others, team-specific decisions rather than company-wide mandate
5. Create forums where different rooms negotiate directly (not through leadership)

Scenario 3: The Strategy That Died in Translation

The Situation: Leadership spent months crafting a new strategy. They rolled it out with beautiful presentations. Three months later, nothing has changed. You investigate:

• Executive Room: "We've communicated the strategy clearly. People just need time to adapt."
• Middle Management Room: "The strategy sounds nice but doesn't address our actual constraints. We're supposed to 'focus on innovation' while hitting the same quarterly numbers with fewer resources."
• Frontline Room: "We got another PowerPoint. Doesn't change what I do every day. Customers still have the same problems."
• IT Room: "The new strategy requires technology we don't have. Nobody asked us what's feasible."

Typical consultant response: "This is a change management problem. People are resistant. They need more training and communication."

Tamaraland navigation response: The strategy isn't failing because people don't understand it. It's failing because it was created in one room (executive) and imposed on all other rooms without considering how it looks from their vantage points. The strategy might be brilliant from the executive room's position—and simultaneously impossible from operations' position. Both true.

Your navigation strategy:

1. Show leadership that their room isn't the only room
2. Bring strategy creators into contact with strategy implementers before finalization
3. Help them co-create a strategy that works from multiple rooms' positions
4. Build feedback loops so strategy can adapt as it encounters real constraints
5. Accept that strategy will look different as it moves through different rooms—that's not failure, that's reality

How to Apply It: Practical Tamaraland Navigation Skills

Step 1: Map the Rooms Explicitly

Don't assume you know all the rooms. Ask your client: "Where are the distinct spaces in this organization? Where do different stories get told?" Physical rooms (departments, locations, levels), metaphorical rooms (formal meetings vs. hallways, Slack vs. email, office vs. remote), and identity-based rooms (parents, early-career, technical vs. business).

Create a literal map if helpful. Show: "Here are the seven rooms I've identified. You cannot be in all seven simultaneously. Different realities are unfolding in each."

Step 2: Visit Multiple Rooms Systematically

Don't stay in the executive room (or whichever room hired you). Systematically visit diverse rooms. Interview people across levels, departments, locations. Observe meetings in different spaces. Read communications in different channels. You're tracking how the same organizational reality looks radically different from different positions.

Step 3: Document Stories by Room

For each major organizational issue, collect the different rooms' stories:

• What story does the executive room tell about this?
• What story does the frontline room tell?
• What story do customers tell?
• What contradictions exist between rooms?

Don't try to reconcile contradictions. Document them faithfully. Your job is showing multiplicity, not resolving it artificially.

Step 4: Make Tamaraland Visible to Your Client

Most organizations don't consciously recognize they're Tamaralands. They think there's one organizational reality that some people understand correctly and others misunderstand. Show them: "No. There are multiple simultaneous realities unfolding in different rooms. Here's what the merger looks like from four different positions. They don't agree. They're not supposed to."

Step 5: Build Bridges, Not Unity

Instead of trying to create one story everyone accepts, build bridges between rooms:

• Create forums where different rooms can speak directly (not through management)
• Facilitate dialogue where each room can hear others' legitimate perspectives
• Help rooms develop "translators" who can carry stories between spaces
• Design processes that honor multiplicity (different rooms might need different approaches)

Step 6: Acknowledge Your Own Partiality

You're also experiencing Tamaraland partially. You have access to some rooms, not others. Your presence changes what gets said. You can only be in one place at a time. Model the humility you want the organization to develop: "I'm catching fragments, like everyone else. Here's what I see from where I stand."

When to Use Tamaraland Navigation

Use this tool when:

• Your client is trying to force one unified story onto diverse organizational positions
• Strategies or initiatives keep "failing" because they don't work from all rooms' perspectives
• Leadership is confused why "clear communication" isn't creating alignment
• You're seeing systematic contradictions between what different groups experience
• Mergers, reorganizations, or major changes are revealing multiplicity

Key Takeaways

• Every organization with 2+ rooms is a Tamaraland—multiple simultaneous stories unfolding in different spaces
• You cannot be in all rooms at once—accept your partiality and model that humility
• Don't try to create one unified story—that's monologism (Tool 2's error)
• All rooms offer legitimate perspectives—even when they contradict each other
• Build bridges, not unity—help rooms dialogue without forcing false harmony
• Tamaraland isn't a bug; it's a feature—organizations that try to eliminate multiplicity become brittle and blind

Format: Worksheet + coaching prompts
Purpose: Address leadership storytelling battles (boardroom conflicts, CEO-vs-investor narratives)

Components:

• Identify dominant vs. counter-stories in leadership conflict
• Questions for reframing toxic leadership stories into constructive narratives
Role-play activity for consultants/coaches to facilitate “restorying”

.

Leadership Conflict is analyzed in Louis Pondy’s model

Pondy’s model of organizational conflict provides a valuable framework for understanding and addressing leadership conflicts in organizations. The model is structured around five distinct stages, each highlighting a different dimension of how conflicts emerge, develop, and resolve within groups, including leadership teams. In his seminal 1967 article, Pondy also identifies three types of organizational systems where conflict dynamics play out.

 

Figure 1: The Conflict Model is from Boje, D. M., & Saylors, R. (2023). The management thought of Louis R. Pondy: Reclaiming the enthinkment path. Routledge. This diagram has the loop arrow from conflict aftermath or resolution back to the Aftermath of Preceding Conflict Episodes, which was missing from Pondy’s (1967) article, but was in his original dissertation model.

PERVIEW coaching offers a robust narrative and energy-based method for transforming leadership conflict, integrating embodied practices and storytelling into each stage of the Pondy conflict model. Applying all seven PERVIEW steps to Pondy's (1967) framework illuminates how narrative coaching can strategically guide leaders through complex organizational disputes.

Integrating PERVIEW Coaching with the Pondy Conflict Model

Pondy's conflict model organizes conflict into five stages: latent, perceived, felt, manifest, and aftermath, with each stage requiring unique interventions and perspectives for lasting resolution (Pondy, 1967). The seven steps of the PERVIEW method—Processes, Embodied, Restorying, Vibrations, Internal, Energy, Waves—expand upon each stage by facilitating narrative transformation, energetic rebalancing, and restorying for positive leadership outcomes (Boje & Rosile, 2025).

Step 1: Characterize Dysfunction and Possibility (Latent Conflict)

In the latent stage of Pondy's model, underlying conditions create the potential for conflict, even if not yet recognized (Pondy, 1967). PERVIEW coaching invites leaders to surface unspoken stories, identify contradictions, and assess vibrational energy patterns associated with resource scarcity, autonomy challenges, and divergent goals. Coach prompts such as "What unspoken stories are present about work conditions?" activate awareness and lay the foundation for narrative transformation (Boje & Rosile, 2025).

Step 2: Externalize Problems (Perceived Conflict)

As leaders become aware of looming conflict, PERVIEW coaching encourages externalization—moving the problem-laden narrative outside the person into systems and patterns. By naming character archetypes or "systemic forces," leaders see that dysfunction emerges from complex organizational systems, not individual flaws. This reframing clarifies areas such as training gaps or policy mismanagement, aligning with Pondy's emphasis on perceived threats to the status quo (Boje & Rosile, 2025; Pondy, 1967).

