RETELLING STORIES IN ORGANIZATIONS: UNDERSTANDING THE

RETELLING STORIES IN ORGANIZATIONS:UNDERSTANDING THE FUNCTIONS OF

NARRATIVE REPETITION

STEPHANIE L. DAILEYThe University of Texas at Austin

LARRY BROWNINGThe University of Texas at Austin and University of Nordland

Scholars have yet to explore narrative repetition—when a story is recalled and retoldfrom another narrative—for its rich conceptual depth. To build a case for this area, weanalyze stories from scholarly research to identify the functions of narrative repetition.We distinguish three dualities produced through repetition, which are grounded incultural issues of sameness and difference. These dualities—control/resistance, differen-tiation/integration, and stability/change—bring a more sophisticated understanding ofthe inherent complexity of narrative as a mode of interpretation and offer a transforma-tive view of narrative that describes how the meaning of stories shifts over time. Whenpeople repeat stories, some individuals may interpret a narrative of stability, whereasothers may hear a hint of change. Furthermore, we offer narrative repetition as a newmethodology for organizational research with the recommendation that scholars use therecurrence of a story as a starting point for inquiry into the cultural life of organizations.

In recent years scholars have become increas-ingly aware of the importance of narratives inorganizations. For example, management schol-ars have recognized narrative’s role in culture(e.g., Martin, Feldman, Hatch, & Sitkin, 1983;Parada & Viladás, 2010), strategic management(e.g., Dunford & Jones, 2000; McConkie & Boss, 1986;Sonenshein, 2010), and identity (e.g., Brown, Hum-phreys, & Gurney, 2005; Chreim, 2005; Huy, 2008;Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010). They have also usednarrative as a methodology for organizationalstudies (e.g., Quinn & Worline, 2008; Rhodes &Brown, 2005). Implicitly acknowledged, however,is the significance of narratives that get repeatedregularly in organizations. Whether over the wa-ter cooler or in a formal quarterly meeting, peopleretell stories in organizations all the time. Yet thenarrative literature has given little attentionto the form, function, and implications of therecurrence of stories.

Narrative repetition refers to the retelling or cir-culation of organizational stories. Previous re-search has noted that similar stories are often told(Martin et al., 1983), that employees perform storiesrepeatedly (Boje, 1991), and that group membersmay mirror or “chain out” the same story in thedynamic sharing of group fantasies (Bormann,1972). In addition, Myers (2002) has proposed the

notion of theme repetition and metapatterns inorganizations, where individuals repeat thethemes of unnoticed interpretations of social set-tings. However, narrative scholars have yet to rec-ognize retelling a secondhand story as a kind ofcommunicative event. Because of the prevalenceof narrative repetition, a better understanding ofretelling can make a major contribution to narra-tive theory. Here we create a conceptual frame-work that specifies the functions that narrativerepetition may serve in organizations.

Although management and narrative theorylack conceptual literature on retelling a story,budding literature in linguistics serves as a usefulstarting point for the study of narrative repetitionin organizations. Mushin, for example, used theterm “narrative retelling” to describe when“speakers talk about information they only knowby virtue of what has been told to them by theprevious narrator, a canonical hearsay” (2000: 929).Linguistics scholars typically conduct research inlaboratories and investigate retellings of elicitedstories, rather than naturally occurring narratives(see Norrick, 1998, for a review). In general, studiesshow that not all retellings contain the sameamount of information; for example, retellings toattentive listeners are longer than stories retold toinattentive listeners (Pasupathi, Stallworth, &

� Academy of Management Review2014, Vol. 39, No. 1, 22–43.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0329

22Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

Mordoch, 1998). This research also shows that re-tellings depend on how much the audience needsto know in order to understand the story(Marsh, 2007).

Within the existing literature in linguistics thatexplains how stories are retold, the most interest-ing finding is that storytellers rarely focus on pre-serving the essence of the narrative. Specifically,“most people who retell a story are unlikely tocare very much whether the story they retell is thesame, detail by detail, as the story they originallyheard” (Gauld & Stephenson, 1967: 40). Indeed,conversational retellings are not very accurate,and “different patterns of distortions . . . [are] as-sociated with different retelling purposes” (Marsh,2007: 17). When stories are repeated, the narrativeform changes based on the speaker’s goals, theaudience, and the context in which he or she isspeaking. As Norrick notes, this variation “is prob-ably most pronounced in cases of polyphonic nar-ration in natural conversation, where no singleparticipant can control the course of the narrative,and multiple voices vie for the right to formulatethe point of the story” (1998: 77). This finding hasimportant implications when applying linguisticresearch to the study of narrative repetition inorganizations, where multiple people know,share, and interpret the same stories. Even thoughorganizations are central sites for retellings, thelinguistics literature does not examine repeatedstories in organizational contexts.

In this article we develop theory to explain re-tellings of organizational stories. In doing so weidentify the dualities produced through repetition,which are grounded in the cultural issues ofsameness and difference. These dualities—control/resistance, differentiation/integration,and stability/change—bring a more sophisti-cated understanding of the inherent complexityof narrative as a mode of interpretation. We alsoarticulate a view of narrative that describes howthe meaning of a story can shift over time. Nar-rative repetition both extends and reinterpretsour understanding of narrative, since it servesas a unique way to explain how stories arecontested and changed in organizations.

We begin by defining narrative repetition andsituating its importance in the context of orga-nizations. Next, we explain its often complexfunctions in organizations. We conclude withsome implications of this theoretical develop-ment and its prospects for further research.

DEFINING NARRATIVE ANDNARRATIVE REPETITION

We are premising here an all-encompassingconception of narrative. Essentially, storiesmust have an Aristotelian beginning, middle,and end—that is, “events and happenings areconfigured into a temporal unity by means of aplot” (Polkinghorne, 1995: 5). This “story” formatmakes narrative distinct from any other commu-nicative form. Furthermore, narratives eitherstate or imply causality, which distinguishesthem from other sequential forms, such aschronicles. Finally, narratives, unlike other com-municative forms, are situated in time andspace. They always convey an awareness ofwhen and where the action takes place.

But narratives are more than just storytelling.As Taylor and Van Every (2000) noted, narrativeis a mode of reasoning—indeed, a primary waywe cognitively process social information. Nar-rative is also emotionally charged, since storiesare ways of knowing and remembering personalmeaning (Ricoeur, 2004) and make up our under-standings of reality (Bruner, 1986).

As reflected in the examples provided herein,narratives come in myriad forms. Barthes (1996),for instance, mentioned oral and written lan-guage, pictures, gestures, myth, legend, fables,tales, short stories, epics, history, drama, com-edy, pantomime, paintings, movies, local news,and conversation as narrative forms. In addi-tion, health records, organizational documents,and folk ballads may also be considered narra-tive (Riessman, 2008). In our analysis we con-ceive of narratives as having four key features:they “(1) foreshadow a problem, (2) provide asequential rendering of actions in the face ofcomplications leading toward resolution, (3)achieve closure, [and] (4) invite or pronouncemoral implications” (Browning & Morris, 2012:32).

Following Weick (1979), who argued that talkconstitutes organizational reality, our perspec-tive is that organizations emerge through com-munication (Taylor & Van Every, 2000). From thissensemaking perspective, organizations arenarratively constructed (Bruner, 1991) and sto-ries are constitutive of organizations. Thus, ourdefinition of what counts as “organizational” isexpansive enough to include events occurringoutside organizations, such as in the home, thecommunity, or society at large, because such

2014 23Dailey and Browning

sites are common for workplace conversationsin which organizational stories are exchanged.

Now that we have defined narrative, we canproceed with our conceptualization of narrativerepetition.

Narrative Repetition

Retelling, reiteration, circularity, repeating,tautology, restatement, echoing, recurrence, re-capitulation, replication, recitation, rerunning—all are common variations on one term: repeti-tion. In its simplest form, repetition provides thebuilding blocks of social systems, for “structureimplies a repetitive relationship between two ormore individuals” (Goldspink & Kay, 2009: 3).Instead of focusing on mere repetition, however,here we focus on repetition in narrative. In otherwords, rather than seeking to understand thefunction of a ticking clock or a list of rules, weare interested in the circulation of culture vianarratives.

We define narrative repetition as the recur-rence of a story. Narrative repetition occurswhen a story is recalled from another narrativethat one has heard (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987).Repetitions may also vary in character and ex-tent, for, being retellings, they are apt to beparticularly selective. Thus, we acknowledgethat although the entire story may have actuallyevolved in some ways (Whelan, Huber, Rose,Davies, & Clandinin, 2010), the general spirit ormain idea of the story remains intact. In otherwords, its essence is repeated. In his research onstorytelling in the catering industry, for exam-ple, Gabriel (2000) noted that on various occa-sions different employees would bring up thesame story, unprompted. Despite the presence ofsuch narratives, few scholars have explorednarrative repetition and the functionality of re-telling stories in organizations.

Importantly, narrative repetition differs fromfirsthand storytelling—when some event is di-rectly recalled from real or imagined experienceand is then told (reproduced) by a narrator instory form. Firsthand narratives are a “reproduc-tion of reality” (Polster, 1987: 26) because anyonewho tells a story is attempting to recount a pastset of circumstances. We choose not to includethese stories as part of narrative repetition, forany story would then be classified as a form ofnarrative repetition. Scholars have referred todirect storytelling as “mimesis”—an imitation or

representation of action—where the narrativerepresents the events as experienced by thecharacters (Aristotle, 1967; Ricoeur, 1984). Suchmimesis does not qualify as narrative repetition.

To date, narrative theory has focused on directstorytelling or mimesis—stories that typicallyrequire explanation, creativity, drama, andtransportation (Green & Brock, 2000). The story-teller must infuse the narrative with his or herdesired meaning while still adhering to the eth-ics of verisimilitude (Fisher, 1987) and producinga tale that at least vaguely resembles his or herexperiences. The limits of direct storytellingmay be smaller than narrative repetition be-cause events can only be transformed up to apoint, particularly if other individuals were in-volved in the experience (e.g., “the fish wasn’tthat big”).

In comparison to direct storytelling, scholarshave given less attention to narrative repetition,yet narrative repetition still requires as muchpolitical artfulness as mimesis, since the story-teller repeats the narrative to serve a particularfunction. A teller has to judge how to packagethe story so that it elicits a comforting recogni-tion and remains a repetition. But the narratormust also emphasize or deemphasize aspects ofthe narrative so that it serves his or her ownmeans. To engender a desired response, thesenarratives also require imagination, drama, andinfluence. In narrative repetition the storytellercan rely on the existing story and infuse it withthe same or new meaning. When there is noth-ing to draw from in an existing story, or if anarrative cannot be molded to fit a specific func-tion (perhaps a story about office organizationcannot be retold to elicit change), the teller mayhave to search for a new story. Thus, some nar-ratives may fail to travel.

