“It’s just a story…”

We’ve been using the same story for more than 20 years.

“It’s just a story…” we’d tell people, before letting it unfold. And yet, time and again, it did something quite powerful. It crossed lines and nudged at people’s values inducing just enough discomfort to spark real conversation.

It was different each time. It was rarely just polite conversation. More so, the ‘how can you think that?!’ kind, where people are incredulous at realising just how differently others see the same situation.

Over time, it became a reliable tool. A way to bring values out of the abstract and into something more human; something that could be felt, reacted to, and debated. Sometimes views were changed during the conversation, with more possibility uncovered.

But there was a catch: the story had edges. Sharp ones. And while those edges were part of what made it effective, they also carried a risk. We started to hear concern that in some settings, for some individuals, it could land a little too heavily.

So, with the best of intentions, we softened it to make it ‘safer’. Less edge.

The revised version became more neutral. It was less likely to provoke, less likely to unsettle and less likely to prompt incredulity.

Yep, the ‘new and improved’ version did exactly what we designed it to do – play safe. And at the same time, it did almost nothing we needed it to do.

People listened. They understood the scenario. They could talk about it… But they didn’t really care about the people, their situation, or their action. It had become ‘meh’. Conversations stayed at the surface and any values differences remained unnoticed and mostly unspoken. There was very little tension, and even less curiosity, except a confused ‘why are we talking about this?’

It turns out that when you remove too much of the edge, you also remove the energy. This left us in a bit of a bind.

We wanted to create enough safety for people to engage… while still inviting the kind of honesty, disagreement, and vulnerability that builds understanding and shifts perspectives. We were looking for something that people would feel, without tipping it into something they couldn’t hold.

Try again. Not attempting to recreate the original but rethinking the intent and bringing back some edge.

The new version has a bit more intrigue and a layer of questionable behaviour. There’s enough ambiguity that people start to fill in the gaps, which is always fascinating. It’s not outrageous, but it’s not entirely comfortable either. This matters.

We’ve learned that a bit of edge changes how people show up. And it doesn’t take much. When people are just a little unsure, a little curious, a little challenged… and when they actually care about the people and the situation, then the conversation goes up a notch.

Not louder. Not more dramatic. Just more real – which is where we Frogs like to play. (And where, it turns out, the value is.)

We’re early in testing, but it feels like we’ve found something with a bit of life in it.

It’s a useful reminder that in leadership, culture, how teams work together… safety matters. But so does stretch. The work is in holding both. And, occasionally, it’s in telling a story that’s just uncomfortable enough to make people really think.