Step 3: Sympathize—Emotional Truth and Payoff (Felt Conflict)

Felt conflict is marked by emotional intensity, tension, and personalization of conflict (Pondy, 1967). In PERVIEW, the coach facilitates empathic dialogue to surface emotional realities—for example, how repeated communication fatigue or ignored contributions have shaped morale. This step is essential for restoring safety, validating embodied responses, and guiding leaders toward honest self-inquiry (Flora et al., 2016; Boje & Rosile, 2025).

Step 4: Revise—Testing New Narratives (Manifest Conflict)

During manifest conflict, open behaviors—verbal disagreements, opposition—surface. The PERVIEW coach helps leaders co-create revised narratives, envision more humane practices, and experiment with new behaviors and rituals. By testing change (e.g., new meeting protocols), leaders move past stuck storylines and actualize preferred futures, directly addressing behaviors and structures visible in manifest conflict (Boje & Rosile, 2018; Cast et al., 2013).

Step 5: Strategize—Planning Change and Exceptions

Post-revision, coaching shifts to action planning by highlighting "little wow moments"—exceptions that reflect desired practices. Leaders strategically implement new protocols and rhythms (e.g., daily huddles for coordination), reinforcing effective change and embedding narrative adjustments into organizational routines (Boje & Rosile, 2025).

Step 6: Rehistorize—Embedding Stories in Time (Aftermath)

In the aftermath stage, Pondy emphasizes lingering effects and learning after conflict resolution (Pondy, 1967). PERVIEW's rehistorizing step guides leaders to weave new stories into broader organizational timelines—connecting past, present, and future to transform legacy beliefs. This step ensures that healing is sustainable, and that updated narratives inform ongoing practices (Rosile & Boje, 2002; Rosile et al., 1998).

Step 7: Publicize and Anchor—Shared Identity

Finally, leaders share the new story with stakeholders, solidifying identity changes through communication rituals—voice, posture, symbols. The closing ceremony involving breathwork and somatic anchoring marks the transition from old to new meanings, ratifying transformation (Boje & Rosile, 2025).

Analysis of the Disney/Kimmel Leadership Conflict Using the PERVIEW Method and Pondy’s Conflict ModelSession Start

• Question: “Is it alright for your unconscious mind to release this story filter today and be aware of it consciously?”
• Agenda Setting: What is one thing you would like to accomplish by the end of this session? (e.g., Restoring trust between Disney leadership and affiliates.)
• Coaching Questions:
1. What can we focus on that will bring you the highest net value?
2. What would be of most importance to talk about?
3. What can we talk about that would make a difference?

Step 1: Characterize Current Dysfunctions and the Organization at Its Best (Latent Conflict)

• Pondy Stage: Latent Conflict – Underlying conditions (e.g., divergent goals between Disney’s creative freedom and affiliates’ public interest obligations) create potential conflict (Pondy, 1967).
• Analysis: The conflict stems from Kimmel’s satirical remarks on September 15, 2025, about Charlie Kirk’s assassination, highlighting a latent tension between Disney’s brand identity and political pressures from affiliates (Nexstar, Sinclair) and the FCC (Boje, 2025). Unspoken stories include employee safety fears post-doxxing.
• Coaching Questions:
• What do you hope to achieve by the end of this session?
• What unspoken stories exist about unsafe working conditions for staff?
• Where do employees feel cut off from communication flow?
• VIEW Cycle:
• V: What vibrations (e.g., tension) do you feel here and now?
• I: What internal negative emotions or limiting beliefs are present?
• E: Rate your energy on a scale of 1-10.
• W: What quantum choice will move toward a new story?

Step 2: Externalize Move the 'Problem Saturated Account' (Perceived Conflict)

• Pondy Stage: Perceived Conflict – Parties (Disney leadership, affiliates, FCC) recognize the threat as Kimmel’s remarks are deemed offensive (Pondy, 1967).
• Analysis: The “Problem” is externalized as “Regulatory Pressure,” a systemic force driven by FCC Chairman Carr’s threats and affiliate preemption demands, not individual flaws (Boje, 2025). Policy clashes (free speech vs. public interest) fuel the conflict.
• Coaching Questions:
• How have training gaps or policies contributed to this strain?
• What role does regulatory policy play in this mismanagement?
• Where is poor coordination a structural issue?
• VIEW Cycle:
• V: What bodily vibrations do you feel now?
• I: What negative emotions or beliefs emerge?
• E: Rate your energy (1-10).
• W: What quantum choice supports a new narrative?

Step 3: Sympathize With the Payoff for Keeping Habits (Felt Conflict)

• Pondy Stage: Felt Conflict – Emotional responses (anger, fear) personalize the issue, with staff facing threats and leaders feeling pressured (Pondy, 1967).
• Analysis: Employees feel abandoned without clear direction, while affiliates gain leverage by maintaining conservative audience support. Emotional fatigue from polarized narratives is evident (Boje & Rosile, 2025; Flora et al., 2016).
• Coaching Questions:
• What do employees feel when performing under these conditions?
• How has communication fatigue impacted emotions?
• What does your body say about this dysfunction?
• VIEW Cycle:
• V: What vibrations are you experiencing?
• I: What internal negative thoughts arise?
• E: Rate your energy (1-10).
• W: What choice aligns with a new story?

Step 4: Revise What Are the Consequences? Test Revised Narratives (Manifest Conflict)

• Pondy Stage: Manifest Conflict – Open behaviors (suspension, protests) emerge as Disney suspends Kimmel on September 17, 2025, and affiliates preempt the show (Pondy, 1967).
• Analysis: Consequences of inaction include eroded trust and brand damage. A revised narrative could frame Disney as a champion of balanced satire, tested via new communication protocols (Boje & Rosile, 2018; Cast et al., 2013).
• Coaching Questions:
• What does a humane training system look like in story form?
• What time allocation change could enhance wellbeing?
• What one coordination change can be tried this week?
• VIEW Cycle:
• V: What vibrations do you feel?
• I: What negative emotions persist?
• E: Rate your energy (1-10).
• W: What quantum choice supports this revision?

Step 5: Strategize List ‘Little Wow Moments’ and Turn Into Plans

• Pondy Stage: Transition to Aftermath – Planning post-conflict resolution as Kimmel returns on September 23, 2025 (Pondy, 1967).
• Analysis: “Wow moments” include Kimmel’s unapologetic return monologue. Plans could involve daily huddles for staff safety and co-designed affiliate dialogues (Boje & Rosile, 2025).
• Coaching Questions:
• What strategic step can be tested immediately?
• What rituals support better time management?
• What 3 C’s protocol can boost coordination?
• VIEW Cycle:
• V: What vibrations emerge?
• I: What internal thoughts shift?
• E: Rate your energy (1-10).
• W: What choice reinforces this plan?