When stories are retold, they serve a specificpurpose or function, whether intentionally or un-intentionally (Polster, 1987). During narrativerepetition, a person recounts the same event ornarrative, yet the meaning may be new:

The repetition of a previously described eventusually serves to change, or add to, the emphasison the meaning of that event. . . . The same eventis presented as more, or less, pleasant, innocent,or important than we had previously believed itto be. It is thus both identical and different: thefabula elements are the same, but the meaninghas changed (Bal, 2009: 90–91).

24 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

Even two literally identical texts are not “un-derstood” as truly identical. Two events arenever exactly the same (Bal, 2009) because com-munication is situated in context, so the samestory may produce different effects in varioustimes and places. For this reason, context andaudience are also vital aspects of narrative rep-etition. Certain contexts or audiences may facil-itate narrative repetition, too. For example, new-comers or younger organizational members mayhear more repeated stories about work hours,budgets, or hierarchy because they are in theprocess of learning organizational norms.

Having defined narrative and narrative repe-tition, we can now consider their functions inorganizations.

Functions of Narrative Repetitionin Organizations

To explore the functions of narrative repeti-tion in organizations, we followed the method-ology of Martin and colleagues (1983) and sys-tematically searched for examples of repeatedorganizational stories in the academic organi-zational literature. We counted narratives as“repetitive” when (a) stories were restated toothers or (b) organizational members heard thestories from someone else. To be clear, wedid not consider narratives “repetitive” wheninterviewees recounted stories to researchers,since we could not determine if such retellingswould be naturally occurring or elicited.

Once we had collected these stories, we the-matically organized them by their purpose or,using Barthes’ (1975) conception, by their narra-tive function. In many cases the storyteller, lis-tener, or researcher explicitly stated the pur-pose(s) of the retelling. Besides identifying thefunctions of repeated stories, we also drew fromnarrative theory, organization theory, communi-cation theory, and social psychology to under-stand why narrative repetition may serve thesevarious functions. Although we choose to usethe term function, we are not suggesting thatevery narrative fits into each function in anyrational or normative sense (Hendricks, 1972;Pentland & Feldman, 2007).

Classifying narrative repetition in terms of itsvarious functions is no small task, since narra-tives are displays of subjectivity (Zellmer, Allen,& Kesseboehmer, 2006), eliciting inherent com-plexity and equivocality. Upon multiple tellings,

the same story may elicit boredom or it maystimulate different audience members. At differ-ent times a repeated narrative may be brief ormore elaborate. Events, both large and small,can change the direction of a story. Also, eachtelling or reading of a story produces anotherlayer of context (Tsoukas & Hatch, 2001). There-fore, individuals are reflexively engaged in de-veloping interpretations and reactions to sto-ries. Bruner observed that stories often begin aspartial expressions and we must compare a sto-ry’s parts in order to make sense of the wholenarrative. As he states, “Since the meanings ofthe parts of a story are ‘functions’ of the story asa whole, and, at the same time, the story as awhole depends on its formation of appropriateconstituent parts, story interpretation seems ir-retrievably hermeneutic” (Bruner, 2005: 28). Nar-ratives are also responsive to time and space,and, therefore, meanings of a story are not fixedor determined. In other words:

As humans we tell our stories, we attempt tomake our narrative meaningful to the listener, tohelp them see connections and participate. Ineach telling, the narrative may change as werespond to the reactions of participants. We maydraw on other stories as comparisons, embellish-ments, to situate our narrative in a broader dis-cursive space, or orient the listener by linking ourstory to theirs (Luhman & Boje, 2001: 166).

The capacity of a narrative to vary in punctu-ation, pace, and participant composition meansthat narratives are structurally complex. From acomplexity perspective, narrative is contextual-ized and emergent (Luhman & Boje, 2001).

Because the functions of narrative repetitionare situated in time and space, one term cannotadequately capture the flexibility of a narrative.Concepts that are too complex for a single wordrequire a duality (Cooper & Burrell, 1988). Thus,we present the functions of narrative repetitionas dualities, which Farjoun defines as “the two-fold character of an object of study without sep-aration,” in which two essential elements areviewed as “interdependent, rather than sepa-rate and opposed” (2010: 203). Individuals mayrepeat narratives over time for different func-tions, or the same story may contain multiple(even competing) functions.

For example, Mumby (1987) analyzed the storyof a lowly security guard, who did not allow thechairman of the board to enter the building be-cause the chairman was not wearing the appro-


priate badge. The story simultaneously ex-presses the duality of control and resistance.The guard is attempting to control the situationby adhering to the rules (“you cannot enter with-out a badge”), no matter who is disobeying. Atthe same time, the story shows resistance, sincethe chairman could easily dismiss the guardand her request because of his stature in theorganization (“the rules don’t apply to me”).

As this example shows, dualities draw atten-tion to the power of anomalies and contradic-tions (Farjoun, 2010), which are ever-present innarrative. Indeed, in several analyses of narra-tives, scholars have used dualities to describethe conflicts and tensions found among organi-zational stories (Chreim, 2005; Martin et al., 1983;Peirano-Vejo & Stablein, 2009). In the presentanalysis we offer three functions of narrativerepetition: control/resistance, differentiation/integration, and stability/change. These threefunctions are grounded in an underlying threadthat runs throughout each duality: samenessand difference. This framework of sameness(which encompasses control, integration, andstability) and difference (which incorporates re-sistance, differentiation, and change) is an ap-propriate overarching structure for the functionsof narrative repetition, since this theme is com-mon in narrative theory. Ricoeur (1984, 1992), forexample, positioned narrative identity as a bal-ance between sameness (idem) and difference(ipse). The three axes of narrative repetition thatwe present next all reflect this overarch-ing theme.

Control/Resistance

Control. Organizations can use narrative rep-etition as a means of control—for example, as away to convey or reinforce acceptable behavior(e.g., Martin, 1982; Mumby, 1987). As Polsternotes, “Stories often guide people in how to livetheir lives. Sometimes this purpose, clearly in-tentional, is served by moral or instructionalmessages” (1987: 38). When certain stories arecirculated that carry a “lesson learned,” theyserve as a form of control. Narratives that circu-late throughout an organization are effectivemethods of control because “they indoctrinatewithout the subject being aware of being indoc-trinated” (Gabriel, 2000: 113).

Many individuals repeat narratives to warn oralarm organizational members in an effort to

control their actions. Gabriel noted, for example,that recounting narratives in the military helpsto “maintain a continuous and tangible level ofanxiety, which permeates the culture of suchorganizations” (2000: 53). Stories like these en-courage a belief or pattern of behavior. McCon-kie and Boss found that “sometimes people didin fact do things because the stories had sug-gested they do so in certain ways—in otherwords, the stories both prescribed and rein-forced certain behaviors” (1986: 197).

For example, in his classic ethnography aboutthe training of surgical residents, Bosk de-scribed how horror stories abound in hospitals.Interestingly, he notes, “I have heard differentphysicians-in-training in different types of hos-pitals in different geographic regions repeat thesame horror stories” (1979: 103). One such talematerialized when

a junior student told the following story that hehad heard: A nurse’s aide was assigned to watcha woman on a respirator. A patient at the otherend of the hall had a cardiac arrest. The aide leftthe room to see what the commotion was about.The patient on the respirator turned her head andthe tube kinked. By the time the nurse’s aidereturned, the cardiac monitor indicated a stoppedheart (1979: 108).

Here stories were shared to teach employeesto act (or not act) in a certain way. Likewise,leaders may also recount narratives in an effortto persuade or control business ventures. Forinstance:

A green CFO reports to his board that he intendsto invest the company’s free cash to producesome additional income. One board member, anexperienced entrepreneur, relates the story of an-other CFO who proposed to invest his company’scash in a high-yield instrument. The sage on hisboard responded, “No one will remember the ex-tra l½% you earned. They will remember the $10million you lost” (Swap, Leonard, Shields, &Abrams, 2001: 104).

Similarly, in their research examining story-telling in elite business careers, Maclean, Har-vey, and Chia (2012) noted how powerful leadersmust (re)frame their accounts to themselves andothers. One interviewee, Angus, head of a re-cruitment company, explicitly stated, “You needa story you can sell” (2012: 29). Leaders constructmeaning for others and influence sensemakingtoward their own goal (Gabriel, 2000). This as-pect of storytelling, referred to as sensegiving, is


crucial to the production of belief (Gioia & Chit-tipeddi, 1991; Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007).

In one example of sensegiving, Humphreys,Ucbasaran, and Lockett demonstrated how ablack jazz musician, Wynton Marsalis, “con-sciously assumed role of sensegiver by not onlyinspiring stories but also by selectively (re)tell-ing stories to shape the future of jazz” (2012:51–52). The authors concluded that “through theselective re-presentation of stories Marsalisseems to be . . . ensuring that jazz is recognizedas a black musical art form, and establishingthe economic independence of black musicians”(2012: 52). As an inspirational figure, Marsalisused narrative repetition as a mechanism forleadership and organizing.

The “fantasy chain” literature also alludes tothe persuasive power of narrative repetition.Whereas balance theories (e.g., Heider, 1958;Newcomb, 1961) suggest that attitudes arechanged through dissonance or imbalance, thefantasy chain literature “explains why so much‘persuasive’ communication simply repeatswhat the audience already knows” (Bormann,1972: 399). Storytellers exercise power by fram-ing events in a certain way (Lawrence &Thomas, 1999) and dropping or adding parts ofthe narrative. As stories are retold, “the plastic-ity and interpretative flexibility of narrativesalso makes them particularly well suited to usein political games where individuals and coali-tions need often to present information differ-ently to different audiences in order to secureacquiescence and enthusiasm” (Rhodes &Brown, 2005: 174). Thus, individuals use storytell-ing in organizations to serve their own purposes,and as a result, certain stories become dominantand serve as the norm (Näslund & Pemer, 2012).

