An innovative approach to understanding the dimensions of trust, as well as ways to build – and rebuild – trust in both organizations and relationships. Most of us have a broad understanding of trust and distrust, as well as the importance of trust on organizational performance. This outline offers a helpful framework for understanding the key aspects or “drivers” of trust, as well as different types of trust. These can serve as guides for leaders seeking to intervene effectively in “problem areas”, as well as for team building, problem-solving and conflict resolution.    Trust Revisited Does trust have anything to do with organizational success? My experience has me answer “Yes,” in a big way – because trust is directly connected to health and success in relationships of all types, professional as well as personal. Trust is simply required in order for 2 or more people to coordinate action – to do anything – together. And organizations, at their most basic level, may be seen as human beings coordinating action to produce some desired result. So what is trust? Is it a feeling, a character trait, a value, something else? And more importantly, how do we go about the process of building – and in many cases rebuilding – trust? Platitudes about the importance and value of trust are absolutely not the same thing as the ability to actually build it! Trust may be viewed as a mood as well as an assessment or judgment. First, all moods can be understood as pre-dispositions for action. In this sense, trust is a mood that predisposes people to coordinate action – to work together – productively. It’s obviously and consistently present in high-performing organizations and teams. Trust may also be understood as a judgment – an assessment – made by someone, about someone or something else.  It happens in language, and has everything to do with who’s doing the looking – the observer. Three aspects of this judgment are: Sincerity – an assessment of whether or not a person’s thoughts are consistent with their external conversations; a judgment of whether or not “hidden agendas” seem to exist. Competency – an assessment of the person’s or organization’s ability to actually do what they say they will do. Reliability – an assessment of the person’s or organization’s history – over time – of fulfilling and managing commitments. So anytime trust is not present – which one of these is involved?  This can be a powerful conversation to open. For example, I may trust Dr. Jones to fix my gall bladder, but not my brakes. Here, the issue is one of competence. Or I may not trust Bob to do X not because I think he’s not capable… the issue may instead be one of reliability, of his past history of not keeping or managing commitments according to some standards. Viewed this way, trust and distrust are never permanent and universal. A key distinction: Blind trust vs. authentic trust. Blind trust is the trust of a child, full of innocence and completely naïve as to certain possible outcomes. When this type of trust is gone, it’s gone for good.  Authentic trust is grown-up trust, a way of relating to others that recognizes the possibility of betrayal or let-down – and at the same time, values the relationship. It requires ongoing nurturing and care, as well as open and authentic conversations about standards, behavior and beliefs. To build or rebuild trust: Manage commitments well. Build shared understanding of the standards for reliability and competency. Identify and “clean up” past trust violations (via sincere apologies and new commitments). Be open to listen to others’ assessments about our sincerity, competency and reliability. “Name the elephant” – if trust is an issue, talk about it and commit to improve it. Like this Tool Tip? Get Lots More in these eBooks! [wpsc_products category_id='80' ]