Keywords

Collaborative Storytelling is a multi-purpose activity that promotes the notion of work as craft mindset. This mindset proposes an alternative way of communicating and perceiving work during times of change. Having a craft mindset allows co-workers to make sense, “tinker with,” and respond to different elements of the social worlds in which they belong and act in.

Craft is commonly understood as an activity that produces a unique handmade product which is based on the tacit knowledge of the craftsperson. Tacit knowledge of a craftsperson is learned in a community of practice and, through social interaction and lived experiences of the craft, the craft therefore is sensed by the body (Korn 2013; Victor and Boynton 1998).

The work as craft mindset is foundational to Collaborative Storytelling Activity which is an exchange of stories among co-workers, in relation to the work environment and its materiality. Story exchange in a cultural-historical context gives meaning to interpreting the past, present, and potential future, which German Philosopher Martin Heidegger describes as “being-in-the-world” as “absorbed, nondeliberative…practiced mastery [which relies on] skilled interaction with things and people” (Reimer and Johnson 2017, p. 1063).

Making Sense of Stories as a Craftsperson

The work as craft mindset is a way to reconnect with an authentic sense of purpose at the workplace as a starting point for collaboration. Collaboration is a “continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem” (Roschelle and Teasley 1995, p. 70) and a shared purpose of an activity. Work as craft mindset for collaboration is thus both an embodied individual experience and a moral stance about the stories and narrations embedded in the work system.

Craft itself is the basis from which all organisational knowledge is created (Victor and Boynton 1998, p. 24). The materiality of craft work provides clear goals and instant feedback. This sense of purpose (or fulfilment) anchors the craftsperson’s understanding of reality and shapes their stories, ideas, beliefs, and identity, which organise their experience and influence their decisions (Korn 2013, p. 55).

Craftspeople rely on their tacit knowledge to materialise their visions, trusting that their body will respond to what needs to be done with their work. This ability to “trust” the holistic effort of mind and body in relation to the material environment activates not only the craftsperson’s senses in a particular way but it also speaks to their sense of purpose at work.

Through cumulative tacit knowledge (Victor and Boynton 1998), each individual has a way to make sense, respond, and narrate their own experiences. Recounting these experiences does not necessarily prioritise or comply with “common sense,” and they are often expressed through metaphors and stories. Even though it is difficult to explain, craftspeople know what to do at work. This “knowing” is more a reflection of their tacit knowledge than their ability to reason why they know.

Tacit knowledge is stored in the individual’s mind and is a combination of experience, judgement, and intuition. Tacit knowledge is a powerful resource but difficult to share with others as it is gained and learned through “doing”. Like riding a bicycle, tacit knowledge is easier to show rather than explain (Victor and Boynton 1998, p. 22).

The work as craft mindset extends beyond the traditional understanding of craft activities. The metaphor of work as craft (as opposed to craftwork) considers the process of making sense of work as an embodied experience in relation to tools and the material and social environment. This mindset harnesses judgment and problem-solving skills of the individual as part of a process of collective learning in a community of practice.

There is on-going feedback mediated by the tools and materials used by a craftsperson, which are channelled through senses. This real time response is dependent on the individual’s own awareness as a unique embodied being. The close connection between body, tools, and environment also intensifies the craftsperson’s sense of meaning and satisfaction, commonly understood as “being in the zone.”

By proposing the metaphor of work as craft mindset, we hope to frame the perspective of collaborative work in organisations as a joint effort of individuality and craftsmanship. When a craft mindset is embodied, individuals can experience the materiality of their work in a particular way but also make sense and craft stories creatively and authentically. Therefore, work as craft mindset connects with the notion of what is being experienced at work through collaboratively telling and crafting stories during organisational change.

