T: Small things, like being on time, and remembering birthdays. Big things, like honesty and doing what you said you would do. Obvious things: doing the right thing, even when it’s hard. Non-obvious things: recognizing people’s motivations, and helping them achieve their goals.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @tasshinfogleman
Ooh! I was excited to read this, because I've been meaning to write about "systematic" reliability vs. "meta-systematic" reliability! For example, out of the categories you mentioned, some will come into conflict. 1/
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @SarahAMcManus @tasshinfogleman
Ex: A tense interaction happens just as you're about to leave for a meeting. "Ah, I have a need and opportunity for a deep, heartfelt, difficult, reconnecting conversation -- and if I do that, I'll be late for the meeting." What do you do? 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SarahAMcManus @tasshinfogleman
The answer depends on context, and on -- what are you trying to be highly reliable *at* and why? Coming from the idea of a "Highly Reliable Organization" / HRO -- see Managing the Unexpected book by Karl Weick: https://books.google.com/books?id=GU55MJOp1OcC … 3/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SarahAMcManus @tasshinfogleman
Sometimes, you want to be what I call "systematically reliable." Maybe you want to be on time because it's a context of low trust or low-bandwidth communication, where you're still building the groundwork for people to hear, "This is why I arrived after the agreed-on time." 4/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SarahAMcManus @tasshinfogleman
Sometimes, you want to be "meta-systematically reliable." You're willing to trade off on predictability at a lower level, to support integrity on a higher level of mission/value/purpose. People involved are able to hear why, and glad you did! 5/
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SarahAMcManus @tasshinfogleman
There's an excellent podcast by
@dthorson &@bonnittaroy on this! https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/emerge/e/56031971 … They explore predictable systems as having limited trust, what I call systematic trust. Constrained, contractual -- these systems limit options out of a fear of betrayal / defection. 6/1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @SarahAMcManus @tasshinfogleman and
They propose that some kinds of unpredictability can promote a deeper level of non-naive trust. I might not know what someone will do in a particular situation, but I trust that it will turn out to be in alignment with what we care about. 7/
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @SarahAMcManus @tasshinfogleman and
I think of this as Star Trek trust! The crew has no idea what Captain Picard might do when the alien parasites exploit a temporal anomaly to phase shift half the ship -- but they trust that he's acting out of a deep adaptive same-sidedness with their shared purpose and values. 8/
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @SarahAMcManus @tasshinfogleman and
Folks who might be interested in this thread -
@Malcolm_Ocean , @autotrnslucence ,@Meaningness ,@PicardTips3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I hope you write this up in more detail!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.