Step 6: Rehistoricize Embed the New Story Into a Timeline (Aftermath)

• Pondy Stage: Aftermath – Lasting impacts (preemption in some markets) shape future relations (Pondy, 1967).
• Analysis: Legacy beliefs about censorship are challenged by Kimmel’s return. New stories heal past failures by valuing satire’s role, informed by hindsight (Rosile & Boje, 2002; Rosile et al., 1998).
• Coaching Questions:
• What legacy beliefs about working conditions are invalid?
• How did old practices contribute to success and stagnation?
• How is training revalued through hindsight?
• VIEW Cycle:
• V: What vibrations do you feel?
• I: What negative thoughts remain?
• E: Rate your energy (1-10).
• W: What choice embeds this new story?

Step 7: Publicize Who Can You Tell? Share the New Story

• Pondy Stage: Aftermath – Solidifying a new identity as Disney navigates affiliate tensions (Pondy, 1967).
• Analysis: The new story of “resilient satire” is shared with staff, affiliates, and audiences via symbolic rituals (e.g., Kimmel’s return broadcast). Social media (e.g.,

@FreeKimmel

, 2025) amplifies this (Boje, 2025).

• Coaching Questions:
• What story reflects strategic excellence now?
• What message about training culture do we convey?
• What symbols transmit our new identity?
• VIEW Cycle:
• V: What vibrations are present?
• I: What internal shifts occur?
• E: Rate your energy (1-10).
• W: What choice publicizes this story?

Closing Ceremony

·       Ritual: Box breathing (4-4-4-4), state the new leadership story aloud, clap three times, ratify with “That was a big one, wasn’t it?” (Boje & Rosile, 2025).

 

Tool 5: Antenarrative Pre-Story Tracker – The 7 B's Framework

Opening: The Seeds That Grow Into Stories

Every polished story you tell in your organization started somewhere else—as fragments, hunches, half-formed ideas, and possibilities swirling in the minds of your people. These aren't stories yet. They're what David Boje calls antenarratives—the pre-story seeds that haven't crystallized into narratives with clear beginnings, middles, and ends. Think of them as the raw material of organizational storytelling, the unplotted speculation that precedes every coherent narrative your company eventually tells.

Here's why this matters to you as a consultant or coach: You cannot make a narrative without antenarratives. More importantly, antenarratives are always renewing and morphing in what Boje calls the "restorying process." While traditional consultants focus on the finished stories organizations tell themselves, antenarrative work helps you track and shape the pre-stories before they harden into fixed narratives that may not serve your client well. This is upstream work—catching the story before it calcifies.

The challenge? Your clients live in Tamaraland. Every organization with more than two rooms is a Tamaraland, and you cannot be in more than one room at a time. Different pre-stories are emerging simultaneously in different spaces, and they're often contradictory. The 7 B's framework gives you a systematic way to track these fragmentary antenarratives across your client's organizational landscape.

Core Concepts: Understanding the Seven Antenarrative Processes

Boje developed the concept of antenarrative in his 2001 book Narrative Methods, initially focusing on two dimensions: Before (ante meaning "prior to") and Bets (ante meaning "wager"). Over two decades of research and practice, he identified seven distinct processes that constitute how pre-stories emerge and eventually become narratives. These aren't sequential stages—they're simultaneous, interweaving processes happening throughout your client's organization.

What exactly is an antenarrative? Boje defines it as "the fragmented, non-linear, incoherent, collective, unplotted, and pre-narrative speculation, a bet, a proper narrative can be constituted" (2001: 1). It's the messy, unfinished, multi-vocal storytelling that happens before someone imposes plot, coherence, and closure. It's prospective rather than retrospective—looking forward to possible futures rather than backward at settled pasts.

The seven processes organize into what Boje calls the "Four Hearts" (vertical/spatial) and three temporal processes that connect them:

1. BENEATH – The Heart of Abstraction

This is the foundation layer—the values, assumptions, motivations, and unconscious drivers beneath the surface story. In consulting terms, it's what you're hunting for when you ask "What's really going on here?" BENEATH work means going below the official narrative to uncover the fore-conceptions (preconceived notions) that shape how people interpret events. It's about uncovering hidden forces: the unspoken values, the tacit assumptions, the "that's just how we do things" that nobody questions. When a leadership team tells you "we value innovation" but punishes every failed experiment, you're seeing the gap between stated narrative and BENEATH reality.

Practitioner Question: What assumptions and values are driving behavior beneath the surface story your client tells?

2. BEFORE – The Heart of Historical Context

BEFORE captures the multiple histories and past experiences that shape current sensemaking. This isn't just "company history"—it's the layered, often contradictory stories about what happened before. In Tamaraland terms, different rooms have different BEFORE stories. The sales team's version of "what happened in Q3" differs from engineering's version, which differs from the CEO's version. BEFORE work means acknowledging that your client's organization has multiple pasts, not one tidy history. These various pasts are "already there in advance" (what Boje calls "fore-having"), shaping how people make sense of present situations.

Practitioner Question: What different histories are people carrying forward, and how do these shape their current interpretations?

3. BETS – The Heart of Prospective Sensemaking

BETS represents the wagers people make about possible futures—the "what if" scenarios, the risks they're willing to take, the prospective sensemaking before outcomes are known. Every strategic initiative is a BET, but so is every manager's decision about which project to prioritize, every employee's choice about which skills to develop. BETS work tracks the fragmented speculation about future possibilities floating through your client's organization. What are people betting will happen? What futures are they trying to bring into being through their actions? What dangerous or generative bets are in play?

Practitioner Question: What bets on the future are different groups making, and which bets are in conflict?

4. BEYOND – The Heart of Intuitive Reflection

BEYOND is the most elusive process—what Boje calls "openness to mystery" and "fore-grasping" (intuitive knowing that's already there in advance). It's the reflective capacity to transcend dualities and polarities that trap organizations in either/or thinking. BEYOND work means helping clients access what Indigenous Ways of Knowing call spiritual ecology—the intuitive sense of value that goes past facts, opinions, and intellectual debate. When your client is stuck in data wars ("our numbers say X" vs "our numbers say Y"), BEYOND work creates space for reflection on what matters and why. It's meditative, embodied, and often the hardest work because it requires unlearning fixed positions.

Practitioner Question: How can we create space for reflection that transcends the polarities trapping this team?

5. BEING – The Center Point of Present Action

BEING is where the four hearts converge—it's the changing present moment where people actively create and shape their pre-stories through action. This is about spacetimemattering (a term from Karen Barad that Boje adopts): the way space, time, and matter are inseparable in how organizations exist. BEING isn't static; it's the ongoing event-ness of organizational life. In practical terms, BEING work means tracking what's happening right now, in real-time, as people enact their pre-stories through decisions, conversations, and behaviors. It's the living story unfolding before it becomes a retrospective narrative.

Practitioner Question: What is actually happening right now in the present moment as people shape their story?

6. BECOMING – The Transformation Process

BECOMING captures the transformation, growth, and evolution underway—the process of restorying itself. This is where antenarratives morph and renew. Old pre-stories transform into new ones; fragments coalesce into different configurations. BECOMING work focuses on helping your client's "little wow moments" (small insights and shifts) grow into new stories. It's about facilitation of emergent change rather than imposed change. You're working with the natural process of story evolution, not fighting it.

Practitioner Question: What transformations are underway, and how can we help emerging stories develop?

