Sunday, October 12, 2008
Carnival of Trust

 Trust Matters RSS

sign up here to receive blog posts by email
Privacy Policy


Email cgreen [at] trustedadvisor [dot] com

Recent Comments

People Are Talking

Blogroll

Blogchive

Third-Party Blog Services


Charles H. Green's Trust Matters

previous entry | return to blog index | next entry

Trust and Risk—Ronald Reagan Redux

by Charles H. Green on Sunday, October 22, 2006 (post #6)


Ronald Reagan, speaking of diplomacy and the Soviet Union, famously said, "trust—but verify."

The statement never made sense to me (except as politics). If you're going to resort to verification, you're not dealing with trust, but with risk management. Trust without risk ain't trust.

Something related comes to us from a fascinating interview with Stanford's James G. March in the October Harvard Business Review. (Thanks to the 1-800-CEO-READ blog for the link).

HBR: In your film on Don Quixote and leadership, you say that if we trust only when trust is warranted, love only when love is returned, and learn only when learning is valuable, then we abandon an essential feature of our humanity. How do we lose part of our humanity?*


March: We justify actions by their consequences. But providing consequential justification is only a part of being human. It is an old issue, one with which Kant and Kierkegaard, among many others, struggled. I once taught a course on friendship that reinforced this idea for me. By the end of the course, a conspicuous difference had emerged between some of the students and me. They saw friendship as an exchange relationship: My friend is my friend because he or she is useful to me in one way or another. By contrast, I saw friendship as an arbitrary relationship: If you’re my friend, then there are various obligations that I have toward you, which have nothing to do with your behavior. We also talked about trust in that class. The students would say, “Well, how can you trust people unless they are trustworthy?” So I asked them why they called that trust. It sounded to me like a calculated exchange. For trust to be anything truly meaningful, you have to trust somebody who isn’t trustworthy. Otherwise, it’s just a standard rational transaction. The relationships among leaders and those between leaders and their followers certainly involve elements of simple exchange and reciprocity, but humans are capable of, and often exhibit, more arbitrary sentiments of commitment to one another.

March doesn't use the word "trustworthy" the same way I do; for him, it smacks of the "verification" part of Ronald Reagan's formula. No matter: the core of his message is that reliance solely on "consequential justification" (I love that line) strips trust of its essence.


Makes sense to me!



Charles H. Green, author of Trust-Based Selling and co-author of The Trusted Advisor, is a consultant and speaker on trust issues for some of the world's best companies. He has written about trust in business relationships at Trust Matters since 2006. Read more...


posted in Building Trusted Advisors, Trust-based Selling, Trust in Leadership Development and Strategy

0 Trackbacks

trackback url: http://trustedadvisor.com/trackback.php?id=7



9 Comments

breakingranks said

http://www.breakingranks.net

In all honesty I tend to trust systems more than people, and I'm not so sure that human judgment shouldn't be somewhat suppressed (referring to your earlier HP post).  It seems to me that all the great damage from my life has come from people - who use their informal power or "juice" or whatever to circumvent the system and get away with doing arbitrary, power-mongering sorts of things.

It's frankly hard to keep giving my trust on faith - I can't help but learn from my experiences. How would you advise someone like me  who has badly invested their trust in the past to proceed?

posted on Monday, October 23, 2006

Charles H. Green said

www.trustedadvisor.com/blog

How about it, blogworld?

Breakingranks has posted an honest, genuine, real, human issue here; what advice can we offer?

I'll post something in a day, but would love to hear from others first.


posted on Monday, October 23, 2006

will said


I am very curious about what contexts you have found yourself time and time again having trusted people, yet getting burned. It seems like a vital point. And what context? Is it business? personal?

This is not a trivial point. It's about losing faith in people, and that's a pretty sad thing. And lonely.

I guess it boils down to this: Can you let a past bad experience ruin the potential for a good experience in the future?

Do we stop falling in love because a lover left us with a younger version of ourselves? Sometimes we do !

I feel like if there is an answer it would be something somewhat superhuman, like, "turn the other cheek," which is ok if you can bring back people from the dead at the bat of an eyelash, but for the rest of us mortals it is not a matter of course to be so divinely generous.

And yet, to live in fear and cynical mistrust is not a great place to be. This means that the past rules the future and there is no where to go. 

So it becomes a personal choice. We can sacrifice our ability to trust people for the rest of our lives, or we can sacrifice the feelng of getting burned, and make a consious effort not to paint the future with the past.

( I still feel that this is somewhat superhuman though.  )

 



posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Mark Williams said

This is a fascinating discussion and one I believe has some merit if you look into more deeply what Reagan might have had in mind. Even I, a fairly moderate Democrat, liked Ronald Reagan very much. We know that many pundits and others did not give him credit for his intellect , knowledge and how well read he really was. Perhaps he has something here when he spoke of the Soviet Union and even perhaps his relationship with Gorbachev.