Craftsmanship and Metaphor: Expanding the Meaning of Organisational Stories

Collaborative Storytelling is a process and a joint effort that creates stories or builds on existing narratives within a group of individuals. Compared to other activities, mainly those activities that are centred on craftwork, storytelling “offers” stories as an “outcome” of the activity. In other words, engaging in storytelling implies that stories do not “materialise” out of nothing, as they embody a creative process in order to “become.” We argue that anybody can tell stories, and they do, even without realising. When storytelling is a conscious process, it includes a creative effort and crafting through sensemaking, which is made by some “body.”

The process of sensemaking and creation through collaboration embodied in Collaborative Storytelling Activity (CSA) was inspired by the second author’s previous research on craftwork, which was framed through the study of “wooden boatbuilding activity.”

The master thesis entitled “Body, tools and the environment in craftwork: The study of wooden boatbuilding” (Fonseca Silva 2017) explored craftsmanship from an embodied cognitive perspective. The objective of the research was to seek further understanding on the position of the body and its role in a craft activity by considering the use of tools and the material environment. The research considered the characteristics of the work environment that enabled the body of craftspeople to work more efficiently.

By having an embodied cognitive perspective (Lawrence 2012; Streeck et al. 2011), the research looked at the types of materials from the work environment that were selected and used for craftwork, and how material artefacts (tools) have contributed to the body’s performance.

The research was associated with the Center for Research on Activity, Development and Learning (CRADLE) from the University of Helsinki and was initiated in 2013.

In the research, the craft work activity (wooden boatbuilding) was directed at building a replica of a gunboat—a big war vessel originally built in the eighteenth century in Finland as a Swedish territory. The first models of the vessel were designed for the Swedish–Russian War (1788–1790). The aim of the public funded project was to honour the history between Finland and Sweden by reconnecting with and promoting the craft of wooden boatbuilding (Fonseca Silva 2017, pp. 21–22).

It is fair to say that the outcome of the research mentioned above did not encapsulate the significance of that community of practice (wooden boatbuilding). Post reflections on the research redirected our interests to craftwork, eventually leading to what Collaborative Storytelling Activity (CSA) would become. The examples of craftsmanship portrayed in the research through wooden boatbuilding activity expanded the significance given to craftwork, literally and metaphorically.

By interviewing wooden boatbuilders and witnessing their work, it was possible to capture the essence of craft in practice. Each craftsperson had a particular way of preparing their work environment and organising their tools. Most importantly, each individual had a unique way to sense the materiality of their work, as the manifestation of their vision and their (mental and physical) efforts. Above is an example of how wooden boatbuilders related to their tools.

Project manager: So, you have named your hammers [mallets]?

Wooden boatbuilder: Yes. It ́s better because they have a bit… [They are] quite different…

Researcher 2: What is its name?

Wooden boatbuilder (points): “Petit” … [It is] the biggest one.

Project manager: The biggest one?

Wooden boatbuilder: Yes. Yes.

Project manager: That is very… illogical.

Wooden boatbuilder (points): Yes. And that is the smallest one.

Researcher 1 (reading on the tool): Lazy…

Researcher 2 (reading on the tool): “Lazy hand.”

Wooden boatbuilder: But… It makes a lot of difference to have your own… sets [of tools]. Because… every set is a different set… The [caulking irons] (used with the mallets) … they come from [a] black smith, so… Like, a black smith [makes them] so… they have a bit different angle and… (gestures with his hand to show the movement he does using the tool) …you start to do like… all the time. You start to know how it works out (Video interview, March 8th, 2013, in Fonseca Silva 2017, pp. 63–64).

The way that wooden boatbuilders cared for their tools was not only a reflection of how important the tools were for the work at hand. It also represented how important the established “relationship” was between the craftsperson’s bodily senses and the materiality of the work environment. The established relationship was moved by a sense of purpose.

Based on this research, it was understood that when craftspeople do what they do best, their body, their tools, and the material environment become “one.” This notion can be better described with the metaphor of “being in the zone.” When that happens, the craftsperson’s sense of self is extended to his or her tools, the material environment, and the object of work.

