Trust — Why it’s the Key to a Healthy Culture and How to Maximise it.
Quotes from luminaries are rarely a good way to start an article. It’s just a bit uninspired, perhaps demonstrating a lack of original thought. But trust me, I have given this some thought.
Our experience of trust can be summed up by two bearded writers, whose lives overlapped by one year, and both of whom, paradoxically, seemed to struggle with certain aspect of social norms. Ernest Hemingway said, “The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.” Whilst Friedrich Nietzsche said “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”
Taking a quote out of context is often unwise, but combined, these quotes reflect a number of core truths about trust. That both parties have to take a leap of faith, and that they both, ultimately, want to trust the other. That trust, like resilience, is only really formed through experience, and sometimes that experience may not be entirely positive. And that once lost, or not sufficiently established, regaining trust can be almost impossible.
Why Trust?
Humans have to trust. Without it (along with a few other attributes), our species wouldn’t have dominated the planet. Trust is how families merged to become settlements and villages, villages became towns and cities and nations. Trust underpins trade, which in turn has fed the growth of communities, saw ideas and cultures mingle, and societies advance. Whilst punitive measures and fear might be effective at forcing people to be honest and fair in the short-term, in the long-term honesty, shared values and cooperation has proven to be both safer, more reliable and more constructive.
Trust is so important to human development that many aspects of what is trustworthy have become instinctive. Gestures and expressions that betray intent are subconsciously (and consciously) displayed and detected. People that behave in certain ways may not be immediately trusted, whilst those that mirror our own ways may be considered more dependable. Culture and background as well as psychology can have a big effect on who someone trusts. In a meeting between two individuals, trust can then either be nurtured or damaged by a range of behaviours.
Trust is what enables one person to work with another towards a shared goal, pooling their resources whilst knowing the other will behave in a way that is equally, although perhaps differently, committed. It makes for a balance of altruism and selfishness whereby both parties gain from the exercise and the overall result is greater than the sum of the parts. There is good evidence to suggest that trust within working environments also sees greater levels of engagement, enthusiasm, job and life satisfaction, and productivity.
In Science We Trust
Neuroscience has identified levels of oxytocin, the neuropeptide linked to positive interpersonal and social relationships, as having a direct bearing on trust. Higher levels of oxytocin are typically seen to positively influence generosity and cooperation. The hormone is seen at higher levels in secure, loving relationships, and when artificially administered it has seen subjects become more generous and trusting. As such, fostering the key promoters of oxytocin — pro-social or altruistic behaviours, empathy, positive communication and reflection — will also establish a trusting relationship. Conversely, hierarchical or formal interactions will inhibit oxytocin production, as, importantly, do high levels of stress.
If the aim is to build trust, or a trusting environment, it’s important, therefore, to also place trust within a range of supportive interactions and behaviours. In the workplace this has significant implications for everything from recruitment to communications, internal structures and learning and development.
Trust, and specifically a crisis of trust, has become a hot topic over the last decade. Media, big tech, politics, banks — all have become seen as untrustworthy in some way, and often with good reason. The financial crisis in particular posed some serious questions about trust. Trust in large, complex institutions and structures that seem to be specifically designed to minimise transparency and accountability. But also trust in those who worked alongside them and were supposed to scrutinise and regulate them. The financial crisis, easily reduced to a good versus bad narrative, and coinciding with the rise of social media, is often identified as the start of a crisis of trust.
Considering the way in which many of these institutions operate, or appear to operate, it’s no surprise people doubt their motives. Many have internal structures that separate groups and individuals into silos or specialisms, frequently setting them against each other in competition. They often have steep hierarchies. Even those that do go some way towards fostering trust within have a problem with their wider reputations. Political, tech and financial institutions are often so big and powerful that they dehumanise those on the outside. Their role as influencers in society, rather than just as employers, is where trust really breaks down. The impact of this on everything from fake news and ‘alternative facts’ to a new wave of online activism has become very clear.
