True Storytelling Institute’s ‘Organizing Developing and Changing (ODC 2.0) Level I Module

Last revised Apr 21 2021

What? It is 4 sessions to explore the 7 principles, 7 tools, and 7 processes to change the single loop fractal-system of ODC 1.0 to ODC 2.0.

7 Principles 7
Antenarrative Processes
1.TrueBeneath-Heart of the preconceptions that riddle Single LoopNominal Group Technique (NGT);
Ken’s NGT video, and the spreadsheet to calculate NGT rankings.
2.Already ThereBefore-Heart, into the deeper histories of Double Loop, and some Double Loop Little Wow Moments, all but forgotten (Explore Transorganizational Development Gameboard)Talking Stick for ICEND (Interactive, Communicative, Experiential, Networking Developing
3.PlotBets-Heart, of many futures to choose among so many plotsTamara-Land Storyboarding all the rooms with storytelling happening at same time, in different places
4.TimingBeing in time, in space, in mattering of SpaceTimeMattering, Going into Double Loop, and ‘what is essence of true’?ICEND types of Fractal Patterns
5.HelpingTwo kinds of Becoming in Double Loop, part of Double Loop, that connect Before-Heart (Little Wow Moments) to Bets-Heart (opportune moments) in the restorying processPSL2 ; PSL♴ Problem Solving Learning and Leading Tool 5 for Tamara-Land Networking
6.StagingBetween the hearts, Preparing for Triple LoopEpisodic Conflict in single & double loops & spirals storyboarding
7.ReflectBeyond-Heart, 5 dialogisms of Enacting Triple Loop: 1 Polyphonic Dialogism, 2. Stylistics Dialogism, 3. Chronotopes Dialogism, 4. Architectonic Dialogism, & 5. Polypi of first four altogether in multifractality. It takes multiple modules to understand all 5 in multifractal togetherness.Socioeconomic Ensemble tools with special True Storytelling usages – (Note: This is introduction in ODC 2.0, precursor to an ODC 3.0 Module on Triple Loop)
7-7-7 True Storytelling to transform ODC 1.0 into ODC 2.0

Why? So the outcomes actually change from ODC 1.0 virus into Double Loop balance, and a transformation to the 5 Dialogisms of the Triple Loop. To learn the 5 dialogisms, go to next blog post, What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?

When? Next module training offering: April 6, 13, 20, & 27 April, 2021. Register at or Get More Information at

  • THIS IS THE TRUESTORYTELLING.BLOG POST EXPLAINING HOW ODC 2.0 is based on changing the patterns we call Fractals.
  • Truestorytelling.Blog:

Old Words: ‘Organizational Development & Change’ (ODC 1.0) and our new words ‘Organizing, Developing, & Changing’ (ODC 2.0).

New Word: ‘Fractal’, defined as a recurrence of a pattern of self-similar processes across scales: individual, unit, interunit, organization, interorganizational networks, regional, inter-regional place, global control of the local places (Boje, 2015: xv, paraphrased).

What’s a fractal?

fractal is a natural phenomenon or a mathematical set that exhibits a repeating pattern that displays at every scale.Pixar, those amazing animated film people who’ve given us Toy Story and Monster, Inc amongst others can trace some of their success to employing fractal concepts in their animation – that’s what makes them so life-like and less wooden than previous cartoon formats. Trees in my park” READ MORE

See Movie, Frozen for song children learn about fractals.

To be a fractal, there has to be a pattern that repeats across scales.

What is ODC 2.0 it is what we call changing the fractal of single loop story command and control that drives out differences, by your developing two more loops because what we do is entangled with what is happening not just locally, but globally, and sustaining a third loop of embodied reflection in ongoing conversational storytelling. ODC 2.0 is prerequisite to the another Level 1 Module: Diversity, Equality, & Inclusion. Diversity of genders, ethnicities, races, cultures, age, and identities can learn True Storytelling Principles, Processes, and Tools. It is time to go beneath the stereotypes, the labels of representing the Other, and beyond patriarchy to equity and inclusion. Diversity gets colonized into a sameness culture, divided into division of labor categories.

SIMPLE ABSTRACT What you will learn in ODC 2.0 Module?

Assembling heterogeneity is part of the new process thinking of organizing, developing, and changing. You will be able to identify fractal patterns of exclusion and inclusion in an organization. Learn to use fractal change processes of DEI with the principles of True Storytelling to move from the usual one-fractal of linear Beginning-Middle-End plot of command-and-control leaders non-diversity, non-equality, and non-inclusion so very commonplace in central planning organizations, in ubiquitous TINA-narrative (TINA = There Is No Alternative). You will learn that TINA-narratives are ‘dominant-narrative fractals’ with a single loop of driving out diversity, marginalizing Others’ voices, demolishing all other counter-narratives, in a one-narrative fits all culture of conformity. Each TINA-Narrative says ‘This is the one and only True Plot’, the ;Only Truth,’ and either get on board or hit the road. The TINA-Narrative is therefore a ‘regime of truth’ that says ‘these are the facts that are true’ and your counternarrative facts are all ‘untrue.’ Clearly these regimes of truth are doing battle to gain command-and-control. These however, are just ‘surface truths, simplistic ‘truth statements’ with a correspondence of labels of representation equals truth. Statistics can be misused to be fact-checking ‘crystal ball of truth’ (Prasad, 2005: 221, 226). You will learn that BENEATH the true statement, others’ statements counter-truth statements, there is deeper ‘essence of truth’ and we go go into Beyond of an eternal truth of Nature, of living together in this world.

Prasad, Pushkala.(2017) Crafting qualitative research: Beyond positivist traditions. London: Routledge (Taylor & Francis).

We start with the three loops, then you fill in the hearts, as we go through the sessions

INTRODUCTION It is time to stop doing ‘Organizational Development & Change’ (ODC 1.0) as a ‘static-noun’ and make it a verb-of-process’: Organizing, Developing & Changing (ODC 2.0), with fractal-pattern changing, developing, and organizing a new kind of ‘Ensemble Leadership Theory’ [ELT] (Rosile, Boje, & Claw, 2016: 309, Click Here to read article):

“Ensemble leadership [theory ELT] is defined as collectivist, dynamic, decentered, and heterarchic.
We address each of these four qualities in turn” (bracketed addition, ours).

“ELT acknowledges not one hierarchy but many hierarchies, in a decentered system of heterarchies.

Question: What is Heterarchy? Answer: Multiple Layers of Networkings of Organizing, Developing, and Changing.

Heterarchic. As the term implies, heterarchy encompasses multiple interacting hierarchies. Heterarchy can thus adapt to both stable and dynamic environments. The hierarchies may be more or less egalitarian” (p. 311). The term Heterarchic comes from Indigenous Ways of Knowing (IWOK). Anthropologists uncovered prehispanic evidence in the indigenous Southwest United States, of hierarchical as well as more egalitarian models of leadership. Heterarchical is this multiplicity of networking and organizing structures. Ensemble Leadership Theory (ELT) has been applied to an ethnographic, interview, and archival study of what we call here, ‘Organizing Developing & Changing’ (2.0). The study by Rosile, Boje, Herder, & Sanchez (2021) found an important role that ensemble storytelling plays in multi-organizational networking, and their alliance formation.

Rosile, G. A.; Boje, D. M; Herder, R.’ Sanchez, M. (2021). ‘The Coalition of Immokalee Workers uses Ensemble Storytelling Processes to Overcome Enslavement in Corporate Supply Chains.’ Business and Society Journal. Vol 60, (issue 2): 376-404. (Click Here for pre-press PDF of this article).

“The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) has successfully combated modern-day slavery by transforming the ways that over a dozen major brands, including Taco Bell, Subway, and Wal-Mart, manage their supply chains. The CIW’s efforts over more than 20 years have effectively stopped enslavement practices, including abuses such as wage theft and peonage indebtedness” (p. 376).

Key Finding of Ensemble Storytelling: “This ensemble approach employs storytelling processes, and allows the CIW to ‘animate’ across-field range of actors into a collective movement resulting in large scale change” (p. 377).

You may know it as networking organization and developing changes in the networking in the process of Becoming (Principles 4 and 5; timing and helping stories along), in the True Storytelling Process.

“The CIW history demonstrates that when we go beyond corporate walls to the broader world, traditional bureaucratic hierarchical systems may be less effective than flatter, more diverse “heterarchical” systems. We term those dynamic heterarchical systems “Ensemble” (Rosile, Boje, Herder, & Sanchez, 2021: 377-378).

CIW’s Ensemble Leadership employs ‘Ensemble Storytelling’, which sees expression in theater for social change, that bring about what we call ICEND: Interactive-Communicative-Experiential-Networking-Development. ICEND is one of the tools that links ELT with Ensemble Storytelling in the Theater of Social and Economic Change.

It is time to move from one story fits of Single Loop, and even beyond the Double Loops of ‘open systems’ adapting leaders to the situation, and go to Triple Loops (ELT and Ensemble Storytelling Networking), the 6 factorial vs. 12 factorial of Tamara-Land (Boje, 1995). We call it Triple Loop when there is intelligent ensembles fo harmonious collective action in a de-centered (rather than centered hierarchic command-and-control) networking. The Third Loop is the whole system is in many contexts across many fractal-scales). We have forgotten how to do what Edgar H. Schein (1987) calls “Process Consultation.”

Consultants have ignored ‘process consultation’ and are playing the role of single loop or Double Loop (situation lead open systems) ‘experts’ who do process reengineering, downsizing, and speed up change processes using same centralized planning (Taylorism, and/or strong man or strong bureaucracy- control processes (turning double loop storytelling back into Single Loop one logic fits all storytelling). Frederick Taylor advocated one logic, central planning (brains over hands), but keep in mind, Taylor actually went into the field interviewed and observed, and did not just do spread-sheet management or use an off-the-shelf tool of process reengineering. That off-the-shelf method is a disastrous, mechanistic way to keep up with the accelerating pace of change, then renaming it process-reengineering. Managerialism is an appealing monologic Single Loop-narrative, even if it’s not only wrong-headed, but primarily responsible for the way organizations are dominating ecologies instead of harmonizing and balancing with them. We are in the age of managerialism of centralized, hierarchical command-and-control (Single Loop). It is the monological narrative, the linear sequence of beginning-middle-end plots of characters, going through downsizing and reengineering. We have lost our grounding, doing spreadsheet-ODC. We pretend to have Double Loop ‘Open Systems’ (retrospective-prospective loops inter-animating one another), but turn them into Single Loop Command-and-Control centralized planning from top-down hierarchical-‘storytelling organizations’ (Boje, 1991, 1995, 2008).

As the four sessions unfold, you will fill in the 2 hearts for session one. Single Loop P1 What is True, is the surface of true storytelling. By going BENEATH and to the BEFORE Heart you can go deeper, as you do retrospective sensemaking of the past of the Organizing system you are developing and changing. History matters!

Remember Three Loops of moving from 1.0 to 2.0

SINGlE LOOP FRACTAL: One leader with one story, with one logic of strong leader dominates all others (Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler coming to power in 1924, and the command-and-control leaders of corporations and governments today. We call it ODC 1.0 TINA-Narrative fractal with its single loop of deviation-correction. Each fore-conception tossed about as stereotype, as representation, becomes its own surface truth, or a particular regime of truth doing debate or battle with some other regime of truth. It is mechanistic, and its lowest form of cybernetic control system. The good news, there are two more loops to move to ODC 2.0. For an excellent intro to Single Loop ODC 1.0, Click Here to Read the Phrog Farm article by Jerry Harvey (1977: 16-17).


“Jerry, I’ve just been fired,”

“Fired? You mean you are out of a job completely?”

“Well, not completely,” he replied.

“I’m just no longer a organizational development specialist. In fact, the whole function has been wiped out.  They have given me a make-work job in contract administration. It’s a nothing job, through. I hate it. I was really interested in doing ODC. All I’m doing now is scutt work and drawing a paycheck.”

“Why were you fired, Hank?”

“I’m not really sure. I’ve never heard the reason directly. My boss’s boss was the one who really did the firing. He told my boss to do it?”

“Why did he tell your boss he wanted you fired?”

“My boss was vague about it. He just said his boss had said I wasn’t powerful enough to do the job.”

“What did your boss’s boss say to you when you asked him about it?”

“I haven’t talked with him.”

“Why not?”

“That would be violating the chain of command. You don’t do that around here.”

“Why not?”

“You can get fired for that.”

“But Hank, ” I said, “You have been fired.”


SUMMARY: Harvey, having just read Princess and the Frog, said “Hank, you boss’s boss is correct. You aren’t powerful enough to do the job. In fact, for all intents and purposes, he has turned you into a phrog. I can almost see you in a big phrog pond with your boss’s boss sitting on a willow stump saying to himself, ‘I think I’ll turn ol’ Hank into a phrog.’ “And then he waves a magic wand, mutters some mystical-sounding incantation and concludes with ‘Hank, you are a phrog,’ and suddenly you have web feet. “Hank, you are now a phrog.”

The silence at the other end of the line was seemingly interminable.

Finally, out came the poignant, one-word reply that echoed down the line, “Ribbit.”

Everyone is and enabler of the Bull Phrog, doing everything to keep him or her happy, and then they are turned into phrogs too.

There are six cases in this study guide, as we being to flesh in the four hearts.


CASE ONE: Fractal-Branching of Departments in a College of Business

This is most common SINGLE LOOP recurring fractal of ODC 1.0. It looks like a tree with branches splitting into sub branches, and into more of them. The main branches, such as marketing and management departments in this case, are different than trees because they keep being merged, then being siloed back into separate units, then being merged all over again, a recurring branching-merging fractal ever the course of my 22 years as a professor at New Mexico State University. After reading the short CASE ONE link above, please follow the ODC 1.0 used and the results.

NMSU spent $618,905 Deloitte model of cost control and business process reengineering. See (News article 1); Deloitte did a 10 day study with top leaders of the university for its $618,905 claiming staffing too heavy, but is it the administration that is too heavy. The consultants left us on our own to actually implement the downsizing, cost-cutting, merge departments, or just dump them plan. See (News article 2)? See News Article 3. ” See the linear ODC 1.0 that Deloitte Consultancy asked New Mexico State University to implement, without doing any BEFORE (P2: Making Room) for talents and stories already there. CLICK HERE to see what $618,905 of ODC 1.0 gets you. Answer: Just the Benchmarking (in a spreadsheet, plug in the numbers, used in every Deloitte downsize and reengineering, its ODC 1.0). They do the dotted area, and take the money and run, while the whole thing collapses in on itself (steps 3 & 4), and new President and new Chancellor are brought in to begin the SINGLE LOOP all over again, and the branching fractal goes into SINGLE LOOP RECURRENCE.

Is it worth the money? Does it work? What is the alternative?

QUESTION: What would be a more viable, effective, humane, and sustainable future of the university? Answer: Study the history of the branching fractal, and Using a DOUBLE LOOP ODC 2.0 process? Hint: See blog post (Boje, 2017).

Think about how a branching fractal (a tree-branching pattern) happens at a person-to-person level. It is a recurring fractal pattern through places of the university, over time, in a kind of mattering of branching, merging, then re-branching, again and again with each new change in leadership at the top, each new state legislature funding package, another round of fractal recurrence.


ODC 1.0 is Two dimensional, whereas ODC 2.0 is three dimensional tracing and discernment of the branching fractal. We identify a particular fractal SINGLE LOOP problem in the branching by the command-and-control process. . It is a problem already known in 1936, when Walter Benjamin wrote about the coming to the end of the art of storytelling:

“It is as if something that seemed inalienable to us, the securest among our possessions, were taken from us: the ability to exchange experiences” (1936/2006: 362).

Benjamin, W. (1936/2006). “The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov” in The Novel: An Anthology of Criticism and Theory 1900-2000, ed. D.J. Hale, Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishing, New York, pp. Pp.361-378. CLICK HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE THAT CHANGED THE FIELD OF STORYTELLING FOREVER.