But another important aspect of the function ofcontrol rests on which individuals have thepower to share a narrative. Some individualsmay have the “rights” to tell a story, whereasothers do not (Lawrence & Thomas, 1999). Whenstories are repeated, only certain individualsare in the know. Narratives may be kept privateamong entitled members until the story“breaks,” at which point the information be-comes part of public knowledge (e.g., a “break-ing” news story) or mainstream press (e.g., thereporter “broke” the scandal story). According toBoje, “Part of knowing how to behave in a story-telling organization is knowing who can tell andwho can be told a particular story (‘I don’t know

if the corner office would want that story to getaround.’)” (1991: 110). Some organizational sto-ries must be kept “in the loop”—that is, onlywithin the circle—of entitled members to ensurethat they remain confidential. Certain organiza-tional members may not be told some stories inorder to keep the narrative limited to a set au-dience. When stories leak outside the loop andget appropriated there, they have the potentialto change—and to backfire. To maintain controland guard against the leaking of a story, Bojefound that organizational members wouldsometimes shorten the length of stories, evennaming stories and then referencing them bycode name alone, prohibiting outsiders from de-tecting the retelling. In the following example,one employee, Sid, shares some insider newsthat a rival firm is being sold. Sid uses thephrases “word is on the street” and “you know”to reference “the fuller story that the vendorsknow but do not expect outsiders to know” (1991:122):

Word is on the street that they are up for sale,OK? So now you know [CEO] may be the presi-dent. . . . But somebody’ll buy him next month andthen he’s going to be gone because you know,because you know they’re bringing in their ownpeople (1991: 122).

Last, McConkie and Boss’s (1986) research onorganizational stories at Concord, an agencythat coordinated research requests for the pub-lic, illustrates the controlling mechanism of nar-rative repetition. In the authors’ interviews withemployees, nearly 85 percent of organizationalmembers mentioned the “Firing of Elayne”story.1 The story recalled a staff member, ElayneG., who had been fired in a staff meeting by Mr.Jones. Interestingly, “some of those who re-ported the story were not hired by Concord untilas much as nine months after the firing took

1 The “Firing of Elayne” was described by one employeeas such:

Everybody talks about it. Maybe Elayne wasn’t the bestworker here; and sometimes she got herself into fights.A lot of people feel that she was upset because she gotpassed over for a job she wanted which she says shedidn’t even know was advertised so she couldn’t com-pete. Anyway, in a staff meeting, with the whole staffthere (about 100 people) she challenged Mr. D., and hejust gave her a cold stare and said, “Elayne, you’refired!” That was it! No explanation, no nothing! “You’refired!” We all sat like dumbies [sic], just scared, won-dering if we’d be next (McConkie, 1980: 218).


place. In short, it had rippled throughout theorganization” (1986: 193). The Firing of Elaynetale epitomizes indirect social control. When re-searchers asked employees what effect the storyhad on their behavior (note that employees wereallowed to give more than one response), twen-ty-six of the responses were that the story“warned me not to anger Jones,” another seventhat the story “made me cautious about who Iconfronted,” and six that the story “made meavoid contact with Jones.” The spreading of thenarrative through the organization had a pow-erful effect on employee behavior.

The Firing of Elayne tale functioned as a con-trol mechanism among employees. However,narrative repetition gives stories the power toserve dual purposes simultaneously. Thus, thestory also served as a means of resistance foremployees.

“I was always afraid,” said one rather timidwoman, “to say anything bad about Mr. Jones,because I was afraid it might get me in trouble.But somehow, when I heard the story aboutElayne and how she got fired, I just needed totalk. And people seemed to understand, and wantto talk to me as well.” In short, the commonshared experience opened an otherwise closeddoor (McConkie & Boss, 1986: 198).

Aligning with Farjoun’s (2010) notion of a du-ality, control cannot exist without pockets of re-sistance; the two are interdependent. In Weick’sconcept of a loosely coupled system, overload-ing a system at one point causes it to well upand spill over in a contrasting way (Orton &Weick, 1990; Weick, 1974). In the next section weexplore the contradictory yet complementaryside of control.

Resistance. The necessary corollary of controlis that of resistance (Foucault, 1977). Resistanceand control are “inextricably and simultane-ously linked, often in contradictory ways” (Jer-mier, Knights, & Nord, 1994: 29). Although certainstories are repeated to influence or exert power,other narratives may function to promote resis-tance. Indeed, stories feed on differences anddestabilize and disturb the order of “reason”(Lyotard, 1984: 61). In proliferating stories of re-sistance, narratives may counter social norms ororganizational power structures. Furthermore,individuals may blatantly oppose the previousnarrative or offer resistance more subtly—through cynicism, irony, or ridicule.

Most organizations bear stories of resistance.Kassing (2002) collected employees’ accounts ofupward dissent and identified “repetition” as adistinct strategy through which employees ex-pressed their disagreement or contradictoryopinions. Although Kassing did not focus on nar-ratives in particular, he found that employeeswould continue “to draw attention to one’s dis-sent across time—either verbally or behavioral-ly—and often collectively with other employees”(2002: 196). For example, one employee who wasseeking a promotion admitted, “I talked aboutmy situation several times” (2002: 198).

Although employees might mention their dis-agreement or contradictory opinions repeatedly,resistance stories may be difficult for research-ers to procure. Tracy (2000) described how cruisestaff developed “hidden transcripts”— dis-courses that occur beyond direct observation ofthose in power (Scott, 1990)—by repeating stupidquestions and what-if stories to make fun ofpassengers. A resistance narrative may also ap-pear in the form of a rumor (Hafen, 2004), which“is not only an opportunity for anonymous, pro-tected communication, but also serves as a ve-hicle for anxieties and aspirations that may notbe openly acknowledged by its propagators”(Scott, 1990: 145).

For instance, Murphy’s research showed thatwhen flight attendants learned their bags wouldbe randomly checked, one said, “I don’t know ifit is true or not, but I heard there was a flightattendant who was fired just for taking a cartonof milk off the airplane,” and another flight at-tendant contended, “I heard there was an entirecrew based in Cincinnati fired for taking aspirinand milk off the airplane” (Murphy, 1998: 518).Murphy suggests these stories—clearly exam-ples of narrative repetition—represent a way foremployees to “release their frustrations about adominating policy” (1998: 519). In addition, Mur-phy notes that by sharing such stories, flightattendants could form strategies to resist bagsearching. One employee prudently shared:

My friend, Ann, she was going to state that theycould only do that if they suspected her of drugs.If they said that they did, she would say that itwas against her wishes and without her permis-sion. That way, if they can’t substantiate a drugcharge, you could sue them for invasion of pri-vacy. That is how I am going to handle it(1998: 519).


Indeed, hearing stories of how others resisted(or would resist) the organization or its policiesmay give employees inspiration for opposition.In their research on the counterinstitutionalwebsite RadioShackSucks.com, Gossett andKilker (2006) shared former employees’ stories ofquitting the organization and encouraging fel-low “shackers” to explore other job opportuni-ties. The authors found that hearing the samestories over and over had a powerful effect, withseveral employees claiming that reading aboutothers’ experiences motivated them to leave.Namely, one employee wrote, “I would just liketo say thank you to all those out there who havecontinued to encourage me to get off my buttand change my life” (2006: 74).

Organizations may also use oppositional sto-ries strategically—using past stories of resis-tance to their advantage. Boje (1995) discussedhow Michael Eisner, former Disney CEO, re-counted one of Walt Disney’s stories, which de-scribed a boy’s desire to march in the circusparade. The moral of the story was to try newthings and not to fear failure. Eisner repeatedDisney’s story at the 1984 stockholders’ meetingto persuade shareholders to take a chance andpush back on the conservative strategy Disneypreviously had for the company.

Retelling narratives about failed resistancemay also have an effect on organizational mem-bers’ resistance (or lack thereof). Holmer-Nadesan’s research about the identity of womenservice workers found “five individuals [who]repeated an organizational narrative about aservice worker who had taken secretarial skillsclasses, but had been unable to transfer. Forsome, this impression led to a sense of hopeless-ness: ‘I feel trapped in the role I am [in]’” (1996:69). In hearing about another service worker’sfailed attempt to resist her identity, women feltas if they were stuck in their current position.

Furthermore, narrative repetition may servethe function of resistance when organizationsdo not want stories retold. For example, “orga-nizations rarely encourage open discussion ofissues of sexual harassment and often call forconfidentiality when dealing with the com-plaints” (Clair, 1993: 116). Whistle-blowing is atype of resistance because whistle-blowers re-peat stories that the organization does notwant disclosed. Importantly, whistle-blowingdoes not require firsthand knowledge of wrong-doings; in fact, celebrated Enron whistle-blower

Sherron Watkins made allegations “solely onrumors that she heard during the two monthsshe was working in Enron Global Finance” (Hil-lon, Smith, & Isaacs, 2005: 19). Richardson andMcGlynn (2011) examined resistance narrativesby exploring whistle-blowing cases in colle-giate sports. Among the thirteen cases exam-ined, whistle-blowers had retold stories of orga-nizational wrongdoings, including academicfraud, academic integrity issues, and unsanc-tioned financial compensation. Richardson andMcGlynn found that organizational memberswho repeated stories of a team’s wrongdoingswere confronted with isolation, unfavorable la-bels, and even death threats from rabid sportsfans because they resisted the organization’sdesire for secrecy.

Circulating untruthful information or lies mayalso exemplify narrative repetition that servesto resist organizational rules or circumvent pun-ishment. In his ethnography of police officers,Van Maanen (1973) described how policementeach recruits that “nobody’s perfect” but tocover up mistakes. For instance, a two-year vet-eran recounted this story about him and his pa-trol partner, Grayson:

Grayson had this dolly he’d been balling for quitea while living over on the north side. Well, itseemed like a quiet night so we cruise out of ourdistrict and over to the girl’s house. I babysit theradio while Grayson goes inside. Wouldn’t youknow it, we get a emergency call right away. . . . Istart honking the horn trying to get the hornybastard out of there; he pays me no mind, but theneighbors get kind of irritated at some cop wak-ing up the nine-to-fivers. . . . Pretty soon Sparkyand Jim show up to find out what’s happening.They’re cool but their Sergeant ain’t, so we fabri-cate this insane story ‘bout Sparky’s girlfriendliving there and how he always toots the hornwhen passing. . . . Nobody ever found out whathappened, but it sure was close (1973: 413).

Stories of resistance are often “risky” andtherefore may only be repeated for certain audi-ences. For example, Lawrence and Thomas(1999) suggest that at IBM a software developermay have to tell a story about a project that goesagainst upper management’s version of thestory. In this case the developer may disclosehis or her narrative to certain team members butnot to upper management. In addition, the au-thors note that “storytellers also temper risk byattempting to elicit group endorsement of astory they propose to tell, before launching into


the story (‘Did you hear what happened to Os-car?’)” (1999: 2).

Differentiation/Integration

Differentiation. Both organizations and indi-viduals differentiate and sustain a unique iden-tity through narrative. We answer the question“Who am I?” or “Who are we?” through reflexivenarrative (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002). Collec-tively and apart, people need a coherent story(Czarniawska, 1997).

