Stephanie J. Coopman
San Jose State University

Katherine Burnett Meidlinger
San Jose State University

Abstract

Organizations are sites of interpersonal communication, although there is disagreement as to the extent such communication occurs and its utility in the workplace. In our study, we were interested in the exchange of interpersonal stories told by the members of a Roman Catholic parish staff in their everyday interactions. We collected stories during the staff's weekday lunchtime gatherings through participant-observation and categorized them according to story type. Of the 88 stories identified, 37 (42%) were collegial, 33 (37%) were personal, 14 (16%) were corporate, and 4 (5%) did not fit any of the categories. We discuss the implications of these results.

Introduction

Many of the relationships we form are tied to our places of work. Eisenberg and Goodall (1997) argue that "interpersonal relationships are crucial to the survival of individuals, teams, and organizations today" (p. 233, emphasis omitted). In this postmodern era of employee empowerment, team work, and blurred lines between office and home, interpersonal communication has taken center stage in the workplace. Yet a decade ago, Eisenberg and Witten (1987) stated, "Most work relationships are noninterpersonal," and warned against undifferentiated openness in interactions with managers and coworkers (p. 420). More recently, Albrecht and Bach (1997) observed: "Much of the communication that takes place in organizations is 'noninterpersonal,' not 'interpersonal'" (p. 9).

Over 20 years ago, Miller and Steinberg (1975) proposed a developmental definition of communication, arguing that communication should be viewed on a continuum from impersonal or noninterpersonal to interpersonal. More interpersonal communication recognizes the other as a unique individual; more impersonal communication is based on the interactants' social roles. Miller and Sunnafrank (1982) argue that the key distinction between interpersonal and noninterpersonal communication is the kind of information communicators use to make predictions about each other. When interactants make predictions about what others will say and do based on cultural or sociological information, the communication is noninterpersonal. Such communication places individuals within cultural or sociological groupings and requires making generalizations about people within those groups. In contrast, when interactants make predictions about others' responses based on psychological information, the communication is interpersonal. "Such information differs from sociological or cultural information because it directs attention to the other individual's prior learning history, particularly as it differs from the learning history of other persons" (Miller & Sunnafrank, 1982, p. 229). When communicating noninterpersonally, participants look for ways in which the other is similar to members of relevant cultural or social groups. When communicating interpersonally, participants are interested in how the other is different from those within her/his cultural or social group. Thus, interpersonal communication is characterized by the exchange of more personal and intimate information.

In spite of Eisenberg and Witten's (1987) caution and Albrecht and Bach's (1997) observation, organization members do exchange personal information and develop interpersonal relationships. One way in which organization members reveal information about themselves is through stories. "Individuals construct past events and actions in personal narratives to claim identities and construct lives" (Riessman, 1993, p. 2). Thus, we were interested in stories told by organizational members and the degree to which such stories implicated interpersonal or noninterpersonal relationships in the organization. Whereas the vast majority of research on organizational stories has been conducted in the corporate setting (e.g., Martin, Feldman, Hatch, & Sitkin, 1983; Mohan, 1993), we examined stories told by the members of a non-profit organization, the Roman Catholic Church. More specifically, we investigated the types of stories told by members of a parish staff in their daily interactions and the implications of those stories for organization members' relationships.

We came to this study from two separate paths. The first author has studied storytelling by organization leaders in Holiness-Pentecostal churches and other aspects of culture in a variety of organizations. The second author was interested in the everyday stories told in an organization, the Catholic Church, with which she had been associated for many years. Thus, this research is a blending of our theoretical and practical interests in storytelling in a religious organization.

In the first section of the paper, we discuss the importance of storytelling in organizations. Second, we provide some background on the Roman Catholic Church. Third, we describe the methods we used in conducting the study. Fourth, we identify and discuss stories told by organization members. Finally, we offer implications and conclusions based on our analysis.

Storytelling in Organizations

Storytelling is central to organizational life (e.g., Boje, 1995; Mitroff & Kilmann, 1975). Nowhere is this more evident than in religious organizations (e.g., Browning, 1992). In comparing lists and stories, Browning (1992) notes that some organizations are list-oriented, focused on "standards, accountability, certainty, and reportability" and cites a computer services department as an example (p. 281). Others, such as religious congregations, are stories-dominated. Stories, which are "romantic, humorous, conflicted, tragic, and most of all, dramatic," influence organizational culture in ways different from lists (p. 282). For example, lists focus on technical communication and explicit rules for interacting, whereas stories are more personal and often "account for a private honor and dignity not represented in the formal structure of the organization" (p. 289). While religious congregations certainly have their lists, as with statements of denominational doctrines, "[t]he church is a setting where narrative is prominent" (p. 282).