In the branching fractal, the ability of exchanging experience in conversational storytelling was lost, and all but forgotten, but also the storytelling community of storytelling-listeners was severely disrupted something that was very important in the BEFORE process for thousands of years of Indigenous storytelling. The conversations are limited to those in the back room, planning yet another command-and-control grab. A Little Wow Moment process, a ‘gift of listening to others instead of being placed in branching fractals’, was all but lost. So ODC 2.0 brings it back:

“With this the gift for listening is lost and the community of listeners disappears” (1936/2006:367).

What in ODC 2.0 we call the ‘Polyphonic Fractal Rupturing Living Story Web’ takes place. The fractal control branching-narrative of ODC 1.0 takes over, invades, and destroys the ‘fractal living stories’ webwork, s polyphonic storytelling organizing, developing, and changing STOPS happening. What we do is balance the Double Loop (feedback from past to correct present with 2nd loop of feed-forward by prospective sensemaking), and develop the capacity for Third Loop by training in five dialogisms, explained more directly in next blog post, What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module? Here is a quote from a proceedings chapter by Svane and Boje (2015) about the first dialogism, the polyphonic process:

“In polyphonic storytelling organizations, living stories are exchanged between a storyteller and a listener in spacetimemattering. Telling stories is: “the ability to exchange experiences” (Benjamin 1936/2006: 1) of life. The very gift of the storyteller, is the: “… ability to relate his life; his distinction, to be able to tell his entire life” (Benjamin 1936/ 2006: 378) as this life is stretched along between birth and death.

What can ODC 2.0 do about this problem that is everywhere in corporations, universities, and governments today? Obvously we can enact the kind of storytelling circles that Walter Benjamin noticed were disappearing in 1936. We can re-engage dialogisms of Third Loop. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?

“The antenarrative targets the interconnection between fractal control narratives and fractal living story web. The antenarrative thus addresses the transformative work with the tensions and struggles. The antenarrative offers a conceptual and methodological framework for analyzing the processes of changing of narratives, stories, selfhood and world in strategizing and organizing. Thereby, the antenarrative framework provides insight into the managing of sociomaterial organizing and strategizing practices; that is, fractal change management” (Svane & Boje, 2015).

Here is a depiction of what is happening when we only had 5 of the 7 antenarrative processes identified from

Tamara Land Fractal Change Management in between Managerialist Narrative and Polyphonic Living Stories by Marita Svane and David Boje, at Sc.MOI Conference, Las Vegas, 9. – 11. April, 2015 CLICK HERE TO READ THIS PAPER.

Fractal Change Management
Source: Developed by Svane & Boje 2015.
The model illustrates the antenarrative interconnection between fractal control narrative and fractal
rupturing living stories. Fractal change management stretches out between these two poles of the
quantum storytelling field.

This figure was when we just had five of the seven antenarrative processes. True Storytelling Institute is doing training in all seven (other two are Being (what is essence of truth), and Beyond (the 6th sense of Triple Loop).

As we get started, you need two antenarrative processes, THE BENEATH and the BEFORE unpacked.

Let’s begin with a diagnosis of recurring patterns.

True Storytelling Single, Double, Triple Loop System Processes Diagnosis

Instructions: Put big X in the single, double, or triple loop box for each question. Connect the X’s with a marker

1Is this order-giving chain of command system?AlwaysSets goals, we implementGoals by group participation
2Do Leaders solve problems for entire system?Without others’ inputOccasional input of othersAlmost always listens to input
3Is there Trust in others?Lots of mistrustHere and thereLots of trust
4Is Micromanaging expected?AlwaysFrequentlyDelegates
5What about Resistance?Resistance to way It’s done is futileIn group collaborates, outgroup suffersWorking through resistance
6Who has performance control responsibility?Top-down hierarchyIn the procedures and job descriptionsClose to where work is done
7What about collaboration?NoneDepends on situationCollaboration is part of culture
8What kind of ethics?Ends justify means (instrumental)Follow the ethics codeAnswerability of each person to intervene


The Beneath Heart is Monologic to the extreme

The Beneath Heart

Go BENEATH the pre-conceptions to trace the fractal patterns, the recurring games people and groups are playing, get beneath the labels, thought, and frozen concepts that have already become the TINA-Narrative of ‘What is True?’ (Principle 1). I call this the pre-story work, and the unfreezing the petrified narratives work. It is where all the Games of Tool 5 come into play. The ‘my facts are true, your facts are false’ games is rampant in ODC 1.0, and it is a process dysfunction that does not get us to the ‘essence of truth.’ The Beneath Heart restricts ‘what is true’ to “monologic truth” to thoughts that are absolute (Jabri, 2016: 78).Truth regimes do battle for control of the enterprise, and nation. Monologic truth narrative-fractal and counter-narrative-fractals in debate endlessly. Beginning-Middle-End (BME narrative fractals are quite common. Domineering leaders love them because they facilitate command-and-control, but to have a monologic fractal narrative, requires suppressing all oppositions. It is not a place for open, honest, what is true, dialogue. The debate it out way of truth-telling, the battle of two or more single consciousnesses continues mind-body dualism. This is why the new books about process consulting are breaking ranks with “the earlier monologic sense of truth” (Jabri, 2016: 78). We call it the Beneath Heart, because opening a space for dialogue, allows us to break free of monologic dialect (debates of one monologue against some other monologue, that never has any resolution). We will use the Nominal Group Technique Tool.
Ken’s NGT video, and the spreadsheet to calculate NGT rankings.

The Before Heart

Before is a process of fore-having, in advance preparing by using the True Storytelling Principle 2: Making Room for what stories are already there. It’s the history, most ODC 1.0 skips over as unnecessary. It is the process of retrospective sensemaking, looking backward at ‘Little Wow Moments’ that often get marginalized, edited out of the grand (dominant) narratives of ODC 1.0. In ODC 2.0 lots of together-telling to recover untold stories, and Little Wow Moments of doing something true, just, good, and beautiful, that got swept aside. The mode of being before narrative coherence (fore-having); “Any assertion requires a forehaving of whatever has been disclosed; and this is what it points out by way of giving something a definite character’ (Heidegger, 1962: #157).

The Bets Heart

It is the process of prospective sensemaking (Boje, 2001) an antenarrative process of developing multiple futures, and preparing in advances, on their arriving, working toward one or more of the them, as the ODC 2.0 ‘bets on the future. Retrospective-prospective Double Loop Learning is important.

The antenarrative processes are beneath narrative and living story web (fore-conception); “Anything understood which is held in our fore-having and towards which we set our sights ‘foresightedly’, becomes conceptualizable through the interpretation… it is grounded in something the grasp in advance—in a fore-conception” (Heidegger, 1962: #150).

THE 7 FRACTAL NARRATIVES OF SINGLE LOOP SYSTEMS, WHY WE GO BENEATH (What is True, on surface) and into BEFORE of what is already there, then into Double Loop balancing

Some examples of monologic fractal narratives:

  1. Total Quality Management (TQM) – By finding the one best way to order a process, plan it out, and assign people to do it, we get quality. But, dig BENEATH, it is warmed-over Taylorism (one best way, a hidden agenda of monologic in which central planners are the brains, everyone else the brainless-hands). Please see Boje, D. M., & Winsor, R. D. (1993). The resurrection of Taylorism: Total quality management’s hidden agenda. Journal of organizational change management.
  2. Management By Consensus (MBC) – We keep taling until there is a consensus (all agree in principle). Mostly its Group Think, everyone too scared to disagree with the dominant authority’s, the big talkers, and their obsessive narrative monologic.
  3. Managerialism Ideological System (MIS) – We agree on the idea, and hold that as the ideal. Managers (aka leaders have meetings about ideology, and a system of surveillance (panopticon) to keep everyone else in compliance. A managerialism is a monologic of power-over.
  4. Triple Bottom Line (3BL) – The narrative says there are three bottom lines” profit, people, and planet. Sound good. Sounds like three in dialogue, but only profit has the ‘real’ metrics that count, is always on top, while people and planet goes begging. Profit gets to define as what is countable in the people and planet measurement. Its a rhetorical move to cover over everything on earth, being for-sale, as privatizing rules over Nature and people are reduced to resources by Human Resource Managerialists (HRM).
  5. Human Resource Management (HRM) – The BME narrative is people are resources, machines are resources, and HRM is part of the strategy function, reporting to the boss of bosses. Once upon a time it was Personnel, that treated everyone with personalization, and was not handmaiden of CEO (see new book by Schein and his sonn: Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. A. (2018). Humble leadership: The power of relationships, openness, and trust. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  6. Business-Process-Reengineering (BPR) – BME fractal narrative, we trim the fat, get lean, and have the best process designed by an MBA student from a Big 10 consulting firm, downsize and get profitable by controlling our costs with a spreadsheet. BPR is a PR-narrative, a public relations gimmick, another disguising of Taylorism (central planner brains, making the rest of us hands). It is done by the top 10 consultancy firms, as a way HRM professionals can downsize the hands, so the rest of us do twice the workload, at half the pay. Works to give a quarterly dividend to shareholders and a golden parachute to the CEO jumping ship before it sinks, short selling the stock before the organization implodes. Examples: What happened to Tower Records, Why Sears & Roebuck is now more. Answer: the human dialogic force was sacrificed on the alter of monologic-truth-worship of the bottom line (see 3BL).
  7. Digitalize Performativity Systems (DPS) – DPS sounds great, but it ends up becoming one more Single Loop Learning System called cybernetic self-correcting
Humble Inquiry, Second Edition: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling (The Humble ...

Edgar Schein (1987) in the classic Process Consulting book, makes a simple but profound point: Help clients to identify and solve their own problems. When the consultant or coach takes responsibility for identifying, solving problems, it is no longer process consultation. It’s enabling. Clients often sense that the system is sick or not working, but are not sure what to do about it. Often a process consultant enters a sick system, which blames the victim for the process problems. Einstein would have made an awesome process consultant.

Click Here to read a second article. Marita Svane and David M. Boje (2015) MERGER STRATEGY AND CROSS-CULTURAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLYPHONY, presented at the IACCM 2014 conference, University of Warwick, England 26-28 June.

CASE TWO: GOLD Graphic Arts Consulting Firm

CASE TWO and CASE THREE are perhaps the second most common fractal pattern in interorganizational relationships. It is a hybrid of branching and spiraling fractals (a multifractal). In TSI, the BENEATH processing, and Principle 1 (What is True?) are played out in the pre-conceptions, the concept-categories of WIKIA corporation, that are organizing and developing and changing the branching + spiral multifractal. Here is just one part of this CASE TWO Fractal, just the PRINT INDUSTRY is depicted not by mathematics formula but by a graphic arts firm’s client Wikia. The artist is therefor mapping the multifractal visually for the client WIKIA. It is still single loop, but quite beautiful depiction.

In this next image, you see all the particular ways their client Wikia, has branching+spiraling as the patterning multifractal of their environmental relationships. Each spatial location on the map is an industry. Each temporal relationship from the center to periphery is developing the multifractal (branching + spiraling) over time (BEFORE, Prnciple 2: Make Room for the before process of history and rehistoricizing).

CASE THREE: Daniel Q. Boje’s entreprenurship, Fractal-Spiral Story of the Trash Compactor (see full article pdf) In this CASE THREE, is a simple spiral story of my dad’s business, one I had planned to run BEFORE (P2 Make Room) he sold it for $3 Million Dollars, and then lost all the money to various swindlers and his own lack of skill in developing the fractality of his business.

You need just a little math for this one. The Italian mathematician Leonardo Bonacci Fibonacci (c. 1170 – c. 1250) introduced the Fibonacci number sequence, where each next number is the sum of the previous two: 1+1=2; 1+2=3; 2+3=5; 3+5=8; 5+8=13′ 8+13=21; 21+13=34, etc. creating the Fibonacci Spiral, a pattern we see in nature in Snail shells, the Sunflowers, and so on. We call see this pattern in how my Dad’s patent lives on, by being included as basis for other patterns. This Fibonacci spiral continues to unfold its beautiful form, to this very day.

Here is the invention my dad designed then built into a corporation which he then sold to another corporation, while I was attending college, after my stint in Vietnam war. To have an invention so successful make you think it will be easy the next time. It’s not!

Figure Above: Daniel Q Boje ‘s US Pat NO. 3,384,007 issued May 21, 1968 Patented Apr 9 1974 (approved)

The patent was issued the month BEFORE, I was drafted into the US Army, and by time I was in college after Vietnam (1969-1970), a year later, 1971, the money was lost. He had two partners. Sol, who sold his jewelry business for the cash to get the ‘Trash Compactor’ manufactured, and his brother-in-law Samuel (Sam) the biggest most successful real estate lawyer in New York City, who got legislation passed in New York and New Jersey to require my dad’s invention, the Trash Compactor, to be installed in apartment buildings with over 10 units, as an alternative to the Smoke Scrubber, that was a more expensive solution costing 5 to 10 times as much, and doing less. Daniel (my dad), Sol, and Sam were assignors to Compactor Corporation, a corporation of New York Continuation-impart of application Ser. No. 588,050. Hire is the Fibonacci spiraling of patents over time, since my dad’s invention was patented.

Above is The Spiral of Patents, when you calculate the 52 patents filed by other corporations, referencing my dad’s invention from beginning the inventing process in 1968 and incorporating, to 2012. I would love to keep calculating patents since then.

CASE FOUR: Fractal Analytics Consulting Company

Some fractals cannot be visualized, and mapped. The co-founders of Data Analytics are Srikanth Velamakanni (Chief Executive Officer) and  Pranay Agrawal (Executive Vice President). “Applying mathematics and analytics skills in capital markets and consumer banking, their team launched the first collateralized bond obligation instrument in India”

CASE FIVE: BIGstory and bigDATA, Mike Bonifer’s new consulting company used Quantum and Fractal Storytelling

Tonya Henderson and I interviewed Mike Bonifer, who is trademarking ‘BIGstory’ and using it in relation to Big Data, for his clients. Mike has been a long time participant in the Quantum Storytelling Conference. …

Our commercial name for quantum storytelling is “Big Story.” We describe it as a way of using story to make better sense of Big Data. A client of ours calls it “a theory of story.” Which is cool. To that, we’ll add, it is both Theory and Practice of story. And unless you’re a Hopi shaman a quantum physicist or a trained improviser, the odds are it’s unlike any theory or practice of story you’ve encountered.

The theory of Big Story will give our clients more ways of seeing and expressing relationships between data and story.

CASE SIX: Tonya Henderson’s Study of Fractal-Spirals

Tonya Henderson-Wakefield’s (2012) dissertation on quantum fractal spirals in organizations. She details the development of fractal management theory.”Eleven nonprofit leaders from Colorado Springs, Colorado were each interviewed twice, once to identify fractal-like patterns in their dayto-day lived experiences within an altruistic network, and a second time to examine the deeper ontological meaning of the topics and patterns discussed” (Henderson, 2012: 11). A fractal action research model (FARM) is developed, bringing ontological inquiry and pattern recognition together.

The Fractal Action Research Model (FARM) is a good example of doing ODC 2.0.

Svane, M., Gergerich, E., & Boje, D. M. (2017). Fractal change management and counter-narrative in crosscultural change. Counter-narratives and organization, 137-162. Click Here for the pre-press paper.

How does Double Loop enter the Two Becoming Processes, Intertwining the Before-Heart with Bets Heart?

The Before Heart and the Bets Heart connect in the eventing of Being and two kinds of Becoming, in what quantum scientists call the inseparability of SpaceTimeMattering. Triple Loop Learning is nonlinear, so the step by step linear monologic, and even the open system Double Looping logics do not get us there. Before-Heart of retrospective sensemaking (Principle 2 Make Room) must link to the Being-in-the-World of SpaceTimeMattering, not just with Principle 4 Timing, which by itself is illusion of misplaced concreteness. Rather by linking to P3 Plots of the Bets-Heart of prospective sensemaking we get closer to Triple Loop Learning. However, there is a missing link, the way the two Becoming processes can be drawn into together-telling by Principle 5: Helping [new] stories along in a process we call embodied restorying. Nobody said Triple Loop Learning was going to be a linear process. Three loops, not the monologic narrative of Single Loop, or the Open System short sightedness of Double Loop. Triple Loop Learning is rhizomatic, polyphonic, stylistic, chronotopic, architectonic, and all these inter-animating in polypi dialogism. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?