We form communities through narrative ac-counts (Carr, 1986; Rappaport, 2000), and “or-ganizations exist to tell their collective sto-ries” (Boje, 1995: 1000). Martin and colleagues(1983) described how all organizations strivetoward uniqueness, seeking to distinguishthemselves as a different enterprise from otherentities.

Individuals create an organization’s identity,in part, through “organizational sagas,” an ex-pression coined by Clark (1970) to describe acollection of stories about an organization’spast. By studying the content of liberal arts col-lege sagas, Clark found commonalities amongmany institutions’ content. Narratives were re-told to show the unique qualities of each orga-nization and promote a distinct organizationalidentity. Clark also found that

the favorable impression created by the sagahelped those people to justify their commitmentof years, even a lifetime, of time and effort to thatparticular organization. Thus a collection of sto-ries . . . served to generate commitment to an or-ganization’s culture, philosophy, beliefs and/orits policies (quoted in Martin, 1982: 264).

Narrative repetition plays a pivotal role indefining an organization’s unique strategy aswell. As Barry and Elmes observe:

From a narrative perspective, the successful stra-tegic story may depend less on such tools ascomprehensive scanning, objective planning, ormeticulous control/feedback systems and moreon whether it stands out from other organiza-tional stories, is persuasive, and invokes retell-ing (1997: 433).

In their theoretical piece, Barry and Elmesshare an example of strategic narrative con-struction, one that centers on a large-scaletransformation at a European aluminum pro-ducer. The organization was seeking to “lift thecompany to a new plateau” (Parker, 1990: 14) but

“struggled to find a different way to representthe organization” (Barry & Elmes, 1997: 445). Inthe end, employees of the company came to-gether to create a strategic narrative. Interest-ingly, narrative repetition played a key role inthe creation and embodiment of the organiza-tion’s story. Barry and Elmes explain:

Story-telling groups were re-arranged so thesestories could be told to different people and indifferent ways (quite a few stories were convertedinto songs and skits). Gradually, the repeatedtellings seemed to come together in a complex,dialogical way (with many interconnected yetseparate tales having been told). The new direc-tions embodied in the overall narrative becametouchstones for changes in day-to-day actions(1997: 446).

Sharing and retelling stories enabled the orga-nization to coalesce around a strategic narrativeand to emerge as a world leader in its industry.

In addition to distinguishing an organiza-tion’s identity, narratives that are repeated inorganizations also serve to differentiate certainindividuals’ identity in the organization, circu-late a particular character, and maintain a per-son’s spirit over time. Such narratives solidifyand/or challenge an established role identity inthe organization. Individual identity is “formedand maintained through actual or imagined in-terpersonal agreement about what the self islike” (Schlenker, 1986: 23), which often occursthrough repeated stories about the individual.Bruner (2002) goes so far as to claim that “self-hood” only exists because we can tell storiesabout ourselves.

In organizations, people commonly share sto-ries of identity creation and maintenance aboutthe founder or CEO of the organization. In hisresearch on story performance in organizations,Boje described a story that was repeated inmany office conversations:

Doug, in almost his first meeting with the execu-tives, uprooted a “reserved for the CEO” (one wasalso reserved for each of the VPs) parking signand threw it on the executive meeting table, de-manding to know “who put up this sign? Thisis not the kind of leadership I will have aroundhere.” The offending executive, for this and othergood reasons, was fired by week’s end. This storymade the rounds and reinforced Doug’s image asthe reformer who would not put up with specialprivileges for executives. This Doug-as-saviortheme resurfaces in stories from vendors and cus-tomers (1991: 119).


Similarly, in her study of workplace gossip,Hafen described how an employee of an organi-zation, Eva, “heard many stories, ‘mostly veryfavorable,’ about former executives of the com-pany. Her favorite was about a former executivevice president ‘who took actions based on com-ments he heard from a complete stranger on anairplane’” (2004: 232). Even though Eva never metthe former VP, she believed that he was a goodlistener.

In addition to stories about organizationalleaders, many narratives are repeated aboutother unique employees. In his research at anengineering firm, Owen (1987) found that spe-cific “stories were commonly shared amongthose ‘on the benches.’ The exploits of ‘Serendip-ity Sam,’ a researcher who had accumulated themost ‘Golden Fleece’ awards, continued the leg-end of excitement and innovation” (quoted inDeal, 1990: 11). Through this repetition, Sam’sidentity was created and sustained.

In sum, it is through narrative repetition thatorganizational and individual identities are in-stitutionally and socially constructed (e.g.,Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). We rely on stories forconstructing meaning and organizing action(Gioia, 1986). Identities are continually con-structed (Gabriel, 1999) to differentiate individu-als and organizations. This notion supports anapproach to identity that is fluid and frag-mented (Brown, 2006; Chreim, 2005), as opposedto perspectives that view identity as stable orenduring (Ashforth & Mael, 1996).

Yet repeated stories can both differentiateand integrate organizational members. In herstudy of firefighters, Myers notes that newcom-ers or “booters” felt unique or differentiated,since “each of them had heard stories about howbadly other booters were treated, but the realmistreatment always seemed to happen at otherstations” (2005: 367). Thus, stories repeated aboutabuse served to define their station and how itwas distinct. But this example also highlightsthe duality of differentiation and integration;just as retelling stories about maltreatment sep-arated booters from other stations, it integratedthem with their current station. In her analysisMyers continues by stating, “Each commentedon how lucky he was to be at his particularstation, because ‘they are really good to mehere’” (2005: 367). This illustration shows both“poles” of the differentiation and integration du-ality. Even though people may repeat a narra-

tive to differentiate their organization, the storysimultaneously bonds members of that unit. Dif-ferentiation and integration are mutually en-abling, because when there is a “they,” there isa “we.”

Integration. Although retold narratives help tocreate unique identities, they also help to inte-grate or unite, serving as an organizational glueor bond between members. From the linguisticsliterature, Norrick (1997) shows that retelling fa-miliar stories serves to foster group rapport andratify group membership. In one case a family’smother, Pat, describes a party she attendedwhere she retold a family story to her friends.Pat informs her family, “And I told the storyabout you and the little chipmunk out in thegarage” (1997: 205). Norrick notes that eventhough stories may be retold primarily foramusement, they enhance feelings of a family’sunity and bond.

Repetition may integrate foibles as well. In anorganizational context, new members of Alco-holics Anonymous are brought into the group bybuilding on stories:

One speaker follows another by picking out cer-tain pieces of what has been said, saying why itwas relevant to him, and elaborating on it withsome episode of his own. . . . Other speakers willtake the appropriate parts of the newcomer’scomments, and build on this in their own com-ments, giving parallel accounts with different in-terpretations . . . or expanding on parts of theirown stories which are similar to parts of the new-comer’s stories, while ignoring the inappropriateparts of the newcomer’s story (Lave & Wenger,1991: 83).

By giving parallel accounts of a general story,AA participants repeat shared narratives, thusuniting members. In this way narrative repeti-tion helps incorporate individuals into the groupby referencing and building on members’commonalities.

Moreover, stories allow individuals to be inte-grated as organizational members. Through so-cialization, organizations teach members “theropes” and assimilate newcomers into the orga-nization (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). As mem-bers move through the stages of socialization—anticipatory, encounter, metamorphosis, andexit (to use Jablin’s [1987, 2001] terms)—storiesact as a form of sensemaking for both newcom-ers and incumbents (Brown, 1985; Weick & Rob-erts, 1993). In writing about the importance ofstories in organizational settings, Martin notes,


“Such stories are told to new employees—informally during breaks and formally in train-ing programs and speeches—to explain ‘howthings are done around here’” (1982: 256). Im-portantly, narratives are repeated to newmembers to give them a sense of the organi-zation’s history and culture. Furthermore, Siehland Martin (1982) assessed sales trainees’knowledge of four narratives and found that cor-porate values and norms are learned rapidlythrough organizational stories. Wilkins (1984)also demonstrated how managers use narrativeto inform employees about their preferred orga-nizational cultures.

Stohl’s (1986) research on memorable messag-es—communicative events that have a majorinfluence on an individual and are thus remem-bered for a long period of time—shows the im-portance of narrative repetition in the socializa-tion process. Interestingly, employees oftenpass their memorable story on to someone elsein the organization, which shows how thesemessages socialize the individual and resocial-ize tenured organizational members as well. Forexample, Deal’s research on educational lead-ership demonstrates the value of narrative rep-etition in integrating teachers— both newand old:

Anita McCarthy, principal of Todd ElementarySchool in Briar Cliff, New York, convenes a “bootcamp” each year before the opening of school. Inthis Mentor Program, seasoned veterans spendhalf a day with novice teachers to retell stories ofthe past. . . . These events bond newcomers to tra-ditions of the school. Even more important, olderteachers are given an opportunity to renew theirown commitment (1990: 7).

In addition to socializing employees in thecompany, narrative repetition may help individ-uals who are not even members of the organi-zation feel part of its culture, since stories thatare repeated about an organization allow indi-viduals outside the organization to imaginewhat organizational life is like. In this way nar-rative repetition serves as a form of anticipatorysocialization—the process of learning about cer-tain occupations, both directly and indirectly, aswell as forming expectations about organiza-tions (Feldman, 1976; Jablin, 1987, 2001; VanMaanen & Schein, 1979).

In Gibson and Papa’s (2000) study of anticipa-tory socialization in blue collar work, severalparticipants discussed how they learned about

Industry International, a manufacturing organi-zation, through stories from family and friends.As one employee, Chuck, recalled, “I listened tomy relatives talk about working at Industry In-ternational all the time. Our friends and familyall worked there too” (2000: 78). Through theiranalysis, the authors explain that during theprocess of organizational socialization, certainindividuals undergo “organizational osmosis,”absorbing and adopting the organization’s cul-ture. John, for example, recalled being indoctri-nated into Industry International during dinnertable conversations:

The whole time I was growing up, I used to sit atthe kitchen table and listen to my relatives talkabout Industry International. I knew all about thepiece-rate system and how it works. I kinda’ un-derstood what it was like to work in a factoryeven before I got there. When I finally got a job atIndustry International, hell, it was like a familypicnic. I already knew most of the guys I would beworking with and I had already been told aboutwhat to do and what not to do by listening to myrelatives talk all the time (2000: 79).

By being exposed to narrative repetition outsideof the organization, individuals can become in-tegrated into the company even before they be-gin working there.

