Are You a Connector? A Catalyst? A Steward?

Are you an ENTJ?  An ISFP?  An Aries or a Pisces?  You may know your Myers Briggs Type Indicator, and you no doubt know your birthday–but what about your Trust Temperament™?  How do you go about building a trustworthy relationship with another person?

Our research has identified six different Trust Temperaments™, or preferences, describing how different people go about building trust.

You Might Be a Redneck If…

To borrow from Jeff Foxworthy’s famous comedy routines (though on a more serious subject), we’d like to offer you a little self-assessment opportunity.  Here are the six Trust Temperaments™ based on the Trust Quotient to check out below.  Each one represents two strengths from the Trust Equation.

What’s Your Trust Temperament?

If you like being the smartest person in the room, if you solve the hard problems, if you care about what other people think of your work, or if you’ve ever said “Lead, follow or get out of the way–”

You might be an Expert.

If you’re organized, dependable, sincere, if you’re the PTA president or Little League coach, if you’ve ever been called a kindly (or not-so-kindly) drill sergeant–

–You might be a Doer.

If you love ideas and framing the big picture, how things are connected, collaborating and brainstorming, and if you like to play by your own rules–

–You might be a Catalyst.

If you’re magnetic and caring, if you accomplish things through others, and if people come to you to find out what’ really going on around here–

–You might be a Connector.

If you care about the group and the mission, if you’re willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done, if the phrase ‘servant leader’ has a positive ring for you–

–You might be a Steward.

And if you love the subject matter of your work (maybe more than you love people?), if you get sidetracked by insights but never by ego, if anyone has ever said to you: “Hello, we’re over here–”

–You might be a Professor.

Where do you see yourself?  To find out your type, take the Trust Quotient test.

But Enough About You–Let’s Talk About Us!

As we’ve said, these are natural styles, or tendencies, which draw on different strengths in becoming trustworthy.  Over the coming weeks some of us from Trusted Advisor Associates LLC are going to share our personal perspectives on what it’s like to be a…

Stay tuned.

0 replies
  1. Andrea Howe
    Andrea Howe says:

    Sandy, your posts are always a joy to read. You pack a lot of punch–and levity–into few words. Charlie and I are working on a blog post that describes what happens when a Catalyst and a Connector try to write a book together. Stay tuned. 🙂

    Reply
  2. Peter Vajda
    Peter Vajda says:

    So, Sandy, I have a curiosity or two.The first is, are you saying that, like Myers-Briggs indicator types, your “preferences” describing how different people go about building trust are “natural?” And, if so, I’m curious how you might define “natural.”In my perspective, everyone is born with an innate quality to trust. However, due to the way we are raised and based on myriad childhood experiences, many, if not most, folks actually move away from this innate sense of trust, what I call True or Basic trust, either by choice (based on their early childhood experiences) or they lose it altogether.So, in the process of “growing up,” one has to learn to rebuild their sense of trust, True trust, or they live life manifesting a “faux” sense of trust. So, that’s my question. Are these preferences “natural?”My second curiosity has to do with the tendency one has for expressing or manifesting such preferences. Related to my first question, then, is whether or not some folks possess an amalgam of two or more of these tendencies, for example, and might consciously move between or among them depending on the circumstances?

    So, that is to say, might one exhibit a preference to trust, or for trust, depending on the context, the event, the circumstances, or the people with whom/which one is engaging rather than having one “preferential preference” sort of like one (preference)-size-fits-all most of the time?I’m looking forward to both your and Charlie’s upcoming discussion of your perspectives.And, thanks in advance.

    Reply
  3. Peter Vajda
    Peter Vajda says:

    So, Sandy, I have a curiosity or two.The first is, are you saying that, like Myers-Briggs indicator types, your “preferences” describing how different people go about building trust are “natural?” And, if so, I’m curious how you might define “natural.”In my perspective, everyone is born with an innate quality to trust. However, due to the way we are raised and based on myriad childhood experiences, many, if not most, folks actually move away from this innate sense of trust, what I call True or Basic trust, either by choice (based on their early childhood experiences) or they lose it altogether.So, in the process of “growing up,” one has to learn to rebuild their sense of trust, True trust, or they live life manifesting a “faux” sense of trust. So, that’s my question. Are these preferences “natural?”My second curiosity has to do with the tendency one has for expressing or manifesting such preferences. Related to my first question, then, is whether or not some folks possess an amalgam of two or more of these tendencies, for example, and might consciously move between or among them depending on the circumstances?

    So, that is to say, might one exhibit a preference to trust, or for trust, depending on the context, the event, the circumstances, or the people with whom/which one is engaging rather than having one “preferential preference” sort of like one (preference)-size-fits-all most of the time?I’m looking forward to both your and Charlie’s upcoming discussion of your perspectives.And, thanks in advance.

    Reply
  4. Charles H. Green
    Charles H. Green says:

    Peter, 

    As usual, great questions.  Let me add my $.02, and Sandy can round it up to the dollar later on. 

    First, remember the distinction between trusting and being trusted.  I think what you’re talking about when you speak of being born with innate qualities is the propensity to trust–that is, you’re talking about trusting. 

    The Trust Temperaments, on the other hand, are entirely about being trustworthy.  They are six different ways by which we seek to have others trust us.  Some of us believe we are trusted if we lead with facts and figures; others of us believe we are trusted if we feel safe to the other party.  These are less conscious beliefs than they are tendencies, hence our name, Temperaments.

    Readers might appreciate my interview with Dr. Eric Uslaner, probably the world’s expert on trusting, and on social trust. 
    http://trustedadvisor.com/trustmatters/dr-eric-uslaner-on-the-nature-of-trust-trust-quotes-3

    When he talks about ‘trust,’ he means what I think you were talking about: a general propensity of someone to trust in others.  That kind of trust propensity, he suggest, changes glacially–it’s formed by the attitudes of your grandparents, via your parents. I suppose that means he agrees with you that it’s environmentally driven, not genetically imprinted, though with such early-age effects, the two can present similarly. 

    (Uslaner also talks about ‘strategic trust,’ i.e. the level of trust one has in a specific person or institution, which can change far more rapidly; but it’s still about trusting).

    An interesting question is whether the Trust Temperaments–which are about being trustworthy, not about trusting–are themselves inborn, or socially bred.  I have no idea, but I’d suggest a case can be made for at least some hereditary effect here.  Some people are very good at abstract reasoning, and some at ‘intuition.’  I note that, in our study, there is a very clear gender effect on one of the trust equation variables–intimacy.  Women (surprise, surprise) are clearly better at it than men. 

    That doesn’t mean environment can’t affect the way we present ourselves as trustworthy–but I suspect it plays less of a role than it does with respect to the degree we trust.  

        

    Reply
  5. Sandy Styer
    Sandy Styer says:

    Peter:

    And one more word about the Trust Temperaments ™ if I may.  Your question about those who display or use more than one Temperament is a great one.  In fact, the research shows that the more balanced one is on all four of the components which make up the Trust Equation, the higher one’s overall trust quotient.  Which of course fits with our common experience: the more consistent someone is, the more we tend to find them trustworthy.

    Reply
  6. Peter Vajda
    Peter Vajda says:

    Thanks Sandy. Makes a lot of sense to me. Balance = harmony = low ego orienation = fewer defenses and so is more trustworthy…and why wouldd’t one be.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.