Stories are a key component of the symbolic foundations of organizations (Vaughn, 1995). Stories transmit organizational values (Meyer, 1995), foster shared meanings (Brown, 1990), and assist newcomers in the socialization process (Louis, 1980). Stories have been found to be more persuasive than statistical data (Martin & Powers, 1991) and are an important source of organizational history and knowledge (Kreps, 1990).

"Stories are communications about personal experiences" (Browning, 1992, p. 285). Meyer (1995) notes that "all stories have common 'grammatical units,' falling into a basic sequence of an exposition, complication, and resolution" (p. 214). Brown (1990) provides a more extended definition, arguing that organizational stories have certain defining characteristics. First, there is a sense of temporality; that is, the past is brought into the present. Second, there is a definite story grammar including a preface, the story lead-in, the recounting of the events, and a closing sequence, which may include the point or moral of the story.

Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo (1983) identified three types of organizational stories: personal, collegial, and corporate. Personal stories are those which feature the narrator, usually in a positive role. Collegial stories are about other organization members and often demonstrate how everyday activities are accomplished in the organization. Corporate stories tend to glorify the organization and reinforce management ideology. Seibert (1988) found that employees of a governmental research organization told far more personal than collegial or corporate stories in informal interactions. These findings suggest that organization members do exchange personal information in the workplace through stories. However, in a more formal public speaking setting, Zimmermann, Seibert, Billings, and Hougland (1990) found that church leaders told more stories associated with church ideology (what the researchers termed "biblical stories," p. 303) than collegial or interpersonal stories. Clearly, context influences the types of stories organization members tell.

The Roman Catholic Church

Our interest in studying stories told by the staff members of a Roman Catholic Church parish stems in large part from the aspects of the Church which have been studied previously and the nature of the organization. While much has been written about the formal workings of the organization, such as Church doctrine (e.g., Greeley, 1985) and structure (McKenzie, 1966), we know little of the everyday organizational lives of the local parish staff.

The structure of the Roman Catholic Church also suggested it as a unique site for studying organizational stories. As a rigidly hierarchical organization, we were interested in the degree to which this hierarchy would be reflected in more informal settings. Although the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s relaxed many Church rules and policies, the organizational structure of the church has much in common with a medieval kingdom. The pope, like a king, rules for life and has almost absolute authority. As McKenzie (1966) observes, "There is no area of the Roman Church and no person who is not subject to a direct command from the Pope" (p. 19).

The hierarchical level directly below the pope is cardinals, who fall into two groups. First are those named bishop of major archdioceses. In the United States these are New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. The second group, the pope's personal advisors, staff the Vatican. They head the offices of the Curia, which is the pope's cabinet.

At the head of each diocese is a bishop. The diocese is a "division of the Church, well defined in extension and confines, and governed by a bishop with ordinary power, i.e., ruling in his own name and not as a vicar or delegate of another" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, vol. 4, p. 891). This gives the bishop immense power. "No one does anything as a Catholic [in ecclesiastical matters] in the diocese which is not ultimately, if not immediately and directly, authorized by the [bishop]" (McKenzie, 1969, p. 51). The rank of bishop is the highest clerical order in the church. Even the pope's position as head of the church is due to the fact that he is the Bishop of Rome, the mother diocese of the church.

The diocese is subdivided into parishes, which is the usual point of contact with the rank and file lay members of the church. The parish is headed by a pastor, who is a priest, and thereby empowered to preach and administer the sacraments, with the exception of Confirmation and Holy Orders which are reserved to the bishop. Although a priest has these powers, conferred at ordination, juridically he needs permission (or faculties) given by the bishop of his own diocese, or any diocese in which he is visiting. Priests cannot be free agents apart from the diocesan structure. Additional priests attached to a parish are known as parochial vicars, commonly termed associate pastors. They assist the pastor in the work of the parish, and are under the pastor's jurisdiction.