7. BETWEEN – The Tamaraland Connector

BETWEEN is the relational space—the connections, relationships, and networks across the organizational Tamaraland. This is where Boje's work gets particularly sophisticated: BETWEEN work means facilitating dialogue across what he calls the "Four Who's" (Ego-Who, Corporate-Who, Community-Who, and Eco-Who). These represent different levels of consciousness and concern. BETWEEN work is staging conversations where people in different "rooms" (physically or metaphorically) can connect their divergent pre-stories. It's ensemble storytelling rather than solo performance.

Practitioner Question: What connections need to be made between different rooms/groups/consciousnesses in the client's Tamaraland?

How to Apply It: The Antenarrative Pre-Story Tracker in Practice

Step 1: Map the Tamaraland

Start by identifying the different "rooms" in your client's organization. These might be departments, locations, hierarchical levels, or functional groups. Remember: you cannot be in more than one room at a time, and neither can your client's people. Different pre-stories are emerging in each room. Create a simple map showing these spaces and the people in them.

Step 2: Listen for Antenarrative Fragments

Antenarratives are fragmented, non-linear, and unplotted. Train yourself to hear them differently than finished narratives. Listen for:

• Speculative language: "what if," "maybe we could," "I wonder whether"
• Contradictory mini-stories: people telling pieces that don't fit together coherently
• Bets and hunches: "I think this is going to happen," "my sense is that"
• Fragments without endings: stories people start but don't finish
• Polyphonic voices: multiple people offering different interpretations of the same event

Don't try to reconcile the fragments into one coherent narrative yet. Your job is to collect the raw, unfinished material.

Step 3: Sort by the 7 B's

For each antenarrative fragment you capture, ask which process it belongs to:

• BENEATH: Is this revealing hidden values or assumptions?
• BEFORE: Is this referencing a particular history or past?
• BETS: Is this a speculation about a possible future?
• BEING: Is this describing present-moment action or decision?
• BECOMING: Is this about transformation or evolution?
• BETWEEN: Is this about relationships or connections across groups?
• BEYOND: Is this intuitive reflection or transcending polarities?

Create a simple matrix with the 7 B's across the top and your Tamaraland rooms down the side. Drop fragments into the appropriate cells. Patterns will emerge showing where certain processes dominate and where they're absent.

Step 4: Identify Conflicting Bets and Misaligned BENEATH

Look for places where different rooms are making contradictory BETS about the future, or where BENEATH assumptions conflict. These are your intervention points. For example: if the executive suite is betting on aggressive growth while operations is betting on stability, you've found a critical misalignment. If one department's BENEATH assumptions are "customers are demanding" while another's are "customers are partners," you've found a values clash driving surface conflicts.

Step 5: Facilitate BETWEEN Conversations

Use the 7 B's framework to structure cross-room dialogue. Bring people together and have them share their antenarrative fragments in each category. The goal isn't to force consensus but to create awareness of the multiple pre-stories in play. Ask questions like:

• "What BENEATH values are we each bringing to this conversation?"
• "What different BEFORE histories are shaping our perspectives?"
• "What BETS are each group making, and where do they conflict?"
• "What BECOMING is possible if we help these pre-stories evolve together?"

Step 6: Track the Restorying Process

Remember: antenarratives are always morphing and renewing. This isn't one-time mapping. Set up a regular rhythm (monthly or quarterly) to re-track the 7 B's across your client's Tamaraland. Watch how pre-stories evolve, which bets get abandoned or doubled down on, how BENEATH assumptions shift, and where new BETWEEN connections form. The tracker becomes a living document showing the organization's antenarrative landscape over time.

Step 7: Work BEYOND When Stuck

When your client hits polarized deadlock—when data battles and dueling narratives create paralysis—shift to BEYOND work. Create space for intuitive reflection. This might mean walking in nature, sandtray work, embodied practices, or simply asking "What do we value here, really?" BEYOND work helps organizations transcend the either/or traps that BENEATH analysis alone cannot resolve.

Example: Tech Company Post-Merger Integration

A software company acquired a smaller competitor and hired a consultant to help with integration. Traditional change management focused on process alignment and culture fit. The antenarrative approach revealed something different. Using the 7 B's tracker across the merged Tamaraland showed: BENEATH assumptions conflicted fundamentally—the acquirer assumed "we're saving them" while the acquired assumed "we're being colonized." BEFORE histories were incompatible—each had origin myths about being scrappy underdogs. BETS diverged—acquirer was betting on synergies through standardization; acquired was betting on autonomy driving innovation. BETWEEN connections were nearly absent—the two groups occupied different buildings and rarely spoke.

The consultant facilitated cross-company conversations organized by the 7 B's. Instead of asking "how do we integrate cultures," they asked "what are the BENEATH values each side brings?" and "what BETS might we make together that neither could make alone?" The restorying work didn't eliminate all conflict, but it shifted from a narrative of conquest to a narrative of hybrid emergence. Eighteen months later, the combined company had developed genuinely new products neither predecessor could have built—because they learned to work with conflicting antenarratives rather than forcing premature narrative closure.

Key Takeaways

• Antenarratives are pre-stories—fragmented, unplotted speculation that comes before coherent narratives form
• The 7 B's framework (Beneath, Before, Bets, Being, Becoming, Between, Beyond) provides a systematic way to track these pre-stories
• Every organization is a Tamaraland with multiple pre-stories emerging simultaneously in different spaces
• You cannot make narratives without antenarratives—working upstream on pre-stories gives you leverage before stories harden
• Antenarratives are always morphing in the restorying process—track them over time, not just once
• BETWEEN work connects the rooms of organizational Tamaraland through dialogue across the 7 B's
• BEYOND work transcends polarities when organizations get stuck in dueling narratives and data wars

Tool 6: Enthinkment & Participative Ethics

Opening: The Strategy Nobody Owns

Picture this: You're consulting for a retail company facing digital disruption. The CEO spent three months with consultants developing a comprehensive digital transformation strategy. It's brilliant—well-researched, data-driven, aligned with industry trends. He presents it to his leadership team in a slick PowerPoint deck.

The room nods politely. Questions focus on logistics: timelines, budgets, responsibilities. Nobody challenges the core premises. The meeting ends with apparent agreement. Implementation begins.

Six months later, nothing has really changed. Digital initiatives are underfunded, understaffed, and quietly de-prioritized. The strategy document gathers digital dust in a SharePoint folder. You interview the leadership team. Their responses reveal the problem:

• "It's the CEO's strategy. We're trying to support it."
• "I gave input, but I don't think he really heard it."
• "The strategy makes sense in theory, but it doesn't account for our actual constraints."
• "I wasn't part of the thinking—I was just shown the conclusions."

The problem isn't the strategy's content. It's that the thinking happened in the CEO's head (with expensive consultant support). The leadership team received the conclusions but didn't participate in the thinking itself. They never owned it because they never co-created it. This is the difference between individual cognition and enthinkment—thinking alone versus thinking together.

Core Concept: What Is Enthinkment?

Louis Pondy, studying organizational decision-making, noticed something curious: the most effective organizational changes didn't come from brilliant individual leaders deciding what to do. They emerged from groups thinking together about problems until collective understanding formed. He called this process "enthinkment"—organizational thinking as participative practice rather than individual cognition.

