This framework performs a similar function to Cynefin, but instead of describing domains of complexity, this field of responsibility helps us describe the different kinds of responsibility we recognize as having a legitimate impact on our decisions and behaviour.
Aug 21, 2022·edited Aug 21, 2022Liked by Justin Tauber
Thank you Justin, intrigued by the idea of a ‘field’ where (as I read the thought) responsibility acts as lens as well as organising principle.
What I feel you’ve provided here are categories that imply certain dynamics, without getting into those dynamics just yet?
I found your aside concerning Corporate values as being ‘aspirational’ interesting. Wondering if corporations, (particularly, perhaps, less mechanical and more service oriented corporations) are, in their entirety, aspirational? And with humans involved I guess they need, in some sense, to be emergent. If emergent (and intentional), how and on what terms do we negotiate coining and shifting commitment? Who authors? How do we create anything new? Does the overarching, pervasive glue of corporate story-telling need to keep shifting and informing itself of its emerging reality? What is the role of force (ability to delimit alternatives, options) in relation to such narrative and the locations of roles, acts and esteem it affords? I feel that somewhere in these questions we find ourselves and others on terms we find acceptable, or not.
Looking forward to thinking about how one might use your framework to think about such dynamics, many thanks!
I’m sure you’re right about the need for continuous storytelling to stay connected to an emergent, dynamic reality.
Which made me think of another point I was going to make - that individuals probably treat one or some of these dimensions as more real than others. When as an individual you’re forced to conform to responsibilities that don’t make sense (normatively) - well, I think that’s when we cry “bullshit!”
Thank you Justin, intrigued by the idea of a ‘field’ where (as I read the thought) responsibility acts as lens as well as organising principle.
What I feel you’ve provided here are categories that imply certain dynamics, without getting into those dynamics just yet?
I found your aside concerning Corporate values as being ‘aspirational’ interesting. Wondering if corporations, (particularly, perhaps, less mechanical and more service oriented corporations) are, in their entirety, aspirational? And with humans involved I guess they need, in some sense, to be emergent. If emergent (and intentional), how and on what terms do we negotiate coining and shifting commitment? Who authors? How do we create anything new? Does the overarching, pervasive glue of corporate story-telling need to keep shifting and informing itself of its emerging reality? What is the role of force (ability to delimit alternatives, options) in relation to such narrative and the locations of roles, acts and esteem it affords? I feel that somewhere in these questions we find ourselves and others on terms we find acceptable, or not.
Looking forward to thinking about how one might use your framework to think about such dynamics, many thanks!
Thanks for the comment, Faruk
I’m sure you’re right about the need for continuous storytelling to stay connected to an emergent, dynamic reality.
Which made me think of another point I was going to make - that individuals probably treat one or some of these dimensions as more real than others. When as an individual you’re forced to conform to responsibilities that don’t make sense (normatively) - well, I think that’s when we cry “bullshit!”