Stability/Change

Stability. Narrative repetition also functions tokeep the organization and its members consis-tent over time. Repeated stories anchor the or-ganization so that it is not likely to change orfail, since such rhetoric helps affirm and main-tain publicly shared values (Hart, 1984). Narra-tives shape the perception of invariability, for“stories often provide the vehicle for stabilityconstruction and maintenance because they areflexible carriers of meaning” (Peirano-Vejo &Stablein, 2009: 445). Institutions rely on the ac-tion of individuals and organizations—such asthe telling of stories—for their reproduction overtime (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). Narratives areeasily reproducible, durable, and communica-ble—the three qualities that “shape the way inwhich rationalized patterns are established,and how they spread and become embeddedacross different instrumental contexts” (Hassel-bladh & Kallinikos, 2000: 711).

Stories create stability in organizations byserving as a template for future action, remind-


ing us of paths to take and avoid (Stone, 1988).For example, Patriotta’s (2003) research revealedteams on the Mirafiori shop floor who resolvedisruptive occurrences in the plant through “de-tective stories.” In these stories team membersreproduce the problem through fiction “in orderto reconstruct the dynamic of the incident. . . .eventually, solutions are elaborated (most of thetime drawing on the repertoire of similar pastcases, and sometimes creating new knowledge)and sooner or later the problem is solved” (2003:362–369). This repetition suggests that the orga-nization is heedful of organizational break-downs or interruptions, and team membersstrive to maintain stability in the plant. Patriottanoted that emblematic episodes are remem-bered and used as templates for the solution tofuture problems. In addition to telling how asingle incident was resolved, retellings providea blueprint “to predict future organizational be-havior—one’s own behavior as well as the be-havior of other employees” (Martin, 1982: 287).

In his detailed ethnographic studies of servicetechnicians, Orr (1990) noted a similar phenom-enon. When technicians encounter a problemwith a machine, they tell stories to reflect onmemories of failed machines, tests that havebeen run in the past, and the machine’s re-sponses to prior solutions. In one instance thisstorytelling process was “a five-hour effort . . .[and] yielded a dozen anecdotes told during thetrouble shooting, taking a variety of forms andserving a variety of purposes” (1990: 10). Overtime, the storytelling provides insights to diag-nosis and repair. Importantly, technician repsrecycle and repeat these stories. As Brown andDuguid note:

Such stories are passed around, becoming part ofthe repertoire available to all reps. Orr reportshearing a concise, assimilated version of thisparticular false error code passed among repsover a game of cribbage in the lunch roomthree months later. . . . A story, once in the pos-session of the community, can then be used—andfurther modified—in similar diagnostic sessions(1991: 44).

Jordan (1989) also offers a useful example ofstories that are retold in the moment to solveproblems and maintain order. In midwifery, sto-ries of similar cases or issues are often re-counted among attendants as a guide for how toproceed in a birth:

When a woman is making little progress in herlabor, one of her attendants may tell the story ofone of her own births where she had similar trou-ble and solved it by moving from her hammock toa chair. Others may agree, or tell stories of adifferent sort, for example, how in the labor ofsome other woman spoonfuls of a special honey(from indigenous bees) solved the problem(1989: 935).

Here narrative repetition serves as an “informa-tion-packaging function” (Jordan, 1989: 935) topreserve organizational functioning and ensurethat the baby is delivered.

These examples demonstrate that repeatedstories may serve as a benchmark for actionduring a crisis (Neustadt & May, 1986). Boje notesthat in a turbulent environment, “when a deci-sion is at hand, the old stories are recounted andcompared to unfolding story lines . . . to invitethe repetition of past successes” (1991: 106). Bytaking into account how an issue has been ad-dressed in the past, organizations can use thesestories to maintain stability.

In addition to binding an organization to itspast, repeated narratives also create a fixedcourse for a company’s future. Moreover, Feld-man’s (2003) research on budget routines in auniversity housing division shows how narra-tives may keep an organization from changing.The study takes a performative perspective to-ward routines, proposing a recursive relation-ship between understandings and perfor-mances. Feldman defines performances as“actions that are signified in that they areknown to others in the organization. People havepicked them out of the stream of ongoing actionsand communicated about them” (2003: 729). Fromthese performances, organizational membersgain an understanding of how the organizationoperates, and employees determine what ac-tions make up a specific routine. In the studyFeldman found that members relied on past andreproduced performances, which inhibited newroutines and organizational change. Interest-ingly, though, Feldman takes a structurationalapproach and argues that performances bothconstrain and enable routines. Thus, “the mech-anisms of change and the mechanisms of sta-bility are the same” (2003: 729), highlighting theduality between stability and change.

Furthermore, the stability/change duality ispresent in Chreim’s (2005) research, which de-scribes how a Canadian bank’s identity shiftedover time, from an old, traditional, and conser-


vative bank to a modern and innovative organi-zation. Yet during this change, there was conti-nuity in the words that people used to describethe bank. The labels remained, yet their mean-ing changed over time. For example, the “first”label was used throughout senior managers’narratives, but shifted from signifying the bankas old (“We were the first bank in Canada”) toinnovative (“We continued to set the pace for theCanadian industry with our newest first, conti-nent-wide banking”; 2005: 576). Chreim de-scribes the presence of both stability andchange in narratives as “confluence.” Just likewhen two rivers merge and the waters of onestream meet the waters of another, confluencedescribes the state of the two flowing together inharmony.

Scholars have also conceptualized the pro-cess of organizing as a balancing act betweenstability and change. This view acknowledgesthat organizations are shifting social realities;change is the typical state of organized life, andany sense of continuity is hard to achieve (Pei-rano-Vejo & Stablein, 2009; Tsoukas & Chia,2002). In analyzing stories about change in afarming organization, Peirano-Vejo and Stablein(2009) identified five conflicting issues in whichthe duality of stability and change was present.For example, the authors demonstrated the ten-sion between past (stability) and future (change)through an institutional video, where the narra-tor intermingles past and future tenses and “sto-ries are told and retold in ways that go back andforth communicating the message that stabilityand change can co-exist” (2009: 451).

Change. In reviewing narratives throughoutthe literature, we have found that the most workhas been done on change. Narrative repetitioncan effectively disseminate change, becausewhen a story is told that resonates with thelistener, people get behind the idea and join inspreading the story (Brown, Humphreys, & Gur-ney, 2005). Stories can circulate fast throughoutan organization’s social fabric, which makesnarrative repetition a useful mechanism in or-ganizational change efforts. Stories can be usedas a “deliberate tool for strategy formation anddevelopment,” for they give people a picture ofthe future to rally behind (Rasmussen, 2005: 229).

Organizations often strategically introducestories to induce change. Dunford and Jones(2000) investigated recurring narratives frommanagers when they were communicating stra-

tegic changes. The authors found, for instance,that managers repeatedly encouraged employ-ees to take personal responsibility. At an annualretreat one manager told a story about a scenefrom the movie Patton, which resonated withemployees and sparked change:

There’s a scene in the movie where they’re ad-vancing on Germanyen . . . and Patton jumps in ajeep, goes to the front line and says, “What’sholding this column up? Get moving!” They say,“We can’t” and there is this French peasant onthis bridge, with this sort of cart and these twodonkeys which won’t move, and Patton saying,“You’re meaning to tell me my men are beingshot, my equipment is being blasted out of the airbecause these donkeys won’t move!” He pulls outhis guns and he shoots the donkeys. . . . Thistheme has just swept like wildfire and we’ve gotthis email sort of thing and hardly a week goes bywithout somebody saying, “I shot the donkey!”(2000: 1219).

Furthermore, a powerful example of narrativerepetition being used for the purpose of changecomes from McConkie and Boss’s (1986) study ofstories at Concord. In addition to the Firing ofElayne story previously mentioned as an exam-ple of control/resistance, the authors discuss an-other story that was promulgated to engenderchange at Concord. Specifically, Concord chosetwo members to write a story that would serveas a model to improve Concord employee be-havior. According to McConkie and Boss’s re-search, Concord’s CEO then asked that copies ofthe story, which the employees had titled “TheParable of Happy Employee,”2 be distributed to

2 The “Parable of the Happy Employee”:

Happy Employee, undaunted by economic tough timesand the unfriendly receptions of Employment Directorsthroughout the land, finally secured a much-desiredinterview with a Department Head at Concord. Follow-ing the interview, the Department Head introducedHappy to the Director, who also interviewed him, andconcurred in the Department Head’s decision to hireHappy. Once hired, Happy was assigned a “bigbrother” (female employees receive “big sisters”) whoguided Happy through the first few months at Concord.Meanwhile, the Department Head joined with appro-priate personnel to see that Happy received an orien-tation about Concord and developed a calendar, whichspecified dates upon which Happy and the DepartmentHead, every other week for two weeks, would reviewHappy’s progress. Happy set goals with his DepartmentHead, the substance of which was reflected in organi-zational goals, and which were appraised on a periodicbasis (McConkie, 1980: 219).


staff members. The artificial narrative was thenspread throughout the organization, which facil-itated cultural and behavioral changes atConcord:

It was not long until copies of the “Parable” be-gan to crop up all over the organization—pinnedto bulletin boards, taped to windows and desks,on walls and doors, and, in one case, on the doorsof the elevator. The question “Are you happy?”became a standard part of performance inter-views and was a way of asking not only “How areyou?” but also if one felt that he or she was beingtreated the way a “Happy Employee” should havebeen treated (McConkie & Boss, 1986: 194).

In this example management effectively usednarrative repetition as a strategy to fosterchange in the organization.

Besides being utilized at the manageriallevel, narrative repetition serves to promotechange at the organizational level. For example,in order to reform a school in Fairfax County,Virginia, the district created a historical video,which included stories, photos, and testimoniesof the school’s development from its early ori-gins to the present day. Through “watching chil-dren walking through mud to attend a one-roomschool and hearing an older teacher describehow she often got down on her hands and kneesto wash and oil the classroom floor,” teachersand administrators were able to draw from his-toric educational practices to renew and changethe spirit of their school system (Deal, 1990: 7).

Also at a macro level, Leonardi and Jackson’s(2004) research demonstrates how organiza-tional leaders at Qwest drew on discourse thatwas already popular in their industry—specifi-cally, narratives of technological determinism,which positioned that technology causeschange. The authors noted this as an example of“appropriated stories,” in which master socialnarratives are strategically used for organiza-tional objectives, such as change. For Qwest, thestory of technological determinism aided the or-ganization in positioning IT implementation asan inevitable change.

In this case, stories from other organizationswere repeated as mechanisms of change. Simi-larly, narrative repetition can aid in change be-cause stories that are repeated over time canserve as an example for organizations. Whenstories from other organizations are retold, theyare used as models—the “same old story”—toguide organizational change. Doug, for exam-

ple, reminds his colleagues of parallel compa-nies in a meeting about the strategic shift in thefocus of his firm:

Looking at acquisitions and mergers in our indus-try, and I’ve been through four or five of ‘em,disaster hits. And I’ll give you examples ofGamma Corporation. I was with the old DelphiCompany and it’s nonexistent today. Theymerged with Alpha. And then they merged withParrot. All the same ownership and so on. Clearlythe sales force was on overload. Couldn’t handleit and a lot of things fell through the cracks. I cangive you similar examples with Juindon. I can goright down the list (Boje, 1991: 118).

