Processes as stories: On struggle, meaning, and collective access

We tend to think about processes as the unglamorous part of our work. We struggle through the process to reach an outcome that matters. The outcome is what we tend to share and communicate. It’s the impact and story that we hope to headline.

I’ve written a lot about processes over the last few years, from organisational change to relationality in open knowledge governance and resilience, to evidence-based practice designed for partnership and disability accommodations.

Over time, I realised that I think a lot about how:

“…the processes themselves, not just decisions resulting from them, are actions that have an impact. Processes are consequential in their own right” (Bell, 2025)

I’ve also recently been writing on the importance of processes for providing access in libraries and open knowledge governance, and reading about Leonelli’s process-oriented view of research. It’s reinforced for me how often access (and openness) can create meaningful change and contributions because of how it is achieved (the process), not just because of the object or output at the end.

I think it’s fair to say I have a tendency to lean toward a process- and people-oriented view in how I think. (And evidence-based, too).

In my governance training over the last few years, something that jumped out from my reading was that leaders tend to cluster around outcomes and options (for problem-solving), while a focus on processes, evidence, people, and risk (for problem-solving) is often underrepresented in leadership approaches. Bourke describes this tendency as “unintentional and damaging” (2016, pp. 4, 89).

I certainly think good processes make for meaningful organisational outcomes and are outcomes in themselves (especially for people and communities). However, it reminded me of how much work goes into translating that processes hold strategic importance in governance and leadership spaces.

Processes as stories

I like processes in the same way I like stories. Processes can bring inquiry, discovery, challenges, creativity, meaning, and a narrative that draws you in.

It’s probably the reason I’m (generally) not a fan of platitudes, clichés, or management mantras. They often gloss over the process, soothe decisions we’re not actually comfortable with as leaders, offer little substance, and remove much of the joy I find in dialogue and the process of facing new challenges.

While my Autistic ADHD self loves structure and analysing systems, it also thrives on challenges, dialogue, side-quests, and exploration – especially when processes allow enough space for creativity. And the bridge between all of this, for me, is happily diving straight into complexity to make it legible, and coming out the other side with more ideas, reflections, and connections.

Figure skater Alysa Liu describes her creative process as being part of a story where you can’t lose, because it’s the process and story itself that brings joy. And to borrow Liu’s words: “I love struggling actually.”

Outcomes and solutions

While thinking this all through, I was curious about whether options and outcomes-focused problem-solving might be associated with more transactional leadership approaches, compared to people or process-focused problem-solving (as potentially being more relational in leadership approach).

The (still unanswered) question led me to a study on transformational versus transactional leadership ¹ (and it’s worth noting that transformational leadership can be considered a type of relational leadership). While these papers focus on leadership more broadly rather than on problem-solving specifically (which is more situational), there is research associating transformational leadership with solution-focused communication.

Solution-focused communication certainly sounds outcomes-focused. However, it doesn’t just involve identifying or arguing for a solution or outcome. It can also include defining what is needed in a solution, identifying problems with a solution, and engaging in sensemaking processes.

This literature is where solutions start to look less like an outcomes-focused tool and more relational and process-oriented. It also removes a black-and-white divide between processes and outcomes, and recognises that different questions, sensemaking approaches, and non-linear methods can contribute to problem-solving.

Stories as sensemaking and access

Sensmaking is about collectively constructing meaning, interpretation, and understanding. And, importantly, stories are part of sensemaking. Stories provide a “source of sense” but also produce the history, experiences, and plot that enable an outcome (Weick, 1995, p. 128). ² Collective experiences become narratives to support clarity and action.

Through sensemaking processes and stories, we see a shift away from more transactional outcomes toward something collective and relational that explicitly connects processes to our outcomes.

In some ways, sensemaking reminds me of the disability justice principle of ‘collective access.’ Collective access is about creating access iteratively, together, with mutual responsibility and accountability. Similarly, sensemaking sees understanding as shared and co-constructed. They are both processes that bring multiple perspectives together to achieve shared outcomes.

Collective access, however, adds to sensemaking processes by asking: who is in the room, on what terms, and how can we share responsibility for making a space work for everyone? It’s not just about physical access or inclusive practices, but collectively asking:

“How are we re-imagining access in ways that include, but are not limited to disability; that encompass class, language, gender, mamas, parents and children? What would access beyond logistics look and feel like? Access that allows people to not just be included, but maintain their dignity and connection to their communities?” (Mingus, 2010).

The process of collective access addresses the often forgotten social and visceral dimensions of access and accessibility. As Mingus shares: “You understand inaccessibility to mean isolation, shame, exclusion, disappointment, loneliness, anger, privilege, sadness, loss of community and disconnection.”

And in addressing the social aspects of inaccessibility, the process becomes an outcome in itself through care and shared responsibility. It is the decision-making in the design process that ensures access is meaningful. ³

As we lead in ever-complex and uncertain spaces, processes can help us build trust and meaning, orient to changing contexts and uncertainty, and understand the different conditions under which outcomes arise.

And processes, like stories, don’t always end where you expect. Or even have tidy endings. But sometimes that’s the best part.

1. The former is built on shared vision and motivation (positively influencing performance, innovation, retention, and trust), and the latter on structured exchanges that involve rewards and penalties (positively influencing performance, efficiency, and strategic success). ↩︎
2. Weick, Karl E. (1995). Sensemaking in organisations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications ↩︎
3. See: ‘Designing for access‘ and ‘Designing Collective Access: A Feminist Disability Theory of Universal Design‘ ↩︎