The Two Becoming Processes of DOUBLE LOOP “Everything is in the process of becoming, perpetually” (Hernes, 2015: 166).

Hernes, Tor. (2015). Actor-Network Theory, Callon’s Scallops, and Process-Based Organization Studies. Pp. 161-184 in Tor Hernes & Sally Maitlis (Eds.) Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing. London: Oxford University Press.

Going into the BETWEEN the Four Hearts

Polyphonic diversity and plurality of inclusion keeps getting subverted (colonized) by monologic truth schemes of mind-body separation into more and more dualisms. The Bakhtinian notion of polyphonic dialogue is “diversity emerges as a collective process” (Jabri, 2016: 62). Yes! However, we are still dealing with Tamara-Land organization systems not yet in Triple Loop Learning Systems. For that we need to go BETWEEN THE FOUR HEARTS. It is a “process of combining different voices, gender, race, and other differences such as religious, linguistic regions, and professional groups” (Jabri, 2016: 31).

Going Between the Hearts, is the missing process of dialogic change processes. It brings together the recovered Little Wow Moments (Principle 5 Helping) with the Becoming process (retrospective sensemaking) and Becoming process of Opportune Moments (Kairos) of prespective-sensemaking. The Between the Hearts does that deep dive into the Beyond Heart of embodied reflection (P7). And then its all about the Staging (Principle 6). Out of the Between process consulting we are doing, we rescue something worth communicating in our True Storytelling.

Albert Einstein summed it all up in a few quotes. He challenged the existing monologic mindsets with SpaceTimeMattering. He saw how doing the same thing over and over by the same monologic, while expecting different results is the definition of insanity, encouraged experimenting (allowing for mistakes as part of learning), and said the easiest way to solve a problem is to stop participating in the problem. His quotes traverse the Between the Four Hearts. We combine it with a basic rule about how systems of storytelling organizations get the result they are getting.

I (Boje) learned after years of doing and teaching system change, that Arthur Jones tells it true:

“All organizations are perfectly designed to get the results they get!” (as cited in Hannah 1988: 36).

Edgar Schein puts it in simpler terms: “all that is required for the process to begin constructively is some intent on the part of someone in the organization to improve the way things are going” (1987: 21). Instead of (1) buy-a-consultant, with a tool to fix the process (e.g. process-reengineering), or (2) consultant is doctor and organization is the patient. What Process Consultation assumes is that “the client owns the problem and continues to own it throughout the consultation process” (p. 29).

Here is the link to the Conversation Salon with Edgar Schein, Andy Van de Ven, and David Boje Click here for Video Click Here or


Next we flesh out the Double Loop in Session 2 (Before -> Being -> Bets) the timing, Double loop because it becomes the interplay of retrospective-prospective sensemaking. Session 3 we move into the BETWEEN to do Principle 6 Staging to communicate the new story to our main audience.  We finish by laying in the third loop, the Triple Loop, which is Heart of the Beyond of embodied Reflection (Principle 7). 

This image is a map, showing how we travel into Single loop in Principle 1, What is True? We work with the Heart called the BENEATH (preparing to get beneath the bickering over what is True statement, what is False statement, and who has the empirical facts. All important stuff, but debating over whose single loop (TINA narrative), whose fractal-narrative is true or not, does not get you to Double Loop. In Double Look we focus on the loop of retrospective sensemaking (Principle 2 Make Room for the BEFORE process, by looking back on history at what patterns developed. What patterns are changing? We jump to prospective-sensemaking (Principle 3) and making BETS on different FUTURES, the fractal patterns arriving, and which ones give some direction. Principle 4 Timing, brings us in touch with BEING-in Time, and BEING in Space, and Being in Mattering (the SpaceTimeMattering). Think of it as traveling East and West in Time, back in time, and forward in time. Yet you are also going BENEATH into BEING, the North and South of SpaceTimeMattering (inseparable). We connect up something important in emergence, the two kinds of Bedomcing, one form past P5 Helping a New Story take shape, and joining it with going BETWEEN (see the X-shaped pattern, BETWEEN the 4 Hearts). This is where we start the Principle 6, the Staging of how you communicate all this to your audience of stakeholders. We en route. We are driving with you to Triple Loop, a special descent into the BEYOND Heart, to Principle 7, Reflect in your Embodiment. You have arrived at your destination, and yet, you are not done. You have to keep the three loops in balance. Sometimes Single Loop needs attunements, other times and space need Double Loop forecaring, and preparing the infrastructure (checking the oil in your car, filing the gas tank, washing the windows, resting for the journey). And fine-honing your intuitive skills for that Triple Loop around the Beyond, and back to the other two loops.

FRACTALS – A fractal is defined as “recurrence of self-similar processes across scales: individual, unit, interunit, organization, interorganization, regional, international, global” (Boje, 2015: xv).

How to find out about 2.0? We assembled authors around the world to move from ODC 1.0 to ODC 2.0, in three books:

Boje, D. M. (2015). Organizational Change and Global Standardization: Solutions to Standards and Norms Overwhelming Organizations. London/NY: Routledge (Taylor & Francis).

Boje, D. M.; Henderson, Tonya L. (2014). Being Quantum: Ontological Storytelling in the Age of Antenarrative. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Henderson, Tonya L.; D. M. Boje. (2016). Organizational Development and Change Theory: Managing Fractal Organizing Processes. London/NY: Routledge (Taylor & Francis).

True Storytelling Principles and Processes

True Storytelling principles and processes move from linear, Beginning-Middle-End monological Fractal-narratives and counternarratives, by going Beneath to uncover the essence of Truth of our Being in SpaceTimeMattering. We keep going into the Beyond Polyphonic-Fractals, the Context of Contexts:

  1. Social Contexts (Racial, Ethnicity, Gender)
  2. Economic Contexts (so-called Free Markets, and Markets that are Regulated)
  3. Political Contexts (Authoritarian, Dictatorial, Fascist, Oligarchic, Socialist, Democratic, and Mixtures)
  4. Ecological Contexts (Wild Nature, Natural Systems of Cooperation & Harmony, Changes in Climate from contexts 1, 2, & 3).

We humans are fractal beings, repeating patterns of self-similar process in our behavior habits and routines, across scales from micro (local practices) to the macro (global practices) and everywhere in-between. We are Holon (part/whole) relationships of micro/macro scale. The good news! There are identifiable fractal patterns: linear (flat land single loop), cyclical (one or double), spiral (up or down, moving this way and that way), and rhizomatic (no axis, unfolding, territorializing, deterritorializing, and reterritorializing in all directions; see Deleuze & Guattari chapter on smooth and serrated spaces, section on fractals). By learning to identify process patterns, and getting beneath the symptoms to the root causes of those patterns, we can begin to do ODC 2.0. We can learn to go BENEATH the categories, prejudices, etc. to our BEING-fractal in SpaceTimeMattering, and then go into the BEYOND of embodied reflection to change the context of context, the Polyphonic Fractal.

There is a global-local problem facing people in organizations today. Because organizations have been smitten by the TINA-narrative (single loop fractal) for almost a century, the other two loops have atrophied, in most organizations.

SECOND LOOP FRACTAL of OPEN SYSTEMS CAN BE OUT OF BALANCE: 2 logics (feedback & feed-forward) in situation is the leader, not the people, an ODC 1.0, in an ensemble of an open system thing-hoods, with two loops: retrospective sensemaking (often its the single loop of authoritarian correcting loop of TINA-narrative keeps driving away all different voices). ODC 2.0 develops dialogue circles of retrospective-prospective sensemaking (double loop learning) that are in-balance processes of two sorts of Becoming. The usually atrophied, second loop is the prospective sensemaking (forecaring & foresight) is important process of preparing-in-advance for many futures to choose from, can be reduced to depersonalization. This second loop, with tools of facilitation, can also bring conversations, diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) of participation into dialogue, and a much deeper listening to the truth of the situation comes into play. Of course, oftent, Open Systems still have TINA-narrative single looping dominating the open system will keep trying to drive out diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI). Fortunately, there is a way to go Beyond this duel, into an embodied way of sensemaking, we call the third loop of the 5 dialogisms of ensemble storytelling and ensemble leadership. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?


What is the Beyond Heart?

Beyond Heart brings together Principle 7 Reflect together in embodied dialogue, with the Beyond processes of dialogism. Mind-Body Dualism cannot be unified in the Single Loop Beneath-Heart. That sort of truth-by-fiat, does not work well is advertised. And we have to Go Beyond Open Systems (the vision of my mentor Louis R. Pondy). We are in these awful Single Loop control systems, pretending they are Double Loop Open Systems, but we need to go Beyond both of these disasters. It is the space of ‘wild nature’ as Merleau-Ponty calls it. It is all the “shifts and swirls and the vertices” as Gregory Bateson called it (as cited in Jabri, 2016: 142).

“I am conscious of myself and become myself only while revealing myself for another, through another, and with the help of another” (Bakhtin, 1984: 287).

Bakhtin, M.M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetic (C. Emerson, Trans.). Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1929). It is where the concept of dialogism was first developed.

Beyond is the rhizomatic the Deleuze and Guattari (1987) develop in their chapter on spaces that turn all fractal. Beyond Heart is our way of drawing your attention to polyphonic embodied materiality of Wild Nature. In this dialogic sense of truth, each assertion of true or untrue is in relation to Tamara-Land.

The factorial of 6 rooms in TAMARA-LAND Is exactly 720

The factorial of 12 rooms is exactly 479,001,600

Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land”. Academy of Management journal38(4), 997-1035. Click here for PDF

Where we are today is the Tamara-Land of either 6 factorial or 12 factorial that need ODC 2.0

ODC can move from the monologic 1.0 ODC, Tina-narrative (single loop) fractal to a double loop (open system), and to ones with third loop, the polyphonic fractal of ensemble storytelling suited for the complex adaptive system contexts of Tamara-Land’s 6 factorial, or when people lack moral compass, the 12 factorial.

The problem is the polyphony in Tamara-Land is factorial. We cannot be in all 6 rooms at once (in the image shown). People are coming to the room you are in from 720 possible sequences of Before-rooms. If there is subterfuge (people in masks, doing the untrue), then it is possible 12 people walk out of the same room, with 12 different answers to ‘what is true.’ Mikhail Bakhtin (1984: 29) said

“Life by its very Nature is dialogic”.

Going into dialogic conversations does not solve the problem of the factorial. Polyphonic spaces, those dialogic spaces are happening throughout an organization. “Diversity emerges as a collective process” (Jabri 2016: 62) of what I call the Becoming of retrospective-prospective sensemaking loop that ties two more Hearts together.

What is the new digital version of TAMARA-LAND LEARNING?

Welcome to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Netflix, and so on search engines. You and I click on Twitter at the same exact time, and we see different lists. It all depends on the rooms we have visited before 9n Tamara-Land. Big Internet companies use Big Data to track you key strokes, your film and webpage choices. It is the 21st Century Echo chamber Internet. You get profiled, you think looking at the same page, you are experiencing the same choice points, the same Fractal Pathway in your life? Not a chance. The public is clamering for change, so there are some corporations like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube putting on some brakes. The simplist way to fix this mexx, is to put a stop to Big Data tracking of our keystrokes, our movie quicks. Just looking at a page about this or that, and you get ten solititations, coming on Internet, then on Robocalls.

I am presenting about Tamara-Land to a couple thousand Russians on Friday March 26 2010. Here are some notes about the two kinds of Tamara-Lands.

POINT: Gabriele D’Annunzio is like PAPA BEAR and Tamara is the MAMA BEAR (& the Goldilocks), but they are not the only BEARS IN THIS MANSION!. In Tamara-Land, you have to realize the play Tamara (by John Krizanc and the ‘real life events takes place in 1924 during the ime of Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin (all three leaders rising to power, using Single Loop Learning, some spilling into Double Loop).Papa Bear wants in Gold Lock’s (Mama Bear’s) bed •Tamara is to paint his portrait. •She is bi-sexual. He also. For him she is a conquest. For Mussolini, keepin D’Annunzio in the mansion, in life of luxury (wine, women, and song) keeps a threat to Mussolini’s rise to dictator at bay. For Tamara, Gabrielle is a wealthy patron.

In John Krizanc’s play, called TAMARA, the point is that there are many leaders in many rooms telling stories, and listening to other leaders stories. •We are in a plush extravagant mansion-villa, with aristocrats, servants, chauffeurs, and fascist party spies. •Its worse than that: The chauffeur (in one version of the play), Mario, has a plot to kill Mussolini, and Tamara has already been Mario’s lover.  •Mario gets access to the mansion, by wooing a peasant girl, who works as a maid. •You see the problem with Leadership storytelling: Can we believe any of their stories. What is the TRUE STORYTELLING? •POINT: WHAT IS MISSING IN THIS ENSEMBLE OF CHARACTERS? They are not learning to learn from the context they are in, because the situation is fascism, the consequence of an act of defiance is death.

•THIS IS A STORYTELLING NETWORK. Every organization has a network of storytellers, and story listeners, trying to make sense of the room they are in, given what is happening in rooms they are not in, and their sense of rooms they came from BEFORE. •BUT MAIN POINTà People are not being open, true, transparent, they wear MASKS, and for good reason, CONTEXT MATTERSà Fascism of Mussolini •So it is interplay of RETROSPECTIVE-SENSEMAKING with PROSPECTIVE-SENSEMAKING, looping. •There is what Argyris called SINGLE LOOP Learning of one plot, one logic, of one strong man leader that most leader storytelling obsesses about. ITS very CYBERNETIC feedback loop of OPPRESSION, dictator-fascists favor •There is DOUBLE LOOP learning of an open system of deviation amplifying loop and a counteracting loop (call it social heteroglossia from Bakhtin) •TRIPLE LOOP learning and leadership is ENSEMBLE OF LEADERS doing dialogical processing of what is happening in NETWORK LEADERSHIP OF MANY LEADERS in different spaces, different times, different matterings.

Bakhtin’s Dialogism is the way to get to Triple Loop.

There are 5 dialogisms interanimate in TAMARA-LAND:

1.VOICES are many together

2.STYLES are many together

3.SPACETIMEMATTERING has no separations 4.SYSTEMS – we have answerability to change them, to intervene.

5.ALL the ABOVE in TOGETHER-TELLING, as Ethics, Mind, and Heart Interanimate – in and out of Alignments of TAMARA-LAND

There is something few if any have noticed. At the time in history that Tamara and d’Annunzio are in Mussolini’s mansion-prison, Mikhail Bakhtin is dealing with Stalin’s rise to power. Bakhtin refuses to subscribed to historical materialism dialectics. Instead, he pioneers the dialogical (first in polyphony of many voices, and second in the stylistics of so many modalities used at once in storytelling, then in the chronotopes and the architectonics). All four dialogisms are explored in Boje 2008.

Mikhail Bakhtin’s Life of writing, much of it at same time as Tamara is in the mansion being wooed by Gabriele d’Annunzio; CRITICAL DIFFERENCE in MORAL PHILOSOPHY!  1924à WHEN TAMARA with d’Annunzio what is Bakhtin doing?

Bakhtin and Tamara are about the same age, when the context is in chaos. Here is a chronology.

•Bakhtin born 1895, died 1975 •Tamara born 1898, died 1980;  born in OryolRussia, to an old family of the nobility.

-AGE 18, in 1913 he at very young age, joined the historical and philological faculty at the local university (the Odessa University). •Odessa setting for early writing on  heteroglossia and carnival.

AGE 23, in 1918- Bakhtin completed his studies. & moved to a small city in western Russia, Nevel (Pskov Oblast), where he worked as a schoolteacher for two years. •1918  first “Bakhtin Circle” formed. The group consisted of intellectuals with varying interests, but all shared a love for the discussion of literary, religious, and political topics •POINTà Bakhtin considered himself more a philosopher  of MORAL PHILOSOPHY, than just a literary scholar. ME TOO!!!

