The Many Layers of Trust

Trust is essential for collaboration[1] because it helps us feel safe taking risks.[2] It motivates us to interact with others instead of isolating ourselves. It builds the bonds that are essential for social interaction. Trust is a driver of cooperation, innovation, and how well we navigate change. When we trust, we are more willing to experiment and try new things. Trust is what builds resilient relationships and teams.[3]

We also place trust systems, too, such as organizations, currency, and technology. As we work, it’s important to remember that people outside of our team are placing trust in us. When we honor that trust, we recognize the responsibility we have, not only to the people we are directly connected to, but also to the people who will interact with and be impacted by what we build.

To do this, we need to understand exactly what trust is, so let's take a more detailed look into its components. By understanding the elements, we can better understand the system.

Trust is a risk.

Trust is putting what we value on the line. [4]This could be resources (time, money, social capital, etc..), a sense of control (autonomy, agency, power, etc.), wellbeing (safety, security, happiness, etc.) and more. When we trust, we intentionally make ourselves vulnerable. While we predict the risk is worth the reward, there is no guarantee. Trust is a leap of faith.

Trust is a process.

Trust is built. It’s earned. It is strengthened or weakened over time. When we assess whether or not to trust in the moment, we use past experience to inform our future expectations.[5] When this process is reciprocal, relationships have a fertile soil in which collaboration can flourish.

Trust is an attitude.

Trust is a belief. It’s an internalized feeling. It’s acting with benevolence, integrity[6], and generosity[7]. When we trust, we expect positive outcomes and let go of zero-sum thinking. We frame opportunities differently and seek out situations where everyone could benefit. Trust prompts us to approach our relationships with optimism instead of defensiveness[8] so we can work together with less resistance.

Trust is a choice.

Trust requires agency. It’s self-determined. It’s voluntary. [9]When risk-taking behavior is strongly influenced by external forces, we don’t have trust. We have compliance, coercion, or control. Trust isn’t built by should’s and shame. It’s all about individual initiative.

Trust is a propensity.

Trust is a habit. It’s a commitment. [10]It’s predicting when personal risk-taking is likely to yield a benefit and being brave when facing the fear of doing so. Trust is a capability and a competence. It is a skill that can be developed over time and a practice that can become easier the more you stick with it.

Trust is accountability.

Trust can be violated. It can be broken. It can be misused or even abused. When our behavior betrays someone’s trust, it can be tempting to deny and deflect, but hiding from the problem simply makes things worse.[11] Repairs are more successful when the problem is promptly addressed using compassionate messages, the impact of the injury is acknowledged, ownership of behavior is taken, and there is a genuine attempt to make things right. This is especially important in teams, because trust is harder to sustain trust in a group than it is with individuals.[12]

REFERENCES:

[1] Tyler, Tom R. “Trust in the Twenty-First Century.” In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Trust: Towards Theoretical and Methodological Integration, edited by Ellie Shockley, Tess M.S. Neal, Lisa M. PytlikZillig, and Brian H. Bornstein, 203–15. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22261-5_12.

[2] PytlikZillig, Lisa M., and Christopher D. Kimbrough. “Consensus on Conceptualizations and Definitions of Trust: Are We There Yet?” In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Trust: Towards Theoretical and Methodological Integration, edited by Ellie Shockley, Tess M.S. Neal, Lisa M. PytlikZillig, and Brian H. Bornstein, 17–47. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22261-5_2.

[3] De Dreu, Carsten K. W., and Aukje Nauta. “Self-Interest and Other-Orientation in Organizational Behavior: Implications for Job Performance, Prosocial Behavior, and Personal Initiative.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94, no. 4 (2009): 913–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014494.

[4] Feltman, Charles. The Thin Book of Trust: An Essential Primer for Building Trust at Work. 70 SW Century Dr. Ste. 100-446 Bend, OR 97702: Thin Book Publishing CO, 2009.

[5] Khodyakov, Dmitry. “Trust as a Process: A Three-Dimensional Approach.” Sociology 41, no. 1 (February 2007): 115–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038507072285.

[6] Colquitt, Jason A., Brent A. Scott, and Jeffery A. LePine. “Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust Propensity: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships with Risk Taking and Job Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 4 (July 2007): 909–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909.

[7] Grant, Adam. Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success. A Penguin Book. New York, N.Y: Penguin Books, 2014.

[8] Khodyakov, Dmitry. “Trust as a Process: A Three-Dimensional Approach.” Sociology 41, no. 1 (February 2007): 115–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038507072285.

[9] Li, Peter Ping. “Trust as a Leap of Hope for Transaction Value: A Two-Way Street Above and Beyond Trust Propensity and Expected Trustworthiness.” In Motivating Cooperation and Compliance with Authority: The Role of Institutional Trust, edited by Brian H. Bornstein and Alan J. Tomkins, 37–53. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16151-8_3.

[10] Colquitt, Jason A., Brent A. Scott, and Jeffery A. LePine. “Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust Propensity: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships with Risk Taking and Job Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 4 (July 2007): 909–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909.

[11] Kim, Peter H., Kurt T. Dirks, Cecily D. Cooper, and Donald L. Ferrin. “When More Blame Is Better than Less: The Implications of Internal vs. External Attributions for the Repair of Trust after a Competence- vs. Integrity-Based Trust Violation.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99, no. 1 (January 2006): 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.002.

[12] K?hk?nen, T., K. Blomqvist, N. Gillespie, and M. Vanhala. “Employee Trust Repair: A Systematic Review of 20?years of Empirical Research and Future Research Directions.” Journal of Business Research 130 (June 1, 2021): 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.019.