A look at the organization of the Roman Catholic Church would be incomplete without a mention of religious orders and congregations, although, as such, they are not in the direct chain of command. In the Middle Ages, several monastic groups of men and of women were founded, and since then many other religious groups have come into existence. The unordained members of such groups are usually addressed as "Brother" or "Sister." They take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and have a separate canonical status within the church. Priests also can belong to religious orders and congregations. These groups, such as the Franciscans, Benedictines, Dominicans, Jesuits, Christian Brothers, Sisters of Saint Joseph, Sisters of Saint Benedict, and Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, are usually involved in special ministries, such as the administration and staffing of Catholic hospitals and educational institutions. Many are involved in ministering to the poor and missionary work.

The term "laity" includes all baptized Catholics who are not priests and/or are not members of a religious order or congregation. Until the Second Vatican Council, which opened in the fall of 1963, the laity had the official definition as "those not in holy orders." Vatican II has upgraded the category considerably. The laity are now called "the people of God" and their call to ministry within the church has been acknowledged and encouraged. It is possible to find a parish, like the one in our study, where the laity have had a major voice in the running of the parish and determining its future; it is also possible to find a parish where the pastor is still the sole decision maker.

Summary

Interpersonal communication occurs in the process of organizing, although the degree of such communication in the workplace is contested. Stories, which are a key aspect of organizational life, are one way for organization members to reveal personal information. Churches are important sites for narratives, yet we know little of those narratives outside the formal and public communication of church leaders (e.g., Mueller, 1997; Zimmermann et al., 1990). Thus, we were interested in the everyday interactions of a Roman Catholic parish staff. The following research question guided our study: What types of stories do parish staff members tell in informal settings?

Methods

    Study Participants and the Organization

The study parish is in a large city in the western United States. It is about 25 years old and at the time of the study there were over 1,500 families registered in the parish. The church office staff consists of 18 people. There are four priests and 14 lay office staff people. Three of the lay staff are male (two part-time), eleven are female. The staff members range in age from early 30s to late 60s, with most being in their 50s or 60s. The majority have been members of the Roman Catholic Church since infancy. All staff members have completed high school, with most having some college education. At the time of the study, the second author had been employed by the parish for 13 years.

    Procedures

After the parish pastor approved the study, we interviewed each staff member separately to discuss the project. All staff members agreed to participate. To assure participants' anonymity, we used pseudonyms and changed any identifying story details. Because we were interested in stories told in everyday conversations, we chose lunchtime to collect the data for the study.1 The parish staff meets each weekday for lunch either in the rectory dining room or the staff conference room. This is the only context in which the staff members gather on a regular basis outside of more formal settings, such as mass.

Unlike most story research which relies on gathering stories through researcher-conducted interviews (see Boje, 1995; Helmer, 1993; Seibert, 1988, for exceptions), we collected stories as they naturally occurred through participant-observation. Due to our concern that storytelling be as spontaneous as possible, we did not audiotape the lunchtime gatherings. Rather, we relied on the second author's extensive field notes based on her participant-observation of the lunchtime interactions.2 Holt (1989) argues that "using a written record of stories heard in conversation and remembered . . . is most effective for getting the story without intruding in the 'natural' flow of conversation" (p. 379). Ashcraft and Pacanowsky (1996) note the "power of participant observation to preserve the meaningful stories of organizational members as only they can tell them" (p. 222).

We used Brown's (1990) definition to identify stories in the field notes. Stories have "(a) a sense of temporality, (b) a story grammar, (c) relevance for the membership, and (d) a ring of truth" (p. 165). In having a sense of temporality, storytellers bring the past into the present, although stories may not observe a chronological order. Stories also follow a grammar which generally includes preface, recounting, and closing sequences. Thus, "construct[ing] a well-structured story is important in enhancing its impact on organizational members" (Brown, 1990, p. 168). In addition, a story should be designed with listeners in mind; it must have relevance to the audience. Finally, stories must have what Fisher (1987) calls narrative fidelity, "whether or not the stories they [listeners] experience ring true with the stories they know to be true in their lives" (p. 64).

We independently read through the field notes, identifying stories based on our modified version of Brown's (1990) definition. We encountered no disagreements in identifying what constituted and what did not constitute a story. We put the 88 stories we identified on index cards for classification. Two coders then independently categorized all the stories as personal, collegial, or corporate based on the definitions offered by Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo's (1983, pp. 138-139). Any differences in coding were negotiated to agreement through discussion.