AGE 24, 1919, a short section NOTEWORKING STORY-work was published and given the title “Art and Responsibility” •1920à Bakhtin relocated to Vitebsk in 1920. It was here, •1921àBakhtin married Elena Aleksandrovna Okolovich

AGE 28, 1923 àBakhtin was diagnosed with osteomyelitis, a bone disease that ultimately led to the amputation of his leg in 1938 •1924 à  moved to Leningrad, where he assumed a position at the Historical Institute and provided consulting services for the State Publishing House

1924 (the setting of the TAMARA play). It is at this time that Bakhtin, in his living story live, has decided to share his work with the public, but just before “On the Question of the Methodology of Aesthetics in Written Works” was to be published, the journal in which it was to appear stopped publication. This work was eventually published 51 years later.

1928, Bakhtin is exiled by Stalinists to Kazakhstan, where he and his wife spent six years in Kustanai (now Kostanay), after which in 1936 they moved to Saransk (then in Mordovian ASSR, now the Republic of Mordovia)  •1929–> “Problems of Dostoevsky’s Art”, Bakhtin’s first major work, was published. It is here that Bakhtin introduces the concept of dialogism. •1937

1937, Bakhtin moved to Kimry, a town located one hundred kilometers from Moscow. Here, Bakhtin completed work on a book concerning the 18th-century German novel which was subsequently accepted by the Sovetskii Pisatel’ Publishing House. However, the only copy of the manuscript disappeared during the upheaval caused by the German invasion of 1941

1940 Bakhtin lived in Moscow, where he submitted a dissertation on François Rabelais to the Gorky Institute of World Literature to obtain a postgraduate title,[8] a dissertation that could not be defended until the war ended. In 1946 and 1949, the defense of this dissertation divided the scholars of Moscow into two groups.

This chronology, reveals a critical difference between Tamara and Bakhtin. Tamara was trapped in a Tamara-Land she could endure but not change. Bakhtin was a change agent, and suffered the consequences.

THE ENSEMBLE FRACTAL, 6 or 12 Factorial of a TAMARA-LAND. Here once again, just developing a third loop is no guarantee that the forces of TINE-narrative fractality won’t take over. We call it Ensemble Leadership (Rosile, Boje, & Claw, 2016), and its Together-Telling Ensembles of Ensemble Storytelling (Rosile, G. A., Boje, D. M., Herder, R. A., & Sanchez, M. (2021). The Coalition of Immokalee Workers uses ensemble storytelling processes to overcome enslavement in corporate supply chains. Business & Society60(2), 376-414. Click here fore pdf). You need ensembles because even a very simple TAMARA-LAND has hundreds of thousands and more complex one have millions of pathways of networking actors together. Mikhail Bakhtin’s Polyphony means a symphony of many voices, each person with their logic, standing together to do a Polyphonic dialogue. It takes an ensemble many different people in storytelling conversations across the entire organization (not just the top loop). Since you can only be in one room at a time in any organization, people are constantly chasing stories room to room. Why? A simple fact of physics: you can only be in one room (one place) at a time. There are a lot of rooms with conversations, meetings, presentations, working folks and leaders ‘here and there’, all doing things, and it’s all happening simultaneously. So it’s a problem of channels and pathways. This 6 room-factorial=720 potential pathways, and 12 room factorial= 479,001,600 pathways (round it to 479 Million) in what I call Tamara-Land storytelling organization (Boje, 1995). It is what we in True Storytelling call the BEYOND, the embodied reflection, and its in TAMARA-LAND of ODC 2.0.

ODC 2.0 is a journey, with a roadmap of SpaceTimeMattering, of exploring and diagnosing Single Loop spaces and times, then tracing out Double Loop of retrospective-prospective, and Finally, getting to Triple Loop of embodied reflection. ODC 2.0 is the combination of tools, principles, and processes to help participants to develop their organizing and changing, to move Beneath- Single-Loop surface truth battles, get into Double Loop open system fractal understanding of timing (retrospective-prospective sensemaking), then developing the break-through into the Beyond of Triple Loop embodied reflection of the 5 dialogisms. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module? As you proceed in the four sessions of ODC 2.0, you get to put flesh on the three loops. You are the driver of the organizing, developing, and changing you want to bring about with your own organization. It is like driving your car and having a rood map of sites to see and enjoy along the way. It is preparing you in advance for the journey.


We are smitten by the TFW Virus (Boje, 2015: xv), Henri Savall defines it this way: the pathology of the ONE, Taylorism (mechanistic, scientific management of shop floor in time-and-motion studies, Fayolism (administrative order of the ONE, seen as the body, with management as the head, workers as the hands, communication as the nerves and departments as the body parts) and Weberism (the bureaucratic rationality of the ONE), we call it managerialism of centralized, hierarchical command-and-control (Single Loop). Now, let’s be frank. Sometimes you need single loop. Taylorism to work out a process of centralized planning (aka reengineering processes for one best way). Sometimes you need Fayol’s administrative principles, but here too, one best way can become the worst way, when carried to an excess. Weber’s division of labor, hierarchy, rules, and professionalized positions was seen as an viable alternative to monarchy (nepotism), and to charismatic leader-driven organization, where everyone did what the charismatic leader, that transformative visionary leader, said to do. All good, until the context or situation changed, and people noticed they were in a cult of charisma. Sometimes charisma is a good thing, but carried to an extreme, fascism, dictatorial, authoritarian, and bully-leadership takes over the theatre of leadership.

What happened since World War I and World War II, organizations turned to centralized planning and micromanaging everything (Taylorism),big focus on managing contingencies with Fayol’s administrative principles wrapped around a Taylorism factory (aka TQM, business process reengineering) most people don’t trust charisma so most everyone favored bureaucratic instead of open systems. Then in the 1960s and into the 1980’s TFW (Taylorism-Fayolism-Weberism) got morphed into one system, into the TFW virus, and got applied to everything. No only likes virus, so ODC 1.0 began to go lean and mean, keep the business process reengineering, but without any moral compass, so many scandals, and still happening.

Then it happened, since scandal after scandal was bad for everyone, the standards became external controls of every kind of organization. There was a proliferation of organizations that began to create more and more standards. Initially, a good thing, but when there became hundreds of standards, different in various localities, then it was chaos trying to run not only international and global business or global education, or local and global government, and it all turned to chaos.

The Story of the Tetranormalizing Butterfly of Global Fracals

Some of us noticed. We came up with ways to tame the Four Wings (tetra means four) and we came up with ways to tame overwhelm, with the Tetranormalizing Butterfly. It has four wings (tetra), and each wing has its fractals of organizations pushing their standards. Your time as a caterpillar is over. it is time to get your wings.

The wings flap together in the multifractal. So you find the four kinds of fractals need to flap in harmony, or the butterfly falls from the sky. Organizing, Developing, and Changing needs to normalize its actions, behaviors, and processes. The four kinds of fractals: Social/Culture, Trade, Economy/Accounting, and Ecology/Quality.

But, there are a lot of standards proliferating in each wing, to be able to figure out what to do and how to behave, is entirely overwhelming the sensemaking abilities of organizations. Some are not standards at all. For example ISO 26000 is a set of volunteer guidelines, and so are the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals. WTO on the other hand is hard standards with an enforcement and appeals process. Accounting standards vary by country.

This is the book, where I try the first butterfly because Professor Henri Savall asked me to gather people in four areas and do something about the chaos of local, regional, and global standards, that make it crazy to try to do ODC 1.0, because the world needs ODC 2.0 begin normalizing by doing ensemble storytelling circles (Third Loop) so we all know how to behave in this chaos. Tetranormalizing is multifractal change, to get some inclusive and equitable norms (values, principles, standards) in place for our organizing and developing, and changing (ODC 2.0). And that means going into the dialogism processes. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?

Boje, D. M. (2015). Organizational Change and Global Standardization: Solutions to Standards and Norms Overwhelming Organizations. London/NY: Routledge (Taylor & Francis).

For an article on the difference between US and European accounting standards, please see Smith, W. L., Boje, D. M., & Foster III, T. W. (2013). On the tetranormalization of US GAAP and IFRS: A socioeconomic approach. Proceedings of the American Accounting Association (AAA)1, 27. Click Here to Read Article.

ODC 2.0 combines some basic tools that you can use in a fractal world. It includes 7 principles of True Storytelling to give some direction. It includes process approach to organizing, developing, and changing. We do together-telling.


If you know some simple tools, you can get a handle on ODC 2.0 in fractal-land.

TOOL 1: Nominal Groups Technique NGT

NGT is a tool to allow each person without discussion and silently to generate lists of 7 problems ( A, B, C, D, E, F, & G) (opportunities to solve) by a group of 5 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) or so, individuals silently generate, write down, they rank order in importance on 7-point scale (7 = Highest, 1 = Lowest) on a piece of paper (or spreadsheet) to give the priorities of participative action. It is quick, painless, simply, but the bully-leader (command & control) or fast talker cannot influence the outcome. It prevents Group Think, and gets the hidden stories on the table for the frank and true storytelling session that follows. I did my first published lab study on NGT, comparing it to Delphi (repeated rounds of asking experts to deliberate).

Boje, D. M., & Murnighan, J. K. (1982). Group confidence pressures in iterative decisions. Management Science28(10), 1187-1196.(click if you have researchgate access)

TOOL 2: Talking Stick for ICEND

Talking Stick for ICEND (Interactive, Communicative, Experiential, Networking Developing) is a tool used for thousands of years by indigenous peoples around the world, so that everyone gets their turn, everyone else actively listens, waiting to step forward and take a turn. ICEND can be done with multiple groups, on Zoom, using Talking Stick facilitation GroundRules of TSI:

     I – Interactive – Share stories around issues using Talking Stick
     C- Communicative – Stories of the collective between many Talking Stick Circles
     E-Experiential – Grounding in experiences, even wandering and walking around
     N-Networking – Ongoing networking from diagnosis, project planning, implementation experiments, to evaluation of results (DPIEs done in succession through the networking fractal.
     D-Developing – Continuous Participative Action Research, in all directions, instead of only top-down, or centralized planned by committee.

ICEND takes longer time, but it keeps the cross talking and talking over each other and the bullying to a minimum. It promotes story-listening. ICEND is done in all seven directions (Kaylynn TwoTrees): networking participation in the four directions, and in Triple Loop, the Up, Down, and In reflection (Principle 7 Reflect, in the Beyond process).

Source: Boje & Rosile (2003) in Journal of Organizational Change Management

Please explore the Transorganizational Development (TD) Gameboard. The TD Gameboard is a fun way to compare and contrast sixteen ODC 1.0 approaches with a few that are what we call ICEND. CLICK HERE FOR TD Gameboard. TD has a long history at UCLA, where I was fortunate to be hired into the one unit of the Anderson School of Management, doing TD. Transorganizational Networking at that time, was defined as ‘planned change in the collective relationships of a variety of stakeholders to accomplish something beyond the capability of any single organization or individual’ (Culbert et. al., 1972).

Culbert, Samuel A., James Max Elden, Will McWhinney, Warren Schmidt & Bob Tannenbaum. “Trans-organizational praxis: A search beyond organizational development,” International Associations, XXIV (10, October). 1972. Still an excellent piece. This was the first piece I read that got me started in TD and ICEND.

Boje, D.M. (1979), “The change agent as revolutionary: activist interventions into inter
organizational networks”, paper presented at the Transorganizational Development
Session of the Academy of Management Meetings, Atlanta, GA, August.

Boje, D., & Rosile, G. A. (2003). Comparison of socio‐economic and other transorganizational development methods. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Click Here for article, if you have Research Gate.

Some Terminology of TD:

  1. ICEND – Interactive Communicative Experiential Networking Developing. It uses NGT or the Talking Stick Circles approach.
  2. Transorganizational Development – a collective story is being shaped and co-constructed among the network of [organizational] participants. Each stakeholder [organization] is negotiating the meaning of the collective story. Each story is a fragment, a perspective on the whole. Some are problem based, issue based, solution based or just fantasy based. Each is a candidate to become the dominant collective story (Boje, 1979, 1981).
  3. Story – A telling of a past or anticipated event brought into the present through oral or written performance (Double Loop of Retrospective-Prospective sensemaking).
  4. Collective Story – A story of the past or anticipated future that is negotiated and co-constructed among a wider community of networking developing (Boje & Wolfe, 1989).
  5. Story Networking – It is the stories that construct and reconstruct the exchange relations of the transorganizational networking and organizing over time, across many places, unfolding in mattering ways (SpaceTimeMattering).
  6. Stakeholder – Person, tree, or organization who is affected by what the organization is doing or intending to do (“Have a stake in”) – Based upon Mason & Mitroff’s work, before stakeholders-of-the-mind took over (i.e. when instead of actually doing ICEND, experts or top management just thought about stakeholders, in their mind’s eye, without ever meeting one face-to-face, and doing active deep story-listening).

 ICEND – People interact and communicate in networks through stories. We therefore begin with a “Narrative Frames Diagnosis.” The first part of ICEND is Interactive Communication.  We look at the narrative styles of the stakeholders to the network. We assess the interplay of bureaucratic, quest, chaos and postmodern narrative frames

Three ICEND subsystems are formed. Subsystem One (outside process consultant) facilitates the formation of the second subsystem (internal problem solving networking cycle) so people can crystallize issues, identify leaders, form a temporary organization (of organizations) that will change the status quo response patterns of a TD1 [SINGLE LOOP] (Subsystem Three: Extended Network Involvement Cycle) to enact counter networking (DOUBLE LOOP of Open System adaptation to situation and environment in spacetimemattering). MORE.

Subsystem One: Outside Process Consultation Cycle

  • I. Diagnosis
  • II. Involvement
  • III. Active Intervention
  • IV. Support
  • V. Evaluation

Subsystem Two: Internal Problem Solving & Networking Cycle

  • I. Issue Crystallization (issues that bring form community)
  • II. Locate Stakeholders
  • III. Expanded Stakeholder Involvement
  • IV. Search Conferences & Focus Group Intervention
  • V. Convene Temporary Organization
  • VI. Withdrawal of Temporary Organization (before bureaucracy sets in)
  • VII. Assessment & Evaluation

Subsystem Three: Extended Network Involvement Cycle

  • I. Issue Perceived More Widely in the Extended Network
  • II. Initial Organizational Involvement beyond Temporary Organization
  • III. Discovery of Under-employed Resources
  • IV. Breakdown of Status Quo Response Patterns (Subsystem II Interventions in Extended Field)
  • V. Demand Builds for Greater Organizational Involvement
  • VI. Breakdown of Status Quo Responses.

With Zoom ICEND Talking Stick Circles can be done in the Breakout Rooms, so large numbers of participants can go room-to-room in an interactive Tamara-Land (simultaneous storytelling in up to 50 rooms, and going to other breakout rooms, to experience the storytelling with a new mix of people, and learning that the story meaning depends upon the Factorial, the sequence of rooms in the ICEND.

Both tools (NGT & Talking Stick Circles) are part of doing together-telling, iteratively, and can be used in Zoom to diagnose and do networking developing in large communities, and large organization. Both tools change the processes of problem solving, prioritizing, communication, planning, and and decision making. But to bring ODC 2.0 about, the Tamara-Land situation of ODC 1.0 has to be addressed.

Comparisons and Contrasts of SINGLE LOOP TD1, DOUBLE LOOP TD2, and TRIPLE LOOP TD3

Transorganization Development 1 (TD1) – The ODC (1.0 methods of Single Loop, usually top-down, center imposed on periphery, using monologic instead of polylogic storytelling circles, and polyphonic dialogism. Once upon a time, ODC embraced ‘Participative Action Research’ in a bottom up, iterative, inclusive, community network approach. Along the way it ditched the ‘participation’ and it became single loop TDI1.

