Trust as Vulnerability

I recently came across a study on Trust and Influence in Combat published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology in 2009 (Vol 1, pp 235-264) . There are a number of interesting points which caught my eye so I will use my next few posts to delve into them.

For this study the authors, Patrick Sweeney, Vaida Thompson, and Hart Blanton, use a definition of trust in an organizational setting which was proposed by Morton Deutsch in 1958 - one’s willingness to be vulnerable to another group member’s actions.

Trust as vulnerability struck me as being a very practical definition since we often see signs of mistrust on teams such as withholding information or lack of engagement in fulfilling the goals of the team. It seems to me that these team members would be more open and engaged if they were comfortable with being vulnerable with either the team leader or other team members or both. Sweeney, et al, suggest that in such a case the team member may not be confident that the team leader or other team member will behave cooperatively and that they feel no real measure of interdependence within the team. They reference work by Kelley and Thibaut which stresses the need for “developing trust through a reciprocating cycle in which each partner in a relationship acts to reduce the other’s fear of exploitation and to show that the relationship will be rewarding.”

Our firm is presently participating in a beta test of an instrument which will operationalize the concepts in Patrick Lencioni’s book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. Trust is the foundational behavior in his model and his attention to vulnerability seems to mirror Deutsch’s definition.

Lencioni addresses vulnerability as a willingness to be open with one another about their mistakes and weaknesses. Obviously, if you do this you are opening yourself up to a series of actions by others on the team. Their responses to you will most likely be a part of the “reciprocating cycle” which either develops or destroys trust. If they are accepting and supportive you will probably risk more in the future and increase your vulnerability. If they are not, you will probably be less open in the future.

Once again I am seeing a key element of the DISC model I am researching - ACCEPTANCE. Personally I will be much more likely to be OPEN with my feelings as well as my mistakes and weaknesses if I know others will accept me with all of these limitations. I will also tend to be more STAIGHTFORWARD with others if I know they are willing to vulnerable as well.


The Social Context of Trust

Sartre pointed out that we humans are "first of all beings in a situation. We cannot be distinguished from our situations, for they form us and decide our possibilities."

As I look at trust in the workplace I am reminded by this quote that context will be very important. We often think our behaviors are fairly stable. We know who we are and we act consistently, especially in team settings. The problem is that our intentions are not always the actual behavior seen by those around us and, furthermore, our behavior in one situation may be altered in another similar one where the context is different.

Philip Zimbardo, in the now famous Stanford Prison Experiment, tested his situational hypothesis and proved the power of a situation. Think of this as the power of a role. Using a theatre metaphor, our behavior can be strongly influenced by our audience, our costume, the director, a stage manager, and the role itself. On a team the audience would be the other team members, the costume might be a uniform, the director could be a higher level manager, the stage manager a customer, and the role created by social norms or company policy.

So what does this have to do with trust in the workplace? If trust can be defined by the behavioral components of straightforwardness, openness, acceptance, and reliability then my use of any of these behaviors might be altered by the situation. I might work very hard to develop all four of these in my relationships but find myself either acting contrary to one or more or being perceived by my audience as doing so as they filter my behavior through the context in which we both exist at the moment.


Virtual Teams: Extra Challenge

I just came across what looks to be a good resource on virtual teams. We will be leading a discussion on that topic next week and this got me thinking about the extra challenge virtual teams will bring to building trust. Since trust is all about relationships,going virtual adds a new dimension to the practice. Communication will need special attention since there are few if any visual cues in many virtual teams.

Here is the resource I found:

Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools, and Techniques That Succeed, 3rd Edition, Revised and Expanded

Deborah L. Duarte, Nancy Tennant Snyder

 


The Johari Window - Good Tool to Discuss Openness

We have used the JoHari window for many years in teaching the DiSC Model of Behavior but I haven't considered it before as a tool to help teams deal with trust.  As explained in this article on MindTools, the JoHari window can be an excellent process to help people understand the importance of Openness on a team.

I can see using it with a 360 feedback project as well to help people understand the value of 360 feeedback and how they can deal with the information.  The Blind Spot in the model is often opened up a good bit when reading comments made by raters and the Hidden (of Mask as we call it) area in the model can be opened up a bit when the subject of 360 feedback realizes that intentions are not often seen in behavior and that they may need to be communicated more openly.

So, Openness in the basic Trust Model can be explained and enhanced using the JoHari Window.  I need to explore this further.


The Impact of Culture on Trust

I am currently in the last stage of a 360 feedback project with a new client organization.  Because the leader of the organization had participated in a similar project at his previous organization I felt he could manage the communication for the project and create a culture where trust was strong enough to provide honest feedback to the subjects of the project.  I was wrong.  