This repeated story (and the claim that manysimilar stories could be told) functions to fosterchange. Organizations draw from others’ expe-riences and learn from their actions throughnarrative repetition: “When this company did‘A,’ ‘B’ occurred and the output was ‘C,’ and ‘C’ isdifferent from ‘A’” (Brown, Denning, Groh, & Pru-sak, 2005: 47–48). In the same way that babiesdevelop faster if they have siblings to learnfrom, organizations can also learn by example.Repeated stories can shape organizational de-velopment and change efforts.

But even when strategic narratives are dis-seminated, “the success of a strategic story maydepend less on such tools as environmentalanalysis and strategic planning than onwhether it is an engaging, compelling accountthat encourages the actions desired by the au-thors of the narrative” (Dunford & Jones, 2000:1209). This may explain why stories may alsohave a negative influence on organizationalchange (Feldman, 1990). Because individualsmake sense of stories in a multitude of ways,there are a number of different interpretations ofa change narrative (Näslund & Pemer, 2012). Forexample, in their study of a merger, Brown andHumphreys (2003) found that organizationalmembers developed multiple (and different ep-ic/tragic) stories and understandings of thechange. This finding may be of particular impor-tance for stories of change that are repeated tomultiple organizational audiences (employees,stakeholders, etc.) over time.

DISCUSSION

In this article we present a framework to ac-count for the complex functions that narrativerepetition may serve in the process of organiz-


ing. We propose three functions of narrative rep-etition, which are best represented as dualities:control/resistance, differentiation/integration,and stability/change. Just as Boje supported a“theory of organization as a collective storytell-ing system” (1991: 106), we append that collec-tive storytelling systems often recirculate narra-tives, which promote various organizationalfunctions. This conceptual piece generates ad-ditional insight into the topic of narrative byfocusing on stories that are repeated in organi-zations, which we believe adds to theory in sev-eral ways.

Narrative repetition contributes to manage-ment and narrative theory by explaining theprocess by which the meaning of stories shiftsand how multiple meanings may simultane-ously exist. When two organizational membershear the same story, one may interpret a narra-tive of stability, whereas the other may hear ahint of change. As such, narrative repetitionmay uniquely explain how stories are contestedand changed over time. Memories or under-standings of events, people, and organizationscan be shifted by the simple act of repetition.Narrative repetition explains why the “same”story may have various interpretations, details,and effects. Meanings vary through retellingsbecause an individual may share a story for onepurpose but the listener derives a differentmeaning. As described by Näslund and Pemer,“The processes of storytelling and sensemakingare by nature iterative and recursive, assigningmeaning to concepts that are then used for fur-ther sensemaking and storytelling” (2012: 92).Because of the recursive and interpretive natureof narrative, dualities are likely to overlap, andnarratives may serve not only contradictory butsimultaneous functions. Indeed, many of thenarratives discussed in this article tell storiesthat serve multiple functions. Different dualitiesmay be present or absent depending on thestoryteller’s and listener’s interpretation of thenarrative. Much like Boje’s (1995) piece on the playTamara, every telling of narrative is potentiallydifferent. Because of the organic nature of stories,there exists plurivocity or the opportunity for mul-tiple understandings. One listener might only in-terpret a narrative as differentiating, whereas an-other listener may construe the story asfunctioning to differentiate and control.

Despite various possible interpretations, wecontend that all narrative repetition may be un-

derstood by these three functions and thebroader category of sameness and difference.For example, many medical narratives offer arestitution function (things will get better) or adisintegration function (this is our last option).Instead of adding another duality (for this func-tion or others), restitution may be seen as areturn to sameness or stability, whereas disin-tegration marks a path of difference, uncer-tainty, and a marked change in course. There-fore, we maintain that these three dualitiesserve as the primary framework for narrativerepetition.

Narrative repetition also adds to managementand narrative theory by helping capture thecomplexity embedded in narrative. We proposethese functions as dualities because “contradic-tory aspects of the issue are inevitably presentand are simultaneously desirable and undesir-able” (Martin et al., 1983). The “poles” of eachduality are interdependent and mutually en-abling. Whereas scholars frequently examinethe stability/change duality (Chreim, 2005; Far-joun, 2010; Peirano-Vejo & Stablein, 2009), theyrarely discuss the other two dualities. Of littlesurprise, resistance narratives are underrepre-sented in the literature compared to controlnarratives.

Because it helps capture the complexity ofstories and the dualities inherent in storytelling,narrative repetition may add to the related liter-ature on organizational gossip. Scholars ac-knowledge the complex nature of gossip be-cause it serves a variety of functions (e.g.,influence, entertainment, integration, andpower) at both the individual and group level(Kniffin & Wilson, 2010; Kurland & Pelled, 2000;Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Yet because of its com-plexity, management research surrounding gos-sip is scant (Kurland & Pelled, 2000; Noon &Delbridge, 1993). Narrative repetition may ex-tend theory and research about gossip by help-ing to account for its complexity, since the dual-ities presented here may offer another lensthrough which to view organizational gossip.Although not all gossip may be considered nar-rative repetition (not all gossip consists of re-peated stories), gossip and retellings are implic-itly related because gossip gains momentumwhen it is passed on or repeated to others (Hou-manfar & Johnson, 2004; Michelson & Mouly,2002). Exploring gossip from the perspective ofnarrative repetition may uniquely contribute to


the literature by explaining how gossip spreadswhile serving multiple functions.

Narrative repetition can also contribute to thedevelopment of core theoretical concepts inmanagement and organization studies, such asidentity, legitimacy, leadership, or resistance.As a case in point, consider Glynn’s (2000) field-work at the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, whichdescribes how one organizational crisis—the1996 musicians’ strike—was the result of latentrifts between the socially constructed identitiesof musicians and administrators. In her researchGlynn (2000: 288) explains how the conflictingorganizational identities of artistry (“a worldclass orchestra in a world class city”) versusutility (“the best orchestra we can afford”) had asignificant effect on the perceptions of the or-chestra’s core competencies. Although this qual-itative field study did not formally address nar-rative, one could imagine how narrativerepetition could help account for the complexityof organizational identity at the Atlanta Sym-phony Orchestra. In organizations with hybrididentities, “whose identity is composed of two ormore types that would not normally be expectedto go together” (Albert & Whetten, 1985: 270),scholars could collect and analyze the dualfunctions of repeated stories in the organization.

Beyond this example, narrative repetition con-tributes to the field of management in severalother ways. Scholars have expressed a growinginterest in the use of narrative in organizationalresearch (e.g., Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012). Bar-bara Czarniawska (1998, 1999) has been at theforefront of advocating for a narrative approachin organization studies and social sciences, pro-moting the idea that scholars can watch andcollect stories in practice, interpret and analyzethose narratives, and then put together theirown stories in the field of management re-search. Narrative is a powerful approach tostudying organizations because stories capturethe complexity of organizational life and behav-ior. Just as organizational narrative has becomea useful way of knowing and understanding or-ganizations, narrative repetition may also be avaluable approach for management research.

In addition to adding to the work in manage-ment, narrative repetition can change the prac-tice of narrative research. There has been agreat deal of work on what we refer to as directstorytelling or mimesis in organizations. Butthere has been scant theoretical development

about retelling or narrative repetition as definedhere. What happens when a story is recalledfrom another narrative that one has heard?Organizations are teeming with instances ofnarrative repetition. Yet scholars often regardinstances of repetition as an indication of satu-ration in qualitative research. Future researchshould start to view recurring stories as a start-ing point for a new line of research rather thanthe end point of data collection. This major shiftcould highlight the complexity, richness, anddistinctiveness of narrative research.

Implications for Future Research

Seventeen years ago Barry and Elmes (1997)forecasted that changes to organizations (be-coming more lean, flat, virtual, etc.) would ne-cessitate new forms of narrative theory in thefuture. The authors noted that shifts inorganizations

will require narratives that can cope with blurredorganizational boundaries (Hirschhorn &Gilmore, 1992), dispersed intelligibilities, diverserealities, disrupted chains of authority, and ero-sion of organizational autonomy (Gergen, 1995:524–526). Singular readings of strategic narra-tives, where model readers arrive at like interpre-tations, will increasingly be a thing of thepast. . . . the growing preponderance of “encoun-ter”-based organizations . . . [with] short-term,one-time encounters, will necessitate narrativestructures that can adapt to rapidly changing dis-courses and varied readers (1997: 442).

Indeed, narrative provided a lens into ex-plaining changes to organizational structuresover time. But narrative research does not fullyaccount for these intricacies. With this concep-tual piece in hand, management and narrativescholars have a new tool to explain the com-plexities of organizations and their behavior.

We believe we have merely scratched the sur-face of what will be a multifaceted area of in-quiry. Narrative repetition has implications forfuture research in its use both as a concept andas a methodology.

As a theoretical concept, narrative repetitionmay be used as a way to explain stories thathave different (or multiple) meanings acrosstime and place. Variables such as the role of thenarrator, context, audience, length, and fre-quency of repetition are noteworthy constructsto measure in instances of narrative repetition.In future work scholars must seek to understand


repeated stories that serve more than one func-tion simultaneously. Taking into account the du-alities and overlapping nature of functions,scholars should consider which functions workin tandem or “hang together” (to borrow a sta-tistical term from factor analysis) and then in-vestigate the organizational implications ofthese dualities.

Organizations are rife with examples of nar-rative repetition. Here we drew only on pub-lished academic studies that explicitly statedthe recurrence of a story. Additional researchshould collect new narratives to validate thefunctions found here. We expect that these du-alities of narrative repetition are conceptuallyapplicable to different organizations and addi-tional data. Future research, however, canstrengthen these findings.

Furthermore, additional research might ex-plore how stories are repeated in other media. Isthe effect of repetition dependent on the mediumused? What is the influence of technology onnarrative repetition? Particularly with socialmedia, it is contemporary practice to repeat andcirculate narratives. For example, organizationsshare their own company stories or draw atten-tion to others’ commentary by sharing links andpictures on Facebook. Twitter also enables nar-rative repetition through social media, since or-ganizations can quickly “retweet” or repost oth-ers’ stories. In addition, organizations arecrafting stories to spread virally throughout so-cial media, particularly in the form of videos onYouTube. Scholars should explore the impactsof social media on narrative repetition.

