"It was mealtime during the flight on the small airline. 'Would you like dinner?' the flight attendant asked the man.'What are my choices?' he asked.'Yes or no,' the attendant replied.""Those in our inner circles, at work, in life and social situations have significant influences on our thinking and behavior. Consequently, we must take great care when deciding whom we will, and will not, let into our inner circles of confidants," said Maple while examining the golden chain symbol on the Garuda's shield."There is one thing that is common to every individual, relationship, team, family, organization, nation, economy, and civilization throughout the world—one thing which, if removed, will destroy the most powerful government, the most successful business, the most thriving economy, the most influential leadership, the greatest friendship, the strongest character, the deepest love. On the other hand, if developed and leveraged, that one thing has the potential to create unparalleled success and prosperity in every dimension of life. Yet, it is the least understood, most neglected, and most underestimated possibility of our time. That one thing is, according to Stephen M.R. Covey, trust.Trust is the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behavior, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members of that community. Those norms can be about deep 'value' questions like the nature of God or justice, but they also encompass secular norms like professional standards and codes of behavior, says Francis Fukuyama. That is, we trust a doctor not to do us deliberate injury because we expect him or her to live by the Hippocratic oath and the standards of the medical profession. Trust does not reside in integrated circuits or fiber optic cables. Although it involves an exchange of information, trust is not reducible to information.Social capital is a capability that arises from the prevalence of trust in a society or in certain parts of it. It can be embodied in the smallest and most basic social group, the family, as well as the largest of all groups, the nation, and in all the other groups in between. Social capital differs from other forms of human capital insofar as it is usually created and transmitted through cultural mechanisms like religion, tradition, or historical habit.People who do not trust one another, Fukuyama added, will end up cooperating only under a system of formal rules and regulations, which have to be negotiated, agreed to, litigated, and enforced, sometimes by coercive means. This legal apparatus, serving as a substitute for trust, entails what economists call 'transaction costs.' Widespread distrust in a society, in other words, imposes a kind of tax on all forms of economic activity, a tax that high-trust societies do not have to pay.According to Covey, trust undergirds and affects the quality of every relationship, every communication, every work project, every business venture, every effort in which we are engaged. It changes the quality of every present moment and alters the trajectory and outcome of every future moment of our lives—both personally and professionally.Contrary to what most people believe, trust is not some soft, illusive quality that you either have or you don’t; rather, trust is a pragmatic, tangible, actionable asset that you can create—much faster than you probably think possible.While corporate scandals, terrorist threats, office politics, and broken relationships have created low trust on almost every front, I contend that the ability to establish, grow, extend, and restore trust is not only vital to our personal and interpersonal well-being; it is the key leadership competency of the new global economy.So what is trust? Simply put, trust means confidence. The opposite of trust—distrust—is suspicion. You know it when you feel it. When you trust people, you have confidence in them—in their integrity and in their abilities. When you distrust people, you are suspicious of them—of their integrity, their agenda, their capabilities, or their track record. It’s that simple.The difference between a high-and low-trust relationship is palpable! Take communication. In a high-trust relationship, you can say the wrong thing, and people will still get your meaning. In a low-trust relationship, you can be very measured, even precise, and they’ll still misinterpret you.Most of us tend to think about trust in terms of character—of being a good or sincere person or of having ethics or integrity. And character is absolutely foundational and essential. But to think that trust is based on character only is a myth. Trust is a function of two things: character andcompetence. Character includes your integrity, your motive, your intent with people. Competence includes your capabilities, your skills, your results, your track record. And both are vital.With the increasing focus on ethics in our society, the character side of trust is fast becoming the price of entry in the new global economy. However, the differentiating and often ignored side of trust—competence—is equally essential. You might think a person is sincere, even honest, but you won’t trust that person fully if he or she doesn’t get results. And the opposite is true. A person might have great skills and talents and a good