Traditional management assumes:

• Leaders think → then communicate decisions
• Experts think → then give advice
• Consultants think → then deliver recommendations
• Thinking is individual; implementation is collective

Enthinkment challenges this:

• Thinking happens in dialogue, not in isolated minds
• Understanding emerges from collective engagement with problems
• When people participate in thinking, they own the conclusions
• Real thought is always social, even when it happens in individual heads

The Ethical Dimension: Bakhtin's Participative Philosophy

Mikhail Bakhtin took this further. He argued that every moment of consciousness carries ethical weight because it's "once-occurrent"—it happens exactly once, with these people, in this situation, and will never be repeated. Every thinking moment creates reality rather than just describing it.

When a CEO thinks alone about strategy, he's thinking about the organization from outside it. When a team thinks together about strategy, they're thinking as the organization—participatively creating their collective understanding of what they're becoming.

This has ethical implications:

• Thinking isn't neutral—how we think together shapes who we are
• Every thinking moment is unique—this conversation, with these voices, happening now, will never occur again exactly this way
• We're answerable for how we think—rushed pseudo-participation is ethically different from genuine collective thinking
• Thinking creates the thinkers—we become who we are through how we think together about what matters

Enthinkment vs. Pseudo-Participation: How to Tell the Difference

What Real Enthinkment Looks Like

Scenario: A manufacturing company faces competitive pressure from overseas producers with lower labor costs. The CEO doesn't know the answer. Genuinely doesn't know. He convenes a cross-functional team: operations, finance, sales, engineering, HR, frontline supervisors. He says:

"We're facing an existential challenge. I don't have the answer. I need to think about this WITH you, not FOR you. Our usual competitive advantages aren't working anymore. What do we do?"

The group meets weekly for two months. Not to "give input" to the CEO's predetermined direction. To actually think together about the problem. Ideas emerge in dialogue:

• Operations suggests specializing in small-batch customization where overseas producers can't compete
• Engineering builds on that: "We have expertise in rapid prototyping—maybe that's our edge"
• Sales confirms: "Our best customers value speed and customization over low cost"
• Finance challenges: "But that requires upfront investment in new equipment"
• Frontline supervisor adds: "And retraining people. We'd need to completely reorganize the floor"
• HR explores: "What if we cross-train everyone on multiple skills instead of specialization?"

The thinking emerges in the conversation itself. Not before (in the CEO's head) or after (in implementation). The group genuinely doesn't know where they'll end up when they start. The CEO's thinking changes as he hears others. Others' thinking changes as they hear each other. Collective understanding forms.

When they eventually decide on "agile manufacturing focused on mass customization," nobody needs convincing. They already own the decision—they participated in creating the understanding that led to it. Implementation becomes natural because the thinking was collective from the start.

Enthinkment indicators:

• Leaders genuinely don't know the answer yet
• Dialogue shapes everyone's thinking (including leaders')
• Unexpected voices influence direction
• Thinking emerges in the conversation (not before or after)
• People leave feeling they participated in creating understanding, not just giving input
• The question "Whose idea was this?" becomes impossible to answer—it emerged collectively

What Pseudo-Participation Looks Like

Same scenario, different approach: The CEO already knows what he wants: shift to mass customization. He's decided. But he's been told he should "get buy-in" and "involve people in decision-making." So he stages a series of "listening sessions."

He presents his direction (framed as a question: "What do you think about focusing on mass customization?"). People offer thoughts. He nods enthusiastically. Takes notes. Thanks everyone for their valuable input. Then implements exactly what he planned before the meetings started.

The thinking happened elsewhere—in his head, in consultant reports, in executive retreats. The "listening sessions" were theater. He was managing the appearance of participation, not actually thinking collectively.

People sense this immediately. They participate because it's expected, but they know their actual thinking doesn't matter. The decision was made before they entered the room. This isn't enthinkment—it's performative participation. And it's ethically problematic (more on that below).

Pseudo-participation indicators:

• Leaders already know what they want (just "building buy-in")
• Dialogue is performative—leaders nod but don't actually integrate others' thinking
• Expected voices dominate (usual suspects speak, others stay silent)
• Thinking happened elsewhere (before the meeting)
• People leave feeling consulted but not truly heard
• Implementation requires "change management" because people don't own the thinking

The Ethical Problem with Pseudo-Participation

Why is pseudo-participation ethically problematic? Bakhtin's concept of "once-occurrent event-ness" helps us see: this moment, THIS conversation, with THESE people, happening right NOW, will never occur again exactly this way. Every thinking moment is unique and unrepeatable.

When we stage pseudo-participation, we're treating that unique moment as administrative theater. We're pretending to think together while ensuring the real thinking stays elsewhere. This is ethically problematic because:

• It wastes the unrepeatable moment—these people, this situation, this opportunity for collective understanding will never come again
• It treats people as instruments—you're using them to check a participation box, not engaging their actual thinking
• It corrupts the practice of thinking-together—people learn to perform participation without genuine engagement
• It's a lie disguised as inclusion—you claim to value their thinking while ensuring it doesn't actually influence anything

Real enthinkment honors the ethical weight of thinking-together: these voices matter, this moment matters, our collective understanding is being created right now through this dialogue. Pseudo-participation treats thinking as administrative procedure: check the box, manage appearances, keep control centralized.

How to Apply It: Facilitating Genuine Enthinkment

Step 1: Create Real Uncertainty

Leaders must genuinely not know the answer. Not "I know but I'm pretending I don't." Actually not knowing. If the leader has already decided, don't stage participation—just communicate the decision honestly and own it. Fake uncertainty is worse than no participation.

Test: Can the leader articulate what would change their mind? If not, the uncertainty isn't real.

Step 2: Invite Diverse Voices from Across Tamaraland

Enthinkment requires genuine polyphony (Tool 2). Don't just convene the usual suspects or people who think like leadership. Bring unexpected voices—different rooms (Tool 3), different perspectives, different experiences. The thinking emerges from dialogue across difference.

Test: Would the conversation be fundamentally different if different people were in the room? If not, you don't have real diversity of thinking.

Step 3: Slow Down—Enthinkment Can't Be Rushed

Collective understanding formation takes time. You can't enthink in 60-minute meetings. Plan for multiple sessions. Let ideas sit overnight. Give people time to wrestle with complexity. Resist the pressure to reach conclusions quickly.

Test: Are people leaving sessions with different thinking than they brought? If everyone's thinking is the same going out as coming in, genuine enthinkment hasn't happened.

Step 4: Protect Dialogue Space

Don't let habitual speakers dominate. Don't let hierarchy silence certain voices. Don't allow conversation to default to comfortable patterns. Your job as facilitator: ensure genuine dialogue where all voices can influence collective thinking.

Techniques:

• Ask quiet voices directly: "Sarah, you haven't spoken—what's your thinking?"
• Interrupt dominating speakers gently: "Hold on, let's hear from others"
• Make hierarchy temporarily irrelevant: "In this room, everyone's thinking carries equal weight"
• Protect dissenting voices: "Wait, don't move past that disagreement—let's sit with it"

Step 5: Stay with Difficulty—Don't Rush to Resolution

Real thinking gets uncomfortable. Contradictions emerge. People disagree. The group doesn't know where they're going. This is good. This is enthinkment happening. Don't rescue them by providing answers or steering toward predetermined conclusions.