Other technologies have helped the spread ofstories, too. Smartphones, with functionalitiessuch as mass texts, pictures, and email, allowindividuals to pass around information quicklyand easily. Individuals are increasingly receiv-ing forwarded messages or sharing storiesthrough information technologies, particularlyin organizations, where “we don’t want to in-trude on each other [face to face], so instead weconstantly intrude on each other [through differ-ent technologies], but not in ‘real time’” (Turkle,2011: 447). Future work should investigate theextent to which the facility for disseminationmakes the repetition of narratives more power-ful. On the other hand, research may explorehow the capacity to instantly retell narrativesdilutes the significance placed on individualstories.

Last, narrative repetition has taken form incontemporary practice through organizationsthat solicit stories from customers or fans. Life-time Fitness, for example, wants to hear mem-bers’ weight loss success stories. By sharing per-sonal stories with Aria Resort & Casino,individuals can win a free trip to Las Vegas.Kraft Singles “Put Your Love on the Map” give-away invites consumers to tell a story aboutgrilled cheese sandwiches. Even anti-bullyingcampaigns, such as “I Choose,” ask children torecount their stories of being tormented. In var-ious organizations and industries, these storieshelp provide fuel for organizational initiatives.Additional research should investigate the im-plications these retellings have on organiza-tional identity, strategy, or consumer behavior.

In all of these contexts, studies could shedlight on interesting questions this conceptualpiece raises. What factors influence repetition?What types of narrative are repeated? What arethe communication patterns for repeated narra-tives? How are narratives altered, and why, dur-ing their repetition? When do stories fail totravel and why? The position that stories arerepeated by others multiple times offers a coun-terposition to Boje’s antenarrative (2011), whichbuilds the idea that a story has an uncertainbeginning that the speaker “antes” into consid-eration. In contrast, the repeated narrativebuilds on an existing story and takes advantageof that telling, even if for different purposes andwith an altered emphasis than the original tell-ing. Such evolved tellings, by whom and withwhat effect, are a central issue in narrativerepetition.

Finally, in addition to implications for futureresearch as a concept, narrative repetition alsohas implications for implementation as a meth-odology. As a method, narrative repetition maybe used as a way to conduct organizational re-search. In narrative methodology, stories be-come an object of study, and the researcher fo-cuses on how individuals or groups make senseof events and actions surrounding them. In us-ing narrative repetition as a method, scholarsmay use the recurrence of a story as a startingpoint for inquiry. An excellent example of repe-tition used as part of the methodology is Whelanand colleagues’ effort (2010) to develop thechanging nature of a repeated story by tracing adisgruntled parent and the teacher and princi-pal in a school system. As the authors trace the


story, they show how it changes over retellings,especially for the teacher as the original point ofconflict in the story. By using narrative repeti-tion as a mode of interpretation, we may bettercapture how stories create and reproducedualities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we reflect on the power of thestories gathered to represent the conceptualideas in this article. Because narratives are of-ten so interesting—both in their initial and intheir repeated telling—stories are retold in or-ganizations. Whether it be the story of attendingan AA meeting that changes a life, launching anew product, cautioning someone about the im-portance of following the rules, or leaking anorganization’s wrongdoing, people tend to tunein. And, as March and Olsen (1976) remind us,with attention being a scarce resource in orga-nizations, retelling a story is one way of garner-ing it.

REFERENCES

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. 1985. Organizational identity.Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 263–295.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. 2002. Identity regulation asorganizational control: Producing the appropriate indi-vidual. Journal of Management Studies, 39: 619–644.

Aristotle. 1967. Aristotle: Poetics. (Translated by G. F. Else.)Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1996. Organizational identity andstrategy as a context for the individual. Advances inStrategic Management, 13: 19–64.

Bal, M. 2009. Narratology: Introduction to the theory of nar-rative (3rd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto PublishingGroup.

Barry, D., & Elmes, M. 1997. Strategy retold: Toward a narra-tive view of strategic discourse. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 22: 429–452.

Barthes, R. 1975. An introduction to the structural analysis ofnarratives. New Literary History, 6: 237–272.

Barthes, R. 1996. Introduction to the structural analysis ofnarratives. In S. Onega & J. A. G. Landa (Eds.), Narratol-ogy: An introduction: 45–60. New York: Longman.

Boje, D. M. 1991. The storytelling organization: A study ofstory performance in an office-supply firm. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 36: 106–126.

Boje, D. M. 1995. Stories of the storytelling organization: Apostmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land.”Academy of Management Journal, 38: 997–1035.

Boje, D. M. 2011. The future of storytelling in organizations:An antenarrative handbook. London: Routledge.

Bormann, E. G. 1972. Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhe-torical criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal ofSpeech, 58: 396–407.

Bosk, C. L. 1979. Forgive and remember: Managing medicalfailure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brown, A. D. 2006. A narrative approach to collective identi-ties. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 731–753.

Brown, A. D., & Humphreys, M. 2003. Epic and tragic tales:Making sense of change. Journal of Applied BehavioralScience, 39: 121–144.

Brown, A. D., Humphreys, M., & Gurney, P. M. 2005. Narrative,identity and change: A case study of Laskarina holi-days. Journal of Organizational Change Management,18: 312–326.

Brown, J. S., Denning, S., Groh, K., & Prusak, L. 2005. Story-telling in organizations: Why storytelling is transforming21st century organizations and management. Burlington,MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning andcommunities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of work-ing, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2:40–57.

Brown, M. H. 1985. That reminds me of a story: Speech actionin organizational socialization. Western Journal ofSpeech Communication, 49(1): 27–42.

Browning, L., & Morris, G. H. 2012. Stories of life in theworkplace: An open architecture for organizational nar-ratology. New York: Routledge.

Bruner, J. 1986. Ethnography as narrative. In V. W. Turner &E. M. Bruner (Eds.), The anthropology of experience: 139–155. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Bruner, J. 1991. Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Bruner, J. 2002. Making stories: Law, literature, life. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. 2005. Past and present as narrative constructions.In J. Straub (Ed.), Narration, identity, and historical con-sciousness: 23–43. New York: Berghahn Books.

Carr, D. 1986. Time, narrative and history. Bloomington: In-diana University Press.

Chreim, S. 2005. The continuity-change duality in narrativetexts of organizational identity. Journal of ManagementStudies, 42: 567–593.

Clair, R. P. 1993. The use of framing devices to sequesterorganizational narratives: Hegemony and harassment.Communication Monographs, 60: 113–136.

Clark, B. 1970. The distinctive college: Antioch, Reed, andSwarthmore. Chicago: Aldine.

Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. 1988. Modernism, postmodernism,and organizational analysis: An introduction. Organiza-tion Studies, 9: 91–112.

Czarniawska, B. 1997. Narrating the organization: Dramas ofinstitutional identities. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.


Czarniawska, B. 1998. Narrative approach in organizationstudies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Czarniawska, B. 1999. Writing management: Organizationtheory as a literary genre. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Deal, T. E. 1990. Reframing reform. Educational Leadership,47(8): 6–12.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. 1987. A thousand plateaus: Capi-talism and schizophrenia. (Translated by B. Massumi.)Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Dunford, R., & Jones, D. 2000. Narrative in strategic change.Human Relations, 53: 1207–1226.

Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as aduality. Academy of Management Review, 35: 202–225.

Feldman, D. C. 1976. A contingency theory of socialization.Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 433–452.

Feldman, M. S. 2003. A performative perspective on stabilityand change in organizational routines. Industrial andCorporate Change, 12: 727–752.

Feldman, S. P. 1990. Stories as cultural creativity: On therelation between symbolism and politics in organiza-tional change. Human Relations, 43: 809–828.

Fisher, W. R. 1987. Human communication as narration: To-ward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Colum-bia: University of South Carolina Press.

Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of theprison. (Translated by A. Sheridan.) New York: Vintage.

Gabriel, Y. 1999. Beyond happy families: A critical reevalu-ation of the control-resistance-identity triangle. HumanRelations, 52: 179–203.

Gabriel, Y. 2000. Storytelling in organizations: Facts, fictions,and fantasies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gauld, A., & Stephenson, G. M. 1967. Some experiments re-lated to Bartlett’s theory of remembering. British Journalof Psychology, 58: 39–49.

Gergen, K. J. 1995. Global organization: From imperialism toethical vision. Organization, 2: 519–532.

Gibson, M. K., & Papa, M. J. 2000. The mud, the blood, and thebeer guys: Organizational osmosis in blue-collar workgroups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28:68–88.

Gioia, D. A. 1986. Symbols, scripts, and sensemaking. In H. P.Sims (Ed.), The thinking organization: 49–74. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sense-giving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 12: 433–448.

Glynn, M. A. 2000. When cymbals become symbols: Conflictover organizational identity within a symphony orches-tra. Organization Science, 11: 285–298.

Goldspink, C., & Kay, R. 2009. Autopoiesis and organizations:A biological view of organizational change and meth-ods for its study. In R. Magalhaes & R. Sanchez (Eds.),Autopoiesis in organizational theory and practice: 89–110. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

Gossett, L. M., & Kilker, J. 2006. My job sucks: Examiningcounterinstitutional web sites as locations for organiza-tional member voice, dissent, and resistance. Manage-ment Communication Quarterly, 20: 63–90.

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. 2000. The role of transportation inthe persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 79: 701–721.

Hafen, S. 2004. Organizational gossip: A revolving door ofregulation and resistance. Southern CommunicationJournal, 69: 223–240.

Hart, R. 1984. The functions of human communication in themaintenance of public values. In C. C. Arnold & J. W.Bowers (Eds.), Handbook of rhetorical and communica-tion theory: 749–791. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hasselbladh, H., & Kallinikos, J. 2000. The project of ration-alization: A critique and re-appraisal of neo-institution-alism in organizational studies. Organization Studies,21: 697–721.

Heider, F. 1958. Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journalof Psychology, 21: 107–112.

Hendricks, W. O. 1972. The structural study of narration:Sample analyses. Poetics, 1: 100–123.

Hillon, M. E., Smith, W. L., & Isaacs, G. D. 2005. Heroic/anti-heroic narratives: The quests of Sherron Watkins.TAMARA: Journal of Critical Postmodern OrganizationScience, 3(2): 16–26.

Hirschhorn, L., & Gilmore, T. 1992. The new boundaries of the“boundaryless” organization. Harvard Business Review,70(3): 104–115.

Holmer-Nadesan, M. 1996. Organizational identity and spaceof action. Organization Studies, 17: 49–81.

Houmanfar, R., & Johnson, R. 2004. Organizational implica-tions of gossip and rumor. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior Management, 23: 117–138.

Humphreys, M., Ucbasaran, D., & Lockett, A. 2012. Sensemak-ing and sensegiving stories of jazz leadership. HumanRelations, 65: 41–62.