In psychology, research suggests that an individual with a reputation as someone who shares, contributes, and puts in the effort can have a big and long-lasting effect on whether others want to associate with them, give them time, or work alongside them. Equally, a poor reputation in these areas means a reluctance to deal with them can be very hard to shake.
Two Types of Trust
Whether it’s in a social or a professional setting, few meaningful, valuable relationships can advance very far without trust. Trust requires empathy, curiosity and respect. But how is trust really built, and can it be built in a better or quicker way?
We talk of building trust. Things can be built quickly or slowly, hastily or methodically, haphazardly or to a plan. Both can result in something substantial, productive even, but one is much more likely to stand the test of time.
There are two levels of trust, related, but separate. In some circumstances only the first may be possible or even appropriate. But we should always strive for, or at least consider working towards the second.
It’s well known that Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow labelled two types of thinking — System 1 (quick, impulsive, emotional thinking) and System 2 (slower, rational, calculated thinking). This way of seeing the mind has influenced a great deal of analysis of behaviour, decision-making and social interaction, and can also be applied to the subject of trust.
There is an emotional, System 1 sort of trust that is important in everyday interactions. Whilst a System 2 type of trust can be more reliable and desirable, it also requires more time and potentially effort.
The first form of trust is a transactional form of trust. It can be built quickly but may not last or stand up to real pressure. It is the sort of trust, however, that enables you to get through the everyday. The trust that people and organisations will do what they say on a basic level. It is also the foundation of the second, more robust, form of trust — relational trust. The sort of trust that can withstand severe challenges or difficult requests. That doesn’t demand one party instantly repay the efforts of the other.
Transactional trust is usually the starting point to any relationship and without it relational trust either won’t form at all, or will take much longer to form. So getting it right matters. Fundamentally, and perhaps frustratingly, trust cannot be abbreviated. There’s no quick trust fix. But there are ways to go more directly towards trust, or to ensure a fertile ground in which trust can grow more quickly and securely.
Building Trust Efficiently
We have busy lives. We want to trust and be trusted, but establishing credentials of trust whilst also understanding those of another party is time consuming. Familiarity with some basics will help focus on improving skills and behaviours to make sure transactional trust is build swiftly and effectively, before looking at wider, longer-term relational and cultural trust.
In the language of politics it’s common to look at the three cornerstones of persuasion (according to Aristotle) — ethos, pathos and logos, or credibility, emotion and reason. To effectively (and honestly) persuade, one should be trusted and trusting. So it’s reasonable to say that trust also relies on credibility, empathy and judgement, with the addition of a fourth element, consistency.
Most of these can only be established over time and with multiple interactions, both direct and indirect. Undertaking a few key behaviours, however, will navigate a more direct route towards trust without it being forced or insincere. These behaviours are straightforward, relationship-building fundamentals. They will establish trust in the short-term, providing a potential foundation for a longer, more productive relational trust.
Demeanour: Use open and welcoming gestures (even on Zoom) without being over the top.
Frequently look someone in the eye, although beware that fixing a stare for more than three seconds may come across as threatening or arrogant (although that may not be the case if you’re interacting virtually).
Adopt a calm tone. Exuberant passion for a subject can instil a form a trust — trust that you care and that you know your subject, but it can be overwhelming.
Use language appropriate to the other person, situation and level of knowledge.
Consider ‘mirroring’ the other party, using occasional words or gestures that they use — but again, don’t go too far.
Actions: in some situations it’s appropriate to take notes. It shows you care what is being said, but be sure you’re not just taking notes and your interlocutor isn’t just watching you scribble.
Don’t be distracted (easier said than done if you’re working from home). Try to minimise distractions by banishing phones, picking the right place and time of day.
Don’t interrupt others, and undertake ‘deep listening’ (in short, allowing them to speak fully, summarising and reflecting back your understanding, and asking if you’ve missed anything).