Test: Is the group wrestling with genuine difficulty, or performing agreement? Real enthinkment involves productive struggle.

Step 6: Notice When Collective Understanding Emerges

You'll feel it in the room. The energy shifts. Multiple people start building on each other's ideas fluidly. Someone says something and others respond "Yes, and..." rather than "Yes, but..." The thinking is becoming genuinely collective.

These moments are precious—they're what makes enthinkment worth the investment of time and difficulty. Name them when they happen: "Notice what just occurred—we thought our way to understanding together."

Step 7: Acknowledge the Once-Occurrent Event-Ness

At the end, help the group recognize what happened: "This conversation, with these people, will never occur again exactly this way. We created understanding together that none of us had individually. That's significant." This honors the ethical weight of thinking-together.

Common Obstacles and How to Navigate Them

Obstacle 1: "We don't have time for all this thinking-together"

Response: "You'll spend the time either in enthinkment up front, or in implementation struggles later when people don't own the thinking. Which is actually faster?"

Obstacle 2: "Leadership needs to lead—they can't wait for consensus"

Response: "Enthinkment isn't consensus or democracy. Leaders can still lead. But leading through collective thinking creates ownership that individual decisions can't match."

Obstacle 3: "What if the group thinks their way to the wrong answer?"

Response: "Define 'wrong.' If collective understanding forms around a direction, implementation becomes natural. If the leader imposes the 'right' answer that the group doesn't own, implementation fails. Which is more wrong?"

Obstacle 4: "People don't really want to participate—they want leaders to decide"

Response: "People have learned that participation is often theater. They're protecting themselves from fake engagement. Genuine enthinkment is different—they'll recognize it and engage."

When to Use Enthinkment

Use this tool when:

• Your client is making important decisions that will fail without genuine collective ownership
• Previous strategies have failed in implementation because people didn't own the thinking
• The organization is stuck and needs genuinely new thinking (not just leadership's predetermined direction)
• You're seeing patterns of pseudo-participation that breed cynicism
• Complex problems require diverse perspectives to understand fully

Don't use enthinkment when:

• Decisions are genuinely routine and don't warrant collective thinking
• Time pressure is real (emergencies require decisive action, not collective pondering)
• Leadership has already decided and isn't actually open to other directions
• The group doesn't have sufficient diversity to generate new thinking

Key Takeaways

• Enthinkment means thinking together, not thinking alone then communicating
• Real thinking is always participative—even individual cognition is socially shaped
• Pseudo-participation is ethically problematic—it treats unique moments as administrative theater
• Every thinking moment is once-occurrent—this conversation with these people will never happen again exactly this way
• When people participate in thinking, they own the conclusions—implementation becomes natural
• Genuine enthinkment requires real uncertainty—leaders must not already know the answer
• This isn't soft philosophy—it's practical intervention that transforms how organizations decide and act

Tool 7: SEAM Integration – The Socio-Economic Storytelling Toolkit

Opening: The $60,000 Per Employee Problem Nobody Sees

Picture this: You've just completed a brilliant storytelling audit (Tool 1) for a 200-employee company. You've mapped their Tamaraland, diagnosed polyphony errors (Tool 2), and tracked antenarratives (Tool 5). The CEO nods appreciatively at your insights about narrative dysfunction. Then asks: "But what's this costing us? And how does fixing it impact our bottom line?"

Most consultants stumble here. They know the storytelling problems are real. They sense the organizational pain. But they can't connect narrative dysfunction to financial performance in ways that executives trust and act upon.

Enter SEAM. Developed by Henri Savall and refined across 2,150+ organizations in 48 countries since 1974, SEAM reveals what traditional accounting misses: the hidden costs of organizational dysfunction. That company you're consulting? Research shows they're losing $12-16 million annually (200 employees × $60,000-$80,000 per employee average) in costs their financial statements don't capture. These hidden costs live in:

• Absenteeism and turnover (people fleeing toxic narratives)
• Work accidents and occupational illnesses (bodies telling stories of dysfunction)
• Lost productivity (time spent managing narrative chaos)
• Non-quality products and services (when stories and reality diverge)
• Direct productivity gaps (the difference between current and optimal performance)
• Non-creation of potential (opportunities missed because counter-stories were silenced)

SEAM doesn't replace your storytelling tools—it integrates them into a comprehensive intervention methodology that makes narrative change economically legible. Now when you say "Your organization suffers from monologism," you can add: "And here's the $2.3 million it's costing you this year in measurable hidden costs."

Core Concept: Hidden Costs as Narrative Dysfunction Made Visible

What exactly are hidden costs? They're the economic symptoms of storytelling organization dysfunctions. When you diagnosed polyphony errors in Tool 2, you identified narrative problems. SEAM shows you their price tag.

Consider a common scenario: The executive team tells one story about "our collaborative culture" while frontline employees tell counter-stories about toxic territorialism. That's not just a narrative problem—it's generating quantifiable hidden costs:

• Over-time costs because people work around dysfunction rather than through it
• Communication costs because the same information gets repeated multiple times in multiple rooms of Tamaraland
• Non-quality costs because when stories conflict, work quality suffers
• Lost productivity because people spend energy managing narrative contradictions

SEAM gives you a rigorous diagnostic process to measure these costs, making the invisible visible and giving your narrative insights economic weight.

The Mirror Effect: Confronting Reality Before Planning Change

Here's where SEAM revolutionizes how you use the other six tools. Traditional consulting follows this sequence: diagnose → plan → implement. SEAM inserts a crucial step: confront.

The Mirror Effect works like this: After you've gathered stories using Tools 1-6 and calculated hidden costs, you create a "mirror" document that shows the organization its reality—both narrative and economic. You literally mirror back:

• The competing stories across Tamaraland (from your audit)
• The polyphony errors creating dysfunction (from your diagnosis)
• The antenarratives morphing beneath official narratives (from your tracking)
• The conflicts unresolved or poorly resolved (from your mediation assessment)
• The exact dollar cost of all this narrative dysfunction (from SEAM analysis)

You don't sugarcoat it. You don't make it palatable. You hold up the mirror and say: "Here's what's actually happening in your Tamaraland. Here's what it's costing you. Here's what voices are being silenced. Now—what do you want to do about it?"

The Mirror Effect creates what Savall calls "cognitive interactivity"—people can't un-see their reality once it's properly mirrored. This confrontation generates commitment to change that no amount of inspirational storytelling can match. They've seen the economic pain of their narrative dysfunction. Now they're ready to work.

How to Apply It: Integrating SEAM with Your Storytelling Toolkit

Step 1: Start with Storytelling Audit and Diagnosis (Tools 1-2)

Don't lead with numbers. Lead with stories. Use Tool 1 to map the Tamaraland—what stories are being performed in which rooms. Use Tool 2 to diagnose the polyphony errors—where is monologism silencing voices? Where is finalization closing stories prematurely?