Although the materiality of the work can bring instant gratification to the craftsperson (feedback through the bodily senses and the material outcome of work), the value of craft, as we see, is not limited to the accomplishment of the object of the work or the financial rewards. Instead, the value of craft also resides in craftsmanship traditions, the lifestyle of the community of practice, and the embodied experiences that are validated through apprenticeship, the unique experiences of the craftsperson, and a sense of belonging to an activity system and a wider story.

While observing wooden boatbuilders at work was important for contextualising craft, listening to how they made sense of their work was even more revealing.

A lead craftsman narrated how being a craftsperson is like being an artist. He shared that, as soon as he arrived at the place where the gunboat would be built, he could “see” it ready, right in front of him. As a master in his craft, he mentioned that being a boatbuilder does not necessarily mean that one has to be equally good at sailing. Being a craftsperson means to “just know.” He also used an example of a friend who makes musical instruments, but just recently had started learning how to play the guitar.

As a researcher, it was possible to witness a common concern among the craftspeople regarding their trade (wooden boatbuilding) losing its value or significance. Their narratives contributed to a story of conflict, where individuals, who loved their craft, struggled to justify why they remained in that profession, since other jobs could provide better financial stability to support their future and their families.

Another craftsperson revealed that although he had experienced other types of boatbuilding (with other materials than wood), no other work compared with wooden boatbuilding to him. He liked working with his hands, but he particularly liked how wood felt when he touched it with his hands and even how it smelled. Having a young family himself, he shared that his craft as a profession did not ensure the predictability he would like to have; however, he knew that he would not hesitate to favour wooden boatbuilding projects over another line of work, whenever the opportunities appeared (Field notes, Fonseca Silva, March 2013).

The craft work of wooden boatbuilders stood out for reasons that expanded from the work itself. That community of practice opened a pathway to the idea that craftsmanship is a lifestyle and a way of thinking. Having a work as craft mindset supports one’s ability to respond to the environment, to solve problems, and to be present with what needs to be done at a certain time and place.

Having a strong sense of purpose towards an activity, belonging to a community of practice, and developing (and maintaining) a craft was clearly something that mattered to those craftspeople. Not only their narrative contributed to a bigger story but also their work could tell metaphorical stories. Their tools were given will, and their boats, each with a woman’s name, carry many stories of apprenticeship and collaboration.

In a community of practice, material and narrated stories represent and propagate the work that should be agreed upon to become “storytelling material.” In other words, in CoPs, stories should be crafted in collaboration to ensure that consent is part of the process.

Embodiment, action, and positioning in a material reality for a purpose or story is for us the context of crafting represented in Collaborative Storytelling Activity (CSA). Being exposed to stories in an environment of craft influenced our approach to what Collaborative Storytelling is today. It made us adopt a work as craft mindset in our story mediation practice. Most importantly, it initiated Collaborative Story Craft (CSC) as an intervention method to respond to the needs of people who are open to collaboration and willing to engage with their own stories for a meaningful connection with their work’s purpose.

Story Crafting for Sustainable Change

The motivation of a craftsperson is intrinsic and extrinsic as the rewards are both material and emotional in nature (Coulthard 2019). With a work as craft mindset, the individual’s contribution in the community of practice becomes anchored in the material and social reality of the work. This anchoring gives the opportunity for the organisational members to take pride and ownership in their role within that community.

Organisational change is an emotional and social process which involves conflicts and potential resolutions through consent and motivation of those involved (Bryant and Cox 2006). Exploring and discovering solutions to conflict can be socially, physically, and emotionally painful (like the concept of “emotional tax” introduced in Chap. 2). Ignoring the discomfort associated with change may prevent authentic commitment to a “new story” at work. Acknowledging the discomfort that comes with change will also include and speak to those being affected by the change. Without learning how organisational members relate to one another and to the on-going issues, the change will be reactive rather than sustainable (Mindell 1995).

