discussing trust is like nailing jelly to a wall
I was recently challenged by a reader of my blog on designing for trust, that my approach is too rational, too cerebral and did not consider the emotional aspects of trust. This was a fair challenge as I had presented the idea of trust as an equation and explored how you can use the trust equation to build trust when building your team.
Over many years the topic of trust and trusted working relationships has emerged in my work. In the early days I found that I, and those I worked with, struggled to have a fruitful dialogue as we viewed the topic from different directions. We all held different beliefs of what trust is, how it is defined, how it is built and sustained, and how trust can be broken. These differences got in the way, rather than helped move us along.
A Google Scholar search on “define trust” doesn’t help either as it provided nearly 4 million responses.
The trust equation is simply a model. And as George Box wrote “all models are wrong but some are useful”. They serve a useful purpose to provide a common language to what might otherwise be a “fluffy” subject. They provide a foundation from which a dialogue can take place, otherwise it can feel like nailing jelly to a wall.
how a model can trigger an emotional conversation
Recently I worked with a global functional leadership team. As I usually do, I interviewed each member of the team before a 2-day off site. A recurring word that was used during my interviews was trust, however when I probed further what emerged were quite different interpretations of what trust meant.
At our offsite I shared the trust equation and asked each person to self-reflect on the following two questions:
- What have I experienced of the team (not another individual) that has contributed to or undermined trust using the elements of the equation?
- What do I feel I have done that may have grown or undermined trust using the elements of the equation?
All models are wrong but some are useful
I then asked each person, in turn and uninterrupted, to share the example that had the greatest impact on them. The equation created a common framework for reflection and feedback.
The resulting dialogue brought together both the rational and emotional. There was a strong belief that colleagues on the team are highly competent and experienced professionals. Individually and collectively the team is seen as credible in their field of expertise. Pretty rational so far.
On the whole the team felt that each member is also reliable, following through on commitments. However, some leave things to the last minute, and one person occasionally lets non critical deadlines slip. We used this as a trigger to explore how those who prefer a more planned and predictable approach to work feel when things are left to the last minute. Vice versa, those who prefer a more ‘last minute’ way of working feel when others are chasing for updates. We also explored how the reputation, and in turn, trust of the team externally is impacted by how others view the team as reliable, or not. Starting to get into feelings.
The reality was we moved through these first two elements quite quickly. Most of the examples brought to the table focused on intimacy or self-orientation. For example, how was information being used and shared across the team. Smaller group meetings taking place that others were not always aware of. Involving some people on projects and not others. Individuals with an agreed area of expertise being overly questioned by others, bordering on an interrogation. We discovered that this list point was rather a way of masking other held anxieties about the topic on the table.
Whilst the lines may have been blurred and we bounced around between intimacy and self-orientation, the ensuing discussion was clearly emotional. Feelings of abandonment, exclusion, favouritism, anxiousness all surfaced.
We also explored examples where trust grew. This was achieved by offers of help. Before key decisions were being taken making sure those team members impacted were in the room. Showing genuine care when workloads rapidly grew. Team colleagues being available for coaching and providing quality feedback to each other.
The most important element in discussing trust is the dialogue. Whether between individuals, within or across teams, or entire organisations, it is the respectful and open dialogue that will make the difference – not an equation.
in conclusion....
Our session was planned for 90min. It lasted well over 2 hours as the team shared, listened, reflected, explored and agreed on new ways of working that would contribute to building trust. We were able to use the trust equation to build trust.
As one participant mentioned at the end of our session, with a tissue in hand: “On previous workshops when we talk about trust we just go around in circles. This made sense and gave us a way to talk with each other rather than at cross purposes”.
The most important element in discussing trust is the dialogue. Whether between individuals, within or across teams, or entire organisations, it is the respectful and open dialogue that will make the difference – not an equation.
The trust equation to build trust
Curious about building trust?
Contact us today to find out how Nexi Consulting can support you and your teams.
Contact Us