After a number of the respondents contacted me with conerns, it became obvious that I should have taken more control of the project.  360 feedback only works well when the subjects are open to receiving feedback and the raters are trusting the process enough to be straightforward in their comments and ratings.  When someone is concerned that the IT department will be able to use their password to look at the ratings and that honest feedback may result in retribution, the validity of the project is in question.

I bring this up because it hightens the need to pay attention to culture.  A colleague has pointed out to me that culture eats strategy every time. And where does culture come from?  It comes from human behavior played out on a daily basis.  Hence, my search for a simple model of behavior that can be applied by anyone every day to build trust in a work group.

The DiSC model is what we use in our work to enhance teamwork and to build basic leadership skills. Since organizations have a behavioral culture created by whichever style is predominent, it makes sense to consider this impact on trust.

In the DiSC Culture Report provided by Inscape Publishing I find these gems which point to the four trust behaviors I have been exploring:

* The "D" culture gives trust to those who are direct and straightforward;

* The "i" culture gives trust to those who are open and expressive;

* The "S" culture give trust to those who are sincere and considerate;

* The "C" culture requires that trust be earned.

D - Straightforward; i - Open; S - Accepting; C - Reliable.  Not exact, but very close.

If you are not familiar with the DiSC Model you can find basic information on our website at this link - http://teamapproach.com/discprofile.asp


The Things We Mistrust

On the cover of Trust Me, the author, William Morin, provides a list of phrases we often hear from friends and work colleagues that just don't ring true.  They seem to become the conventional wisdom of "mistrust".  How many of these do you cringe at when you hear them?

  • I'll call you
  • My door is always open
  • The check is in the mail
  • We're ust one, big, happy family
  • You can count on me
  • Looks good to me
  • It won't hurt a bit
  • I'd like to share something with you
  • I'll take care of it
  • We're in this together
  • It'll all work out
  • I'm listening
  • I'll get back to you
  • I really appreciate it
  • I know exactly how you feel
  • I won't tell anyone
  • I'll pay you back
  • You look fabulous
  • I promise
  • I love that tie
  • Stop by anytime
  • You haven't changed a bit
  • Don't worry, it's all right
  • Your secret's safe with me

What is it about our relationships with others that brings up a feeling of mistrust when we hear these words?  Have we all been burned so often? How do we change our behavior so we can be more trusting?

Of the four elements of trust I have been researching, it appears that this list is primarily made up of times when someone was not reliable or not being straightforward. This would suggest to me that one way to move foward when experiencing these situations would be to use one of the other elements as a response.  For example:

Openness - be open with your feelings when someone is not reliable and make sure that he or she is tuned in to those feelings.

Acceptance - some examples on the list may come from the other person's attempt to "be nice" and to not hurt your feelings in some way. Accepting the person for who they are could later provide an opportunity to encourage them to be more straightforward in their communication.

While the four behavioral elements of trust don't tell the complete story, they can go a long way in building a foundation for building trusting relationships in all aspects of our lives.


Digging into books on the topic of trust

I have begun collecting books that have been written on the topic of trust and I'm very surprised at how few there seem to be.  Most other subjects we follow in our work - e.g. Leadership, Engagement, Teambuilding, etc. - have hundreds, if not thousands of books to review.  Many of the concepts we have built into our training and coaching sessions have come from the works of other authors.  So why are there so few on the topic of trust?  That might be something I will discover during this journey.

Here is a list of books on my shelf in order of publication date:

1978: Trust - Jack R. Gibb

1990: Trust Me - William J. Morin

1994: The Trust Factor - John O. Whitney

1998: Building Trust: A Manager's Guide For Business Success - Mary Galbreath Shurtleff

2000: Building Trust at the Speed of Change - Edward M. Marshall

2001: Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life - Robert C. Solomon and Fernando Flores

2002: Building Trust: How to Get It! How to Keep It! - Hyler Bracey, PhD

2002: The Trusted Leader - Robert Galford and Anne Seibold Drapeau

2003: How Could You? Kids Talk About Trust - Nancy Loewen

2006: Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace - Dennis S. Reina, PhD and Michelle L. Reina, PhD

2006: The Speed of Trust - Stephen M.R. Covey

2009: The Thin Book of Trust

2009: The Truth About Trust in Business - Vanessa Hall

2011: A slice of Trust - David Hutchens and Barry Rellaford

In addition to the books, I am collecting articles found on the web.  Not a very big bibliography so far.  I "trust" it will grow over time.  If you know of a book I have missed, or an article that would help, please let me know.

I will also post other blogs I find and have started curating with the help of Scoop It!