Gather verbatim quotes from across the organization. Interview people at all levels. Observe meetings, email chains, water cooler conversations. You're collecting the qualitative reality before you quantify it.

Step 2: Calculate Hidden Costs

Now add SEAM's economic lens. For each dysfunction you identified, trace its hidden costs:

• Absenteeism: When people can't bear the narrative environment, they don't show up. Calculate the cost.
• Turnover: When counter-stories go unheard, people leave. Calculate recruitment, training, and lost productivity costs.
• Lost productivity: When storytelling is fragmented, work slows. Use SEAM's frameworks to quantify the gap between current and optimal performance.
• Communication dysfunction: When Tamaraland has too many rooms with too little dialogue, information gets repeated, meetings multiply, and confusion reigns. Time is money—calculate it.

SEAM provides detailed calculation methodologies (see the SEAM Study Guide PDF for specifics), but the principle is simple: everything you diagnosed narratively has an economic shadow. Make it visible.

Step 3: Create and Present the Mirror Effect Document

Combine your narrative insights with economic data into one comprehensive mirror document. Structure it in three parts:

1. Narrative Reality: "Here's what stories are actually being performed across your Tamaraland" (with verbatim quotes and examples)
2. Dysfunction Diagnosis: "Here's how your organization commits polyphony errors and silences voices" (specific patterns named)
3. Economic Impact: "Here's what this is costing you in hidden costs you can't see in your financial statements" (with calculations)

Present this to leadership teams in a facilitated session. Don't let them off the hook. When they object ("But we're not really like that"), point to the verbatim quotes. When they minimize ("It can't be that bad"), point to the hidden cost calculations. The mirror doesn't lie.

Step 4: Co-Create Projects Using Tools 3-6

Once the Mirror Effect creates genuine confrontation with reality, the organization is ready to work. Now you deploy the remaining tools strategically:

• Tool 3 (Navigator): Help them navigate their Tamaraland more skillfully—how to move between rooms, honor multiple stories, and create bridges rather than silos
• Tool 4 (Mediator): Work through conflicts stage by stage using Pondy's framework, restorying organizational tensions into opportunities
• Tool 5 (Tracker): Catch antenarratives before they calcify—track emerging stories and give voice to pre-narratives before they become fixed and problematic
• Tool 6 (Philosopher): Engage in enthinkment—thinking together about what matters, creating participative consciousness rather than individual cognition

These aren't sequential—you're orchestrating which voices speak when based on what the organization needs. SEAM provides the meta-framework showing how they interconnect.

Step 5: Measure Improvement and Iterate

Here's SEAM's final gift: it makes storytelling intervention measurable. After six months or a year of work, you can:

• Re-calculate hidden costs to show reduction
• Document narrative changes (more polyphonic dialogue, fewer silenced voices)
• Demonstrate ROI (money saved exceeds consulting investment)
• Show improved organizational performance (productivity, quality, innovation)

This isn't soft consulting. This is intervention-research with measurable outcomes. You're proving that narrative transformation drives economic performance.

When to Use SEAM Integration

Use SEAM when:

• Your client needs economic justification for storytelling intervention
• Leadership is skeptical that "narrative work" drives real performance
• You're working with larger organizations (100+ employees) where hidden costs are substantial
• The organization is ready for deep, sustained change (not a quick workshop fix)
• You need to demonstrate ROI and measurable outcomes

Don't use SEAM when:

• The client just needs quick tactical storytelling support
• You're working with very small organizations (hidden costs analysis may exceed hidden costs)
• The organization isn't ready to confront hard truths (Mirror Effect requires courage)
• You're early in relationship and trust isn't established

Key Takeaways

• SEAM makes narrative dysfunction economically visible—hidden costs are the shadow of storytelling problems
• The Mirror Effect confronts reality before planning change—no sugarcoating, just truth-telling with evidence
• Integration means using all seven tools strategically—not sequentially or comprehensively, but based on what the organization needs
• Storytelling intervention becomes measurable—you can prove ROI and demonstrate organizational improvement
• This is comprehensive change methodology—not a workshop, but sustained organizational transformation

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Ed. & Trans.). University of Minnesota Press. https://monoskop.org/images/1/1d/Bakhtin_Mikhail_Problems_of_Dostoevskys_Poetics_1984.pdf

Boje, D. M. (1991a). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 106–126. https://GrowthOD.org/Boje-1991-ASQ-article-Office-Supply.pdf

Boje, D. M. (1991b). Consulting and change in the storytelling organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 4(3), 7–17. https://growthod.org/Consulting-the-storytelling_organization.pdf

Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land.” Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 997–1035. https://davidboje.com/vita/paper_pdfs/AMJ_Disney.pdf

Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative Methods for Organizational & Communication Research. SAGE.  https://www.google.com/books/edition/Narrative_Methods_for_Organizational_Com/4eyxoiqtUwoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover
Boje, D. M. (2007). The antenarrative turn in narrative studies. Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: Cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations, 219-237.

Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling organizations. Sage. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Storytelling_Organizations/xpJU3tMh0r4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PP2&printsec=frontcover

Boje, D. M. (2012a). Reflections: What does quantum physics of storytelling mean for change management?. Journal of Change Management, 12(3), 253-271.  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14697017.2011.609330#d1e250

Boje, David M. (2012b). "Tales from the Quantum Storytelling Field." https://davidboje.com/quantum/pdfs/Boje%20Tales%20from%20the%20Quantum%20Storytelling%20Field.pdf

Boje, David M. Storytelling organizational practices: Managing in the quantum age. Routledge, 2014.https://davidboje.com/vita/paper_pdfs/Sampe%20STORYTELLING%20Practics%20boje.pdf

Boje, D. M. (2014). Storytelling organizational practices: Managing in the quantum age. Routledge. https://davidboje.com/vita/paper_pdfs/Sampe%20STORYTELLING%20Practics%20boje.pdf

Boje, D. M. (2018). Organizational research: Storytelling in action. Routledge. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Organizational_Research/VnxqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PP14&printsec=frontcover

Boje, D. M. (2019). Storytelling organization” is being transformed into discourse of “digital organization. M@ n@ gement, 22(2), 336-356. https://davidboje.com/vita/paper_pdfs/MANAGING%20j%20Storytelling%20Organization%20is%20Being%20Transformed%20into%20Discourse%20of%20Digital%20Organization.pdf

Boje, D. M. (2021). Storytelling and Cybersemiotics. In Introduction to Cybersemiotics: A Transdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 421-443). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://davidboje.com/vita/paper_pdfs/Storytelling%20and%20Cybersemiotics%20chapter%20for%20Brier%20book.pdf

Boje, D. M. (2024a). True Storytelling Antenarrative-Processes and the Existential-Ethics Turn. In A World Scientific Encyclopedia of Business Storytelling Set 2: Methodologies and Big Data Analysis of Business Storytelling Volume 1: Business True Storytelling (pp. 43-58). https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_World_Scientific_Encyclopedia_Of_Busin/wGMOEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA43&printsec=frontcover

Boje, D. M. (2024b) Corporate Truth, Time, Technology, and Thinking About our Existence. https://antenarrative.com/Organizational%20Change%20and%20Primordial%20%20BOJE%20Jan%206%202024.pdf

