HIGH TRUST GROUPS
Pattern completeness
Incomplete *
PATTERN Category
- STRATEGY
summary
Focus on trust-building between key players.
Argumentation
A project is like a tree without strong and deep roots, it will fall down after the first storm. Trust and mutual understanding between participants are the most essential roots of a collective project.
Trust is an essential part of effective collaboration. Without it, most groups fall apart. However, we are often naive in how we design for trust.
Therefore, invest a lot of time to build to build mutual understanding and trust between participants. No matter how sophisticated your design, high trust.
High-trust groups are about forgiveness. Low-trust groups are about permission.
In low-trust groups, people fear that they won’t be properly represented and that others won’t make good decisions on their own, so they insist on being part of every decision. Decision-making is often time-consuming and ineffective as a result. These groups often try to compensate by adding more rigid, formal governance structures.
There are two ways to navigate around this. The first is to remember that there are other ways to invest in trust beyond building new structures — specifically, investing in relationships. The second is to think more intentionally and creatively about the structures you build.
Invest in relationships first, then design structures that reinforce, rather than replace, trust. When you design for trust, the results are often simpler and more elegant (and sometimes counter-intuitive). These designs give up control rather than assert it, resulting in greater agility and higher quality.
Trust is an essential part of effective collaboration. Without it, most groups fall apart. However, we are often naive in how we design for trust.
Therefore, invest a lot of time to build to build mutual understanding and trust between participants. No matter how sophisticated your design, high trust.
High-trust groups are about forgiveness. Low-trust groups are about permission.
In low-trust groups, people fear that they won’t be properly represented and that others won’t make good decisions on their own, so they insist on being part of every decision. Decision-making is often time-consuming and ineffective as a result. These groups often try to compensate by adding more rigid, formal governance structures.
There are two ways to navigate around this. The first is to remember that there are other ways to invest in trust beyond building new structures — specifically, investing in relationships. The second is to think more intentionally and creatively about the structures you build.
Invest in relationships first, then design structures that reinforce, rather than replace, trust. When you design for trust, the results are often simpler and more elegant (and sometimes counter-intuitive). These designs give up control rather than assert it, resulting in greater agility and higher quality.
References
- Kim, E.E. (2014) Investing in and Designing for Trust http://fasterthan20.com/2014/08/investing-in-and-designing-for-trust/
- Marseault, L. Personal communication
Linked patterns (Larger or smaller patterns)
- VARIOUS FACILITATION METHODS
- NARRATIVE TECHNICS
- MEAL SHARING
- ICEBREAKERS