Trust is STILL in the air (or not, as the case may be)

Warning: This is article covers the topic of vaccinations and mandates. It also covers some commentary on NZ Government. It is deliberately dispassionate and not in any way political. I offer no views at all on the effectiveness of our Government and no views on vaccinations and mandates. So please can I ask that you do not reply to my post with any political comments either for or against our Leaders. There is enough debate on LinkedIn about that and for the good of my (and maybe your) mental health I'm not playing!!

This post is about trust, the neuroscience and draws comparisons from what we are all observing with COVID at present and our professional lives.

Consider some data I shared in this post 6 months ago, before I amended it to the version you are reading now..........

‘According to our modelling, the single greatest predictor of whether an American has been vaccinated is whether they voted for Joe Biden or Donald Trump last November.’ (Economist, July 31st 2021 Edition)

‘More than half of French 25? to 34?year?olds, and one?third of Dutch 25? to 34?year?olds, said they would probably or definitely not get vaccinated.’?(Kantar, 2021[5])

With those and many other stats in mind, the OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19) report ‘Enhancing public trust in COVID-19 vaccination: The role of governments’ looks into the key role of trust. Trust in the vaccines as well as trust in the governments who are requiring their populations to take part. ?

The OECD Trust Framework identifies five main policy dimensions that drive people’s trust in government institutions: responsiveness, reliability, integrity, openness and fairness. The empirical relevance of this framework has been tested in eight OECD?countries and evidence shows that both government competence and values are strong predictors of public trust?(Murtin et?al., 2018[9];?OECD/KDI, 2018[10];?OECD, forthcoming[2]).

Please pause before you read on. Reflect on the five words in bold above. How do you feel your country's leaders score?

Which brings me to how these facts (checked!) are related to our professional business interests and the true meaning of this article.

To trust or not to trust, that is the question!

The primitive part of our brain (the amygdala) is what lights up when we don’t trust. The result is the production of cortisol and testosterone when we observe any reason to distrust somebody or something. This compromises our judgement and we look to flee or fight to protect our territory. The opposite of trust in many ways is control. When we feel like someone is trying to control our actions, thinking or behaviour we don't like it. We object (fight/protest) or get out there (flight).

Conversely, the pre-frontal cortex activates when we do trust someone. We then enjoy the effects of happy and bonding hormones like dopamine, oxytocin and serotonin.

The not-so-great news is the amygdala fires up in seconds when we see reasons not to trust. We are wired that way – and have been for thousands of years. It keeps us safe when there are sabre tooth tigers in the bushes. Reversing the flow of cortisol is far from an instant process. We cant just flick a switch which is why the feeling of no trust doesn't go away very quickly.

With vaccines and vaccine mandates being a topic du jour here in NZ what this means for our countries’ leaders and public health officials is tricky. Consider the protestors in Wellington and in Canada for that matter. Not wishing to dilute their message in any way, but what sits at the core of what they are saying is "we do not trust the Government." They are objecting to the feeling of being controlled. Their neurochemistry is pumping cortisol. And of course, so are the collective brains of the Government! There is no trust on either side. Both parties are trying to exert their own brand of control. Either side re-explaining their interpretations of the science or putting forward their own logic, no matter how well reasoned is fighting against thousands of years of our brains’ hard-wiring. Hence the current stand off and digging in. Hence the stats from the USA and Europe cited above too.

In the absence of trust these protests will more than likely conclude in one way only. Whilst the situation is that neither party have trust in the other and more importantly, an ability or willingness to create trust, there will be a winner and a loser.

And where there is a winner and a loser, perhaps nobody wins.

Trust and our daily professional lives

No relationship can thrive if there is a winner and a loser.

Whether we are a government, a pharma company, a protest group or an individual managing a professional relationship, we can adopt one of two mindsets when communicating with others.

1. “You can trust me to have your best interests at heart” or

2. “I want to persuade you to see things my way”.

Judith E Glaser in her enlightening book “Conversational Intelligence – How Great Leaders Build Trust” contends that we need to approach all interactions (person-to-person or institution-to-public) with the mindset of the former, not the latter. David Maister et al’s Trust Equation invites us to consider the same thing.

If we adopt the latter mindset, the subsequent behaviours we display will erode trust. ?At which point, trying to influence someone to do (or buy) something is very difficult. Some may say impossible.

We have all been on the receiving end of this. Think of the well-trained salesperson in the electronics store or car show room where you couldn’t get out fast enough as they tell you what you need (control). That’s your amygdala at work protecting you as you scramble for the exit door!

As well as neuroscience, the data tells us the same story. Year after year the beatonbenchmarks data consistently tells us that clients of professional services firms are driven to choose firms and practitioners who ‘understand me and my business, have expertise in my areas of need, provide advice that is practical and relevant to my situation, and behave in a responsive and reliable way’. Similarities with the OECD framework for sure.

So, what is your mindset?

As a professional and a human being, how we approach building and maintaining relationships becomes relevant at this point. Consistent with Judith Glaser, I contend that it’s about our mindset first and foremost. Skills, processes and tools, although important, come second.

Do you look at every client interaction as an opportunity to build trust?

Or do you see an interaction as ‘What work can I win?’ or "How can I impress?". Consequently, could clients feel steamrolled by your efforts to win work from them, or do they willingly meet with you because it could be a valuable experience for them?

Consider any recent client interaction. What mindset did you adopt before and during the meeting? ?I'm in it for you or I'm in it for myself?

In summary, let off the handbrake

I call trying to win work from clients without a solid foundation of trust as driving with the hand brake on or to use a marketing parallel, akin to handing out flyers on Queen Street. i.e low return on your effort.

Winning work must always be underpinned by the right mindset of ‘I have your (the client’s) best interests at heart’.

Just like a successful marriage or a successful settlement of a difference of opinion, this takes time, planning and ongoing effort.

So in summary whether a professional or the Government, thinking of it in any other way is fighting against thousands of years of brain evolution.