Staff members who attended the lunchtime gatherings were given a questionnaire which focused on topics such as why they attend, the possible positive and negative aspects of the gatherings, and what advice the staff would give a lunchtime newcomer. We were interested in gaining an understanding of the staff members' views of the lunch gatherings, as well as the role of the storytelling in that setting. Twelve completed questionnaires were returned.

Parish Staff Stories

The vast majority of the stories parish staff members told were about other organization members or about themselves. Of the 88 stories collected, 37 (42%) were collegial, 33 (37%) were personal, 14 (16%) were corporate, and 4 (5%) did not fit into any of the categories.

    - Collegial Stories

Collegial stories "are narratives which individuals share about other organizational members. . . . Because collegial stories are not typically sanctioned by management, these performances present the passions underlying the way the organization 'really' works" (Pacanowsky & O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1983, p. 139). One example of a collegial story told by a parish staff member is:

Lucy: Speaking of Mass, Hortense was there. I thought she was ill; they prayed for her at Mass on Sunday.

Alice: She seemed okay today.

Lucy: I'm afraid that she'll keel over here one day and she'll be gone. This morning she caught up to me, and she had an envelope. She handed it to me, but she didn't let go. I kept holding it and she kept shoving it toward me, but not letting go. Finally she said, "It's for you." Well, it was earrings. She had brought a lot of earrings in for Justine and I thought these were for her, too. And I said, "Oh, thank you, I'll give them to Justine." And she said, "No, these are for YOU!" [laughter from the group] You should see the earrings . . .

Alice: She'll be watching to see if you wear them.

Lori: You can say you're saving them for dressy occasions!

[laughter from the group]

Al: What was that mess in the back hall?

Carol: Some kids got in and opened a jar of punch concentrate and turned it upside down in the top cupboard across from Ann's office.

Justine: It was awful. That stuff won't mop up. It went down through and under the cupboard, and no matter how many towels we put down, it kept coming up through the carpet. That sticky red stuff.

Al: How did anyone get in there?

Carol: Through the video area. The door was closed but not secured. We were in there for about two hours mopping up the mess. John Smith was sponging up the carpet, and saying, "The little bastards. . . the little bastards. . ."

[laughter from the group]

Mike: [laughing] I see the Festival is a rich source of our folklore!

Norma: I'll never forget the year that the helium tanks [for parish festival balloons] were delivered and just dumped on the ivy outside the church. Burt [the pastor at the time] had to drag them inside so we could get started. He said, "A pastor's job includes everything!"

As noted previously, collegial stories often indicate organizational practices, or how the organization actually functions. Thus, Norma's story suggests the commitment the pastor has to his job, accomplishing a task that likely is not listed under his assigned duties. The story told by Carol and Justine also addresses the issue of accomplishing tasks outside of an organization members' usual role, although in this case a clear complaint was registered. Finally, Lucy's story about one of the parishioners, Hortense, indicates the personal ties staff members feel for individuals in the congregation. Collegial stories also reveal information both about the teller and the organization member(s) who is the primary actor in the story. How the story is told and what is included can suggest the teller's and larger organizational values (Meyer, 1995). Hearers can acquire information about the actor in the story which they did not already know.

    - Personal Stories

Personal stories accounted for over one-third of the stories told. Most of the staff have worked together for some time, and consider one another friends as well as coworkers. For example, one respondent wrote on the questionnaire, "They [the staff lunches] provide the opportunity to become acquainted with one another outside our normal business/work relationships. They help on a basic human level (friendship)." Another staff member stated, "We know what goes on in each others' personal lives and therefore we become closer." In giving advice to a new staff member about the lunch gatherings, respondents stated, "Come, have lunch and get to know other staff members, their stories, open sharing," and "I would like to be able to say to them, 'Come anytime, just to be with us. Get to know us and let us get to know you.'" One personal story was told during a conversation about the parish's yearly festival.

Mike: The dunk tank should be restricted to those 18 and younger . . .

Justine: I know. One year Rich and I got in the thing [dunk tank] as a couple. Every time someone hit, we'd both go down. I was on the edge with the handle, and every time we went down, I hit my arm on it and my hip on something else.

Lucy: She was black and blue.

Justine: And Rich was taller, so his feet would hit the bottom of the tank before his head went in. I just went [pantomimed falling under water].