 


Where does trust come from?

Seth's Blog: Where does trust come from?.
Seth Godin is a thought leader who often finds a simple way to approach difficult topics.  Here he picks up on two of the behaviors I am researching regarding trust in the workplace: reliability and straightforwardness. What struck me was his emphasis on the importance of displaying these behaviors when it might have been easy not to. Seeing "Every tough time and every pressured project (as) another opportunity to earn the trust of someone you care about" is great advice and perhaps the way to rebuild trust when it has been damaged or lost.

Starting with Respect

“Friendship- my definition- is built on two things. Respect and trust. Both elements have to be there. And it has to be mutual. You can have respect for someone, but if you don't have trust, the friendship will crumble."

(Mikael Blomkvist)” 

Stieg Larsson, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

I found this quote on the Goodreads website this morning and began to think about the relationship between respect and trust. I like what Stieg Larsson is saying here since we do a lot of work with teams using the DiSC Model of Behavior and always make the point that respecting the behavioral differences found in work teams is key to enhancing team performance. Is it possible that this is also a good place to start when helping teams build trust among the team members? Obvously he is separating the two elements in this quote but I think there is a relationship.

This quote also raises the question about having friends at work. How far should you go in developing workplace friendships? For example, a CNN article titled,"Are your friends at work hurting your career", suggests caution in this regard while a more recent Fortune article takes the oposite view:

Recent research finds that people who initiate office friendships, pick up slack for their co-workers, and organize workplace social activities are 40% more likely to get a promotion in the subsequent two years. "How much you give at work directly affects how much you get at work," says Shawn Achor, author of The Happiness Advantage: The Seven Principles of Positive Psychology That Fuel Success and Performance at Work.

In his research, Achor divides individuals into quartiles based on how much they provide this kind of social support to colleagues. Work altruists, the top 25%, give the most, while work isolators, the bottom 25%, provide the least. Work altruists report significantly higher job satisfaction and feel 10 times more engaged by work than people in the lowest quartile.

Even before the positive psychology movement picked up on this principle, Tom Rath, in Vital Friends, used extensive data to show that having a best friend at work is strongly correlated with increased productivity, positive engagement with customers, innovation and loyalty.

So, could there be a strong link between friendship at work and workplace trust? And, does it all begin with respecting the differences in others? If so, what is the best way to help people respect each other? Once again I believe using DiSC instruments can go a long way in this regard.


First Look at The Elements of Trust

I guess the first time I was introduced to the behavioral aspects of Trust was at a conference of Carlson Learning Company distributors in 1994 - at least that is the date of the first recording of the trust model I could find.

A consultant by the name of Johan Cronje from South Africa was presenting a session on team building in which he outlined a trust model which could be very closely correlated with the DiSC model of behavior. The model he showed us was originally developed by a firm named Integro and he referenced a man by the name of Jack Gibbs.  I have since located a book on trust by Jack Gibbs but he doesn't present the model in that book.

The basic concept as it relates to trust on a team is that the four behaviors: Congruence (Straightforwardness), Openness, Acceptance, and Reliabiity all have to be present in order for team members to trust each other. Using DiSC we are able to identify which of these behaviors will be natural for us to exhibit and which will take more intention on our part.

The four behaviors were summarized this way:

Straightforwardness - exhibited by those with strong D tendencies

  • Adequate confrontation
  • Method of conflict resolution
  • Team self-discipline
  • Adequate analysis of error
  • Lack of "hidden agendas"
  • Clarifying expectations
  • Clarifying intentions

Openness - exhibited by those with strong i tendencies

  • Adequate access to others
  • Adequate meetings: frequency and quality
  • Keeping involved people informed
  • Telling people more than they need to know
  • Not having secrets
  • Giving people an overview of the larger picture
  • Telling feelings as well as data
  • Giving and asking feedback 

Acceptance - exhibited by those with strong S tendencies

  • Mutual respect for roles and expertise
  • Respect for differences (ideas, values, lifestyles)
  • Leadership rotates to the task competent
  • Members have input into decisions
  • People listen to each other
  • Allow errors
  • Allow logic and emotion/feeling to be expressed

Reliability - exhibited by those with strong C tendencies

  • Consistent consequences - rewards and punishments
  • Meeting commitments
  • Support when you need it
  • Taking responsibility for actions and decisions
  • Adequate rituals - e.g. celebration, mourning, greeting/departure, etc.
  • Team loyalty
  • Being punctual

I have been intrigued by this approach ever since hearing that presentation. A major inquiry during my examination of the story of trust will be to find out how true this model is in everyday life and, if it is, how we can use it in building more effective relatioships.