Questions: particularly in one-to-one interactions prepare and think about questions in advance, but more importantly, use open follow-up questions. It highlights genuine interest in the other party and demonstrates you value and trust them and their input.
Clarity: a clear goal, openly and honestly shared upfront, and, importantly discussing why the goal matters. Even if it feels one-sided, stating what you want from the relationship or interaction will not only make you appear trustworthy but will help the other party understand your situation.
Of course, if you are insincere in your dealings, if your goal is to dupe or defraud, it’s quite possible you’ll demonstrate some of these behaviours in a contrived, manipulative way. But it’s also likely you’ll give yourself away. Much will depend on the situation you’re in. How likely is it that the other party will act in a deliberately untrustworthy way? Or that building trust simply doesn’t matter to them?
There is plenty of myth, as well as solid evidence, around physical signs of honesty and intent, in body language and microexpressions. The well-worn idea that someone that is lying will look up and right is a myth. Whilst someone fleetingly pulling in one corner of their mouth might suggest they don’t have your best interests at heart. But you can tie yourself up in knots over this, and interested readers and those likely to find themselves in more confrontational situations might want to look at the wide range of psychological research, or perhaps something more digestible like the books of former FBI counterintelligence officer Joe Navarro.
In order to move on, let’s assume that whatever interaction you’re in, this is a case of both parties wanting to trust the other, but there’s a need to find the best way to establish and prove it.
With trust, there is much to consider around communicating goals and what you ‘bring to the party’, around motivation and values, and what economists refer to as the free-rider problem. All of this plays to notions of reputation and brand (whether personal or corporate).
For those seeking to build a solid foundation of trust as efficiently as possible, the good news is that whilst people are frequently seen to be biased towards over-estimating their technical, ‘hard’ skills, by the same degree we tend to under-estimate our social skills. Which means that trust, or key factors influencing it, can be more present than we might think.
A Better Trust
If transactional trust feels slightly superficial, that’s because it’s only the start of the more complete relational trust. Arguably the single most important element of trust is integrity. Doing what you say or what is expected. And typically that can really only happen over time.
If efficiency in building trust is what matters, then the move from transactional to relational can often be done alongside other things, and en masse rather than in one-to-one situations. Traits such as credibility, expertise and sound judgement can be more about reputation than the results of direct contact. As such it becomes more about communicating your actions and knowledge, about building a brand. This means demonstrating, in as wide a set of situations as possible…
Consistency: be clear on what you’re going to do, and doing what you say and what others expect. This can be around big, leadership or strategic issues, or simply building a reputation as someone who hits targets and helps others.
Expertise: technical expertise (if appropriate) but also demonstrating an understanding of the risks and implications of a situation or course of action. Show that you can think through things, come up with new ideas and embrace the ideas of others. Or simply working to gaining as much knowledge as possible on a subject.
People management: regardless of whether someone feels they are formally in a leadership role, everyone has an influence on those around them. They need to make that influence positive. Connect people in a way that benefits them personally or professionally. Defer to others better placed to advise, decide or implement. Work to resolve conflicts where you can. Be empathetic to all those you come into contact with, which might mean taking a step back before responding to someone, or being willing to respectfully challenge the assumptions of others.
What is true on an individual level is also true within a group or organisation. Acting in a trustworthy way, consistently delivering what is expected of you by the other party, applies across the board. A company that has trust at its core internally will be consistent and open in its dealings with the wider world.
Leadership and a Culture of Trust
This leads to a wider consideration of what creates a trusting work environment. As outlined, it has been observed that trust is vital in creating a healthy, engaged, positive work culture. Research has shown developing processes and structures that demonstrate the following key elements will make for an environment where trust is encouraged throughout.
Purpose is a much over-used term, but a shared, open understanding of the nature and goals of a relationship is necessary if all involved are to trust each other. This idea of an individual’s or group’s aims should ultimately inform everything they do, but it’s particularly important to consider in direct interactions. Think: what are we really trying to achieve, how and why?