Glenn: I have a cold from my stint.

Lucy: We went to see those people from Madison this weekend. Dennis, did you hear my story about Jan?

Dennis: I don't believe I did.

Lucy: Well, Jan has worked at the steakhouse for two years. . . . I told you about those people who gave her that bracelet when she graduated from City College?

[the others at the table nod and/or murmur affirmation]

Lucy: Well, they were in there a couple of weeks ago [and] . . . they asked her what her last name was . . . and she said, "Tyler," and they said, "We knew some Tylers back in Madison." Jan asked, "Who did you know?" and they said, "Dave," and Jan said, "That's my dad!" And they said, "No kidding? He married Lucy Donnelly." And Jan said, "That's my mom!" . . . Well, Jan had to call home, and she said, "Mom, do you know a Frank Hanlon?" And I say, "Jan, the Frank Hanlon we know died four years ago." And she said, "Well, his sister is right here in the steakhouse." . . . Well, Dave got Mildred's (that's the mother's) phone number and he called her. . . . And Mildred said she would love to see us. . . . So after the evening mass on Saturday we went over. . . . We didn't get home until midnight. I feel kind of awed. You know, how God put us all together just when both Dave and Mildred needed to deal with a death.

Ann: That's probably what He had in mind all along.

Lucy: I believe that. It gives me goosebumps to think of it. They hadn't seen each other in about 30 years, and now this.

Sally: While you're all up here, I'll give you what I got for you [back east]. They're those Smucker's Walnuts in Syrup. You remember my story?

Ellen: I don't think so.

Sally: Well, when we first came [out west], I went into a drug store and ordered a sundae, and the guy was sprinkling these chopped peanuts on it, and I asked him "Do you have wet nuts?" Well, I almost died when I realized what I had said, and the guy says "What?" And I said: "Nuts in syrup." And he looked at me like I was nuts. Now you all have wet nuts.

    - Corporate Stories

We identified only 14 corporate stories, "narratives which represent the management ideology and are used to substantiate organizational procedures or pass on the unrecorded-but-managerially- favored customs of organizational life" (Pacanowsky & O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1983, p. 139). The story below was part of a conversation about the parish children's choir.

Mike: Up at St. Theresa they had a celebration for the jubilarians--there were mostly guys there--a few women who were friends of the families. Well, they started singing some of those Latin numbers that they knew from the novitiate. Salve Regina--it was beautiful. I think when they threw out the old music, they went too far. Some of it is really beautiful.

Norma: Well, at that time, in the '60s, there was the feeling, "if it's old, it has to go." I try to retain some of it in motets and things.

Lori: I think that we should have the Latin on high holy days. I always loved Holy Thursday with the procession and the Pange Lingua. It just doesn't cut it in English.

Mike: I'd like to see some of it come back. The people would learn it easily.

Norma: Probably you should work with the eight o'clock music group. They would be most open to that.

Another corporate story was triggered by a discussion of different events during Mass:

Norma [laughing]: Once Rich [priest at parish many years ago] said, "We should do a whole Mass on outtakes; the stuff we'd love to do but could never get away with doing."

Glenn: We could use it for the volunteer day skit.

Lori: We'd better say that anyone likely to be scandalized or sensitive to blasphemy should not show.

Mike: One of the things about [theology school] was the ordination practice masses. It was liturgy as shock therapy. . . . At one of them the prayers of petitions were one long rebuttal to the homily. One of the Masses they had two women for acolytes, and they picked the biggest women they could. There was this skinny little guy as priest, between those two amazons; he was up there at the altar, and turned the wrong page, and one of the women slapped her hand on the altar, and pointed to something and said, "Read that!"

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the types of stories told by members of a Catholic parish staff in an informal setting. We were also interested in what those stories revealed about interpersonal communication in the organization. The majority of stories were about individuals associated with the parish or about the storytellers themselves, with a smaller number of stories about issues facing the parish or Catholic Church. Our findings are somewhat consistent with Seibert's (1988) study of a governmental research organization in which employees very rarely told corporate stories. In that organization, personal stories constituted 60% of the storytelling activities, with collegial stories accounting for 37% the stories. Seibert concluded that the emphasis on personal stories was grounded in the organization's culture, which had distinct divisional differences with minimal intergroup communication. This led organization members to focus primarily on themselves and their immediate coworkers rather than on the larger organization. In the parish we studied, collegial stories frequently described the ways in which staff members actually accomplished their jobs, as with Lucy relating her interaction with Hortense in the earrings episode. These stories reveal the everyday aspects of parish life and the cooperative ways in which staff members work together. Thus, Lucy offers to give Justine the earrings; Alice reminds Lucy that Hortense will expect to see the earrings worn; Lori suggests a response to Hortense should Lucy not wear the earrings. The act of telling collegial stories stems from the organization's community-based culture and the stories further reinforce the value of serving others.