Relating and connecting to each other is a craft. It involves a process of sensemaking of change as an embodied and individualised experience, influenced by the past, present, and potential future of relationships and the organisation’s history and culture. Framing change with a work as craft mindset encourages the discernment of past and present patterns of working together, the purpose behind the work, and the material and social realities of the workplace.

We consider the mindset of craftspeople as both thinkers and tinkers .Footnote 1 Embodying that mindset at work means to set a well-defined intention and/or to envision a material outcome.

In practice, it also means to ask questions such as:

  • What do we need to do?

  • What are we doing?

  • What do I know about it?

  • What do you know about it?

  • How do we do it?

  • What do we have to work with?

  • Which tools do we need?

  • Has anybody done this before?

  • How did they do it?

  • How can we do it better? And so on.

By acknowledging and consenting to the reality as it is, collectively, rather than assuming what it may be, is one of the pre-conditions for Collaborative Storytelling. In other words, for Collaborative Storytelling to be authentic and sustainable in organisations, Collaborative Story crafting provides the appropriate mindset to act in a joint effort.

Crafting a common story as a process of sensemaking requires a common ground to begin with. In our work, we have experienced the influence of the metaphoric fields in everyday practices and relationships at the workplace, whether people are conscious of them or not. For example, a leader of a small company assumed “everyone is in the same boat” when it came to the future vision of the company. And yet, in reality, there were tensions between the members as the leader wanted to expand the company globally, whereas the others wanted the work activities to remain local with its original work purpose. ‘Unpacking’ the boat metaphor together provided an opportunity for the members to describe their emotions and embodied experiences by positioning themselves in reference to the boat. One member said they did not leave the shore and another was alone in a boat among many boats. Another member talked about not having a map or a clear sense of where the boat was going. As the members unpacked the metaphoric field with the leader, a lively discussion of sensemaking happened about past events and the potential future without assuming or projecting a dominant understanding of the organisational story (Cleland Silva and Fonseca Silva 2019).

David Grove called the process of questioning and becoming aware of implicit and explicit metaphors that we use to describe our experiences as “clean language” (Sullivan and Rees 2008). We acknowledge metaphors as valuable components for story craft as the metaphoric fields we navigate impact our minds, bodies, and imaginations at the workplace. Having a work as craft mindset is challenging to explain, but stories and metaphors serve as bridges to transfer meaning and knowledge to others who are willing to learn from another perspective.

In the following metaphorical story (which we translated and interpreted from Elena BernabéFootnote 2), we would like to illustrate the work as craft mindset. Our intention in choosing this story is to put into perspective the sensemaking of past and present experiences through body, mind, emotions, relationships, and place, which, in this story, is communicated beyond the tasks associated with craftwork.

The Grandmother and the Pain (La Abuela y el Dolor)

′′Grandma, how do you deal with the pain?”

′′With the hands, dear. If you deal with your mind, instead of relieving the pain, it will harden it even more.”

“With the hands, grandma?”

“Yes, our hands are the antennas of our soul. If you move them by sewing, cooking, painting, playing or sinking them into the ground, you send signals of care to the deepest part of your being. And your soul brightens because you are paying attention to it [the soul]. Then the signals of the pain are no longer necessary.”

′′Are the hands really that important?”

′′Yes, my girl. Think about babies: they start to know the world thanks to the touch of their little hands. If you look at the hands of older people, they tell more about their lives than any other part of the body.

Everything that is handmade, so it is said, is made with the heart because it really is: the hands and the heart are connected.

Masseuses know this very well: when they touch another person’s body with their hands, they create a deep connection. It is precisely from this connection that we reach the heart. Think about lovers: when their hands touch, they make love in the most sublime way.”

′′My hands, grandma… how long have I not used them like this!”

