“Trust is a delicate property of human relationships. It is influenced far more by actions than words. It takes a long time to build, but it can be destroyed very quickly. Even a single action – perhaps misunderstood – can have powerful effects.” Douglas McGregor, author of the business classic, The Human Side of Enterprise
The Wharton School of Business published an article (Promises, Lies, Apologies: Is it Possible to Restore Trust?) about the research of three of their professors on the variables of trust. In it, they used the following scenario to beautifully illustrate the complex factors that form our capacity to trust.
Let’s pretend that you lend someone a DVD to watch with the understanding that they will return it to Netflix when they are done. You find out that they forgot to return the film. Would you trust them again?
Got your answer? Let’s move on to the next scenario.
Now imagine that the person you lent the DVD to told you they sent back the movie, but you see the film in a pile of mail in their car? Where’s your trust level now? Would you lend them another DVD, or anything, in the future?
We have used this scenario in countless seminars on Trust to generate some real incisive thinking and dialogue about the nature of trust. It has raised some fascinating questions about the dynamics of trusting – and trustworthiness. Typically, it provides a pathway for us to see the rules, conscious and unconscious, that drive our behavioral choices in relating with others.
Some of you may be asking, what the heck – it’s just a DVD. And who even uses DVD’s anymore? Hang on, you’re missing the crux of the situation – how we trust. Context matters, yes, but all of us carry around lots of rules (& beliefs) about who, how and when we trust. Undoubtedly, some the examples we have unearthed in these conversations will ring some bells for readers.
Some typical responses to the first scenario:
It is important to note here that when explored, most people say their choices are governed almost entirely by their past experience. While that may seem logical, unless you want to base the rest of your life’s decisions on the past (and for many of us, this is usually based on what’s not worked rather than what has worked ) this may be the time to examine the beliefs that drive your choices.
Back to the second part of the scenario (where you have made the choice to trust and you were “betrayed.”)
*Take note that the words we use to describe our experience play a big role in how we actually feel as a result. For some, the word “betrayal” would seem a bit over the top to describe something as simple as the lending of a DVD. Often our language is “too big” or hyperbolic for the circumstances which tend to trigger us more emotionally. Even though the word betrayal is commonly used in research and writing about trust issues – it is one of those powerful words (like deception) that can evoke the strongest emotions and reactions. These reactions can and do cloud our perceptions and drive us to make choices that can be unwise and often inappropriate to the current circumstances we face.
Some more typical responses:
Interesting range of responses, don’t you think? Where do you find yourself gravitating?
Finally, it’s also important to say that the Wharton study found that promises to correct future behavior and apologies (that must meet a series of criteria to be accepted as “sincere”) do matter.
If you want to understand why you trust it is critical to explore the criteria that affect your choices to trust, or not. Are you more/less trusting with family and friends than co-workers? Do you believe that relationships, especially at work, can thrive without trust?
As more studies show the importance of psychological safety in the workplace, isn’t trust one of the “tough” conversations we need to have more of? But, first, let’s have it with ourselves.
Louise Altman, Intentional Communication Consultants