Trust me, I'm from IT

One of my enduring interests is ‘service’. It is a fascinating topic and I’d like to share some thoughts on the role that trust plays, but first a brief overview of some key characteristics of service.

Service

Services are often contrasted with goods, where goods are usually tangible and services are not. A key characteristic of service[1] is that each party applies (but does not transfer ownership of) its resources for the benefit of the other. You hire a car that remains owned by the rental company. A gardener uses their saw to cut down a tree. The only resources that change hands are financial resources (or other goods in exchange). This helps distinguish between services and goods but in practice, most transactions involve a combination of the two. ‘Product’ is often used as the collective term for services and goods, and most products are a mix of services and goods in a service-goods continuum. Confusingly – but such is life – ‘product’ can also be used as a synonym for a good, for example a software product (which is an example of an intangible good). Where goods are mainly about things, services are mainly about interactions. Interactions vary in the degree of active consumer participation – passively experiencing the ambience in a restaurant is also a service. Service transactions happen within the context of the relationship between provider and consumer, in which trust plays a dominant role.

Trust

Much has already been written about trust, and I am not adding to the field, but just referencing research that I find useful, in particular the work of Mayer et al[2]. They define trust as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party. They suggest that, when evaluating trust, the propensity of the trustor to trust should be taking into consideration – some people are more trusting than others. It is also relevant to consider the degree of risk involved. They look in particular at trust in the trustee’s ability, benevolence and integrity. 

Ability needs little explanation and is a basic requirement: it refers to the knowledge and skills to do whatever needs to be done. Consistency also plays a role: whether you can rely on the job being done well each time, while balancing predictability with continual improvements.

Benevolence is about the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor, in addition to what comes from the basic profit motive. I see this as the provider’s discretionary generosity, and the balance of give-and-take over time. When a provider does more than contractually obligated, they are either taking a calculated risk in commercial karma, or they are just decent human beings who feel morally motivated to do something extra for this particular customer in these particular circumstances. The trigger for benevolence is often the perception that the customer is also a decent human being. Some people attract benevolence more than others. The day-tripping tourist is a good test case: the restaurant knows that the customer is unlikely to make a repeat purchase, yet some people get a more generous helping of ice cream than others. Of course, there are factors such as tips and reviews on TripAdvisor but in many cases the effect is negligible. Irrespective of whether a customer is likely to return or not, a benevolent provider is perceived as more trustworthy.

Integrity refers to the trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable. The two key terms are adherence (personal integrity) and acceptability (moral integrity). Is the provider true to their word, and do their values that appeal to you? There is a degree of personal and cultural subjectivity in both aspects. Adherence to deadlines, for example, is more flexibly interpreted by some people than by others. Haggling over the price is more acceptable to some people than to others – it can be interpreted as either a weak or a strong character trait. Moral integrity boils down to whether each party respects the other party’s decisions. The underlying values cannot be observed, but can often be inferred from the party’s actions.

It is also worth considering perceived risk and risk-taking. These terms refer to whether the trustee has actually demonstrated vulnerability and reciprocal trust by taking an action where non-trivial results depend on the other party’s actions. There is a difference between the willingness to assume risk, and the actual assumption of risk.  

Trust should be included in customer satisfaction surveys, with topics such as trust in the provider’s:

• Knowledge and ‘technical’ skills (ability)
• Discretionary generosity, and balance of give-and-take over time (benevolence)
• Policies and decisions (integrity)
• Adherence to commitments (integrity)

Provider satisfaction surveys

Much of this piece has been written from the perspective of a customer trusting a provider, but the opposite is equally applicable. Although it is customary that the customer is regarded as the ‘superior’ party, and that market forces (demand and supply) always modulate the relationship, there is usually more effective co-creation of value when there is mutual respect and trust. It is equally valid for a provider to ask themselves whether they can trust a customer to fulfil their part of the bargain. In a more enlightened world, customers would send their provider a provider satisfaction survey...

[1] The Service System is the Basic Abstraction of Service Science, Jim Spohrer, Stephen L. Vargo, Nathan Caswell, Paul P. Maglio; https://paulallen.ca/documents/2015/08/spohrer-j-vargo-sl-caswell-n-and-maglio-pp-the-service-system-is-the-basic-abstraction-of-service-science-2008.pdf

[2] An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, Roger C. Mayer, James H. Davis and F. David Schoorman; https://www.jstor.org/stable/258792 (with thanks to my friends at Giarte for pointing this out)