′′Move them, my love, start to create with them and everything inside you will change. The pain will not pass but will transform into the most beautiful masterpiece. And you’ll no longer feel the pain. Because you will have been able to transform its essence.”

Before reading our interpretation of this story (in relation to work as craft mindset), take a moment to engage with your own interpretation of the story from your context and story as a learner. Consider the significance of the elements mentioned in the story (e.g., pain, hands, transformation, heart, and soul) and the characters (grandmother and granddaughter). How does the story speak to you?

For us, this metaphorical story conveys the connection of doing things (represented by the use of hands) and the reason given to work as a part of a wider purpose (such as transforming pain and teaching a child about self-care). The story connects with the significance of metaphors: speaking of one thing (hand work) in terms of another (dealing with pain holistically). The message of this metaphorical story, to us, gives the idea that we live a holistic existence in which the purpose is not restrained to one type of experience or work. Rather, any type of work affords sensemaking that goes beyond the task at hand, reminding us about our lived experiences as embodied, social human beings.

While our embodied experiences are unique and non-transferable to another person’s experience (like the babies exploring the world with their little hands), stories invite others to explore different metaphoric fields and establish a more intimate connection between people (such as the grandmother and granddaughter of the story). The Grandmother’s interpretation of pain can be extended to change. When given a deeper authentic purpose, change can be transformed into a “valuable masterpiece” rather than a “hardened” discomfort.

We interpret the metaphor of dealing with pain through one’s hands as a way to expand the meaning given to an activity to a deeper existential purpose: pain does not disappear, but instead it is transformed.

As we acknowledge how uncomfortable change is, our sensemaking process continues to evolve and can be channelled through our (material) work with authenticity and purpose. As the grandma says to her granddaughter, “the pain will not pass but will transform into the most beautiful masterpiece.” Having a work as craft mindset in the story suggests that the sense of purpose is part of a sensemaking process: in other words, the granddaughter should embrace her senses in a material environment through her embodied connections, physical movement, and relationships with others. This is represented in the story as our hands being “the antennas of our soul.”

Craft facilitates self-awareness of our social context and lived experiences in relation to others and gives possibility to change and develop ourselves as the process positions us to reflect on our knowledge, problem-solving skills, and state of readiness to change (Krugh 2014). Most importantly, self-awareness through the body and craft, gives the possibility for the collective to change together by considering the dynamics of power within a group. Paulo Freire calls this self-awareness process “conscientização” (conscious-raising or critical consciousness), which involves reflecting on existing deep collective and shared knowledge that has emotional and politically powerful potential (Freire 1970).

Consciously Moving through Conflict: Cultural Historical Activity Theory

As an interdisciplinary approach to human sciences, Activity Theory originated in cultural- historical psychology, which was initiated by Alexei Nikolaevich Leont’ev, Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky, and Alexander Romanovich Luria. These psychologists believed that learning takes place through social interaction, mediating tools that are represented in signs and symbols, and a cultural historical environment. The mediating tools shape the way humans interact with reality and reflect the experiences and development of an activity within a cultural and historical place. Over the last 30 years, Activity Theory has been reconceptualised as Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Sannino and Engeström 2018) to situate the activity in a particular time and place.

CHAT uses “an activity” as a way to understand and explore organised systems in context. An activity, for this theory, is what a group does and has done, which is linked by a shared purpose. When the understanding of a shared purpose is challenged or when the activity comes into conflict with another activity system, the potential of change and development comes about by identifying and addressing the conflict retrospectively and collectively (Worthen 2014, pp. 58–61).