Context clearly plays an important role in framing the types of stories organizational members tell. The setting we chose was a group rather than a dyadic one; semi-public rather than private. As one staff member noted on the questionnaire: "They [the lunch gatherings] give us an opportunity to relate to each other differently (socially) than we might normally relate." Lunch is the one time of the day when nearly all staff members are together, thus providing an opportunity for sharing information about others which would be of interest to all in attendance. If we had collected stories only in dyadic settings, the ratio of personal stories to collegial and corporate ones would have undoubtedly increased. Moreover, if we had collected stories in public settings, such as homilies or religious education classes, staff members unquestionably would have told more corporate stories. Such was the case in Zimmermann et al.'s (1990) study in which church leaders told primarily corporate (or "biblical") stories (56%), and far fewer personal (22%) or collegial (22%) ones.

In her review of theoretical perspectives on personal narratives, Langellier (1989) notes the political function of such narratives, particularly in the organizational context. Viewing personal stories as political suggests that "all personal narratives are ideological because they evolve from a structure of power relations and simultaneously produce, maintain, and reproduce that power structure" (p. 267). Interestingly, the personal stories told by the parish staff members seemed to reproduce the egalitarian nature of the lunchtime gatherings, rather than the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church. For example, in Justine's dunk-tank story, several people not only participated in the telling, but Glenn, one of the priests, referred to his turn in the tank.

Organizational stories transmit cultural values and suggest norms for interaction (Meyer, 1995). In focusing on collegial and personal stories, the parish staff members indicate the parameters for what is discussed at the lunchtime gatherings. That is, the stories are of a more interpersonal nature in this informal setting, with less attention paid to larger organizational issues. The telling of collegial and personal stories also provides a clear distinction between who belongs to the group and who does not. Nonmembers would likely be unfamiliar with the cast of characters in both types of stories, whereas members are not only familiar with the characters, but can provide additional details in the telling of the stories. As LaRossa (1995) observes, "stories allow people to lump themselves with some individuals, and split themselves from others--to create islands of meanings generally known as 'selves' and others'" (p. 555).

In their discussion of openness in organizational communication, Eisenberg and Witten (1987) offer four contingencies for individuals to consider in determining the openness of their communication. The first contingency is individuals' communication styles and motives. Second are relational contingencies which "refer to the closeness or shared history between organizational members" (p. 423). Third, individuals must consider organizational constraints such as rules, norms, and task accomplishment. Fourth, there are environmental contingencies which impinge on internal and external organizational communication. Although we did not ask organization members' their individual motives during lunchtime interactions, their responses to the questionnaires reveal the importance of seeking and exchanging interpersonal information at these gatherings. The stories reveal the long history staff members shared both in the parish and in the Roman Catholic Church. The formality of the Church appeared relaxed at lunchtime; thus the usual organizational constraints on disclosing personal information were absent in this context. However, this does not mean that there were no organizational constraints on staff members' lunchtime conversations. As discussed earlier, the stories staff members told suggested to others what could and could not be talked about in this setting. Interestingly, staff members' responses to the questionnaire indicate that exchanging of personal information during the lunchtime gatherings is the norm. This is the context in which someone new to the staff could, "Get to know us and let us get to know you."

Collecting stories as they occur in everyday conversations also revealed storytelling's communal nature. While we tend to think of "a" person telling "a" story, Georges (1980) suggests "contrasting, but complementary, communicative roles of narrator and auditor" in the storytelling process (p. 323). Georges (1980) further argues that "storytelling is never a single-person-dominated, unidirectional act, . . . but rather . . . it is an event whose nature and significance are determined by the behaviors of all those who participate" (p. 323). Eder (1988) found in her study of adolescent females that interactants often collaborated in the storytelling process. She concludes that collaborative storytelling serves to strengthen social bonds and facilitate shared perceptions among participants. Among the parish staff members, their long association and common background in the Catholic church undeniably increased their ability to tell stories collaboratively. The process of collaborative storytelling served to further cement those bonds.

