People are drawn to my way of working because their own experience shows them that (some) stories influence what people choose to do next. The idea that stories can propel action in business and commercial settings is fundamental to my business consultancy. Does the idea that stories propel action hold in other contexts?
For journalist Henry Hamman, the answer is an unequivocal yes. Writing in this weekend’s FT Magazine, Hamman explores the Cold War through interviews with diplomats, politicians and spies who worked on the frontlines. Narrative emerges as the crux of how Hamman sees the power dynamic between the US and the Soviet Union. (Click here to read the essay.)
There are two narratives Hamman identifies: “the somewhat tattered post-cold war western narrative of expanding democracy and human rights” which Hamman says is still “playing out today”. The other is one Hamman says “may of us in the west do not attend to – a Russian one of external threat”. If we left the discussion there, many of us would be inclined to say: OK, there are two sides to this story of political and military struggle for dominance.
But that is rather missing both Hamman’s – and my – point: the power of stories to influence what people choose to do next.
Hamman’s discussion picks up narrative when he describes his conversation with Italian diplomat Giandomenico Picco, who was instrumental in the negotiations around the USSR’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1987 and 1988. Two decades on, the diplomat speaks with the journalist. Here is what the latter hears while the former speaks:
Journalist: Picco “was concerned about the future of Russian-American relations because he feared the power of narratives could take over from rational thought, should relations deteriorate. He worries about the power of crisis
Diplomat: crisis ‘provokes a dynamic of its own that the players are no longer able to control.’
Journalist: “In crisis, narratives assume even more power and if narrative takes over from analysis for
Diplomat: ‘one too many in the decision-making process, then all bets are off.”
And this is what I understand: When all bets are off between two nuclear powers, crisis creeps towards Armageddon.
There is no doubt in my mind that Picco is right – self-affirming narratives can create the conditions they predicate, and invasion and annihilation could well be the result. But could the opposite also be true?
In other words, could crisis also chase away the ability to analyse which are the generative narratives – the stories that help people, organisations and even nations connect in mutually beneficial ways?
Georgia, Russian, US and NATO relations to one side, we in business have been in crisis mode for some weeks. I think it’s risky to think that in times like these, stories are a luxury we can ill afford. Quite the contrary: it is times like these that we need the stories – in enterprise as in our personal lives – that connect us, inspire and affirm us all the more.
And we need stories that embody analysis – not obstruct it.