Within societal structures, there are numerous activity systems at work, and these systems can co-exist in the same community of practice and cultural historical context. According to Roth (2014), “[T]he collective aspect of activity theory is concretely realized by an individual at a specific cultural–historical time and place. Activity theory perceives motive-oriented activities as concretely brought about by means of conscious, goal-directed actions” (p. 25). With Marxist roots, CHAT takes a political stance of the goal-directed actions of work (e.g., solely for profitable production) and their subsequent material consequences for the workers. Some goals, CHAT as a theory argues, may enforce contradictive and problematic ways of interpreting and doing the activity leading to dissatisfaction of the workers (Sannino and Engeström 2018). For example, in the 1980s, Finnish cleaners, who were trained and influenced by a historical model of craft-like home cleaning, had “bad conscience” when their everyday actions as cleaners was impacted by a dominant model of mass production. The workers lost meaning and pride in their work as they “repeatedly expressed their dissatisfaction with the kind of cleanliness they were able to achieve in their work” (Sannino and Engeström 2018, p. 47).

Another situation of applying CHAT could be elementary school teachers who have a shared purpose of providing an education to young children (the activity) in the school (cultural-historical context) in which they all teach. The teachers’ activities are regulated by certain rules and norms; they have material tools to do their work (e.g., classrooms, grading systems) and they are regulated by larger societal structures of how education should be provided and with which resources. However, if the context changes or another activity system comes into conflict with the shared purpose, the teachers are challenged to change/develop their approach to continue engaging with the activity in a purposeful way.

A cultural-historical conflict (e.g., a global pandemic like COVID-19Footnote 3) that challenges traditional ways of teaching illustrates the impact of context and other activity systems on the teachers’ shared purpose. Not only does the pandemic conflict with how and where the teachers engage with their work activity but also the rules and expectations based on societal structures and other activity systems such as governing, parenting, and learning.

As activity systems are bounded by the activity’s shared purpose, if something contributes to the shared purpose or object of the activity, then it is inside the activity system. If not, then it is outside the system, is part of another activity system, and/or comes into conflict with the system itself. When conflict occurs between activity systems that are driven by shared purposes, the conflict is political as the clash is defined by the motivation behind the purpose (Worthen 2014, p. 62). Broadly speaking, Cultural Historical Activity Theory “proposes that change and development (learning is change and development) takes place through workings-out of disagreements and conflicts” (Worthen 2014, p. 61). When the conflict is addressed and resolved, there are possibilities for a shift of power to occur or a stalemate, where the problem remains unresolved.

To understand the complexity of cultural historical activity systems and when conflict occurs through social interaction of multiple perspectives and networks of interacting activity systems (Engeström 2001, pp. 55–56), Engeström first mapped out a model structure in his 1987 dissertation Expanding by Learning. Below is our rendition of the model and a description of the various components: subjects, object & outcome, tools, rules, community, and division of labour (Fig. 3.1).

Fig. 3.1
figure 1

Activity Theory model (after Engeström 2015, p. 68)

Full size image

In CHAT, the subjects are those directly acting on the main objective of an activity. By acting on an object-oriented motivation, an outcome is expected.

Using teaching as an example of an activity, teachers are categorised as subjects, teaching a certain topic is the object and learning is the outcome.

Tools are social artefacts that “mediate” the activity in order to accomplish the common goal (object). As such, they not only mediate previous knowledge but also mediate the abilities of the subjects by either enabling or enhancing their performance in the activity. Whenever new tools are introduced in an activity, the activity transforms (Hasan 2002, pp. 135–136).

Depending on the context, the subjects are influenced by history, customs, laws, and regulations that surround the activity, which in the activity system model, is represented by rules.

The community is represented by all the actors directly or indirectly involved with the object of work within an activity.

The division of labour frames the responsibilities of various actors in relation to a common object.

As actors of an activity, the subjects and the community interact in a context (cultural and historical time and place). By analysing each of the elements (subjects, tools, object and outcome, rules, community, and division of labour) and their relationship as part of an activity system enables CHAT to be what it is.

The possibility to position the subjects as agents of change, having an overview of their reality also contextualises the emerging narratives of the activity that may contribute to or limit a particular organisation’s story.