Transorganization Development 2 (TD2) – There is a Search Conference (gatherings for brainstorming, post it notes on flip charts, lots of milling around, but not an ICEND process that goes beyond Action Research that stays with the ongoing organizing, developing and changing of the ICEND. It is a lopsided Double Loop, some outreach for participation, then a centralized initiative planning and implementing a fixed network solution.

  1. TD1 – Type One Transorganization Network seeks to recombine the community or global division of labor such that fragments of the self, social, and market can put the status quo back together (Boje, 1999: 14-189).
  2. TD2 – Type Two Transorganization Network seeks to resist or modify the behavior of TD1 networks by forming an alternative TD2 network to conduct campaigns of resistance and power realignment (Boje, 1999: 14-18).
  3. Middle Range TD1/TD2 – There are middle range approaches between TD1 and TD2 or involving combinations of both. For example many firms apply Learning Organization, Appreciative Inquiry, or “Alliance Collaboration” (Anderson Consulting) among competing firms in order to bring business practices into more sustainable and socially responsible praxis. Ernesto Cortez continues Alinsky’s more radical approaches with somewhat more bureaucratic and multi-issue, rather than single issue advocacy praxis.  Ernst & Young and other billion dollar U.S. based firms adopt a Knowledge Organization approach as a successor to the more traditional Learning Organization models of Senge, Argyris or Schein-models. There is some experimentation by Ernst & Young with complexity and chaos theory modeling based in spin off operation from Santa Fe Institute. In sum, middle range approaches deviate from the profit maximization, free market economy view of TD1 to a non-traditional approach which may on occasion yield social or ecological advocacy or approach collective dynamics from a more multi-paradigm vantage point. READ MORE.

Transorganizational Development 3 (TD3) In the Triple Loop, the ICEND is ongoing from start to a never ending commitment to democratic participation. The more polyphonic strategy-as-story approaches involve more dialogical and mutual authorship of strategic understanding of networking dynamics. 


Participative Design for Participative Democracy (PDPD) focuses upon building a learning organization (1993: 2).

A learning organization is one structured in such a way that its members can learn and continue to learn within it. The organizational structure itself is an environment for continuing education (Emery, M. 1993: 2).

The Emery approach to learning organization, however, differs from the stakeholder learning models presented in TD Gameboard Square 10. Participants in the Emery TD approach build a democratically-participative “learning planning community” (M. Emery, 1993: 242).

Organizational Democratization – First, the Emery method focuses on creating learning organizations that center around concepts and practices of organizational democratization, as a way to break out of the vicious cycle of deskilling, apathy, and dissociation. Dissociation is the opposite of association; apathy comes from not being in charge of the work you are responsible to perform; deskilling is a result of the over-application of the division of labor, such that each person is responsible for only a very narrow and repetitive task (thereby not being able to multi-skill or to be knowledgeable of the big picture).  Industrial democracy experiments by Emery and Thorsrud in Norway between 1969 and 1975, applied the results of experiments by Trist and Bamforth (1951) where the relation between the social system and the technical system of coal mining were studied. In Norway industrial democratization took placed at the national level. fred Emery applied the result of the Norway experiments to Australia, beginning in 1969.

Design Principle 1 and Design Principle 2 – Second, the methodology centers on training stakeholders to a multi-organizational system in two design principles known as DP1 and DP2 (Emery, M. 1993: 3).

  • DP1 – the redundancy of parts, results in an organization built on the one person one shift unit, where responsibility for co-ordination, control and outcome is located one level above where the work is being done.
  • DP2 – the redundancy of functions, results in an organization built on self-managing groups who hold responsibility for their own work, their own co-ordination and control.

Search Conference – Third, the Emery approach is rooted in the early experiments with Search Conference participative planning designed by Fred Emery and Eric Trist in 1958, and to democracy experiments in Norway and Australia in the 1970s (Emery, M. 1993: 11). 

SUMMARY TD and ICEND go Beyond, in the rhizomatic that Deleuze and Guattari (1987) develop in their chapter on spaces that turn all fractal. Beyond Heart is our way of drawing your attention to polyphonic embodied materiality of Wild Nature. In this dialogic sense of truth, each assertion of true or untrue is in relation to Tamara-Land. Tamara de Lempicka a Russian painter whose lawyer husband was tossed in prison, in 1920s when Stalin was coming to power. She goes to Italy to paint in her art deco style, a portrait of Gabrielle d’Annunzio, a heroic leader who could have keep the fascist squad leader, Mussolini from coming to power in 1924. So Mussolini in his Single Loop story logic, put d’Annunzio under house arrest, in a mansion, we call ‘Tamara-Land’. Tamara is name of a play by John Krizanc. I attended the play, wrote about how every storytelling organization is a Tamara-Land, and deconstructed Disneyland corporate enterprise as a Tamara-Land. Consider it a Rhizome, with six rooms, six sorts of leaders, each with their own voice, their own logic, and audience members chasing these leaders from room to room. The key insight: You cannot be in more than one room at a time, but the action is happening in 6 rooms at once. Therefore, 6 factorial pathways to explore (6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x1) equals 720. But what if the six leaders are double-voiced- in their narrations (as Bakhtin calls it). Then each leader is two-faced, double-speaking, mixing one style (oral) with another style (body language), so their head, heart, and speech acts are not in alignment. In other words, no True Storytelling in these rooms. To be the dective audience member, you go to the play dozens of times, following many pathways, chasing leaders room to room, and come away with deeper understanding of the Rhizome (the factorial combinations).

Tool 3: Storyboarding (e.g. Tamara-Land)

We rely a lot on storyboarding the flow and waves of the process in SpaceTimeMattering. We look at history and we look at what is presenting, and at the future. Tamara-Land is a Networking Organization with ICEND, that may or may not be effective (depends upon the level of True Storytelling).

This is the article that gets third most citations of anything I have done: Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land”. Academy of Management journal38(4), 997-1035. Click here for PDF

first most cited journal article by me:

The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm DM Boje (1991).

Top sited book:

Narrative methods for organizational & communication research DM Boje (1991), where I noticed there are very few Beginning-Middle-End narratives, in conversational storytelling, and everyone expects a terse few words or a nod of the head, a ‘you know’ you will fill in the story that has not be articulated. It’s called intersubjectivity, and its a deep part of Tamara-Land, our next tool.

A polyphonic fractal is about the interplay of these causes and effects, ther entanglement, the intermingling of these these processes and contexts. ODC 2.0 is about alignments, and attunements using some tools that are actually pretty simple which you use tools. Polyphonic is the first of five dialogisms in Triple Loop. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?

To summarize:

  1. We will return again and again to Tamara-Land, the first point. All organizations are Tamara-Lands, with storytelling happening all at the same time in different rooms.
  2. You are only in one room at a time. That is the law of spacetime.
  3. Since you move from room to room all day long in an organization, you are alwys catching up, asking ‘What’s going in the other rooms?’ It’s a rhizome not a Single Loop (command-and-control) or a Double Loop (open system situation be the leader).
  4. Even when several of you become detectives, there are many combinations of rooms to traverse, you likely came from different rooms with different leaders and cannot sort out the mysteries. Therefore, the sequence of rooms you came from BEFORE, matters to the meaning you glean from the room you all are in NOW in BEING, and what is BECOMING the new historizations of the past and BECOMING the new choices among futures arriving.
  5. Just with 6 rooms, there are 6 factorial (6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1) = 720 pathways. In double-voiced narration of a complex polyphonic, double the factorial to 12 factorial = approximately 479 million combinations.
  6. So What? If you think a Beginning-Middle-End (BME) fractal narrative plot of a few events in SINGLE LOOP LEARNING ORGANIZATION, get force-interpreted to mean the same thing just because its simple, you are are mistaken. Every word, every event, and every character of that simple BME narrative will have many shades of meaning depending on rooms you all were, BEFORE. The BEFORE is what are the stories already there. Point is one story fits all ODC 1.0 or even the open system ODC 1.2 is not up to the task of dealing with ODC 2.0 of Tamara-Land rhizomatics.

Welcome to not just factorial, but to dynamics of fractality. By using simple tools like Nominal Group Technique (NGT), Talking Stick, and the visual image of Tamara-Land I just showed, called, the Storyboard, then we begin the process of ODC 2.0. It is through embodied dialogue that we process the polyphonic contexts within contexts (the polyphonic fractal) we live in, day to day.

Tool 4: Types of Fractals and ICEND

ICEND=Interactive Communicative Experiential Networking Developing

True Storytelling principles and processes, the sensing of environments, the use of tools is about working with the patterns among people and their materialities: machines, tools, materials. Process consulting can diagnose the fractal patterns. A way to start is to look at the relationships between the social and material. Social-materialities tell stories.

What is the ICEND pattern? S=Social; M=MaterialList Story examples
Social separated from material   
Social dominates material  
Material dominates social   
In Balance   
Social intra-active with Material (entanglement)   
Re-Con-Figuring Spiral   
Spiral through time   
Spiral Increasing through Time     

Fractal storytelling consists of a combination of irregular and regularizing self-similar fractal storytelling behaviors. Self-similar fractal narratives are repeated across scales (micro to macro) of ‘storytelling organizations’ (Boje, 1995, 2008a). Irregular fractal stories do not exhibit the fractal-self-sameness imputed to grand narrative iterations. A random process cal lead to non-self-similar fractal storytelling.

Natural fractals have limit points, above and below which, the self-similar scalability stops after a few cross scale associations. Social norms of organizations change from one generation to the next, thereby creating transformations to fractal structures of organizing. The generating norms and rules produce combinations of irregular and regular fractal sets.

Fractal Study Guide 1

Fractal Study Guide 2

Fractal Case Studies Page

OD and Change with FRACTALs
Being Quantum: Ontological Storytelling in the Age of Antenarrative
Published 2014; Cambridge Scholars Publishing Ltd is registered in England. Reg. No: 4333775; VAT No: 108280727; Available Amazon
Organizational Change and Global Standardization: Solutions to Standards and Norms Overwhelming Organizations (Routledge Studies in Organizational Change & Development)Hardcover – Published 31 Jul 2015
by David M. Boje (Editor)
Organizational Development and Change Theory: Managing Fractal Organizing Processes Published August 1st 2015
by Tonya Henderson (Author),David M. Boje (Author)

Here is the thing about Tamara-Land. Just because an organization has 6 rooms with a only 6 leaders and other people telling stories, does not mean there is openness of Open System. And the open system, of TWO feedback loops, does not mean there is trust, truth, or transparency in the Tamara-Land. Just doing NGT or Talking Stick circles does not solve the Tamara-Land problems.

Some Tamara-Lands are all about safety-trust-truth-opportunity (Ken Long’s slogan), others are political nightmares where people deare not speak truth to power because they join the jobless, homeless.

Tool 5: Making a Horse Out of A Camel (PSL2 Problem Solving Phases Learn & Lead)

This tool now has its own page. The tool is about how to facilitate to head off games that occur in the problem solving process, and when those games come up, what a facilitator can do to gently intervene.

PSL♴ Problem Solving Learning and Leading Tool 5 for Tamara-Land Networking

The next tool is system wide understanding of fractal loops of power and conflict, and how to bring them into Double Loop, the Triple Loop processes can be reinforced.

TOOL 6: The Single Loop of Escalation and the Second Loop of Deescalation of Conflict and the Third Loop of Ensemble Circles

Professor Louis R. Pondy taught me the SINGLE LOOP of escalating conflict and then the other loops of what to do about it. The Dynamics of a Conflict Episode Source: Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational Conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, (12), 296-320. Click here to see this classic article that began my path to understand organizing, developing, and changing.

I could not believe my good fortune to have Professor Pondy as my mentor in 1975 to 1978, at University of Illinois.

This is the model as Pondy drew it in his article (source of image) and Click here to see this classic article:

QUESTION: Can you sort out the three loops of ODC 2.0 in this figure?

SINGLE LOOP Resistance to the constant flow of changing happens in many ways. Out of the preceding meetings, comes unresolved conflict episodes of the BEFORE (P2 Make Room). This is normal, however it can escalate.

The external environment Affects Latent Conflicts (new weather, new regulations, new competitors, etc.) has its own impact on the Latent Conflict (I call it the pre=story, the antecedents of antenarrative processes, that are pre-conceptions (foreconceptions) of the BENEATH (P1 What is True?).

The conflicts are neither Good nor Bad, however a conflict that energizes attention to something happening in the world, and to changes, can escalate, resulting in co-workers hating one another, division in the team, us versus them, and so on. Felt and Perceived conflict are part of what happens in organizing, developing, and changing.

Felt Conflict At the interpersonal (and intergroup level), Person “A may be aware that B and A are in serious disagreement.” When there are no safety valves, no way to take a walk, take a break, blow off steam, then Felt Conflict can personalize, and intensify. You notice you avoid certain meetings and people, as exhausting, de-energizing. By our attention and focus, we can not be that aware of our feelings and attunement to conflicts.

Perceived Conflict Sensemaking by the five senses. When you hear the voice tones sharpen, the arguments hurting the ears, the body language hurting the eyes, and so on. Fear, anxiety, ambiguity, and turbulence become the attunements. Gossip (idle talk) can been entertaining, but it can be a destruction of the image and reputation of colleagues. We can notice the discourse, the stories we tell our selves about ourselves and about the world, say a lot about our retrospective and our prospective sensemaking. Command-and-control leaders, micro-managers, bully leaders can keep our attention-focus. An autocrat can enforce his or her will on everyone, however there is also resistance to patriarchy, belittling others, and the general climate of divide and conquer. The in-group against whatever out-group is a common tactic of Single Loop.

WHen I met Lou Poinday, and said I had studied his conflict episode model in every management class (at community college, at Rider University undergraduate, and at University of Illinois MBA program), he looked at me.

David “Most people read the abstract, copied down the diagram, but did not bother to ready the second half of the article”.

I spent my first weekend in the Ph.D. program reading the second half. It had three approaches to resolving what I now call SINGLE LOOP CONFLICT ESCALATION.

I will describe the three models (bargaining, bureaucratic, and open systems) briefly, and how each helps us get into DOUBLE LOOP but not t to he THIRD LOOP (Pondy would do this, in an article Beyond Open Systems Theory, I was by then his teaching assistant, and present when this amazing article was desk-rejected by Academy of Management Review. Tears rolled down his cheeks. I tried to console him.

DOUBLE LOOP With the escalating-conflict loop, the bargaining, bureaucratic, and the open systems models provide a second loop of deescalating-conflict by processes of resolution.

(1) Bargaining model, which deals with interest groups in competition for scarce resources. Interest groups (stakeholders) compete for these resources. Management and labor included, are in conflicts. Mary Parker Follett worked through these conflicts by having both parties focus in the situation, and then worked out compromises. This lowered the felt, perceived, and the manifst (overt) conflicts. The alternative we to let conflict escalate until felt and perceived, became aftermath of manifest quite overt conflict (sometimes not just strikes or walk outs, but violence).

(2) Bureaucratic model, which deals with authority relations and the need to control. Taylor’s centralized planning to resolve conflicts, and Fayol’s administrative principles such as limited spans of control, and chain of command, joined with Weber’s bureaucratic principles:

Division of Labor

Hierarchy of Authority



Formal Selection based on competencies

The three together Taylorism, Fayolism, and Weberism became a contagion called the TFW virus (see work by Henri Savall). In France the Bargaining and the Bureaucratic fromed a special hybrid (fractal).

For more insight into Episodic Conflict Model as a spiral fractal, please obtain this aticle: Boje, D. M., Baca-Greif, H., Intindola, M., & Elias, S. (2017). The episodic spiral model: a new approach to organizational processes. Journal of Organizational Change Management.

(3) [Open] systems model (has the double loops, but often out of balance). Open systems have not just the deviation-counteracting SINGLE LOOP (correct by feedback to stay on course looking backwards at the past, aka control system, but a second LOOP, a deviation-amplifying loop (preparing in advance, a kind of prospective sensemaking so entropy does not take over).

This Double Looping continues our coupling of retrospective-sensemaking with prospective-sensemaking (deviation-counteracting & deviation amplifying loops). Can we put resolution spiral with the escalation spiral.