track record, but if he or she is not honest, you’re not going to trust that person either.While it may come more naturally for us to think of trust in terms of character, it’s equally important that we also learn to think in terms of competence. Think about it—people trust people who make things happen. They give the new curriculum to their most competent instructors. They give the promising projects or sales leads to those who have delivered in the past. Recognizing the role of competence helps us identify and give language to underlying trust issues we otherwise can’t put a finger on. From a line leader’s perspective, the competence dimension rounds out and helps give trust its harder, more pragmatic edge.Here’s another way to look at it: The increasing concern about ethics has been good for our society. Ethics (which is part of character) is foundational to trust, but by itself is insufficient. You can’t have trust without ethics, but you can have ethics without trust. Trust, which encompasses ethics, is the bigger idea. Again, character and competence are both necessary. Character is a constant; it’s necessary for trust in any circumstance. Competence is situational; it depends on what the circumstance requires.Once you become aware that both character and competence are vital to trust, you can see how the combination of these two dimensions is reflected in the approach of effective leaders and observers everywhere. People might use different words to express the idea, but if you reduce the words to their essence, what emerges is a balance of character and competence. Trust is equal parts character and competence. Both are absolutely necessary. From the family room to the boardroom, you can look at any leadership failure, and it’s always a failure of one or the other.For one, it’s better to be a good guy than a bad guy—it’s better to be a trustworthy person than not, says Linda K. Stroh. There’s a flip side to the good guy–bad guy equation. If relationships don’t meet the standard of trustworthiness, we can suffer the negative effects of working with, living with, or otherwise sharing time with people we can’t trust.In economic terms, the opportunity cost of not trusting—in wasted time, money, mental energy, and physical and emotional health—is immense. In- stead of enjoying life, we focus on protecting ourselves from negative influences—bad guys—who might lie or cheat to gain something that is ours: resources, money, time, friendships, or, most of all, our peace of mind.Trust like water, air, and electricity, is something we just take for granted; if we lose it—not unlike losing electricity or water—we realize its importance to our lives. We can live without it, but it isn’t much fun. Everything we have to do takes longer, and we have to learn how to live and/or work all over again. Trust is the foundation of all successful human relationships. When trust is present, professional and personal relationships thrive. When trust is broken, relationships falter.Trust is a willingness to be vulnerable—a willingness to take a risk that someone will not harm us, Stroh added. When we place our trust in another person, we allow ourselves to be vulnerable, because we have positive expectations of another’s behavior.Not only is there an expectation that the person(s) we trust will not harm us, even when we are not present to monitor their behaviors, but we also assume they will help us, even when we’re not present to remind them. The expectation is that the trusted party will work to protect—and even ad- vance—our interests, or, at a minimum, not conduct activities that will harm us in any way. We like to think that our trusted confidants will actually advance our cause, even when we're not in front of them. They’ll mention us positively to others, recommend us for jobs, or tell us where to buy our shoes.Trust is more than mere instinct, says Stroh. Grasping the concept of trustworthiness may seem obvious and simple—but it’s not! Trust is complex. Many people claim they have a strong instinct about whom they can and can’t trust, almost a seat-of-the-pants belief they can sense who is and who isn’t trustworthy. What some people label instinct is really a product of life experiences melded with reflective observation—in other words, experiential learning. Instinct in humans, unlike instinct in other species, is too strongly influenced by external factors—our upbringing, inner circle of friends, family, neighbors, neighborhoods, and everything that touches our lives—to be considered pure.Instinct or intuition may easily become the basis for stereotyping. For example, some folks may have intuitions (that may later evolve into stereotypes) that women lack both the physical stamina and mental discipline necessary to lead our country. Others may falsely believe that most people can be trusted in work and life. In its purest form, instinct has merit. However, our instincts can become flawed over time, as reflected in the number of people who are hurt, surprised, shocked, or dismayed when they are betrayed by someone they trusted. Instinct alone rarely works to predict trustworthiness.Trust is widely acknowledged to be critical, according to Cam Caldwell, in cooperative relationships and a key variable in organizational