Page 96 - Journal of Management Inquiry, July 2018

Bell and Leonard 349

a digital organizational story is limited, the potential for co- critiqued as a form of “slacktivism” or “clicktivism” that has
creation, in the form of ongoing story development through little or no political or social impact on the offline world
wider distribution to digital storytelling audiences, is greater (Gladwell, 2010). According to Dean (2009), online speech,
than in traditional oral and textual organizational storytelling opinion, and participation can become fetishized, arising
contexts. This dialogical potential is also greater than with from the participant’s own belief that his or her contribution
other popular cultural storytelling forms, including film and means something and matters, independently of whether it
television, where communication is mainly one-way and has any material or practical impact or efficacy. This gives
top-down. rise to a neoliberal fantasy in which political struggles in
Digital organizational storytelling also makes it more dif- local and institutional settings are displaced and “doing is
ficult for organizations to control meaning making. There is reduced to talking” (Dean, 2009, p. 32); enduring political
increased unpredictability associated with digital stories and solidarity being replaced by momentary spectacle. The chal-
how they are interpreted, in comparison with the monologi- lenge for digital organizational storytellers is to find ways of
cal character of mass media forms of storytelling enabled by leveraging the meaning-making potential associated with
film and television. There is therefore greater opportunity for stories to bring about “real” world change by translating nar-
oppositional readings: that is, interpretations that run counter ratives into action. For organizational storytelling research-
to the message that the storyteller intended (Hall, 1980). This ers, the task is to find ways of gaining access to these
poses difficulties for organizational storytellers who attempt practices and to begin to explore digital organizational story-
to shape and control meaning in relation to the brand telling systematically as a dialogical practice that tacks
(Mumby, 2016). The protocols of amateurism, affinity, and between online and offline social worlds.
authenticity define participation in digital storytelling net-
works. These protocols can also be invoked to undermine Acknowledgments
organizational meaning making. This generates spaces for The authors are grateful to Free Range Studios and The Story of
critical, minority, grassroots, and individual voices that tend Stuff for their generosity of time in support of this research.
to be marginalized by corporate structures of communicative
power (Mumby, 2016). Digital organizational storytelling Declaration of Conflicting Interests
thus enhances the possibility for “polypi,” or extreme dia- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
logical stories, where meaning making remains fluid, thereby to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article
displacing narrative monologism.
As our analysis has highlighted, this opens up possibili- Funding
ties for digital organizational storytellers who are critical of
corporate globalization to engage in oppositional meaning- The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
making practices that challenge established power interests. ship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflicts are fought between networked digital organiza- Notes
tional storytellers and storytelling audiences who engage in
dialogical meaning making to assert their values. Network 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oNedC3j0e4. (accessed
power has thereby created opportunities for new organiza- 13 July 2016) See also Mike Wesch’s, Library of Congress
tional storytelling actors to construct meaning through digi- lecture, An Anthropology of YouTube.
tal storytelling in ways that challenge the power of 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI (accessed
13 July 2016)
corporations to control meaning in ways that promote and 3. An Inconvenient Truth (2006) Dir. Davis Guggenheim.
further their interests. We suggest therefore that there is a 4. See Regalado and Searcey (2006).
need to revisit the theoretical foundations of organizational 5. Information about individual interviewees, such as their job
storytelling in order to appreciate the significance of these roles, is not provided in the analysis because this would com-
communicative structures. Our analysis provides an exem- promise individual anonymity.
plary illustration of the relational nature of power networks 6. Accessible via YouTube.
and the importance of network protocols in determining the 7. Based on 2010 US constitutional law case ‘Citizens United v.
success of stories. Further study of organizational storytell- Federal Election Commission’ on regulation of organizational
ing in online contexts is needed to appreciate the potential of spending in political election campaigns.
digital organizational storytelling, including those that rely 8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEkc70ztOrc (accessed
13 July 2016).
on video diaries (Mason, 2012) and blogs (Schoneboom, 9. The Matrix (1999) Dir. The Wachowski Brothers.
2009, 2011). 10. http://www.youtube.com/user/HowTheWorldWorks (accessed
However, it is important not to overstate the potential for 13 July 2016).
democratization and social change associated with new 11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se12y9hSOM0 (accessed
forms of organizational storytelling enabled by the Internet. 13 July 2016).
The practice of digital organizational storytelling can be 12. http://www.bottledwatermatters.org/ (accessed 13 July 2016).