Implications, Limitations, and Conclusions

    - Implications

The results of study have important implications for future study of storytelling in organizations. First, it is clear that gathering stories in situ is critical to understanding how stories are told in organization members' conversations. Further, examining such stories provides insights into the nature of organizational life. In our study, we found that organization members often shared personal information and told stories in a collaborative manner.

One drawback of gathering naturally-occurring stories is determining the most-useful method to collect them. We relied on one participant-observer. We discuss the limitations of this method below. Multiple participant-observers, or a combination of participant-observers and observers, may provide more accurate records for future research. Future researchers may want to audiotape organization members' conversations to get a more accurate record of the storytelling process. Videotaping would provide even more information as researchers could examine the nonverbal aspects of storytelling.

Our concern was with those stories told in an informal context. Other researchers might gather stories in more formal situations, such as meetings or orientation sessions. In addition, we collected stories in a group setting which was somewhat public. Organization members undoubtedly tell similar, but also different, stories in more private and dyadic settings. All stories told in an organization  create, maintain, and change how members come to make sense of organizational life. We looked at only a small part of the picture.

Another valuable area of research would be Mumby's (1987) call for political analysis of corporate stories. One important use of stories is to reinforce the status quo in an organization. Stories can recognize and inculcate issues of power and status. They are used to empower and disenfranchise, and organizationally approved stories do not generally empower the lower level employee. If organizational stories can be analyzed to show not only what and who is the object of reverence, glory and power, they can also be analyzed to discover what and who is excluded, trivialized, marginalized, and rendered invisible. Since both groups are often taken for granted, such a study could raise consciousness and focus attention on social inequities.

    - Limitations

Although this study provides valuable insight into the interpersonal nature of stories in organizations, the results must be interpreted with caution for several reasons. First, since the second author conducted this research as a participant observer, the stories gathered were limited to those she heard. She was not present at all lunch gatherings, and, when a large number attended, she often heard only the conversation at her end of the table. Certainly her own interests and perceptions influenced what she heard and retained. As Duck (1994) notes: "Observation cannot be neutral. Every view of phenomena essentially presumes a viewpoint" (p. 33, emphasis omitted).

In discussing a limitation of their research on face support in communication between hospital volunteers and their supervisors, Adams and Shepherd (1996) argue that "a sacrifice in power is often the price paid for the gain of external validity obtained by conducting research in a natural organizational setting" (p. 383). For our study, the price we paid for collecting stories as they occurred in everyday organization member conversations was exactness. That is, our collection of stories relied on the second author's ability to recall and reconstruct the stories she heard. While she recorded her field notes immediately after each lunchtime gathering, some details undoubtedly were lost. Although audio or videotaping has the potential for greater accuracy in recording conversation, these mechanisms would have intruded on the interaction environment.

A third limitation of the study was that stories were collected in a semi-public setting (the lunch gatherings) in which participants likely monitored their conversation. For example, story topics found in dyadic or select group situations, such as sexually-related or personally damaging stories, did not occur. In the experience of the second author, these types of stories constitute a minimal percentage of parish staff communication, but they do exist. Weick (1983) states: "When people talk, we know nothing until we also know what possible things they could have said but did not. Talk has a way of seeming obvious, sufficient, inevitable. The talk becomes a datum only when readers see what else could have been said but was not" (p. 16).

    - Conclusions

Organizations are sites of interpersonal communication, although it is likely that much of organization members' daily communication is noninterpersonal. However, specific contexts give rise to the disclosure of more personal information and demonstrate the relational aspects of the organizing process. Organization members reveal personal information in the stories they tell, developing interpersonal relationships through such exchanges. Collaborative storytelling further establishes important links between interactants. Moreover, telling collegial and personal stories and telling such stories collaboratively identify who is in the group and who is not. The stories told by the members of a Roman Catholic parish staff provide a window into organizational processes through which others are seldom invited to look.

Notes

1. The majority of observations were conducted during the lunchtime gatherings. However, because the second author was a parish staff member at the time of the study, she would record stories she heard in other contexts, such as the parish front office area or the conference room after lunch, which were related to stories told at lunchtime.