achievement. Trust integrates an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and intentions and is ultimately manifest as behaviors. Trust is, ultimately, the relinquishing of personal control to another in the expectant hope that the other party will honor perceived duties owed.Leaders earn the trust of those whom they serve by being perceived as trustworthy, and the degree of that trustworthiness creates a subjective response that reflects the perceiver’s individual commitment or compliance. Trust, like religious faith, requires a willingness to act that must ultimately be carried out to be optimally effective in one’s personal life, in relationships, and in organizations. It is no secret that leaders and organizations have struggled throughout time to earn the confidence of others– whether those 'others' be customers, colleagues, or employees. Leading is tough. It requires the balance and ability to understand what needs to be done and the most effective way to sustain collaborative relationships to build team commitment and trust. Leadership failures are common. Successful and effective leaders are highly prized.When followers trust a leader, their relationship reflects not only a difference in the mental mindset and emotional feelings of followers but in follower behaviors. Wise leaders have recognized the value of creating high-trust organization cultures to engender these responses. The empirical evidence consistently confirms that high-trust organizations are more profitable, more effective in creating relationships with others, and more innovative.Trust is so critical in the leader-follower relationship, understanding the nature of trustworthiness, or what is required for a leader to be perceived as 'worthy' of trust, is also vital. Leaders who possess the ability to be trusted differentiate themselves from would-be leaders who struggle to earn the respect and commitment required to succeed in today’s difficult world.Trustworthiness reflects the trustor’s subjective perceptions of a leader’s behaviors, reputation, and/or commitments in several very specific ways. Trustworthiness at the individual and organizational levels consists of five factors.Ability or Competence–Trustworthy leaders demonstrate a profound understanding of the needs of their customers, the nature of their industry, the context of the economy, and the systems necessary to produce and deliver products and services in the marketplace. This standard of excellence requires an understanding of 'profound knowledge' that others rarely possess.Integrity or Character–As leaders keep their commitments, tell the truth and honor relationships, they earn the respect of others. Integrity and character are highly desired personal attributes of leaders.Beneficence or Caring–The leader’s commitment to the welfare, growth, and wholeness of others is demonstrated by treating others with kindness, courtesy, and respect. Leaders generate trust by valuing others as important ends, rather than as means to the leader’s agenda. Beneficence, the behavior, reflects benevolent intention.Execution or Capacity–Leaders demonstrate the capacity to integrate the efforts of the organization to produce results. Execution requires that leaders achieve desired outcomes and results by understanding how to put a plan into action.Integrity or Character–As leaders keep their commitments, tell the truth and honor relationships, they earn the respect of others. Integrity and character are highly desired personal attributes of leaders.Execution or Capacity–Leaders demonstrate the capacity to integrate the efforts of the organization to produce results. Execution requires that leaders achieve desired outcomes and results by understanding how to put a plan into action. Although the ability to develop a clear action plan or strategy is important for success, the effective execution of a plan is far more important.Fairness or Conscience–Leaders who treat others justly recognize their moral obligation to make the choices that protect others’ rights, treat them equitably, and recognize their respective needs. As leaders explain the rationale for the decisions that they make, they communicate their responsibility for the impact of their actions. Conscience is the moral sense within an individual that guides a person to act virtuously and to treat others fairly.Leaders undermine follower trust when they are perceived as acting in ways that lack the elements of trustworthiness. Thus, trust is lost when leaders do not demonstrate personal competence, fail to honor commitments or perceived obligations, treat others as objects rather than individuals, underperform in ensuring that the organization achieves its goals, or violate expected standards of ethical conduct.We will discuss the implications of trust in democracy and government in the next session, bi 'idhnillah."
Citations & References:
- Francis Fukuyama, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, 1995, Free Press
- Stephen M.R. Covey & Rebecca R. Merril, The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything, 2006, Free Press
- Linda K. Stroh, Trust rules: How to Tell the Good Guys from the Bad Guys in Work and Life, 2007, Praeger
- Cam Caldwell, Leadership, Ethics, and Trust, 2018, Cambridge Scholars Publishing