Public recognition of efforts and achievement not only encourages those being praised, it creates good role models for others, inspires greater effort, and, done right, shares their best practice. It shows everyone is working towards the same goals. Where the recognition is made directly by leaders, it also show concern, interest and respect — fundamental in building trust.
Moderate stress is important in building resilience, as studied by Harvard psychologist Tal Ben-Shahar. Challenging, shared, achievable and clear goals, with definite end points and results (and praise for those results), play a vital role in unifying groups and demonstrating that those designing the goals trust those implementing them. Allowing ‘breathing space’ between periods of stress, as well as enabling people to speak up when they’re starting to feel overwhelmed, will also see personal and organisational growth.
Autonomy and mastery, as outlined by Dan Pink, are key motivational factors. Giving people direct control over both how a goal is achieved, and what goals they wish to be a part of, displays trust. Trust that will be repaid by people seeking to prove they are worthy of it, and that trust others in return.
Open communication of everything that effects an organisation, from strategy to financials, board meetings to sale figures, demonstrates trust. Employees feel less aggrieved at being shut out of decision-making and more by being excluded from simply knowing what’s going on in a company. Informing people of the bigger picture reassures them (even when the news might be bad) and shows that those who are ultimately affected can be trusted with the information.
Empathy and care towards others can be difficult to encourage. It can feel like crossing a personal/professional line. But like so many things, if leaders are seen to demonstrate these attributes at the right time and place, they will become role models and the culture will change. Empathy in business, and its cousin vulnerability, is widely heralded but is also challenging. Humanity might be a better way to see it. Leaders need to show (and admit to themselves) that they are human, showing decisiveness when needed, but also openness, admitting mistakes and being confident enough to say others are better placed to inform or understand an issue. It means showing concern for your people and their wellbeing, helping where you can and acknowledging what you can’t control. That concern also has to be on an individual level, allowing individuals to shape their work-life balance, and encouraging both professional and personal learning and development.
In simple terms, the best way to gain trust is to give trust. Being open, honest and accountable, giving people information and autonomy are all signs that they are trusted.
Social relationships are often allowed to just emerge in work environments, but that can lead to cliques as much as it does to strong social bonds. A healthy social environment naturally leads to unity and trust. Organisations should look at giving time and space to developing social relationships, whether it’s lunches bringing disparate groups together or extracurricular activities. Care needs to be taken, however, and a balance struck. Social activities can mean sports teams, book clubs or teambuilding in the countryside, but are they the right fit for everyone? Can everyone take part equally? How do working hours, location, physical and mental health, and caring responsibilities influence the opportunities to socialise. Social need not always mean eating, drinking or exercising. Rosabeth Moss Kanter has written about the value of enabling people to work on projects largely unrelated to core business goals, but which draw different individuals together through shared values and interests within work hours.
Many of these factors have a duel benefit. They don’t just establish a trusting environment. They also promote many other strengths keenly sought by organisations. They improve employee engagement and wellbeing, encourage collaboration and innovation, and retain and attract talent.
Trust is a valuable product of a healthy relationship rather than a prerequisite. That is true on an individual basis and within an organisation. Positive relationships foster trust organically, without contrivance. In business, however, it can be necessary to pay attention to this fundamental of human interaction and add some certainty and efficiency to the process.
Organisations, sometimes unwittingly, fail to foster trust. Some even actively work to diminish it, setting people and departments or divisions in competition, and incubating a sense of protectionism, difference and insularity. The short-term success this can occasionally yield is detrimental in the long-term — to innovation, to productivity, and most of all to the people involved.
By understanding something of what trust is, how it works and why it matters, we can seek to foster trust between individuals and groups. It doesn’t mean not pushing people to perform at their best, or leaving them to their own devices. It means treating people as valued equals, providing certainty and support, recognition and freedom.
© 2021 Simon King.
Simon King is a manager at JLA, the speaker agency. He is the author of the book Predictability — Our Search for Certainty in an Uncertain World and occasionally writes about communication, leadership and culture.