I look at it as a double spiral. Spiral fractal moving through spacial landscape, and a material landscape, and a timescape (SpaceTimeMattering).

Here is another version of a Three-Dimensional depiction of Fractal Change Managment in ODC 2.0.It shows an Organization (double spiral) in relative high performance position in timescape and landscape (spacetimemattering it should be noted are inseparable).

Figure depicts DOUBLE LOOP SPIRALING with upward (Gold) and downward (Blue) spiraling, at a choice point (+) between paths (dotted Red lines), as updrafts and downdrafts (Silver) buffet spiral-whorls, in an Environment defined by three dimensions: Performance (aka Materialscape), Timescape, and Landscape (drawing by D. M. Boje, July 18, 2012). What is important is the movement in the flow of the environment of SpaceTimeMattering, in space, in time, and in its mattering can be traced and mapped, so there is an understanding of the fractal patterning.

We tried to get this in top tier journal Academy of Management Review, but after four revise and submits, they cut us loose. So we published it elsewhere, but got less audience.

Boje, D. M., Baca-Greif, H., Intindola, M., & Elias, S. (2017). The episodic spiral model: a new approach to organizational processes. Journal of Organizational Change Management.


ENROLL Now in TSI’s ODC 3.0 module

Boje, D. M., & Saylors, R. (2014). An ontological perspective on process. Language and communication at work: Discourse, narrativity, and organizing, 197-218. (Available if you are member of Research Gate, Click Here).

Boje, D. M., & Saylors, R. (2013). Virtuality and materiality in the ethics of storytelling. Organizational change, leadership and ethics: Leading organizations towards sustainabilityRead some of it online.

Boje, D. M. (2015). Mapping quantum storytelling fractal patterns before and beneath triple bottom line’s and veterans administration’s stupid narratives. In Proceedings of big story conference. Click Here for paper.

This is a storyboard of moving from 1.0 to 2.0 in an adaptive agile spiral, going from one environment GROUNDING to another. Get to know the grounding, BENEATH the ideals, go into the BEFORE, make a new BET ON THE FUTURE. To get from Strategy A to Strategy B, you need to go BEYOND, and get out of flatlander thinking. In this depiction the organizing, developing an changing moves the organization from Strategy A to Strategy B location in its environment.

Tool 7: This is preview for ODC 3.0 LEVEL THREE TRAINING

Three Successive DPIE Spirals to Create Momentum in an Open System DOUBLE LOOP FRACTAL.

WHY: To get to socially responsible capitalism that is human and ecological ensemble leadership by doing ensemble storytelling.

Hillon, Y. C., & Boje, D. M. (2019). Socioeconomic Triple-Spiral-Helix Response to Socially Irresponsible Capitalism. In The Emerald Handbook of Management and Organization Inquiry. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Boje, David M. “The Future of the “Spiral Paradigm” in Climate Action.” In The Emerald Handbook of Management and Organization Inquiry. Emerald Publishing Limited, 2019.

Boje, D. (2011). The cycle and the spiral-antenarrative: a quantum-ontology-system manifesto. NMSU Working Paper, on line CLICK HERE to go there.

Saylors, R., & Boje, D. (2014, March). ANTE-NARRATIVE SPIRAL APPROACH TO SEAM. In Facilitating the SocioEconomic Approach to Management: Results of the First SEAM Conference in North America (p. 209). IAP.

Boje, D. M. (2017). Risky deleuzian double spiral-antenarratives and sensemaking of academic capitalism. Routledge companion to risk, crisis and emergency management. Online prepublication PDF.

Boje and and Rosile have apprenticed for over twenty years, with the ISEOR Institute in Lyon France, led by Henri Savall, Veronique Zardet, Marc Bonnet, and Amandine Savall. Boje taught their socioeconomic approach to consulting at New Mexico State University for 20 years. Each year Boje and Rosile went to France and presented ways in which ensemble storytelling is contributive to Socioeconomic Approach to Management (SEAM) and consulting.

Triple DPIE Tool DPIE is Diagnosis, Project (planning), Implementation, and Evaluation

DPIE stands for Diagnose, Project, Implement, and Evaluate. You may prefer Plan-Do-Check-Act recurring cycles. DPIEs are done in three or more successive momentum building project implementations in a scientific approach to storytelling. It is SpaceTimeMattering as the Game Rules Change from Single to Double and only then with patience and lots of Mirroring of the good, bad, and ugly to potential for Triple Loop.

Here is an article to read about the Triple DPIE Tool:

Boje, D. (2011, June). Quantum physics implications of storytelling for socioeconomic research methods: Experiences in small business consulting research form New Mexico State University. In International Meeting of Research Methods Division of the Academy of Management, Lyon, France (Vol. 15). Click Here for PDF.

Triple DPIE is putting together at least three change projects, that build sufficient momentum to shift the ensemble leadership and ensemble storytelling pattern. The intention is to bring about ‘collective intelligence in the organization networking and the interorganizational network (i.e. ICEND, conflict resolution (tool 5) and PSL2 problem solving & leading (tool 6).

PSL♴ Problem Solving Learning and Leading Tool 5 for Tamara-Land Networking

With Tool 7 (Triple DPIE cycles), a spiral of ODC 2.0 can result. It is an expanding spiral breadth and potential of a different fractal pattern, across time events, that actually changes the game rules of the ensemble networking (heterarchies).

ODC 2.0 goes BEYOND the Double Loop ‘open system’ understanding of complex adaptive fractal patterning of networking. It does this by facilitating improvements to five dialogisms. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module? It is the work in the dialogisms (their inter-animation) that brings about what we call Triple Loop.

DIAGNOSE the BEFORE (P2: Make Room for stories already ‘there’ in spacetimemattering of the past, in the organization history, forgotten in its present behavior patterns, or marginalized by SINGLE LOOP that keeps recurring across scales). In Socioeconomic Approach to intervention in the process, baseline of quantitative and financial and most important recording the qualitative note-taking of the spoken script (the DIALOGUE) of the theater-in-use by the organization in various TAMARA-LAND rooms of the organization (A storyboard is recommended). The baseline is called qualimetrics (financial + quantitative + qualitative scripts, not triangulation it is inter-animations, and there is a difference).

Qualimetrics, is a SEAM tool, that includes the methods of ethnostatistics (invented by Bob Gephart Jr. as the study of how people in organizations use and misuse statistics in their storytelling). See: Boje, D. M. (2012). Ethnostatistics and Ontological Storytelling. Unpublished manuscript, revised February16, 2012. Go to Study Guide Online.

SEAM’s ‘Mirror Effect’ meeting, holding up the Qualimetric mirror, so the client sees how much money is lost from doing the script of organization theatre in such a chaos, command-and-control SINGLE LOOP fractal way. Here is the basic image of the DIAGNOSE, and it is a rhizome (4-leaf clover, with unseen, yet important roots in the ground). I taught undergraduates, masters and doctoral students how to do this diagnosis for 22 years. 3Cs stands for Communication, Coordination, and Cooperation.

This is SEAM’s diagnostic 4-leaf clover. It gives some basic variables, but the ISEOR model has over 250 variables. Consultants using SEAM, enter verbatim field notes after each field visit into ISEOR databank, to track their diagnosis, and generate hidden cost accounting reports that are part of the Mirror Effect meeting with client, so the ‘Diagnosis’ aspect of DPIE takes place.

In our work together for 22 years with our French colleagues, Grace Ann and I brought an appreciation of how ensemble storytelling relates to their four-leaf clover: top leaf diagnoses of nestings of problematic dysfunctions, left leaf: structures nested within structures, right leaf: assessment of ongoing behaviors nested within behaviors, bottom leaf: the hidden costs of scripts of the theater too jumble and chaotic to be effective, and the structures at several levels. I hope you see that the four leaves are each nesting fractals.

The six main ROOT CAUSES of this fractal go into the unseen financials, the underground roots that are part of the downward spiraling preventing the upward spiraling of human potential and intelligent ensemble networking: ‘Organizing, Developing, and Changing’ (2.0). Moving from 1.0 to 2.0 is the whole point. True Storytelling consultants can apply SEAM’s 4-leaf clover diagnosis and its unseen tap root diagnosis, into a visual diagnostic-storyboarding of any particular Downward Spiral keeping an Upward Spiral from materializing. Here is an example Boje uses in teaching Triple DPIE to process-consulting students.

PROJECT Preparation (P3: Plot) the BET ON THE FUTURE This work done in retrospective-prospective sensemaking (Double Loop) is part forestructuring and doing fractal-storyboarding is recommended so there is a visual storytelling, combining with lots of ‘True Storytelling Circle’ meetings with everyone to get at the P4 Timing and P5 Helping the stories along that is your preparing in advance for implementation. True Storytelling Circle meetings (Triple Loop are dialogically polyphonic) for preparation are done with horizontal and vertical groups to create what Savall and Zardet call HORI-VERT interventions, that get implemented, which is next.

IMPLEMENT PROJECT (P6: STAGING of the BETWEEN). Going into the in-between the Hearts to animate retrospective-prospective sensemaking’s Double Loop open system. In SEAM, this is done by implementing multiple, HORIZONTAL and VERTICAL (HORIVERT) project groups, with the requisite participants who have the skill and inclination to implement. In our terms, it is doing ensemble storytelling and ensemble leadership involving diverse cross sections of the entire ICEND.

EVALUATE (P7: REFLECTION of the Beyond) It is not just deviation-counteracting by the quantitative, financial, and qualitative-script Mirror Effect (cold shower, awakening of embodied reflection). It is not just three small gain projects implemented one at a time. There is a change to a Third Loop (so double loop becomes triple loop, that has momentum and extends into all rooms of Tamara-Land). It is tansforming from initially mostly autocratic SINGLE LOOP systems to a democratic way of governing the organization polyphonic-participation, in which the workers get profit-sharing for the improvements made in the successive DPIE results that benefit the organization bottom line. That gets the ODC to Double Loop, open system (aka participative action research).

Triple DPIEa are one basis of what we in ‘True Storytelling Institute’ (TSI) call ‘P5: Helping new stories along’ by active experimentation, and validating changes in the model, and having Mirror Effect Dialogic-Meetings to present the qualimetrics BEFORE launch of each new Project, and evaluating the results before the next loop of DPIE. It is a scientific consulting methodology of what we call self-correcting not by just SINGLE LOOP, but DOUBLE LOOP, with TRIPLE LOOP ENSEMBLE STORYTELLING & ENSEMBLE LEADERSHIP building of ICEND. It is not just verifying results, it is disconfirming the BENEATH foreconceptions each step of the way to get at TRUE STORYTELLING. It is using Charles Sanders Peirce’s Adduction-Induction-Deduction (AID) triad, again and again. AID introduces a self-correcting research spiral, based on the work of Charles Sanders Peirce, as presented by Boje and Rosile, 2020), in the Conversational Storytelling Interviewing book. Here we show the relation to the SEAM appraoch.

It is disconfirming the deductions, not just affirming them (see Boje & Rosile, 2020). It does this disconfirming by four tests: (1) embodied reflection (Principle 7 in True Storytelling), and if that does not do it, (2) conversational storytelling intervies and observations in the field; and if that is not sufficient, (3) apply other science disciplines than your own, and if that is not getting results, (4) do intervention experiments, the Triple DPIE Tool we develop here.

In SEAM, there are 3 spirals. A = DPIEs, B = 6 Tools, and C = Strategic Decisions to move out of SINGLE LOOP into DOUBLE LOOP. We recommend going to Lyon and taking the SEAM consulting training. This is how Boje applied it in teaching consulting at New Mexico State University:

How does Quantum Storytelling Relates to Savall’s Socioeconomic Double Spiral and Triple-Multiplicity?

David M. Boje’s Proceedings Paper, written November 17, 2017 for the 7th annual Quantum Storytelling Conference, December 14-16, 2017

Download slides that go with this presentation | and/or see YouTube of presentation and here is the study guide

Variance Flow Charting of System Processes

Instruction: list the variances (dysfunctions, glitch) in each process (from interviews, observations, documents). Theory is to control it as near source as possible, with skills and authority to intervene. Use this to sort out organizing, developing, and changing that is happening, and to develop ‘Diagnosis, Projects, Implementation, & Evaluation’ (DPIE).

WHAT’s the VARIANCE?How Frequently?What it costs?What is the Root Cause?Who Observes?Where Controlled?Who Controls?How Controlled?Abductive reason Why?

Remember, above I said I was in Lou Pondy’s office in 1977, when he read his rejection letter on his Beyond Open Systems article (aka DOUBLE LOOP). It became a joint authored piece with Ian Mitroff, in a fine, but lesser cited journal (still it has been cited over 1,000 times). Point is, going beyond open systems (double loop) did not tget the traction in the consulting industry.

Pondy, L. R., & Mitroff, I. I. (1979). Beyond open system models of organization. Research in organizational behavior1(1), 3-39.

Pondy believed (and so did Kenneth Boulding) that there were types of systems to aspire to, Beyond Open Systems. I worked on this project most of my career from 1977 to 2008. The 2008 Storytelling Organization book, combined Pondy’s vision with Bakhtin’s work on the four dialogisms. It is a book about strategy, applying all 10 of Mintzbeg’s strategy frameworks to storytelling organizations, and to ways to go Beyond Open Systems.

Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. In this figure you see all 5 dialogisms. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?

There are 9 systems, that Pondy (and Boulding) believed were in a hierarchy. What I discovered with Bakhtin’s work is the types of systems, are a nested fractal. And then I learned, you don’t have have to have them in a rank order. For example, you can have one division with mechanistic assembly lines and centralized command and control (2 and 3), but have another division open (type 4), and skip to a very transcendental kind of system (think not just organic-Natured) but spiritual values). I did my dissertation on #8 network systems among many kinds of organizations, some control, most not open, few organic, but many were symbol or image systems. In other words, a multifractal network among some very different organizations.

Key Point: Bakhtin moved beyond the first four kinds of systems, and put the polyphonic, at what I call level 5 system. You learned to do stylistic in the staging (P6) events of every True Storytelling module. Polyphonic and Stylistics or first two of five dialogisms. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?You get to the chronotopic (third dialogism) in Masters Classes of True Storytelling Institute. A chronotope is spacetime(mattering) that Bakhtin did in honor of Einstein. There are at least 10 chronotopes, and they are not a typology, not a multiple choice, where you can have one and not the other 9. That is why I put the 1+2_3_4_5, for example in Organic (they are nested, a nested fractality). Think about it. Your organization has a framework (an ideal model, a chart, a map) and it has ways of production (perhaps mechanistic), and there are controls, and feedback and feedforward loops, but is there anything else?

OK, so what is architectonic dialogism? (the 4th of 5 types) It is the interanimation of three kinds of discourse (talking, writing, acting).

  1. The Cognitive discourse frameworks, people debate in the BENEATH. Kant believed systems were just cognitive inventions of the rational mind (see Architectonic section of Critique of Pure Reason). “

“Hence the architectonic interest of reason which does not require empirical,
but rather pure rational, unity a priori, entails a natural commendation for the assertions of the thesis” (Kant, p. 413, Click for More)

The aesthetic (what is beautiful) in writing, painting, sculpture, music, and so on. Bakhtin went BEYOND Kant with this.

2. The Aesthetic discourse, what is beautiful, nests and inter-animates with the cognitive, and with a third discourse. Can you see the fractality?

3. The Ethical discourse. For Bakhtin there are two main ones: (1) bystanders who watch what is happening, but do nothing to help even when there is a lot of misery, and (2) moral answerability of a person in the once-occurrent event of Being (spacetimemattering) who does help in a situation. Bakhtin want an ethical (more) answerability that did not let people off the hook (just following the rules), but had active engagement with the world around them.

We have symbol-systems, multiple-brain systems, a network of system relationships, not just one kind of network system, but lots of different kinds of network. Perhaps never just one. Some virtual, some face-to-face, some quite distant. You can have a formal bureaucratic network, an informal interest network systems, a hallway network of Tamra-Land idle talk and backstage meeting rooms. Do you see how in Ensemble Leadership there are multiple kinds of networks, all entangled, hopefully, in a good, just, true, and beautiful way with degrees of freedom?

