The blog on Anonymity generated some really great responses. Thanks to all who contributed. In particular, Michael Cheveldave sparked my thinking about the relationship between trust and complexity. In the last book I wrote, Managing Interactively, I talked about the relationship between trust and speed in organizations. My informal observations over the years have shown me trust levels have a significant impact on the strength or weakness of connections between agents in complex organizations.
In my observations of complexity-based approaches to group interactions, trust affects levels of interpersonal disclosure as well as strength and maintenance of connections between participants before, during, and after the meeting.
Now, back to Michael’s comment: “…perhaps disclosure of identity acts as a constraint or boundary which is in contrast to anonymity which, as stated earlier, might contribute to the stimulation of an attractor.” Can the manipulation of factors that affect trust levels serve as constraints or stimulate attractors? If so, what would those factors be and how might they be manipulated?
Let’s take identity disclosure as an example. If we held a complex facilitation exercise online with everyone masking their true identity, what do you think would be the difference between that exercise and a face-to-face exercise? Michael, I think you’re right that the virtual might be a reflection of the real in complex workshop settings, but often those virtual exercises are designed or selected to be similar to existing environments in principle but dissimilar in appearance.
To date, I have focused exclusively on promoting high levels of trust in organizations. Now I’m rethinking the role of trust in interactions between agents in a complex context. Could it be that high trust levels could be detrimental to decision making in complex contexts? I found an article that explores some intriguing trust issues between humans and complex computerized systems.
Comments (1)
Hi Mary, A bit delayed but wanted to get back to you on this thread. Dave and Cynthia's article "Bramble Bushes in a Thicket" is right on topic here. In this article Dave and Cynthia take a quote from a paper by Alicia Juarrero:
…whereas strong dynamic links among components (characterized as nodes) result in a “strong cluster”, weak links between strong clusters give rise to a community or a world. Since any node can simultaneously belong both to a strong cluster and to a larger networked community, society, or world, boundaries become diffuse, but also dynamic and creative. Complex dynamical systems thus begin to look more like bramble bushes in a thicket than like stones. And it is extremely difficult, as any outdoorsman will tell you, to determine precisely where a particular bramble bush ends and the rest of the thicket begins.
From this I think one can look at trust networks as bramble bushes in a thicket. As such then perhaps striving for high levels of trust across an entire organization doesn't make sense. However creating a context where trust clusters can flourish and link to other such clusters might make more sense. Dave's thoughts on natural numbers comes into play here as well.
Now just need to think through the earlier ideas shared on virtual v real, identity, and boundaries...
Posted by Michael Cheveldave | November 9, 2007 6:07 AM
Posted on November 9, 2007 06:07