On Trust and Guilt

Still, it is unclear exactly why accountability is required for a Mentorship/Advisor Method, as there remain the possible notions of guilt and distrust when delegating tasks and skills. A thought experiment might help inform this dilemma: 

(i) Jeff has a close, medium-sized group of friends. They’ve told him that it’s his turn to pay for lunch this week (after a delicious feast). (ii) Before this lunch, some friends had expressed that “they always have to pay”; and that it “isn’t fair” to put all of the burden on just a couple of individuals, so they needed a solution for their group. (iii) As a group, they’ve now decided on a rotating schedule for who pays for lunch each week; to evenly balance costs among each other. (iv) On Jeff’s end, he has been informed of this by a couple of his friends, say his best friends. For the sake of the group, Jeff now has an informed responsibility for his contribution to this week’s lunch. We have two outcomes: (c1) Jeff flakes and does not pay. He feels guilty and his friends lose trust in him after he has committed to the schedule. (c2) Jeff holds to his commitment to equality and pays his fair share. He feels no guilt and this builds trust with his friends, based on his actions. 

What this thought experiment is meant to demonstrate is a few things. (i), Jeff has strong relationships with his friends, and the held stake in the group causes any failures to create guilt. (ii), after a chaotic non-system of failing to distribute money evenly; it was clear that there needed to be a system to mitigate and repair the previous wrongs. (iii), the responsibility was diffused among all friends; rather than pressuring a few individuals. (iv), that from clear, concise, communication from his best friends; Jeff has an informed responsibility to his friends to pay. Because of the violation at every level (i - iv), it’s clear that (c1) is logically deduced from the former premises. (c2) is also logically deduced from its failures to violate (i - iv). Bringing our topic regarding organizing bacnhk into the frame, it is true that accountability can create guilt. But if we hold a more complex view of accountability with (i - iv) in mind, we can refer to this concept as a “Complex View of Accountability” (CVA). With this more nuanced approach, the problems and solutions of accountability become clear.

First, it is a perennial task to form deep and broad relationships in an organization; it is required for consistent accountability. In line with CVA, with no relationships comes no real reason to invest in any group or organization; aside from ideological commitment. Secondly, to effectively create broad and deep relationships there must be organization-wide, systematic measures that build and maintain them; effectively to ensure every member has a stake, not just a select few. Again, CVA arises here as we can see the system was necessary in (ii-iii) to prevent non-system chaos. Thirdly, responsibilities must be delegated and informed, otherwise, the same chaos occurs as in (ii); again bringing about intuitions of CVA once again. Lastly and most importantly, when (c2) is enacted with the former recommendation, it really can eliminate guilt and build trust.

One final thing we’d like to touch on is individual circumstance (IC). Based on the thought experiment, it isn’t clear how to grapple with this factor. In any group-based effort, one must measure ICs to adjust tasks, skill learning, and care based on ICs. The point is, that the work delegated won’t always be equal, but it will be equitable. This formulation of an equitable CVA can be finally formulated as CVA*. CVA* holds that accountability is important for any group function, as any collective effort requires CVA* to be nurtured and built up. So far, we’ve spent much time pontificating on philosophical notions of accountability, trust, and guilt; yet further reasoning is needed to explain why a collective effort (rather than a small, “vanguard” of dedicated activists) is essential.