If one were to look at the word “verify” and break it down in its Latin form, it comes from verus, true or truth and facere, to make. Hence, it is something which must be experienced, perhaps of consequence to fully experience. So how does trust fit in ? Well, I believe it is beyond being arbitrary and we humans making arbitrary sentiments of commitment to one another as James March says. Trust in and of itself suggests, I believe , that an exchange take place , an interplay between at least two persons to fully appreciate its meaning. The great Kierkegaard and Kant sought trust in its rawest form of existential discovery between us and a God and Martin Buber in his marvelous work, I and Thou , ponders the intimacy of our relationships and at its very core being trust. Trust in today’s modern language if Buber was writing for HBR may describe it as a “two way street, and earned trust and the like”. So, Reagan perhaps, if I take some license to read his mind, was borrowing something from his wonderful loving marriage to Nancy, his best friend as he would often say, when he said…’trust – but verify”….that love, that trust, is an intimacy of acceptance and of giving to each other and with that there must be a consequence, a justification perhaps, but not in a literal sense but as , again, as the meaning of verify suggests, a truth worth making, worth doing, which must be active, fluid , real. I agree that reliance solely on “consequential justification” strips trust of its true essence but I do believe that the essence of trust must, to actualize its manifestation of our experience, have a fairly strong element of verification.

posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2006

breakingranks said

http://www.breakingranks.net

Just answering the "context for getting burned" question - most of these bad experiences have been in the work/corporate context. I don't think I have any record at all of friend/intimacy betrayal. I'm the sort of person who focuses on maintaining a few good relationships instead of many superficial ones.

posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2006

will said

I thought about this long and hard yesterday, taking into consideration that I am a freelancer, A freelance programmer, which is not necessarily where most people are coming from.

When I think of how much work I do, I think I would hate it  if I did a terrible job. If I scammed the client, under-delivered, produced something useless (not meeting my client`s needs.)

How could I take pride in my work, if it didn`t do what it set out to accomplish.

The bottom line for me is that so much of my life, my living being, goes into this "work" stuff, and not without a sense of irony and a healthy dose of cynicism about where the world is at.

What gets me through it all, is that I must be a part of this sometimes-really-gross world out there to live, and there`s little I can do by myself to make it less gross.

What I can do is work on not being gross myself, so I can sleep well. basically.



posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Charles H. Green said

www.trustedadvisor.com/blog

Great dialogue, thanks to Mark and Will for taking this in fascinating directions.

I want to specifically respond to the issue that breakingranks raised—basically, how do you trust in business when people behave in abusive, untrustworthy ways?

One response is of course rules, procedures, systems, prohibitions, reviews, sanctions, and they do have their place.  But as breakingranks notes, the ability of nefarious people to circumvent rules will always outpace the rules put in place to prevent them.  Rules have their limits.

At a corporate level, values are another, higher, level of recourse.  Values-driven firms are becoming recognized more and more as effective at generating consistent results in an organization, rather than the "bleeding-heart" image that phrase used to conjure up.

But that's not what breakingranks was talking about either; I think the issue he raised was a personal one.  How does one react personally to abusive, untrustworthy people?

I don't have a silver bullet, but I've got four small rocks to throw.

1. Where and to the extent possible, don't deal with such people.  Vote with your feet.  You won't be the only one.

2. Constructively confront.  If someone throws their weight at you in an effort to get you to shade the truth, ask them directly and sincerely, "Let me be clear about something; you're not asking me to tell a lie, are you?"  Most likely he'll say "no, of course not, I'm just asking you to...." in which case you have established a boundary.  (If he says "yes, I am," that's when you quit.  Seriously.)

3. Make sure you don't pre-judge.  Don't presume that someone you haven't dealt with is untrustworthy, because once you lead with that presumption, you have "gone over" to the Dark Side.  Be careful about what you put at stake in new situations, but leave the new person room to behave in a trustworthy manner.

4. Make sure your own behaviors are trustworthy.   Most people don't like screwing over a trustworthy person, particularly one who is plainspoken and willing to constructively confront (see 2 above).   They'd rather pick on people who are unsure of their principles and act afraid of being screwed.  They get what they fear.  You don't have to.

That's the best I've got to offer.  Anyone else?

posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Ian Welsh said

www.agonist.org

I think a fair bit of pressure to lie is implicit or even explicit  in the organization.  I went through a period of a few years where it was made sure that I  understood that I was not to speak to even internal auditors without someone more senior from management along.  Other people understood that the department's problems were not to be laundered in public (er, to senior management), I thought our problems needed to be fixed and weren't being fixed for as long as we could ignore them.  (Although I also learned in time that most auditors didn't want to find problems.)

It probably doesn't speak well for me that eventually that restriction was relaxed.

I will say that my biggest regret in all my years at that particular megacorporation is not the times I spoke up, it is one particular time when I didn't.

Compromise too often, and you wind up compromised.  Ask others to compromise too often and you wind up with employees who no longer believe their job is doing the right thing by the customers, themselves, or you.

posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006

breakingranks said

http://www.breakingranks.net

First, to Ian - thanks for confirming that there can be lasting consequences when you "go along to get along." It's hard to remember that when you're dealing with the immediate (negative) aftermath of trying to take a principled stand.

To Charles -  thank you for the good advice! I should let you know I've had a bad experience with the approach in #2. I tried to rephrase the question in hopes my manager would back off in pressuring me to do something unethical. Instead, my manager became paranoid that she couldn't trust me with her scheming and then plotted to have me fired under false pretenses as quickly as possible. You could say I'm better off without that job, but it's still a tough thing to try to explain to potential employers who wanted to know how I parted ways with my last good corporate job.

posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006



Post a Comment

Note: This blog uses a 2-click comment system to combat spam. After you submit your comment below, you will be prompted to click a second button to complete the posting process.