Hypertransparency Exposed
Posted June 22, 2011 by Dev Patnaik
Categories: Hybrid Thinkers
An interesting exchange of communication emblematic of work at Jump transpired yesterday afternoon. It’s an excellent example of hybrid thinking and how it thrives in a collaborative environment built around learning.
First, some context. I was milling around at the NY Forum yesterday after participating on a panel when Lance Knobel, the conference curator, approached me. Half-jokingly he informed me that he was going to have me fill in for a panelist who canceled last minute. Since all of Jump’s ideas come from interaction between teams of hybrid thinkers I quickly shot an email off to a few colleagues back in San Mateo for input.
In the spirit of transparency, here’s what happened:
Email from Dev, Tue 6/21/2011 3:01 pm PDT
Subject: 911
Tell me something smart about connecting in an age of hypertransparency. I have to speak on it in 5 minutes.
Email response from Peter at 3:04 pm PDT
Not entirely sure what that means, but my latest hypothesis is that, like all cultures are, online and social network cultures are by definition constructed. Therefore, the premise of hypertransparency is questionable. We have the illusion of transparency, and all that's clear is we're seeing how people wish to represent reality.
Also, you know, obvious phoniness in ham-handed fashion inevitably outs itself, so providing a steady stream of your version of reality is better than trying to hide or debunk.
But again, don't quite understand the topic. Going Geertz on them might be the best route.
Email response from Clynton at 3:05 pm PDT
It can be tempting to let the medium providing the transparency become the focus over the message. For example, twitter provides transparency into communications of a company but the medium is only good for certain types of communication. Similarly, the web is not a stand-in for face-to-face communication.
Email response from Conrad at 3:05 pm PDT
Hyper-transparency is bull. It’s actually harder to dig past the “public personas” that people now actively “manage.” Call it “ersatz transparency.”
Totally different point:
Hyper-transparency is a double-edged sword when it comes to connecting. It provides ice breakers gleaned “asynchronously” (Saw on Facebook you went to Laos. Amazing!) But it also robs you of those same topics of conversation in some ways, because you already feel “caught up” (Laos. Got it. What else?)
Talking Point 3:
For corporations and people in power, it’s more nuanced than we give it credit for. Yes, two-way, not one-way. Yes, be authentic and open. But there’s more to it than that. Weiner’s not a stupid man. There’s something deep-seated that happens. I’m sure you’ll figure out what by the time you read this.
Besides the fact that it shows the strength of my bench at Jump, what I love about these responses is how hybrid they are. Hypertransparency, like so many ambiguous problems in the world today, is not just a technology issue. To understand it we must pull from history, the social sciences, and even economics.
Now, more than ever, this world needs people who can connect what has traditionally been different fields of thought. And it doesn’t hurt to have folks with mobile phones who can respond in 4 minutes.
First, some context. I was milling around at the NY Forum yesterday after participating on a panel when Lance Knobel, the conference curator, approached me. Half-jokingly he informed me that he was going to have me fill in for a panelist who canceled last minute. Since all of Jump’s ideas come from interaction between teams of hybrid thinkers I quickly shot an email off to a few colleagues back in San Mateo for input.
In the spirit of transparency, here’s what happened:
Email from Dev, Tue 6/21/2011 3:01 pm PDT
Subject: 911
Tell me something smart about connecting in an age of hypertransparency. I have to speak on it in 5 minutes.
Email response from Peter at 3:04 pm PDT
Not entirely sure what that means, but my latest hypothesis is that, like all cultures are, online and social network cultures are by definition constructed. Therefore, the premise of hypertransparency is questionable. We have the illusion of transparency, and all that's clear is we're seeing how people wish to represent reality.
Also, you know, obvious phoniness in ham-handed fashion inevitably outs itself, so providing a steady stream of your version of reality is better than trying to hide or debunk.
But again, don't quite understand the topic. Going Geertz on them might be the best route.
Email response from Clynton at 3:05 pm PDT
It can be tempting to let the medium providing the transparency become the focus over the message. For example, twitter provides transparency into communications of a company but the medium is only good for certain types of communication. Similarly, the web is not a stand-in for face-to-face communication.
Email response from Conrad at 3:05 pm PDT
Hyper-transparency is bull. It’s actually harder to dig past the “public personas” that people now actively “manage.” Call it “ersatz transparency.”
Totally different point:
Hyper-transparency is a double-edged sword when it comes to connecting. It provides ice breakers gleaned “asynchronously” (Saw on Facebook you went to Laos. Amazing!) But it also robs you of those same topics of conversation in some ways, because you already feel “caught up” (Laos. Got it. What else?)
Talking Point 3:
For corporations and people in power, it’s more nuanced than we give it credit for. Yes, two-way, not one-way. Yes, be authentic and open. But there’s more to it than that. Weiner’s not a stupid man. There’s something deep-seated that happens. I’m sure you’ll figure out what by the time you read this.
Besides the fact that it shows the strength of my bench at Jump, what I love about these responses is how hybrid they are. Hypertransparency, like so many ambiguous problems in the world today, is not just a technology issue. To understand it we must pull from history, the social sciences, and even economics.
Now, more than ever, this world needs people who can connect what has traditionally been different fields of thought. And it doesn’t hurt to have folks with mobile phones who can respond in 4 minutes.
Post a Comment
Comments
Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of Jump Associates, but only of the comment writer. Personal attacks, offensive language and unsubstantiated allegations are not allowed. To report any abuse, click here.
Author
Dev Patnaik is the CEO and Managing Associate of Jump. He is a trusted adviser to senior executives at some of world’s most admired companies.
RSS
Thanks Johnathan. Good points and I think you're right. Reflecting on which attributes we inherently choose to portray in our social networks sounds like a telling and worthwhile activity.
This article left me with a thought I wanted to articulate. I assume that a false reality would be something similar to what occurs in The Matrix when the main characters plug back in and are shown as the ideal representation of themselves. I think that the idea that people create a false reality on their social networking sights speaks more clearly about social interaction than originally thought. In different situations humans are dynamic enough to take on different persona. In terms of social networking we probably pick a few traits that we think best represent ourselves on a social networking sight, just like how we might change our opinions in a conversation given our perception of the audience. In this case social networking speaks rather directly to our inherent need to represent ourselves so that we can connect with other groups of people.
Thanks Olivia. Yes, these are interesting times for sure. I think it’s just as important for us to assess our motives for hypertransparency as it is to judge the impact it will have on everyone involved. Are we out to “get someone back” or push forward the thinking that will get us closer to a better society?
Thanks for the comment Henrik. The internet and ability to communicate with one another around the world certainly influences us in profound ways and can fuel hybrid thinking. As with any technology, though, there can be a downside. We need to remember to step back from it all and let the big picture emerge sometimes.
The most immediate type of hypertransparency is Weinergate, Arnold's love child and Wikileaks. For the public, hypertransparency allows us to vent a secret need for justice or personal vendettas where we can "out" the previously protected elite. On a mental level, it changes our perceptions and beliefs because individuals cannot avoid accountability. On a universal level, it represents balance, leveraging the gap between the "have's" and the "have nots."
Great example of hybrid thinking, connecting the various inputs. And as you point out, mobile and instant communication is a key factor that strengthens the hybrid process.
I am writing this on my iPad, sitting in a bus in the Stockholm archipelago, 9 time zones away...
Midsummer greetings from Sweden!