Trust

Trust in the business community will be redefined when we enter the new world, post C-19.

I was brought up, and led, in a time and environment where being seen in the office was core to a way of working. If you weren’t seen, you weren’t delivering. The outcome of this was too many hours worked, too many hours spent not delivering outcomes but being ‘busy’, and individuals being too scared to leave the office before the boss, for fear of being thought of as being lazy.

Fortunately, those days have started to come to an end in certain industries, with increased use of technology and working from home. However, in certain industries, until four weeks ago, it was still pervasive. In some sectors I hear stories of it still being the case, which will potentially have repercussions for those leaders when the C-19 period is behind us.

What is trust?

In the Oxford English Dictionary, it is a “Firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something; confidence or faith in a person or thing, or in an attribute of a person or thing.” [1]

In Building Trust Flores and Solomon point out that trust is not a thing or entity, but rather a linguistic and emotional practice. [2]

In Coaching to the Human Soul [3], Alan Sieler shares that “Trust consists of four, often inter-related assessments, these being –

·      Sincerity – that we are genuine in our actions and intentions.

·      Reliability – that we deliver what we say on time and to the standard agreed.

·      Competence – a judgement that the person has the experience, knowledge and skill to carry out the task.

·      Involvement – that the person we are trusting empathises with what is important to us.”

Is trust given straight away or does it have to be earned?

I think it depends so much on each individual, that there is no one answer to this.

For some they will say they ‘give trust’ until it is broken, perhaps because they are people who see the good in everything and everyone. In this case the ‘brick wall of trust’ is complete when they first meet that person.

For others they will only ‘give trust’ when requests made are delivered, or implied expectations of someone are never broken. For these people the ‘brick wall of trust’ is built brick by brick, which grows ever higher depending on how someone delivers or behaves. It can be chipped away or smashed down depending on the severity of the breach.

My response to this question is how people ‘give trust’ will be built, in part, on their experiences initially in childhood and then progressively over their teenage years on either feeling they were continually ‘let down’ or the opposite, having a feeling of more often than not, of being supported when they make requests.

For me, trust is being able to answer this question with a positive –

“Do I believe this person or thing will deliver on its promise, to my expectations (either stated or not), with the intent of supporting me and taking care of my concerns?”

If I hear myself say “yes” to this question, then I am trusting of this person or thing.

Trust will be eroded or broken depending on the severity of the breach. However, it is possible to start the process of trust again if the brick wall is chipped or smashed down, by asking the same question above and giving the person, or it, time for the wall of trust to be built again through their actions.

In my view trust can be seen four domains –

1.    How we trust ourselves.

2.    How we trust others / things (machines / service providers / goods & services).

3.    How we are trusted by others and,

4.    How we trust ‘the universe’ / ‘the shared space that we all inhabit’.

Looking at each of these individually, using questions to break them open –

1.    “Do I trust myself to deliver on what I say I am going to do either to myself in my inner voice, or when I make a commitment to someone else?” To answer this, we have to go deep in ourselves both cognitively and physiologically to find the true answer.

2.    Whether I am a ‘brick wall of trust’ builder or it is already built at the beginning, “do I believe this person or thing will deliver on its promise, to my stated expectations, with the intent of supporting me and taking care of my concerns?”

3.    “How do I know if I am trusted by others?” I can ask the question directly; I can ensure I understand what is being asked of me and ensure I deliver on my promise; I can assess it, depending on how I feel in the relationship with that person.

4.    “Do I give myself to a ‘bigger universe’ or ‘space of presence’ that we all inhabit, and by doing this make myself appear as an offer to that space?” By being an offer to ‘the universe’ and ensuring my ‘way of being’ is more about others than me, I am more likely to trust myself to deliver with authenticity, more likely to trust others to deliver on their promise and finally, to deliver on my promise which will mean I am trusted by others.

Given this, why will trust be redefined when the business community enters the new world post C-19?

One answer is technology. By using technology, both video technology and broader computing technology, we don’t have to be present in the office to deliver on our promise.

Another answer is the culture of having to be seen, so as not to be ‘seen’ as lazy, is clearly a fallacy.

The key reasons for this redefinition though, lie in two areas – humanism and language.

In the current C-19 world we are bringing our professional and personal lives together, such that the humanistic side of working life is being exposed through our Zoom / Microsoft Teams / Skype lenses and we are all okay with it. We are seeing living rooms, kitchens, bedrooms, bikes, sewing machines, pets, partners, and children in the background (or even the foreground in some cases) in our meetings. In no way is it diminishing the professionalism of what is being discussed in the conversations we are having. In fact, it can in some cases, lighten the mood which may enable us to shift to a mood of curiosity or ambition that enables us to see possibilities, listen to others more intently and legitimise them as humans with a story to tell and a contribution to make. I know some leaders are now preferring to use this technology rather than use the phone. As one leader shared with me, "every connection is a precious one", hence using the lens rather than the phone.

Linked to this humanistic world of bringing our professional and personal lives together through a lens, is the increased ‘check ins’ that leaders are making of their teams. Far more asking ‘R U OK?” than was ever done before. By continuing to check in on mental health and wellbeing, trust will be increased as the professional distancing of ‘keeping home and work separate’ will continue to be eroded and at a much quicker pace.

The other key factor of changing the dynamic of trust, is that leaders are having to be more purposeful in their use of language to get stuff done in the age of working from home. Leaders are really having to think about why they are calling for a meeting, asking themselves “for the sake of what am I having this meeting or conversation?”. It is imperative that to coordinate action effectively, as a leader, they are able to answer this question and also ask themselves “what is my KPI of success for this conversation / meeting?”. There just isn’t the opportunity to waste people’s time by calling everyone into a huddle or a meaningless meeting just because they are in the office. This purposeful use of language will make for better conversations as leaders have a clear purpose and better requests being made, because the opportunity of nipping back to someone’s desk, just isn’t there.

I said in the opener that there may be repercussions for those leaders who are challenged by the change in the working from home dynamic, as they still live in the 'having to be seen in the office' culture. The repercussion could be that, based on point 2. above, employees come to the conclusion that "my leader doesn't trust me and is not looking to take care of my concerns, but only their own, so I will leave their employ when it is 'safe' to do so".

So, with most leaders being more humanistic as personal and professional lives come together, and by being more effective and purposeful with language, the definition of trust in the workplace will change irrevocably, and for the better, when we, the business community, move into the new world post C-19.

About Conor O’Malley

As a Coach to CEOs and C level Executives, I support leaders through a transformation in the way they learn, lead and know themselves.

I decided to step out of Executive leadership in early 2017 when I realised that being a CEO was no longer my purpose or my definition of success. Having taken time to reassess that story, I realised that what I can, and do, bring to the world is very different to being the leader of an organisation. I know I bring authenticity, care and support that leads to an ability to challenge leaders respectfully and enable them to go on a transformative journey in their 'way of being', which leads to better results both personally and professionally.

My Observe | Choose | Act Programme takes a humanistic approach to leadership development in how leaders think, feel and make meaning of their emotions and sense their body. It is transformative, not performance, coaching.

I am an Accredited Ontological Practitioner, Professionally Qualified Coach in the ICF and a Qualified Mental Health First Aider.

linkedin.com/in/conoromalley

www.conoromalley.com.au

Contact me on 0405 399 580 for more information.

[1] Oxford English Dictionary online

[2] Alan Sieler, Coaching to the Human Soul, Vol 1 p240

[3] Alan Sieler, Coaching to the Human Soul, Vol 1 p241-243