2. Field notes included the date, time, and place of observations as well as a list of those staff members present. Speakers were identified by their pseudonyms. Responses to stories or statements were recorded as accurately as possible. Explanatory information, such as definitions of terms, was included as needed. Conversation topics were noted with relevant background information (as with "the festival was scheduled for the following weekend").

References

Adams, C., & Shepherd, G. (1996). Managing volunteer performance: Face support and situational features as predictors of volunteers' evaluations of regulative messages. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 363-388.

Albrecht, T., & Bach, B. (1997). Communication in complex organizations: A relational approach. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Ashcraft, K., & Pacanowsky, M. (1996). "A woman's worst enemy": Reflections on a narrative of organizational life and female identity. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24, 217-239.

Boje, D. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as "Tamara-Land." Academy of Management Journal, 38, 997-1035.

Brown, M. H. (1985). That reminds me of a story: Speech action in organizational socialization. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 27-42.

Brown, M. H. (1990). Defining stories in organizations: Characteristics and functions. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 13 (pp. 162-190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Browning, L. D. (1992). Lists and stories as organizational communication. Communication Theory, 2, 281-302.

Catholic University of America (Eds.). (1967). The new Catholic encyclopedia (Vol. 4). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eder, D. (1988). Building cohesion through collaborative narration. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 225-235.

Eisenberg, E., & Goodall, H. (1997). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Eisenberg, E., & Witten, M. (1987). Reconsidering openness in organizational communication. Academy of Management, 12, 418-426.

Fisher, W. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Georges, R. (1980). A folklorist's view of storytelling. Humanities in Society, 3, 317-326.

Greeley, A. M. (1985). American Catholics since the council: An unauthorized report. Chicago: Thomas More.

Helmer, J. (1993). Storytelling in the creation and maintenance of organizational tension and stratification. Southern Communication Journal, 59, 34-44.

Holt, G. R. (1989). Talk about acting and constraint in stories about organizations. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53, 374-397.

Kreps, G. L. (1990). Stories as repositories of organizational intelligence: Implications for organizational development. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 13 (pp. 191-202). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Langellier, K. (1989). Personal narratives: Perspectives on theory and research. Text and Performance Quarterly, 9, 243-276.

LaRossa, R. (1995). Stories and relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 553-558.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-250.

Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. (1983). The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 438-453.

Martin, J., & Powers, M. (1983). Truth or corporate propaganda: The value of a good war story. In L. Pondy, P. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 93-107). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Martin, J., & Powers, M. (1991). Organizational stories: More vivid and persuasive than quantitative data. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Psychological dimensions of organization behavior (pp. 258-266). New York: Macmillan.

McKenzie, J. L. (1966). Authority in the church. New York: Sheed and Ward.

McKenzie, J. L. (1969). The Roman Catholic Church. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Meyer, J. (1995). Tell me a story: Eliciting organizational values from narratives. Communication Quarterly, 43, 210-224.

Miller, G., & Steinberg, M. (1975). Between people: A new analysis of interpersonal communication. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Miller, G., & Sunnafrank, M. (1982). All is for one but one is not for all: A conceptual perspective of interpersonal communication. In F. Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory: Comparative essays (pp. 220-242). New York: Harper & Row.

Mitroff, I., & Kilmann, R. (1975). Stories managers tell: A new tool for organizational problem solving. Management Review, 64, 18-28.

Mohan, M. L. (1993). Organizational communication and cultural vision. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Mueller, A. G., II. (1997, April). Preserving the Ukrainian dream: Constructing uniate Catholic culture. Paper presented at the Southern States Communication Association convention, Savannah, GA.

Mumby, D. (1987). The political function of narrative in organizations. Communication Monographs, 54, 113-127.

Pacanowsky, M. E., & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 50, 36-56.

Riessman, C. (1993). Narrative analysis. Qualitative Research Methods, Vol. 30. Newbury Park: Sage.

Seibert, J. (1988). Stories people tell: An examination of organizational stories and the impact of communicative abilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Vaughn, M. (1995). Organization symbols: An analysis of their types and functions in a reborn organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 219-250.

Weick, K. (1983). Organizational communication: Toward a research agenda. In L. Putnam & M. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 13-29). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Zimmermann, S., Seibert, J., Billings, D., & Hougland, J. (1990). God's line is never busy: An analysis of symbolic discourse in two Southern Appalachian denominations. Sociological Analysis, 51, 297-306.