Huy, Q. N. 2008. Narratives of enterprise: Crafting entrepre-neurial self-identity in a small firm. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 53: 374–376.

Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. 2010. Identity as narrative: Prev-alence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrativeidentity work in macro role transitions. Academy ofManagement Review, 35: 135–154.

Jablin, F. M. 1987. Organizational entry, assimilation, andexit. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W.Porter (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational com-munication: 679–740. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jablin, F. M. 2001. Organizational entry, assimilation, anddisengagement/exit. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.),The new handbook of organizational communication:Advances in theory, research, and methods: 732–818.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jermier, J. M., Knights, D., & Nord, W. R. 1994. Introduction. InJ. M. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Resistanceand power in organizations: 1–24. New York: Routledge.


Jordan, B. 1989. Cosmopolitical obstetrics: Some insightsfrom the training of traditional midwives. Social Science& Medicine, 28: 925–944.

Kassing, J. W. 2002. Speaking up: Identifying employees’upward dissent strategies. Management Communica-tions Quarterly, 16: 187–209.

Kniffin, K. M., & Wilson, D. S. 2010. Evolutionary perspectiveson workplace gossip: Why and how gossip can servegroups. Group Organization Management, 35: 150–176.

Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. 2000. Passing the word: Towarda model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academyof Management Review, 25: 428–438.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimateperipheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Lawrence, D., & Thomas, J. C. 1999. Social dynamics of sto-rytelling: Implications for story-base design. In T. Erick-son & W. A. Kellogg (Eds.), Proceedings of the AAAI FallSymposium on Narrative Intelligence: 26–29. Falmouth,MA: AAAI Press.

Lawrence, T. B., & Maitlis, S. 2012. Care and possibility:Enacting an ethic of care through narrative practice.Academy of Management Review, 37: 641–663.

Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutions and institu-tional work. In S. R. Clegg & C. Hardy T. B. Lawerence, &R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (2nded.): 215–254. London: Sage.

Leonardi, P. M., & Jackson, M. H. 2004. Technological deter-minism and discursive closure in organizational merg-ers. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17:615–631.

Luhman, J. T., & Boje, D. M. 2001. What is complexity science?A possible answer from narrative research. Emergence,3(1): 158–168.

Lyotard, J. F. 1984. The postmodern condition: A report onknowledge. (Translated by G. Bennington & B. Mas-sumi.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Chia, R. 2012. Sensemaking, sto-rytelling and the legitimization of elite business careers.Human Relations, 65: 17–40.

Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. 2007. Triggers and enablers ofsensegiving in organizations. Academy of ManagementJournal, 50: 57–84.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1976. Ambiguity and choice inorganizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

Marsh, E. J. 2007. Retelling is not the same as recalling:Implications for memory. Current Directions in Psycho-logical Science, 16: 16–20.

Martin, J. 1982. Stories and scripts in organizational settings.In A. H. Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive socialpsychology: 255–305. New York: Elsevier/North Holland.

Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. 1983. Theuniqueness paradox of organizational stories. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 28: 438–453.

McConkie, M. L. 1980. Organizational stories and the prac-

tice of OD. Southern Review of Public Administration, 4:211–228.

McConkie, M. L., & Boss, R. W. 1986. Organizational stories:One means of moving the informal organization duringchange efforts. Public Administration Quarterly, 10: 189–205.

Michelson, G., & Mouly, V. S. 2002. “You didn’t hear it from usbut . . .”: Towards an understanding of rumor and gossipin organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 27:57–65.

Mumby, D. K. 1987. The political function of narrative inorganization. Communication Monographs, 54: 113–127.

Murphy, A. G. 1998. Hidden transcripts of flight attendantresistance. Management Communication Quarterly, 11:499–535.

Mushin, I. 2000. Evidentiality and deixis in narrative retell-ing. Journal of Pragmatics, 32: 927–957.

Myers, K. 2005. A burning desire: Assimilation into a firedepartment. Management Communication Quarterly,18: 344–384.

Myers, P. 2002. Customers, boardrooms and gossip: Themerepetition and metapatterns in the texture of organizing.Human Relations, 55: 669–690.

Näslund, L., & Pemer, F. 2012. The appropriated language:Dominant stories as a source of organizational inertia.Human Relations, 65: 89–110.

Neustadt, R. E., & May, E. R. 1986. Thinking in time: The usesof history for decision makers. New York: Free Press.

Newcomb, T. M. 1961. The acquaintance process. New York:Holt, Rinehart.

Noon, M. & Delbridge, R. 1993. News from behind my hand:Gossip in organizations. Organization Studies, 14: 23–36.

Norrick, N. R. 1997. Twice-told tales: Collaborative narrationof familiar stories. Language in Society, 26(2): 199–220.

Norrick, N. R. 1998. Retelling stories in spontaneous conver-sation. Discourse Processes, 25(1): 75–97.

Orr, J. E. 1990. Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: Warstories and community memory in a service culture. InD. S. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collective remem-bering: Memory in society: 169–189. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. 1990. Loosely coupled systems: Areconceptualization. Academy of Management Review,15: 203–223.

Owen, H. 1987. Spirit transformation and development inorganizations. Potomac, MD: Abbott.

Parada, M. J., & Viladás, H. 2010. Narratives: A powerfuldevice for values transmission in family businesses.Journal of Organizational Change, 23: 166–172.

Parker, M. 1990. Creating shared vision. Clarendon Hills, IL:Dialog International.

Pasupathi, M., Stallworth, L. M., & Murdoch, K. 1998. Howwhat we tell becomes what we know: Listener effects onspeaker’s long-term memory for events. Discourse Pro-cesses, 26: 1–25.


Patriotta, G. 2003. Sensemaking on the shop floor: Narrativesof knowledge in organizations. Journal of ManagementStudies, 40: 349–375.

Peirano-Vejo, M. E., & Stablein, R. E. 2009. Constitutingchange and stability: Sense-making stories in a farmingorganization. Organization, 16: 443–462.

Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. 2007. Narrative networks:Patterns of technology and organization. OrganizationScience, 18: 781–795.

Polkinghorne, D. 1995. Narrative configuration in qualitativeanalysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies inEducation, 8: 5–23.

Polster, E. 1987. Every person’s life is worth a novel. NewYork: Norton.

Quinn, R., & Worline, M. 2008. Enabling courageous collec-tive action: Collective from United Airlines Flight 93.Organization Science, 19: 497–516.

Rappaport, J. 2000. Community narratives: Tales of terror andjoy. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28:1–24.

Rasmussen, L. B. 2005. The narrative aspect of scenariobuilding—How story telling may give people a memoryof the future. AI & Society, 19: 229–249.

Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. 2006. Responding to organizationalidentity threats: Exploring the role of organizational cul-ture. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 433–458.

Rhodes, C., & Brown, A. D. 2005. Narrative, organizations andresearch. International Journal of Management Reviews,7: 167–188.

Richardson, B. K., & McGlynn, J. 2011. Rabid fans, deaththreats, and dysfunctional stakeholders: The influenceof organizational and industry contexts on whistle-blowing cases. Management Communication Quarterly,25: 121–150.

Ricoeur, P. 1984. Time and narrative, vol. 1. (Translated by K.McLaughlin & D. Pellauer.) Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

Ricoeur, P. 1992. Oneself as another. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Ricoeur, P. 2004. Memory, history, forgetting. (Translated byK. Blamey & D. Pellauer.) Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Riessman, C. K. 2008. Narrative methods for the human sci-ences. Los Angeles: Sage.

Schlenker, B. R. 1986. Self-identification: Toward an integra-tion of the private and public self. In R. F. Baumeister,(Ed.), Public self and private self: 21– 62. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Scott, J. C. 1990. Domination and the arts of resistance: Hid-den transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Siehl, C., & Martin, J. 1982. Learning organizational culture.Research Paper No. 654. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-sity Graduate School of Business.

Sonenshein, S. 2010. We’re changing—or are we? Untan-gling the role of progressive, regressive, and stabilitynarratives during strategic change implementation.Academy of Management Journal, 53: 477–512.

Stohl, C. 1986. The role of memorable messages in the pro-cess of organizational socialization. CommunicationQuarterly, 34: 231–249.

Stone, E. 1988. Black sheep and kissing cousins: How ourfamily stories shape us. New York: Times Books.

Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. 2001. Usingmentoring and storytelling to transfer knowledge in theworkplace. Journal of Management Information Sys-tems, 18(1): 95–114.

Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. 2000. The emergent organiza-tion: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tracy, S. J. 2000. Becoming a character for commerce: Emo-tion labor, self-subordination, and discursive construc-tion of identity in a total institution. Management Com-munication Quarterly, 14: 90–128.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2002. On organizational becoming:Rethinking organizational change. Organization Sci-ence, 13: 567–582.

Tsoukas, H., & Hatch, M. J. 2001. Complex thinking, complexpractice: The case for a narrative approach to organiza-tional complexity. Human Relations, 54: 979–1013.

Turkle, S. 2011. Alone together: Why we expect more fromtechnology and less from each other. New York: BasicBooks.

Van Maanen, J. 1973. Observations on the making of police-men. Human Organization, 32: 407–418.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. 1979. Toward a theory oforganizational socialization. Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, 1: 209–264.

Weick, K. E. 1974. Middle range theories of social systems.Behavioral Science, 19: 357–367.

Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing (2nded.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in orga-nizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381.

Whelan, K. K., Huber, J., Rose, C., Davies, A., & Clandinin, J.2010. Telling and retelling our stories on the profes-sional knowledge landscape. Teachers and Teaching:Theory and Practice, 7: 143–156.

Wilkins, A. 1984. The creation of company cultures: The roleof stories and human resource systems. Human Re-source Management, 23: 41–60.

Zellmer, A. J., Allen, T. F. H., & Kesseboehmer, K. 2006. Thenature of ecological complexity: A protocol for buildingthe narrative. Ecological Complexity, 3: 171–182.

Stephanie L. Dailey ([email protected]) is a doctoral candidate in organiza-tional communication in the Department of Communication Studies at the University


of Texas at Austin. She studies the processes of organizational identification andsocialization, particularly through the use of technology and narratives in organiza-tions.

Larry D. Browning ([email protected]) is a professor of organizationalcommunication in the Department of Communication Studies at the University ofTexas at Austin and adjunct professor of management in the Bodø Graduate School ofBusiness at the University of Nordland, Norway. He earned his Ph.D. from The OhioState University. His research areas include narratology and grounded theory as aresearch strategy.


Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Managementand its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv withoutthe copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, oremail articles for individual use.

Documents

RETELLING STORIES IN ORGANIZATIONS: UNDERSTANDING THE