Collaborative Storytelling Activity System: Learning by Exchanging Stories

Collaborative Storytelling Activity System (CSAS) with a work as craft mindset, like Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), acknowledges power dynamics (culturally and socially embodied), and the responsibilities of each individual. CHAT helps to map an exchange of stories within a context and time frame, including making sense of an activity system for retrospective understanding and future possibilities of the collective activity. Reimagining the past through Collaborative Storytelling as craftspeople emboldens a disruption to established ways of organising (Suddaby et al. 2019) and puts into practice remembering a suitable past and constructing together a believable future for the community (Misztal 2003, p. 17).

Collaborative Storytelling Activity System builds on CHAT to explain how metaphoric fields and systems of narratives interweave with activity systems within a cultural and historical context of power. CHAT guides us to redirect “our gaze from what is going on inside the individual to what happens between human beings, their objects, and their instruments when they pursue and change their purposeful collective activities” (Sannino and Engerström 2018, p. 44). Collaborative Storytelling Activity System, on the other hand, is an invitation to reverse our gaze back to the individual as the starting point for expanding the understanding of the activity, and at the same time, not isolating the individual from being exposed to collective realities. Focusing on the commonalities among the interpretations of a shared activity speaks to an unconscious desire ignited in storytelling: to identify patterns and metaphors that relate to the stories within us.

CHAT has inspired research and practice resulting in the creation of intervention methods such as Change Laboratory (CL), which relies on the identification of tensions and contradictions within an activity system for analysing the conditions for developing the work (Sannino and Engerström 2017). We acknowledge CHAT as the basis of our work and Change Laboratory as a major influence in our intervention method: Collaborative Story Craft (CSC).

Change Laboratory (CL) is an activity theory-based methodology developed in 1996 (Engeström et al. 1996). CL is a process to implement the cycles of expansive learning defined by Yrjö Engeström in 1987 (Engerström 2001, 2015). CL, as an intervention, is used to study the conditions of change and to help those working in organisations to develop their work, drawing on the researcher’s participant observation, interviews, and the recording and videotaping of meetings, and work practice (Engerström 2005).

Building on CHAT through the Collaborative Storytelling Activity System proposes that every activity system is also driven by stories (cultural, historical, and contextual to the activity). This framing also reminds us that storytelling as an activity is connected to an audience. We consider each member of an activity system as storytellers whose narrations are the starting point of analysis and give significance and meaning to how, by whom, and in what ways the work is done (Fig. 3.2).

Fig. 3.2
figure 2

Collaborative Storytelling Activity System Model

Full size image

When a Collaborative Storytelling Activity System is incorporated into another activity supported by Story Mediators, the Collaborative Storytelling Activity System is considered an intervention and it is then called Collaborative Story Craft (CSC) (Fig. 3.3).

Fig. 3.3
figure 3

Collaborative Storytelling Activity System incorporated into the activity system of an organisation

Full size image

Collaborative Storytelling Activity System, therefore, intersects with CHAT and reframes the elements of the activity within an on-going story of a larger system of narratives. This allows easier pathways to investigate the actors who (historically) have had the opportunity to contribute to the activity’s script. By reframing the activity system to welcome stories, we aim to include more voices and redistribute the power to tell and craft a joint version of the organisational story.

Conclusions

Collaborative Storytelling Activity with a work as craft mindset gives storytellers an opportunity to consciously discuss and engage with their work in a way that is witnessed and validated by their peers. Incorporating Storytelling Activity in the organisation’s main activity system through Collaborative Story Craft enables a collective effort that includes the interpretations of members in a community of practice on their craft through Story Mediation. Opposed to focussing on tension and contradictions, Collaborative Storytelling highlights common themes that unite the actors for building an inclusive narrative. This approach acknowledges the cultural-historical context of the work activity through an intersection of narratives and several embodied identities. It also opens a channel of communication where multiple voices can contribute and consent to the development of a story, which will later be materialised in the rules and regulations for change.