With this introduction, I move now to BEYOND OPEN SYSTEMS, to the Third Loop, to Ensemble leadership and storytelling.


Ensemble true storytelling circles are embodied, ensemble leadership (involving everyone) in that embodied restorying process with all five dialogisms. It begins with the polyphonic dialogue of True Storytelling Cirlces, that can occur in organizing, developing, changing in SpaceTimeMattering (ODC 2.0). This is base on our recent work in ensemble.

Rosile, Boje, & Claw, 2016), and its Together-Telling Ensembles of Ensemble Storytelling

Rosile, G. A., Boje, D. M., Herder, R. A., & Sanchez, M. (2021). The Coalition of Immokalee Workers uses ensemble storytelling processes to overcome enslavement in corporate supply chains. Business & Society60(2), 376-414. Click here for pdf.

Getting to standards, norms, roles, values of true, just, good, and beautiful in the dialogic relational circle brings evolutionary change. What about forgiveness as foreword giving (Ken Long, Mar 29 2021). The payoff is in the future not the past. Welcome to antenarrative.

Practice Letting Go, let the Flow of Nature do its organizing, developing, and changing as the universe unfolds. Making change an ally by not focusing on future outcomes. Letting go of attachments to what we don’t really need.

Click for YouTube on Letting Go Taoism What is your path? For me, it is learning to change what I can change, to witness what I cannot change, and to know the difference.

TO RUSSIA WITH LOVE I gave an update to Tamara-Land March 26 2021 to about 2,000 Russian leaders. I wanted to make the point about when a fractal world has true storytelling as its moral compass, and when it’s an gulag archipelago. The point is how to use ODC 2.0 to move from the gulag to the Tamara-Land of people using some rather simple tools, once they have dealt with the political realities of socioeconomics.

What is Single Loop, Double Loop, and Triple Loop Learning?

Single and Double Loop Learning was nvented by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon. Triple loop was more the work of Gregory Batesom. For good review of the history and its confusion, see Tosey, P., Visser, M., & Saunders, M. N. (2012). The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’learning: A critical review. Management learning43(3), 291-307.

Multi-Loop was all the rage when I became an assistant professor at UCLA in 1978. Every change agent was trying to use double and triple loop learning, to change the single loop learning (correct performative action in organizations that existed since Taylorism, Fayolism, and Weberism morphed into what Henri Savall calls the TFW virus. Savall and colleagues are still currently doing Triple Loop in working these past 35 years with 5,000 clients. Here is a brief summary of how Organizational Development and Change (ODC) has been on this loop-de-loop journey.

Single Loop – Action is corrected to conform to the governing monologic values of a dominant master narrative led by one or more leaders. Are we doing that the leaders says is the true value? It really fits the strong-man, strong-woman CEO model of managerialist. It fits monologic-process models: TQM, MBC, BPR, MIS, TBL, HRM, BPR, and DPS. Why, because it is Single Loop feedback of self-correcting. Single Loop has created the kind of corporate, university, and government organization development and change (ODC) monologic messes most people work in today. Call it the cybernetic system of deviance correcting feedback single loop learning. Call it the unifying mindset of the mechanistic cyber culture. Its origins (Argyris and Schön 1974: Argyris and Schön’s (1996: 68) single loop learning’, which occurs whenever an error is detected and corrected without questioning or altering the underlying values of the system…’ Argyris (1999: 68).

In our terms, single loop learning loops occur when dysfunctions (errors) and system (problems) are detected, but then command-and-control goes straight to solution actions, without doing the requisite TRUE STORYTELLING INQUIRY, without questioning the underlying assumptions, without changing of the underlying FRACTAL PATTERN OF RECURRENCE-loops, and without an actual dialogical session on core values (true, good, just, & beautiful of Greek Square). There is a self-correction (deviation detecting and counteracting) loop, but the prospective sensemaking loop is short-circuited, so that other half of Double Loop, with its choice-making, solution generation (see Problem Solving Tool), and Fractal Action Research Method Tool (P2: Making Room to inquire into fractal patterns, already there) is not developing into full fledge diagnosis. In short, two loops are lop-sided, out of balance, deviation-counteracting is way more in control, than deviation-amplification of choices, options, alignments.

Argyris, C and Schön, DA (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional
Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C and Schön, DA (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C and Schön, DA (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and
Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Double Loop – Form teams to review and revise the master narrative values of Single Loop, by focusing everyone’s attention on the situation. Are we doing the things true for the situation this organization system is in? Mary Parker Follett called it making the situation the leader. She uses what Argyris would call Double Loop, to overcome the endless battles between management (monologic) and union (counter-monologic), by fact-gathering about the situation they both faced: the environment of the system. Mary Parker Follett was a pragmatist who is the mother of open systems theory. An open system adds a second feedback (explore situation) to the cybernetic feedback of Single Loop. Argyris (1999: 68), double loop learning occurs when system errors are corrected by first examining and altering the governing variables (values) and then changing the actions’. It is also called `deuterolearning’.

Triple Loop – No one in the 1980s and up till now could figure out what is Triple Loop Learning. Gregory Bateson (1973, 1979) calls it ‘Learning III.’ There is a concern for context we in True Storytelling call ‘grounding.’ Triple Loop (Learning III) is not instrumental (means-end) learning. Let ‘wild nature’ (Merleau-Ponty’s term) Be in its complexity and living system aliveness. Bateson saw Learning III, as what we call, BEYOND (1) beneath language, (2) situated in BEING, and (3) in the BEYOND of intuition, the sort of abduction (hunches) of context understood in Indigenous Ways of Knowing (Rosile, 2016). We call it having a dialogue with Nature, in which people are listening. Cajete (2000) calls it Native Science. Our colleagues Kenneth Molberg Jorgensen and Julia Hayden call it ‘Gaia-Listening’ as part of Gaia-Storytelling. Triple Loop is ensemble storytelling that is thoroughly dialogical in ways Mikhail Bakhtin wrote about in his composition notebooks in the 1920s, which did not get translated to English until 1990a. There are five dialogisms:

See What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?

Bateson, G (1973) Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology,
Psychiatry, Evolution and Epistemology. London: Paladin, Granada.

Bateson, G (1979) Mind and Nature. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.

Rosile, G. A., Boje, D. M., Herder, R. A., & Sanchez, M. (2021). The Coalition of Immokalee Workers uses ensemble storytelling processes to overcome enslavement in corporate supply chains. Business & Society60(2), 376-414. Click here for pdf

How do we dialogue together to reflect on what is true principle and true process of the contexts of Nature in the world we are in together? The missing loop is called polyphonic dialogue. There is lots of polyphonic dialogue in Tamara-Land (see Boje, 1995 Disney study).

Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land”. Academy of Management journal38(4), 997-1035. Click here for PDF

In True Storytelling we move out of the usual Monologic space of Single Loop, and go beyond open systems (Double Looping). We enter space of dialogisms, by doing embodied reflection (Principle 7), in the Beyond Heart. This is where the Triple Loop (Learning III) process changes to the dialogisms can happen. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?

SINGLE LOOP FRACTAL: Command-and-Control and Micro-Managing Leaders often dominate the Organizing, Developing, and Changing (ODC 1.0). This is the main point. Top-down command and control is dictatorial change. The top management group)see an error and they plan how to fix the system, without the dialogical circle sessions to allow dialogisms to unfold. MAIN POINT – COMMAND/DICTATOR LEADERSHIP is most of what is done in LEADERSHIP STORYTELLING, A One STORY FITS ALL Situations. It is also known as monological-narrative, that fits all occasions and all organization, development, change processes. There is one dominant narrative (what is True is what the CEO says is True, what the core leadership cadre says to do). It is imposed on everyone else without input, without listening, without actually dialoguing with customers, vendors, and certainly not with workers. It is monologic storytelling, no listening, and as far from dialogic as you can get. The first thing we recommend to get out of Single Loop (corrective action) approach is to listen to the stories already there. Do the history work of retrospective sensemaking. In the past, leaders who listened to others were thought of as weak, and not fit for command and control. This dominating leadership and change plot line is not only linear (Single Loop) it is failing globally because it ignores the dialogisms. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module? Dialogue is driven underground into informality, or does not happen outside the board room or executive suite. Group Think takes over the entire organization. An entire Phrog Farm culture thrives. The consequences of Single Loop, is the organization does what the leader says, and the organization dumbs down, and loses touch with shifts in its environmental context, and the problem solving capacity is dumbed down. True Storytelling opens up participation to move to Double Loop Learning and Change.

CONTEXT MATTERS That is whe we opt for and ENSEMBLE PROCESS of leading and change.

Mikhail Bakhtin pioneered the moves we are talking about, decades before Argyris, Schon, and Bateson’s pioneering work. Bakhtin’s work is in Double-Voice. Every word of a story is double-voiced, even in SINGLE LOOP LEARNING SYSTEM. Words do not just mean one definition. Words are defined in contexts of practice. Bakhtin calls it ‘double-voiced’ discourse. The same story is a hodgepodge of styles, polemics, with lots of hidden meaning in the dialogue (without context a story sounds great, but what does it really mean?).

Bahktin says “the diversity is underscored by the continual sudden transition from one style to another: “from parody to internal polemic, from polemic to hidden dialogue, from hidden dialogue to stylization in serene hagiographic tones, then back to parodistic narration, and finally to an extremely intense open dialogue… All this is interwoven with the deliberately dull thread of informative documentary discourse…”(See Provlems in Doestoevsky’s Poetics, page. 203).

Bakhtin, M. (2013). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (Vol. 8). U of Minnesota Press.

DOUBLE LOOP FRACTAL: This is the open system ODC. In open systems, there are two feedback loops, feedback from the past (retrospective sensemaking corrections in single loop learning), and there is feed-forward, attempts at strategic planning, and prospective sensemaking. The typical problem is the double loop gets out of balance, one loop dominates the other, or the action gets frozen in the present, with inaction in either loop, and the organization drifts over the abyss of dissolution (entropy is relentless).

TRIPLE LOOP FRACTAL: We go to the context of learning to learn from experience-in-context, of grounding through developing the five dialogisms in ensemble storytelling and ensemble leadership. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module? Every living creature learns by experience (pain & reward for action), but learning from experience requires actual dialogic reflection on context, or what we call ‘grounding.’ It is what an embodied reflective community of practitioners are learning to do, and what Indigenous Ways of Knowing (IWOK) did for thousands of years before, Western Ways of Knowing (WWOK) put rationality on a pedestal. Let’s call Triple Loop, something simple, learning from Wild Nature, not just its competition, but its acts of cooperation, harmony, and balance.

METHOD ONE: Top Down Change Management: Executive group or an outside consultant’ develop a “Beginning, Middle and End (BME) narrative, with a linear sequence of steps (1, 2, 3, …) to get envisioned system-changes implemented. The entire workforce and management is expected to implement the Top-Down narrative and just change its behaviors, processes, and outcomes. What happens. People throughout the enterprise resist the change because it is a Plop method with zero involvement. With every new executive team, another BME narrative is foisted upon the organization. We call this the ABSTRACTING approach, developing an abstract narrative, and implementing it with no GROUNDING in ecosystems.

It is what David A. Buchaman (2016: 18) calls a “Reassuring Narrative” which says “we understand the problem, and we know how to solve them”. The cover-narrative, masks many unrealistic assumptions ( we have summarized in Table 1).

Table 1: Myths and Realities of Organizational Development & Change 1.0 Processes

ODC 1.0
ODC 2.0
1. Pace of change is accelerating,
We are in Future Shock (Toffler), and so we need fast-paced leaders no managers (they are slow). The speedy leaders make instant, fast-paced change in uncertain and turbulent waters to keep on course. ODC 1.0 offers 3 to 8 steps in sequence for rapid change (e.g. John Kotter’s 8 accelerators of change’ Deloitte consulting steps of organization acceleration of change.
Result of this Fractal Plot: accelerating change, is damaging to relationships (leading to burnout) from the downsizing, lean & mean flat structures, and all the single loop exploitative mistakes that destroy ecosystems. The growth at all cost paradigm is exhausting Earth’s capacity to keep up with human activities.
 1. Change has been going on BEFORE the 19th Century, and it’s Way too Fast. Slow Down!
While change has been going on since the industrial revolution, then service economy, then going digital, ODC stopped thinking of the whole system, except to downsize and reengineer it. ODC 2.0 return to tinkering and kludging (muddling through), doing the innovative adjustments that accelerated change ignores. E.G. Harley Davidson executive find that workers knew how to make better motorcycles, but the automated 1.5 mile assembly line, was making high quality motorcycle making, impossible. Assembly line disassembled and the KANBAN push carts brought back, to move parts Just-In-Time to assemble-whole-motorcycle, by work group empowered to send back parts that did not meet quality specs, to the vendor. Sometimes the old ways are actually better way to build something to last.
2. Change Leaders Marshal Biggest Driving Forces of Change in Large-Scale Transfromation. Not just any leaders, only transformational leaders will drive radical change2. Small Changes Matter. Turns out Whatis small change in a process, and what is Big Scale transformation is a false dichotomy (dualism). There are many kinds of leaders (not just transformational & transactional), each has their role to play in change and adaptation. ODC 2.0 is developing the ensemble storytelling and ensembles of leaders (everyone a leader) in dialogues of listening to one another.
3. Put Transformational Leaders in charge in Rapidly Changing Environments.

4. Put just one leader in charge (or small team) for the duration of the ODC 1.0 project.
Put one super-hear person (or small team) in charge of the transformation for rapid results
3. Transformational Leaders Destabilize, create burnout in everyone around them, make changes too rapidly, so the infrastructure, training, is not there to suppor it. “We don’t need another super hero leader!” Ensemble (distributed, & network leadership) has been found in one study after another to have more lasting and deeper change outcomes, and shift from initiation to implementation is more seamless, with less resistance since everyone is part of the process from the getgo.