Boje, D. M. (2025a). Tamara revisited: PERVIEW, SEAM, and the storytelling challenge of the digital multiverse. Tamara: Journal of Critical Organizational Theory. Advance online publication. https://growthod.org/Tamara%20Revisited%20essay%20David%20Boje%20Jun%205%202025.pdf

Boje, D. M. (2025b). Scholar's Introduction to Polyphony Errors in Tamaraland these tools address. https://GrowOD.com/%F0%9F%93%9A%20Comparison%20and%20Contrast%20of%20Bakhtin.pdf

Boje, D. M., Haley, U. C., & Saylors, R. (2016). Antenarratives of organizational change: The microstoria of Burger King’s storytelling in space, time and strategic context. human relations, 69(2), 391-418. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0018726715585812
Boje, D. M., & Henderson, T. L. (Eds.). (2014). Being quantum: Ontological storytelling in the age of antenarrative. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Being_Quantum/bylQBwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=boje,+david+%27antenarrative%27&pg=PR5&printsec=frontcover

Boje, D. M., & Parr-Rud, O. (2025). GROWTH OD: Gratitude-Rooted Organizational Wisdom, Transformation & Healing. Tamaraland Publishing.

Boje, D. M., & Pelly, R. D. M. (2025). Return to Tamara-Land: A methodological exploration of the antenarratives of tyrannic capitalism. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://growthod.org/David%20and%20Duncan%20Article%20on%20Tamaraland%20of%20Peltz%20Disney.pdf

Boje, D. M., & Rosile, G. A. (2025). Disney's proxy battles reveal the dark side of leadership storytelling: And we offer restorying way out. In A. Rixon (Ed.), Organizational storytelling. Routledge. (Pre-press chapter). https://growthod.org/BojeRosile%20vers%202%20DarkSide%20of%20Leadershp%20Chapter%20in%20submission.pdf

Boje, D. M., & Rosile, G. A. (2025). PerView Coaching Manual: Processes of Embodied Restorying and VIEW. PerView.org Publications.

Boje, D. M., Rosile, G. A., & Gardner, C. L. (2004, August). Antenarratives, narratives and anaemic stories. In paper for the All Academy Symposium Actionable Knowledge as the Power to Narrate, New Orleans: New Orleans meeting of the Academy of Management (Vol. 9). https://davidboje.com/McD/papers/2004%20boje%20rosile%20Gardner%20Academy%20presentation%20Antenarratives%20Narratives%20and%20Anaemic%20ones.pdf 

Boje, D. M., & Svane, M. S. (2015). Tamara Land, fractal change management: In between managerialist narrative and polyphonic living stories. Proceedings of the Sc. MOI Conference. Retrieved from https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/225730097/Tamara_Land_Fractal_Change_Manage ment_Las_Vegas_Paper.pdf
Boje, D. M., & Svane, M. (2017). Anticipatory knowledge: an antenarrative perspective on TrumpLand and the future of higher education. In 33 rd EGOS Colloquium: The Good Organization, Copenhagen. https://davidboje.com/vita/paper_pdfs/FINAl%20Anticipatory%20Knowledge%20in%20TrumpLand%20for%20EGOs.pdf

Boje, D. M., Svane, M., & Gergerich, E. M. (2016). Counternarrative and antenarrative inquiry in two cross-cultural contexts. European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management, 4(1), 55-84. https://davidboje.com/vita/refjrnl/Nov%2025_R%20andR_Counternarrative_and_Antenarrative%20Inquiry%20in%20Two%20Cross-Cultural%20Contexts.pdf

Bülow, A. M., & Boje, D. M. (2015).The antenarrative of negotiation: On the embeddedness of negotiation in organizations. Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation, 1(3), 200-213. https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/files/44523741/anne_marie_b_low_the_antinarrative_of_negotiation_postprint.pdf

Cai-Hillon, Y., Boje, D. M., & Dir, C. (2011). Strategy as antenarrative complexity. In Storytelling and the Future of Organizations (pp. 163-175). Routledge. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Storytelling_and_the_Future_of_Organizat/wvurAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA163&printsec=frontcover

Demarest, P. D., & Schoof, H. J. (2011). Answering the central question: How science reveals the keys to success, love and leadership. HeartLEAD Press. https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Central-Question-Science-Leadership/dp/0982710216
Jørgensen, K. M., & Boje, D. M. (2008). Antenarrative Inquiry: Genealogy and Story Analysis in Organizations. Aalborg, Department of Learning, Education and Philosophy. https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/16938979/ANTENARRATIVE_INQUIRY_-_GENEALOGY_AND_STORY_ANALYSIS_FINAL.doc

Jørgensen, K. M., & Boje, D. M. (2009). GENEALOGIES OF BECOMING-ANTENARRATIVE INQUIRY IN ORGANIZATIONS. Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 8.  https://journals.kozminski.edu.pl/system/files/312-1102-1-PB.pdf

Jorgensen, K., Strand, A., & Boje, D. (2013). Towards a postcolonial-storytelling theory of management and organisation. Philosophy of Management, 12(1), 43-66.
Rosile, G. A., Boje, D. M., Carlon, D. M., Downs, A., & Saylors, R. (2013). Storytelling diamond: An antenarrative integration of the six facets of storytelling in organization research design. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 557-580.  https://davidboje.com/vita/paper_pdfs/Storytelling_Diamond_ORM.pdf

Lundholt, Marianne Wolff, and David Boje. "Understanding organizational narrative-counter-narratives dynamics: An overview of Communication Constitutes Organization (CCO) and Storytelling Organization Theory (SOT) approaches." Communication & Language at Work 5.1 (2018): 18-29. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/233641846.pdf

Rosile, G. A., Boje, D. M., & Claw, C. M. (2018). Ensemble leadership theory: Collectivist, relational, and heterarchical roots from indigenous contexts. Leadership, 14(3), 307-328. https://davidboje.com/vita/paper_pdfs/Ensemble_Leadership_article.pdf

Savall, H., & Zardet, V. (2008). Mastering hidden costs and socio-economic performance. Information Age Publishing.

Savall, H., Zardet, V., Bonnet, M., & Savall, A. (2024). Presentation of SEAM and opening up on storytelling approaches. In D. M. Boje (Ed.-in-Chief) & A. Savall (Vol. Ed.), Business storytelling of socioeconomics (Vol. 5, pp. 3–30). World Scientific Publishing. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789811273537_0001

Saylors, R., Boje, D. M., & Mueller, T. J. (2014). Entrepreneurial Storytelling in Moments of Friendship: Antenarratives of business plans, risk taking, and venture capital narratives. Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 12(4).  https://journals.kozminski.edu.pl/system/files/395-1387-1-PB.pdf

Stierand, M., Boje, D. M., Glăveanu, V., Dörfler, V., Haley, U. C., & Feuls, M. (2019). Paradoxes of “creativity”: Examining the creative process through an antenarrative lens. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(2), 165-170. https://research.cbs.dk/files/61858557/miriam_feuls_et_al_paradoxes_of_creativity_acceptedmanuscript.pdf