I gave a talk recently to an internal group at Improving, and I found myself zeroing in on a point I often make in conversations about user stories and human stories: what is the story that gets told and retold?
Someone pushed that question further: Does a story have to be true to be useful?
Stories Don’t Have to Be True
The point was that a story doesn’t have to be factually accurate if it still does its job. Does it motivate someone? Does it trigger a behavioral change? Does it help a patient remember to take their medicine?
Consider a child who needs to take medicine. A parent might tell a fantasy story about the medicine being a magic potion. The story isn’t true, but it works. An adult might respond to a different kind of story, one that connects emotionally and makes them feel seen. If the story helps the patient take their medicine, it was a useful story.
Truth and usefulness are not the same thing. That distinction matters.
But Who’s Telling the Story?
Say a company wants to install cameras in a neighborhood to help reduce crime rates. They bring that story to the community: we want to help, and this will make things safer.
The community might find the story appealing. But the question they’ll ask is: why does this company care? What’s in it for them?
If it’s a large, well-known company, some people might place their trust based on its size and reputation. If it’s a small company no one has heard of, skepticism is immediate.
The same story lands differently depending on who’s telling it.
The Story That Earns Trust
Now add this detail: the small company is a local family business. They’ve been robbed so many times they’re close to shutting down. They built a camera solution to protect themselves and are proposing to extend it to the neighborhood.
The story changes. Their stake in the community is personal. There’s something real behind it.
That’s a story worth listening to.
History Validates the Story
The next question: is it true?
If the family says they’ve been robbed “more times than they can count,” what does the record show? Was it a pattern, or an isolated incident?
History is what validates the story. And good history isn’t a snapshot. It’s a living record of what happened, what decisions were made, what changed, and what was learned. It includes adjustments, corrections, and updated interpretations as new information arrives.
A complete history is more than the most recent data point. It’s the arc.
Story and History, Together
What I like about this pairing is how each needs the other.
A good story motivates. It meets people where they are and moves them toward something. But without history, a story is unverifiable, easy to dismiss, and potentially misleading.
History, on the other hand, can be dry. Data without a narrative is hard to act on. People don’t change behavior because of spreadsheets; they change because something resonates.
Together, they’re much more powerful. The story opens the door. The history earns the trust.
There’s a cautionary note worth keeping: if we call something “history” but it isn’t backed by evidence or careful record-keeping, we aren’t presenting history. We’re still just telling a story.
Both matter, but they have different jobs. Knowing which one you’re doing, and why, makes all the difference.
Leave a Reply