4. Large numbers of people working in networks of collaboration, in decentered patterns staying with the ODC 2.0 as project is conceived and unfolds, gets implemented. We use successive spiraling of change projects, in what Henri Savall calls horizontal and vertical terms of diverse skills, so there is a balance of HORI-VERT change projects, and a momentum builds.
5. Bureaucracy is dead, so do away with hierarchy & division of labor, to create one or two levels of flat organization. To forget the rules, ditch the standards, change procedures, have experts develop protocols, is part of a reaction to what Henri Savall calls the Taylorism-Fayolism,Weber TFW-virus. The problem is with the high scandal rates of killing off TFW, it tossed the baby (standards & norms of operation, and ethics) out with the bathwater.
RESULT: External standard agencies set up to fill the gap – See 4 wings of Tetranormalizing (above).
5. Bureaucracy is one of many networks that overlay one another. Bureaucracy pattern provides stability, predictability, and professionals in positions. Bureaucracy invented to keeps charismatic (transformational leaders) from doing as they please. Many bureaucracies are surprisingly innovative. Many are not bureaucratic enough to have unity, coordination, precision, predictability, impartiality, and continuity. Adaptation by increasing flexibility in scheduling to accommodate personal circumstances, and protocols to cope with responses to environmental shifts. With the proliferation of external standards agencies, there is confusion and chaos in trying to manage the four kinds of fractals.
E.G. Lacking social/cultural standards of the organization, there are system wide, societal wide problems in diversity, inclusion, and equality. The main international standard of ISO 26000, is more of a guideline than a real standard for corporate social responsibility.
E.G. Trade fractal of WTO, NAFTA, World Water forum oligarchs impose standards of privatization and commodification on governments and smaller players in.
E.G. Economy/Accounting standards vary between countries, and this makes it hard to do business and do an audit and reporting of results
E.G. Ecology/Quality standards. THere are many ISO 9000/9001 for total quality systems, with certification, but the ecology standards ISO14001 is not up to the task. UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals and metrics, are suggestions, not requirements. Certification is voluntary, so meeting the goals is problematic at best, unrealistic at worst.
6. Simplify to One Best Practice
One best practice, e.g. Kotter’s 8-step transformational change program, or McKinsey’s four targets for transformational change, or Boston Consulting Group three areas of change recipe etc. end up being reengineering, cost-cutting, downsizing schemes.
6. Practices are highly contingent on context particulars Quick 3 to 8 step linear step by step fractal narratives are unrealistic in a complex contexts-within-contexts across scales, that is kaleidoscopic. As in the Tamara-Land, there are 6 factorial equals 720 pathways among people in a 6 room organization and 12 factorial or about 479 million pathways. A few steps of ODC 1.0, with a ‘you all fill in the blanks’ approach is the ultimate linear fractal plot of change.
7. Don’t reinvent the wheel. Just do the quick fix, copy whatever process AKA ‘best practice’ some other unit or division is doing, or bring in one of the Big 10 consulting firms who sell a single loop fractal narrative plot of change.
RESULT: 9 or 19 Big 10 consulting firms, bringing the spreadsheet, with an off-the-shelf ODC 1.0 single loop approach to cost cutting, downsizing, and business process reengineering, billed out at from $1 to $2 million dollars, to pay for that wheel, which in a year becomes a flat tire.
7. Research Evidence is it takes actual ensembles of participation in a scientific method of diagnosis, abductive-inductive-deductive work to become do the double loop open system change, and then do triple loop experiments, tests of the inductions, work through the abductions, modify the deductions, then the organization is in alignment with its environment, including Nature. Operational changes in processes are usually quite complex, and contingent. Imitation is flattery but not always efficacious. In ODC 2.0, standards and norms are worked out, in ensemble storytelling dialogue conversations, in which everyone participates. It takes more time than a quick fix, but there is far less resistance, more forecaring in advance for the change to happen in the together-telling and together-listening process approach.
8. Pretend there is No Politics in ODC. Of course, there is politics in a command-and-control single loop, and in the hierarchies of double loop. Retrospective-prospective sensemaking is not neutral. Everyone has an ideology, a point of view, a different history, a different prospective sensemaking of what the future can become, and what is the ethical practice to be doing so the 7th generation can survive. Politics equals dirty tricks in ODC 1.0, or win/lose scenarios, or just ignore all the problems (no deficit language).8. Politics is part of the socio/cultural and the economy and the world trade fractals and even part of ecology/quality fractals. ODC 2.0 is about getting to polyphonic dialogue, getting the politcs on the mains tage, out of the back room (back stage). Organizations are theaters, with many rooms in Tamara-Land. By working through doing the work of negotiations, the dialogism groups, the sessions in active listening, and co-inquiry, it is possible to do the Triple Loop learning. Organizations are political on all levels, and the external politics affects the internal politics. The WIngs of Tetranormalizing means handle the moral compass with care or the exteral agencies proliferate so many standards, who can operate an enterprise any more.What if the real work of politics is negotiating to find the moral ground. What if instead of back room politics, we bring it into transparent openness of finding win/win spaces through active dialogue.

Above table adapted and examples added. The 8 themes recast and extended from insightful chapter: Buchanan, David A. (2015). I Couldn’t Disagree More: Eight Things about ORganizational CHange that We Know for Sure but Which are Probably Wrong. Pp. 5-21 in Bernard Burnes & Julian Randall’s Perspectives on Change: What Academics, Consultants and Managers Really Think About Change. NY/London: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group).

For a recent deep dive into the Alice in Wonderland world of precess consulting, please spend some time with Loizos’ and Jean’s article.

Loizos Heracleousand Jean Bartunek (2021). Organization change failure, deep structures and temporality: Appreciating Wonderland Human Relations, Volume 74, Issue 2, February 2021, Pages 208-233 (Click Here).

Here are some examples of developing high involvement Organizational Development & Change (ODC) approaches to making an actual eco-business modeling turn using a storytelling approach focused on process change:

Recent articles & chapters

Boje, David M.; Jorgensen, Kenneth Mølbjerg. (2020). A ‘storytelling science’ approach making the eco-business modeling turn. Journal of Business Modeling, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 8-25. Click here for pre-press pdfPlease Click here for final print version PDF

Boje, David M.; Rana, Mohammad B. (2020). Defining a Sustainably-Driven Business Modeling Strategy with a ‘Storytelling Science’ Approach. Chapter to appear in Markovic, S., Sancha, C. and Lindgreen, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainability-driven Business Strategies in Practice, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Click here for pre-press pdf

Mogens Sparre and Boje, David M. (2020). Utilizing Participative Action Research With Storytelling Interventions to Create Sustainability in Danish Farming. To appear in Organizational Development Journal. Click here for pre-press pdf.

Jørgensen, Kenneth Mølbjerg; Boje, David M. Storytelling Sustainability in Problem-Based Learning. Chapter to appear. Click here for pre-press pdf.

There are process change approaches, but they tend to be all about reengineering to accomplish cost-cutting and then downsizing the work force, to pay out dividends. We review this method next.

METHOD TWO: Hire a Big Ten Consulting Firm to do Process-Reengineering: Have you noticed that this hire-the-expert change approach, is the same every where you turn: downsize, whittle away the workforce, increase the workload on the reaming workers, then claim short term profits and shareholder dividends.

Consultancy Firms Ten consultancy firms have the ear of the Fortune 500. They have influence over corporations. We want to pose an alternative method, one focused more on the ecology and on workers.

Table 1: Top Revenue-Earning Consulting Firms in 2014 [KL1] 

Big 10 Consultancy FirmsRevenue $/BillionRevenue Growth %Market Share %
1.  Deloitte Consulting14.76.011.7
2.  Strategy& (part of PwC Network)12.710.010.2
3.  Ernst & Young Consulting Practice12.112.79.6
4.  KPMG10.75.28.6
5.   Accenture4.14.43.3
6.  IBM4.02.13.2
7.  McKinsey & Company2.35.51.9
8.Booz Allen Hamilton2.1-2.91.6
9. CGI”Conseillers en Gestion et Informatique”
10. CSC “Computer Sciences Corporation”1.4-3.61.1

 “The analysts find that global spending on management consultants has grown to $125.2 billion in 2014, up 6.1% from $118.1 billion in 2013. The top four largest consulting firms, all with a heritage in the accountancy sector, known as the Big Four (Deloitte, PwC, EY and KPMG), hold a combined 40% of the total consulting market” (10 Largest revenue consultancy firms).[1]


What solution do Big 10 consultancy firms have for the Taylor-Fayol-Weber Virus?

We did our own content analysis of each consultancy firm’s websites and published reports along five dimensions: structural functionalism, denier of answerability for ecosystem consequence, neo-Taylorism sorts of time & motion or reengineering neo-Fayolism administrative sorts of focus on span of control and scalar hierarchy, and neo-Weberian bureaucratic notions of division of labor, codified rules, etc.  The last three constructs are from work of Worley, Zardet, Bonnet, and Savall (2015), who refer to these is at the Taylor-Fayol-Weber virus of hierarchic-control that prevents organizational agility. [KL1]  We include the following to gives some context to what we propose as alternative consultation method.

Table 2: Comparisons of 10 Consultancy Models (✔ = it applies)

CONSULTANCY FIRMS:Structural Functionalism Micro ManagementOblivious to
Ecosystem consequences
Taylorism Time & MotionFayolism Admin. OrderWeberian Bureaucracy
1.  Deloitte Consulting
2.  Strategy& (part of PwC Network)  
3.  Ernst & Young Consulting Practice
4.  KPMG
5.   Accenture
6.  IBM 
7.  McKinsey & Company
8.  Booz Allen Hamilton
9. CGI”Conseillers en Gestion et Informatique”
10. CSC “Computer Sciences Corporation”

Boje and Sanchez (2019, Quantum Storytelling Consulting) did a content analysis of the change and development method of choice of the big 10 consultancy firms. 9 out of 10 keep reinventing structural functionalism, doing same old reengineering, downsizing and do not take ecosystem into account (exception, Strategy& — a part of PwC Network). In the short term, there is a posting of dividends from the cost cutting, but in the long run, the remaining workers, doing double the work, burn out, the market shifts, and there is no actual preparation of the capacity needed to make the agile changes.

The reason we wrote True Storytelling (2021, Larsen, Boje, & Bruun) is to develop an alternative (1) mid-size consultancy firm’s top-down cookie cutter approach (6 steps to change), and (2) to the Big 10 consultancy firm’s doing reengineering and downsizing to generate short-term returns, that wash out in the long run.

Before getting to our method, we highlight the practice of consulting deception, faking changes in the narrative presentation, while doing business-as-usual.


Have you heard beverage companies are putting more water back into the ground than they are pumping out to make bottled water, soda pop, power drinks, and beer?

What is our alternative?


We start with a basic premise and conclusion:

Storytelling Organizations are perfectly designed processes and practices, getting exactly the results they are getting. To change the results, change the system, instead of blaming the victims.

Instead of abstracting mission and vision statements by some quick-fix consulting firm, process consulting begins with grounding conversations involving everyone, to build common ground understanding of the problem, the situation, and the history of how it get to be this way. We do this through dialogue in together-telling, together-listening sessions.

We cannot overstress this point:

What Process Consultation assumes is that “the client owns the problem and continues to own it throughout the consultation process” (Schein, 1987: 29).

What we do is give enough guidance in the 7 principles while tying them to client engagement and participation in the 7 processes. We don’t do a lot of post-it notes, or flip charts. Rather, we do it the old-fashioned way, with storytelling circles focused on active listening.

What is the relation between storytelling organization and and system change?



  1. Truth: You yourself must be true and prepare the energy and effort for a sustainable future
  2. Make room: True storytelling makes spaces respecting the stories already there
  3. Plot: You must create stories with a clear plot creating direction and help people prioritize
  4. Timing: You must have timing
  5. Help stories along: You must be able to help stories on their way and be open to experiment
  6. Staging: You must consider staging including scenography and artifacts
  7. Reflecting: You must reflect on the stories and how they create value

 What is True Storytelling? Amidst the noise and cacophonous business storytelling, our mission is get closer to answering basic existential questions? How to live and ethical life? How to be truthful in organizations that too often are not?  How to overcome estrangement from our own self, from nature, from one another and from the meaning of life. This is captured in the words of Danish philosopher, Søren Aabye Kierkegaard:hee

“The truth is what ennobles” – Søren Kierkegaard

We combine True Storytelling Principles with 7 Processes of Development and Change

  1. Beneath: There are processes beneath language and concepts. People make good use of 5 senses (see, hear, smell, touch, taste) to form preconceptions into habits, labels, and privileged metaphors. When concepts crystallize, and fossilize, then change is impossible. The beneath process of pre-stories, pre-conceptions, and begin doing the process of fore-conception. This helps prepare in advance for development and change at a deeper systems level beneath all the rhetoric. Instead of rushing with speed , going nowhere, we help prepare to find common ground, get out of the Ivory Tower, or Board Room, and see the ground, Nature, the ecosystem in which these pre-concepts take place. People get stuck in their labels, and fact-checking does not stop the practice of endless debate, group think, and the battle of narrative versus counternarrative. What a process consultant can do is head to history, what we call the Before.
  2. Before: There are processes of history in play, and incessant rehistoricizing what is taken to be the past. Ever notice that the Mr. fix=it consultant, the expert consultant, and the process reengineering consultant, looks at their spread sheets, but cannot bother with history, or asking the old timers, where things got to be the way they are now. History becomes fickle when there is no comprehensive retrospective sensemaking. Things just happen, a new CEO, a new technology, and what happen, doors open or close, and all of a sudden a different past is in fashion because a new future dawns. Process consulting means uncovering together those ‘Little Wow Moments’ when a process actually worked. Example, when Harley Davidson executive took a tour of its vendors, visited customers, talked with workers in its assembly lines. They learned that the old Kanban pus-carts did the job better, Just-in-time, with higher quality, and lower costs than the mile long (plus) assembly line. People and organizations get stuck in the past in those kind of assembly line fixes, and stuck in only looking backwards (retrospective sensemaking narratives) that leave out all the important Little Wow Moments.
  3. Bets on the Future: Many futures are arriving simultaneously, so choices matter. Forecasting and foretelling the future takes foresight, and much preparation in advance of its arrival (prospective sensemaking). This is why the process consultation we offer you is about storytelling circles, that connect retrospective-sensemaking with prospective-sensemaking, instead of speed of change, that has no stability, and no legs. By spending the time, and making the spaces, in the Tamara-Land for foresight, there are less screw ups, higher involvement means participants know what’s happening, are are participating in the change process, not being bystanders while some poorly trained Big 10 munchkins gum up the works.
  4. Being in SpaceTimeMattering: Timing happens in Places, and there are material matterings there too. Organizational development and change has stalled because time has been treated as separate from place (space), and ignored mattering. Change happens in spaces, times, and mattering. The three are one, in inseparability: SpaceTimeMattering. To Be-in-the-World means all three, and the process is all about uncovering what is being covered over, veiled. True Storytelling gets at the essence of Being, not just the surface stuff. Vision without place and mattering has been very fashionable, but not too effective.
  5. Becoming: There are two spacetimes of Becoming. First Becoming is out of the Past uncovers ‘Little Wow Moments’ all but forgotten things that worked. Second Becoming is emergence out of the Future, and in the experiments and interventions, Being here-and-now. Organizational development & change needs to embrace both Becoming in order not be stuck in the past, or losing touch with a possible future, then getting blind sided.
  6. Between: Go Between the Four Hearts. By going between, preparing in advance all the forestructuring without which not much ever happens, is the most forgotten process of change work. Its boring, and people think they don’t need to forestructure, to prepare, to make ready the infrastructure, the skill training, the new skills. What is the result? You know the answer.
  7. Beyond: 6th Sense of Abduction of Triple Loop. Some call it intuition, but you get intuition in all seven processes of development and change. Abduction is what Charles Sanders Peirce called it. It is the hunch with no data, the wild guess out of nowhere. It must be followed up with testing (in embodied reflection, in conversations in your communities of practice, in studying it in other sciences, and if you still need to explore it, do the lab tests and intervention experiments).

By combining the 7 Principles with the 7 Processes, True Storytelling does the deep development for resilience and agility, while making the changes that matter in the long haul by moving into Triple Loop of the 5 Dialogisms. What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?

Storytelling Organizations develop and change whey people do together-listening with their storytelling. We believe effective dialogues makes changes happen. Top-down monologues only create resistance. True Storytelling dialogues move beyond debate into open spaces of creative conversations, with high involvement, and ongoing learning.

Grace Ann Rosile and David Boje are organizational change thinkers, bringing ‘together-telling’ and dialogues of participation to process consultation and True Storytelling.

Rosile, Grace Ann: Horse Sense at Work

by David M. Boje in The Palgrave Handbook of Organizational Change Thinkers pp 1-13  Grace Ann  David’s chapter

Here’s the Pondy chapter:

And another on Emery’s chapter:

People Spend Time in Meeting Places Without Training in Storytelling Listenting

Training in Nominal Group Technique and the Talking Stick is all about listening to others’ stories.

Together-Listening with Together-Telling

Problem Solving Listening and Leading, in ensemble groups is a way to balance retrospective and prospective loops so Double Loop is organizing, developing, and changing for ODC 2.0.

Things Tell a Story in SpaceTimeMattering

Our body gestures tell a story. We are wearing artifacts, using pen and paper, wearing watch for clock time. The desk is made of wood from a tree cut 40 years ago, the shirt is made in a factory in China, the two actors are doing sensemaking in one room of an organization, while the two rooms in the photos to your left, have storytelling and story-listening happening at the very same time, but in different places. That is what Tamara-Land is all about.

I learned to listen to others stories, not just my own!

Jane Doe

GO TO NEXT True Storytelling Blog post: What are the Dialogisms of Conversational Storytelling in ODC 2.0 Module?

Let’s make something beautiful together.

True Storytelling Institute trains people in the ethics of storytelling, organizational change & development, intercultural conversations, ensemble practices of leadership (together-leading), and implementing sustainable development goals.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: