20 Years of Trust: What Has Changed

It’s been 20 years since the release of The Trusted Advisor. As we began the process of creating the 20th Anniversary Edition, we dived into deep reflection on how building trust has changed over the last two decades.

Surely it had to be vast… when the first book was released many people didn’t have an email address. Business was done face-to-face, and Zoom’s inception was 10 years away. But as we analyzed further, the initial presumption that so much would need to be changed for the new book to be relevant shifted.

Technology and digitization have brought the biggest transformations over the past two decades, causing ripples that affect all aspects of our lives, both personal and professional. And yet, the models for building trust that we laid out 20 years ago have remained steadfast, and many have actually become more important in creating meaningful relationships. The fundamentals of trust-building – that is, what creates trust – haven’t changed. It’s how we do them that has evolved.

Trust is (and always will be) the result of an interaction between a trustor and a trustee. When one person takes the risk to trust another, who in return is trustworthy, the end result is trust.

The Trust Equation is the trust model that has been impacted most in the last 20 years. It is also still the best guide to create impactful relationships built on trust.

Here’s what we’ve seen changed within the Trust Equation:


Twenty years ago, credibility could only be established through interpersonal interaction. In business, that meant investing a large amount of time – in-person meetings, lunches, numerous phone calls – was the only way to verify someone’s credibility. And it took a lot of time. But time spent does NOT equal trustworthiness.

Credibility can now be ascertained largely online. We can determine if we want to take the first step to trust by looking at a website, checking a LinkedIn profile or filtering online reviews. We have intel before the introduction is even officially made, which can be a double-edge sword; it can move the process along more quickly to the emotional aspect of credibility (if the person accepts the digital info as positive) OR it can discredit immediately (if the person accepts the digital info as negative).


Reliability is about dependability – delivering on one’s promises – and predictability. Technology can be a conduit to reliability, but people trust people, not algorithms. True reliability takes multiple interpersonal interactions to give the other person a sense of what to expect. If used correctly, technology can be a great aid in achieving reliability by providing more channels to show up authentically. Unfortunately, in the last 20 years it’s been more of an impediment than an amplifier when people rely solely on tech and avoid the human aspect.


Intimacy is the biggest builder of trust and is purely interpersonal. Because the time-frame of trust building has been shortened by the internet (as the world is altogether moving at a faster pace), it’s more essential than ever to get this piece right. If face-to-face interaction has decreased 80%, the remaining 20% must be qualitatively sharper (especially since it’s probably virtual today). Even though we can now come to the table with commonality and connection due to online research, true intimacy only happens between two people who meet each other half way. The fact that the overall time available to build intimacy has decreased means the time spent building intimacy holds even more weight.


The biggest impact in self-orientation isn’t a change to self-consciousness (“Am I smart enough? Did I say the right thing? Do I belong here?”) but to focus. Constant technology distractions have shortened our attention spans, and it’s more difficult to give someone the necessary attention to build trust, especially virtually, when you can hide the fact that you’re checking devices when you’re supposed to be engaged. Even in-person interactions have flailed. Try to think of the last time you had a meeting with two or more people where at least one of them didn’t check their smartphone. It’s an anomaly these days.

In Summary

Although some elements of trust have changed in the last 20 years, the Trust Equation as a model to build trust has remained solid and is more relevant than ever. When we think about the digital world, we might assume that more information and improved processes would make it easier for us to connect meaningfully, but that hasn’t happened. When vital aspects of trust building are lost or overlooked due to the convenience of technology, trust will falter.

Give trust building the time and energy it deserves, and use technology not to replace important interpersonal interaction, but to amplify it.


Start 2021 with a (Better) New Years Resolution

Fourteen years ago I wrote the following thoughts on New Years resolutions. It feels even more relevant this year, as we breathe a collective sigh of relief that 2020 is finally over.

Apologies to those who have read it year after year – though I suspect some of you won’t mind seeing it anew.

Happy New Year.
My unscientific sampling says many people make New Years resolutions, and few follow through. Net result – unhappiness.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

You could, of course, just try harder, stiffen your resolve, etc. But you’ve been there, tried that.

You could also ditch the whole idea and just stop making resolutions. Avoid goal-failure by eliminating goal-setting. Effective, but at the cost of giving up on aspirations.

I heard another idea: replace the New Year’s Resolution List with a New Year’s Gratitude List. Here’s why it makes sense.

First, most resolutions are about self-improvement – this year I resolve to: quit smoking, lose weight, cut the gossip, drink less, exercise more, and so on. All those resolutions are rooted in a dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs – or with oneself.

In other words: resolutions often have a component of dissatisfaction with self. For many, it isn’t just dissatisfaction – it’s self-hatred. And the stronger the loathing of self, the stronger the resolutions – and the more they hurt when they go unfulfilled.  It can be a very vicious circle.

Second, happy people do better. This has some verification in science, and it’s a common point of view in religion and psychology – and in common sense. People who are slightly optimistic do better in life. People who are happy are more attractive to other people. In a very real sense, you empower what you fear – and attract what you put out.

Ergo, replace resolutions with gratitude. The best way to improve oneself is paradoxical – start by being grateful for what you already have. That turns your aspirations from negative (fixing a bad situation) to positive (making a fine situation even better).

Gratitude forces our attention outwards, to others – a common recommendation of almost all spiritual programs.

Finally, gratitude calms us. We worry less. We don’t obsess. We attract others by our calm, which makes our lives connected and meaningful. And before long, we tend to smoke less, drink less, exercise more, gossip less, and so on. Which of course is what we thought we wanted in the first place.

But the real truth is – it wasn’t the resolutions we wanted in the first place.  It was the peace that comes with gratitude.  We mistook cause for effect.

Go for an attitude of gratitude. The rest are positive side-effects.

7 Lessons to Improve Trust in a Virtual World

– With contributions from Sandy Styer, Client Manager – Diagnostics and Stewart Hirsch, Senior Coach – Business Development and Executive Leadership 

Pandemic. Coronavirus. Covid-19. _____.   ______.  . ______.

Fill in the blanks with adjective(s) of your choice [apocalyptic; unprecedented; crisis; game-changer; etc.] Add a flourishing punch line, and you’ve got the intro to this piece.

There, that’s done.

But I want to talk about something specific: the fact that the business world has lurched toward operating in a virtual manner. A major client of ours had a 5-year plan to migrate training to fully online. The plan got compressed to 6 months. And so it is with most of us.

This move to virtual affects two ways in which we engage to create trust;

  • 1-to-1 virtual interactions
  • Interacting in a group / video conferencing

As we’ve written elsewhere, even in normal times the role of human emotions in trust plays a slightly stronger role than that played by our rational, brain-based activities. In the trustworthiness-based Trust Equation, that means Intimacy and low Self-orientation are more powerful than Credibility and Reliability.

In times of Pandemic etc. – multiply that by 10.

Which raises the pointed question:

How are we to do an already tough job when we can’t be physically next to or in front of other human beings? 

Our most obvious sense – visual – is at best reduced to a 1-inch square 2-dimensional image on Zoom, Google Hangouts or Teams. Worse, that image is subject to fuzziness and to periodic disconnect with the disembodied voice accompanying it.

Our sense of hearing, as noted above, is significantly affected – most nuance gone. Smell and touch – among our least conscious senses, but powerful nonetheless – are completely eliminated.

And that’s with video conferencing. What about phone, email, texting, social media, etc. Are they not incomparably weakened when it comes to creating trust?

The Good News: It CAN Be Done

Count me among those who think the shift to virtual is here to stay: we’re not returning to those days of yesteryear. And yet: human beings have not been rewired. We’re fundamentally the same. So if we do not change – the way we interact must change.

We remain the same products of eons of evolution that we were three months ago. The imperative for interpersonal social connection remains wired into our DNA. Whether we will continue to seek it is beyond doubt: we will. The only question presented is how we will contrive to meet the imperatives in a new operating environment?

So let’s dig in.

One anchor we can count on: the strongest form of trust is personal – even when you’re interacting in a group.

And it’s not like we don’t have experience. In particular, lessons can be drawn from an eclectic set of sources:

  • Public speaking and oratory
  • Communicating with blind and deaf people
  • Non-business writing
  • Etiquette – the rules of social behavior
  • Speaking to another person in not-their-first-language

Following are 7 lessons drawn from the above fields. I’ll group them according to 1-to-1 virtual interactions, and group virtual interactions (though there is some cross-over).

1-to-1 Virtual Interactions

  1. Seek more (emotional) bandwidth. For any given interaction requiring an emotional connection, seek a higher medium of communication than you did three months ago.
    • Instead of texting, use email. Instead of a terse email, add more thoughts and words. Instead of long emails, remember the forgotten application embedded in our iPhones – the phone itself.
  2. Do a little more homework. Find out a bit more than usual about the group you’re speaking to.
    • LinkedIn is a fast resource to get a feel for people.
    • You may use only one tenth of what you find out, but that’s OK – the point is not to show you did your homework, the point is simply to know, going in, more about the group.
    • On phone calls, have in front of you photos of people you’re speaking to (again, LinkedIn is a good source.)
  3. Use the Rule of Reciprocity. That is, you get back what you put out. For example:
    • If you listen attentively to others, they will be inclined to listen attentively to you.
    • If you (substantively and accurately) praise others, they will be inclined to do the same to you.
    • If you share the agenda up front with others, they will respect the agenda you jointly create.
    • If you take an emotional risk (e.g. commenting on your own feelings, or on your perception of their feelings), they will be similarly inclined to take emotional risks in return.
    • If you trust them, they will become more trustworthy, and more willing to trust you.
  4. Dare to be personal. Not private, necessarily – but personal. Remember: In these pandemic times, the realm of the emotional is 10X more important than before; and it was always a bit more important.
    • You don’t need to reference outside lives – kids, sports teams – to establish emotional connection. You do need to reference emotions, feelings, reactions, perceptions, elephants-in-the-room, the unspoken issues. All these can be raised in the context of the-personal-in-business: things that are happening in the workplace.
    • To talk about the feelings of others, use first-person language like, “I’m sensing hesitation,” or “I’m picking up a bit of concern there,” or “I thought you looked a little perplexed there,” or “I’m trying to think if it were me, and I think I’d probably feel…” (As opposed to second-person language like “You’re hesitating there…”)
    • To talk about your own feelings, use first-person language like, “Maybe it’s just me, but that makes me feel a little nervous,” or “I’ve gotta tell you, I’m feeling a little concerned about…,” or “at the risk of being the only one who feels this way, I’m not on board yet with this idea…”

Interacting in a Group / Video Conferencing

  1. Find ways to connect personally with your audience. And do it one individual at a time.
    • Address participants by name, especially when replying to a specific question.
    • Just as in public speaking, speak to one person at a time – don’t be shy about using their name, everyone in the group will sense the personal connection
    • Look into the camera most of the time, not at your screen, while you address that one person.
    • Single out individuals on the call – inquire about the local weather for one person, comment on the video background of another.
  2. Eschew emotionally barren communications. They lend themselves to fear, suspicion of motives, ALL-CAPS flaming, and withdrawal.
    • Violate Hemingway’s rules of writing – use more adjectives.
    • Modulate your voice more; make gestures bigger; move to and away from the camera; use hand gestures (thumbs up, the OK sign, handshake gesture, point to the camera, etc.)
    • Selectively use emojis in text-based or online communications.
    • Use more words, and simpler words, to convey the thought.
    • Use more stories.
    • Evoke the senses: make reference to sounds, smells, touch, sights, temperature, nature.
    • Mix your media: for any meeting over 20 minutes, include things like images, video clips, interactive exercises, breakouts.
    • For web-based video calls, master the tools of toggling back and forth between sharing your desktop and looking at the screen full of participants.
  3. Ramp up the level of interaction. The desire to interact must counteract the low-bandwidth nature of the medium you’re using. Be thoughtful about how others perceive you.
    • Use polling capabilities.
    • Become familiar with electronic breakout rooms.
    • For web-based video calls, use non-technical means – ask questions, use the chat feature, ask for thumbs-up or thumbs-down reactions, call on individuals.
    • Have an interesting background, rather than a ‘beige’ or neutral background: bookcases, views, furniture. The point is not to be distracting, but enough that it personalizes you. Virtual backgrounds are now available to all, either digitally or through green screen.
    • Lighting – particularly foreground lighting – is important. People want to see your face; oblige them.
    • Audio is even more important. Experiment – with mics, headsets, earphones. You want no-echo, no ambient noise, good distance.

If there’s any single point to be gleaned from the above suggestions, it is that Trust is Personal – even, and perhaps especially, in a virtual world.

Which particular suggestion do you find most useful? And please add your own to the list.

How Will You Respond in a Time of Crisis?

It’s fair to say the vast majority of us have not experienced a global public health crisis at a scale similar to the one we are experiencing right now with COVID-19.

While many might point to political or economic events that triggered similar feelings, the current outbreak of the novel coronavirus is touching every single person, everywhere on this planet.

How you respond during this unprecedented time is very telling of your Trust Temperament. With swirling instability in the world around us, the differences in the ways each of us builds trust and responds to crisis can become even more apparent.

Building Trust in Times of Crisis

The Expert – Scoring highly in Credibility and Reliability, Experts are relied on for their expertise and follow-through. They will dig in to learning everything they can about the crisis at hand in order to help others understand the situation. For example, they may become highly attuned to tracking the statistics around COVID-19, understanding viral transmission, and digging into the facts and data from a more objective and analytical perspective. The downside is they may not show enough empathy during such an emotional time.

The Catalyst – Big picture people, Catalysts combine Credibility and Intimacy to focus on big ideas and solving big problems. During a crisis of this magnitude and with so many challenges to solve, Catalysts will do everything they can to think outside the box to spark new ideas. Others will look to them for guidance on framing this global problem.

The Professor – Scoring high on Credibility and Self-orientation, Professors are driven by sharing insight and expertise with others for the sake of educating. During a global pandemic, others will turn to Professors to learn more about the topic, and Professors will commit to teaching at every opportunity.

The Doer – Strong in Reliability and Intimacy, Doers aim to keep focus in times of distress. No matter how many obstacles get thrown in their way, Doers resolve to stay the course and help keep everyone marching in the right direction. They commit and, no matter how hard the circumstances, resolve to find a way to see things through. Others find solace and purpose in their steadfastness.

The Steward – They are counted on for doing what they say and keeping other people’s best interests at the forefront. Scoring favorably in Reliability and Self-orientation, their goal is to make sure their people are taken care of. During a time of crisis, this may include ensuring everyone on their team is adequately set up to work remotely and has the tools and information they need to continue doing their jobs. Or, if remote work can’t be completed, support them in whatever way fits their situation and needs.

The Connector – Know commonly as a “people person,” a Connector combines Intimacy with low Self-orientation and builds trust by demonstrating their care and commitment for others. During a time when social distancing is a necessary norm, Connectors will continue to find ways to, naturally, connect – be that on the phone or via video chat in order to maintain relationships. Connectors help ease feelings of stress and anxiety in others who are fearful about the uncertainty of the future.

One Day at a Time

Trust is not something you can turn on or off. During a pandemic, the way we build trust may have to flex, but strengthening relationships is more important than ever as we all work to get through this crisis one day at a time.

Take our TQ assessment today to learn more about your strengths and how you most effectively build trust with those around you – whether that’s in person or remotely. Please note: the Trust Temperament™ is not included in the free mini-report; you must purchase the full report to learn about your Trust Temperament™. If you have questions about what your results mean or how to improve trust in your organization, reach out to us. We look forward to the conversation.

Trust in a Coffee Cup – The Intimate Actuary

I’ve often wondered: is our real workplace office the coffee shop?

Many years ago, when I started work as a management consultant, the smoking area was the place where information was exchanged, relationships forged, and informal deals brokered. There’s an informality when people congregate without agendas; barriers are dropped, titles mean less, and deeper social connections get forged.

Is this ‘informality’ the key to the Trust Equation’s key component of Intimacy?

Coffee Shop Intimacy

Being a Brit, we often think they’re the same thing. The beers after work and the ‘Cheeky Nandos’ (see here for our befuddled American friends) is our default to creating intimacy; but perhaps we should think a bit more deeply.

Intimacy as a component of trustworthiness is actually more about security and a sense of empathy, a less boisterous and socially connected emotion. It’s individual and personal, and is expressed differently from person to person. One size definitely doesn’t fit all.

I learnt this the hard way over a series of weeks working in a large financial services client. My personal default style is always openness and candid sharing of the personal (full disclosure: I’m Irish). I’m always looking for that connection. So – what happens when that openness meets The Actuary?

Actuarial Intimacy

I’m not suggesting by any means that actuaries are not able to display intimacy, but by the very nature of their work they are not emotional risk takers. Instead, they must be able to be analytical and reflective. The profession tends to attract those who feel simpatico with those requirements.  Social settings are rarely the default home of The Actuary. And yet – for them, as for all of us, Intimacy is still key to trust.

Throughout the weeks we worked together my daily routine began with a visit to the inhouse Starbucks; and every day (maybe 2-3 times a day) I’d offer to buy a coffee for my actuarial friend and client. And (of course) every day he would decline, much to my frustration. I wanted nothing more than to sit down with him and understand what his passions were, his family situation – who he was as a person.

We worked together closely, and made great progress, but for me it was like wading through cement – no conversation, no social interaction. It was killing me. Worse still, I had no idea if I was even making an impact with the work. His only foray into ‘real’ communication was to starkly tell me one afternoon, after my third coffee of the day, “You spend on average £7 a day on coffee; that’s close to £2,000 a year.” (I suspect he even worked out my life expectancy on the back of that).

Yet I couldn’t have been more wrong. In hindsight, this was his conversation starter, though it took me until the project was finished to recognize it as such. We delivered on time and with (to my mind) a great result. His expressed view was that we had delivered what was expected.

On our final day working together, before I left for a new client, I was sitting with colleagues both client and peers. We were engaging in what we knew best, that snappy ‘cheeky Nandos’ social interaction, and of course I was comfortable again – back to normal.

Just before lunch my actuarial friend paid me a visit. And, he came with a gift – a very risky gift for him, a branded insulated coffee-mug. Initially I thought, “Yes! I’ve converted him, he’s a social coffee drinker now.” But again, I had misread him.

He looked me in the eye and said to me, “Johnny, I’ve really enjoyed working with you. I’ve brought you something to say thank-you for making this a success for me, and for my team.”

Suddenly I was the one without words. I defaulted to my informal social style, we exchanged some trivial social niceties, and we said our farewells.

You Can’t Buy Intimacy

It took me months to realize that for him intimacy wasn’t about being social. It wasn’t bonhomie or office banter. In fact, it was much deeper than that. For him it was about me understanding him, including what was important to him and how he felt about it. That then translated to what needed to be done, by when and with what outcome.

Success wasn’t beers and back slaps: it was me realizing how important it was to him that the job be done well, and him being comfortable that I had understood that about him.

We had created intimacy and we had built trust – slowly and painfully for me, measured and appropriately for him. Ultimately, he felt safe knowing that we would get where we were headed, together, and that he could trust me to share that commitment.

I still see him in the airport lounge on my regular commutes between Edinburgh and London, and every six months or so he’ll introduce me to a colleague. He’s always polite, measured and professional. As for me, well, I always have a coffee in my hand.

But we both know.

An Old Standby for a New Normal

To say there is no shortage of COVID-19-related “best advice” out there is an understatement. Which means one thing that’s in short supply is focus. This post aims to help fill that void as we manage our new normal while also tending to our relationships, both personal and at work.

Enter The Trust Equation—a time- and recession-tested framework for personal trustworthiness (from The Trusted Advisor, by Maister, Green and Galford).

Source: The Trusted Advisor by Maister, Green, and Galford, The Free Press, 2000

Here are a few pandemic-sensitive tips on what to pay attention to, in order of priority.

Self-orientation (S). The biggest trust de-railer for us all right now is also the biggest driver of high self-orientation: fear. When it comes to trust triage in a crisis, this factor deserves the bulk of our attention.

Low self-orientation, which is what we should strive for, equates to a focus on others by (1) putting our attention on them, and (2) making choices that are motivated by their best interests, not ours. Consider it icing on the cake if there’s mutual benefit to be found.

Pandemic-induced fear can trigger our basest instincts: we default to protecting ourselves, obsess about stuff, avoid relationship risks (or any risks, for that matter), and more. Yet true trusted advisorship demands that we find ways to lead from our higher selves instead.

Here’s a starter list of simple strategies for keeping our self-orientation as low as possible:

  • Reach out to people—clients and beyond—for one simple reason – to inquire how they are. Period.
  • Make generous offers. What’s something concrete that you can give away that would be helpful right now? Think in terms of ideas, resources, even work. Bring value at a time when it’s sorely needed because you can, and because you want to make a difference. No strings attached. No. Strings. Attached.
  • Get and stay grounded. If ever there were a time to stay centered, to keep stress levels as low as possible, and to maintain perspective, that time is now. Too many professionals were already wrung out before the you-know-what hit the global fan. Whatever helps you be your best, do it and do it regularly: exercise, meditation, music, dancing, reading, cooking, art, any form of play, a gratitude practice … the possibilities may not be endless right now, but they are numerous.

Things to avoid include anything that might smack of ambulance-chasing from where they sit (even if your intentions are noble), and conversations that focus only on the task at hand. It’s fine, even good, to channel our energy into productive work right now, but not at the expense of leading with genuine caring about the people in our lives.

Intimacy (I). Intimacy equates to safety, and there are many ways to achieve it in relationships. The first two S-lowering strategies above are really two-fers as they not only demonstrate caring, but also increase intimacy by building rapport and connectedness. Here are two additional tools:

  • Listen masterfully. Treat every conversation you have right now as an opportunity to hone your empathetic listening skills. It just may be the simplest and most powerful route to building intimacy quickly.
  • Let others get to know you. Our current circumstances are a forcing function when it comes to revealing our humanity. Who hasn’t been video-bombed by a small child or a needy pet in the past week? Even journalists broadcasting live from home are making news in unexpected ways. Embrace the opportunities to give others a little insight into your life. You might be surprised at how readily and voluntarily they reciprocate.

Reliability (R). The extent to which your actions are consistent and predictable determines how reliable others deem you to be. I’d normally call this trustworthiness dimension a distant third. Absent a crisis, reliability is table stakes, and generally far too heavily relied upon by services professionals at the expense of other variables. In a pandemic, though, its relative importance increases because of our basic human need for certainty. And while none of us holds the power to answer big questions such as, “When will we be able to go to a live concert again?” we can do things like:

  • Make small promises, then routinely follow through. And when plans get derailed, that’s OK, just get in touch immediately to reset expectations.
  • Communicate, communicate, communicate.Meetings and touch-points that occur at a regular cadence provide a sense of stability, even if you don’t have new information to share.

Credibility (C). Credibility is fundamentally about words: what you say, and how you say it. Knowing stuff might be helpful to others right now, but unless you’re Tony Fauci it’s not likely to set you apart. Zero in on being honest about your limitations and errorsinstead. For example, be willing to say, “I screwed up in how I handled that,” or “I don’t know”—straightforwardly and with a blend of ego strength and humility.

It’s my first pandemic, and there’s a lot I don’t know right now. One thing I do know is that the trust equation is a simple and profound framework that offers guidance in the best of times and the worst of times.

May we all use it well.

A (Better) New Year’s Resolution

Twelve years have passed since I first wrote the following thoughts on New Years resolutions. Frankly, it was good. And frankly I haven’t been able to write a better one.

Next year, maybe (though, probably not).

So, apologies to those who have read it year after year – though I suspect some of you won’t mind.

Happy New Year.
My unscientific sampling says many people make New Years resolutions, and few follow through. Net result – unhappiness.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

You could, of course, just try harder, stiffen your resolve, etc. But you’ve been there, tried that.

You could also ditch the whole idea and just stop making resolutions. Avoid goal-failure by eliminating goal-setting. Effective, but at the cost of giving up on aspirations.

I heard another idea: replace the New Year’s Resolution List with a New Year’s Gratitude List. Here’s why it makes sense.

First, most resolutions are about self-improvement – this year I resolve to: quit smoking, lose weight, cut the gossip, drink less, exercise more, and so on. All those resolutions are rooted in a dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs – or with oneself.

In other words: resolutions often have a component of dissatisfaction with self. For many, it isn’t just dissatisfaction – it’s self-hatred. And the stronger the loathing of self, the stronger the resolutions – and the more they hurt when they go unfulfilled.  It can be a very vicious circle.

Second, happy people do better. This has some verification in science, and it’s a common point of view in religion and psychology – and in common sense. People who are slightly optimistic do better in life. People who are happy are more attractive to other people. In a very real sense, you empower what you fear – and attract what you put out.

Ergo, replace resolutions with gratitude. The best way to improve oneself is paradoxical – start by begin grateful for what you already have. That turns your aspirations from negative (fixing a bad situation) to positive (making a fine situation even better).

Gratitude forces our attention outwards, to others – a common recommendation of almost all spiritual programs.

Finally, gratitude calms us. We worry less. We don’t obsess. We attract others by our calm, which makes our lives connected and meaningful. And before long, we tend to smoke less, drink less, exercise more, gossip less, and so on. Which of course is what we thought we wanted in the first place.

But the real truth is – it wasn’t the resolutions we wanted in the first place.  It was the peace that comes with gratitude.  We mistook cause for effect.

Go for an attitude of gratitude. The rest are positive side-effects.

Sex, Lies and Memory. And Trust.

She says he sexually assaulted her. He categorically denies it.

Surely one of them must be lying, and a Senate hearing is the right place to get to the bottom of it.


I don’t usually write about current events, but sometimes a teachable moment arises that just begs to be waded into. So here we go.


Malcolm Gladwell’s Revisionist History podcast has two episodes (three and four, season 3) devoted to the issue of memory. His starting point is the memory that both he and a NYC neighbor have about their interactions on the morning of 9/11.

Both are utterly confident about their detailed recall: and yet each is at complete odds with the other. Clearly they cannot both be right. Clearly one must be lying – right? Yet each vehemently denies it.

Now let’s imagine two people trying to recall traumatic events of 30 years ago, when both were in their teens. One may have been very drunk, and may have behaved very badly toward the other. Or maybe not.

  • Is it possible that the accused acted so far out of character in his drunkenness that his unconscious blotted out the memory? (Not to mention plain old drunken blackout effects).
  • Is it possible that the accuser felt so traumatized by some event that her unconscious, talking to no one else over the years, scrambled dates, names, and even events?
  • What are the odds that either party has crystal-clear memories of what transpired at a teen-age party three decades ago? Is it possible that each might have subtly and unconsciously rewritten history just a tad?

Not only is it possible, it’s downright likely. Human memory is far from the tabula rasa we like to believe. The boundaries and limitations of eyewitnesses and their memory have been well discussed in the law.

A Tale of Plagiarism

I faced this myself. Years ago, in the midst presenting some material to a faculty at a well-respected US University, I was publicly and dramatically accused of plagiarism.

I was astonished, outraged, and indignant. I had done no such thing! The audience was entirely on my side, embarrassed on my behalf for the rudeness of the accuser.

Yet in the following four hours, doubt began to seep in. I slowly peeked back into the past, and realized that in fact I had taken some material, used it, and somewhere along the line forgotten to include the original citation. My accuser was right – to my horror!

By the end of the day, I publicly apologized to my hosts, and to the accuser.

I felt bewildered: what was happening to my memory, my ethics – my sanity.

But I have since learned that Malcolm Gladwell was right. Memories are very tricky things.

It is not at all impossible to believe that both Kavanaugh and Ford are utterly sincere. It is extremely unlikely, in my opinion, that one of them is “lying,” in the sense that we usually mean.

And yet, we are about to play out in public what is billed as a morality tale – but what is really a humanity tale.

The Court of Binary Opinion

A public senate hearing is about the worst place to find “the truth” about what happened. It is high stakes; it is being proposed in very little time; the pressure is enormous; it is as public as can be; there has been almost no investigatory work done. And yet it appears we’re about to pit one fallible human’s memory against another – ostensibly in the search for “truth.” What a débâcle.

Why is such a polarizing event about to take place? In one way, it fits with the increasing narrative of us-vs-them politics of division that is overwhelming us.

In Jonathan Haidt’s new and excellent book, The Coddling of the American Mind, he and co-author Greg Lukianoff identify three Great Untruths. One of them is “We are Right, and They are Wrong.”

Polarization, tribalism, victimhood and blamethrowing are all the death of a reasoned democracy. This event – billed by each side as The Truth vs. The Liar – can serve no good purpose, but will be one more false binary division of good people.

What can you do? Don’t get sucked in. Recognize that memory is fickle, that people are not all good or all evil, that “the truth” is rarely black and white. Most of all, don’t view the political theater about to be served up as a morality play, but rather as a sad example of our failure to see people as human, and to deal with them in human-respecting ways.



Working Too Hard to Make the Sale

Let’s talk about working hard.

Maybe you think you’re not working hard enough; maybe someone else is guilt-tripping you into thinking so.  On the other hand, maybe you’re worried about work-life balance; or maybe you’re looking for that magic 2-day work week.

These thoughts rest on one definition of working hard: hours spent. I’d like to suggest another definition: mental effort.

If you’re in sales or business development, you’re bombarded with athletic metaphors. Here are two extremes:

  • No pain, no gain
  • When you do it right, it’s effortless.

So – which metaphor is right for sales?

Many respected sales authors will tell you that an essential ingredient in selling – perhaps the essential ingredient– is effort. They call it gumption, attitude, grit, hustle, sweat, get up and go – whatever the word, the message is that success is tough. That’s the “no pain, no gain” message.

By this view, selling is a lot like football: the team that exerts the most effort wins. And there is a lot of truth in that viewpoint.

But consider another truth. Think about hitting a golf ball. As any golfer can attest, the quality of your golf shot is in inverse proportion to your effort. That pleasing “click” of a well-struck iron almost never comes from trying hard.

Instead, the “trick” in golf is not how hard you swing – it’s how smooth, relaxed, and “at ease” your swing is. If you’re swinging too hard, you’re almost certainly doing it wrong. And there’s a lot of truth in that viewpoint as well.

Most dichotomies like this, I’ve learned, are false. Selling isn’t only like football or like golf. It’s both, in different aspects. This article is about just one side – the golf side, if you will, where if you’re working too hard at selling, you’re doing it wrong.

Adam Smith, Competition, and Selling

Blame it on Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. The Scottish moral philosopher and economist famously claimed that by the self-oriented struggling of the butcher and the baker, the “invisible hand” of the market makes itself known by balancing out all for the greater good. Out of individual selfishness grows the maximum collective good.

While Smith has been unfairly characterized as arguing against regulation and in favor of unfettered free markets, there’s no question that his powerful formulation rhymes with competition – individuals seeking their own betterment. Ever since, business has been full of metaphors from war and sports – and nowhere more than in sales.

Consider this list for one sport alone: pitch, curve ball, hitting cleanup, bottom of the ninth, pinch hit, get our signals lined up, strike out, bases loaded, don’t swing at the first pitch, home field advantage, double play, we’re on the scoreboard, leaving men on base, pop-up, foul ball, home run hitter, shut-out, and so on.

Here’s the thing about sports metaphors: they’re all about competition. Real Madrid vs. Barca. Yankees vs. Red Sox. All Blacks vs. Wallabies. Seller vs. competitor.

But most of all – seller vs. buyer.

Selling without Competition

It’s hard for most people to even conceive of selling without that competitive aspect between buyer and seller. Isn’t the whole point to get the sale? Isn’t closing the end of the sales process? If a competitor got the job, wouldn’t that be a loss? And why would you spend time on a “prospect” if the odds looked too low for a sale?

When we think this way, we spend an awful lot of energy. It’s hard work – most of it spent trying to persuade customers to do what we (sellers) want them to do. This is never easy (if you have a teenager and/or a spouse, you know this well).

The competitive approach is the traditional, competitive, zero-sum-thinking, buyer vs. seller – the age-old dance that  gives selling a faint (or not-so-faint) bad name. It is one-sided, seller-driven, selfish. This is the football approach – no pain no gain.

Social media, CRM systems, and AI have empowered this approach, even weaponized it. Just look at your inbox, spam filters, LinkedIn requests, and Twitter come-ons.

You have to work hard to sell that way.

The Other Approach

The second approach is different. The fundamental distinction is that you’re working with the buyer, not against the buyer. Your interests are 100% aligned, not 59%. If you do business by relentlessly helping your customers do what’s right for them, selling gets remarkably easier.

All you have to do is just change the whole approach to selling. You’re not in the competition game: you’re strictly in the helping game, with a partner called your customer/client.

You don’t have to think about what to share and what not to. You don’t have to control others. You don’t have to white-knuckle meetings and phone calls, because there are no bad outcomes. You don’t have to relentlessly screen out unqualified leads. You don’t have to practice “handling objections,” because objections are just invitations to further dialogue.

The “trick” is simple: just do the best you can to help the client. Period. Detach from the outcome. Go where the client conversation takes you. Your goal is not to get the sale. Your perspective is long-term success, not this transaction. Don’t focus on monthly quotas, just go where your help is most needed. Just help the client.

If you do that, two results become clear:

  1. You will not get every sale; you may not get this sale; sometimes you don’t deserve to get it, or the goal changes, or it gets postponed – sometimes you may even recommend a competitor;
  2. In the medium-to-long run, however, you will get more sales.

Selling this way works very well for one fundamental reason: all people (including buyers) prefer to deal with sellers they can trust – those who are honest, forthright, long-term driven, and client-focused. All people (including buyers) prefer not to deal with sellers who are in it for themselves, and constantly in denial about it.

If you give them a choice, they will gladly act on those preferences.

This is the golf part of selling: the part where if you lighten up, relax the muscles, let it flow, you end up with superior results. There’s a whole lot of truth to that view. And by that view, if you’re working too hard, you’re not doing it right.

Trusted Transactions, or Trusted Relationships?

Justice Potter Stewart once remarked, with respect to pornography, that it was virtually impossible to define it, but, “I know it when I see it.”

Ditto for trust. It’s both a verb and a noun. Its objects are implied and contextual, as in “I trust my dog with my life – but not with my ham sandwich.”

Increasingly, we need to make explicit another dual-meaning of trust. We trust relationships, and we trust transactions.  I trust John – to have my best interests at heart. I trust eBay – to create trustworthy transactions with strangers. It does not follow that I trust an eBay customer to go out on a date with my daughter.

Much of the public dialogue today confuses these two distinctions. Is it Congress that people don’t trust? Or is it members of Congress who themselves are considered untrustworthy? To the average voter, it’s a distinction without a difference. I suspect the inability to tease them apart is itself a source of anger. But if we fail to separate them, we doom ourselves not only to nasty public discourse, but to failed solutions.

Lessons from the 2007 Financial Crisis

Back in 1970, the US mortgage industry was still adequately described by the perennial Frank Capra Christmas movie “It’s a Wonderful Life,” with Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey, president of the Bedford Falls Savings & Loan. Bailey (for he and the company were inseparable) made loans to people he knew personally.

The bank’s depositors were Bailey’s friends and neighbors. The depositors were also the borrowers; likewise, the employees. The loans stayed on the S&L’s books, presumably to term. Those who took out mortgages had no intention of doing anything other than paying them off, with burn-the-mortgage parties at the end.  No moral hazard here.

This was relationship trust. The strength lay in personal ties, cemented over time. A man’s word was his bond, and anyway you knew where he lived. His reputation was everything, at least until it wasn’t. Relationship trust served business and society well.

But relationship trust was about the only kind we had, and it had its limits.

Transactional trust in George Bailey’s world was shallow and fragile indeed. The S&L was at risk of being forced out of business by a single competitor, the evil Mr. Potter. It was at risk of the low-tech deposit processes of Uncle Billy. Most importantly, it was at risk of a bank run. It was a good thing George Bailey worked the relationship trust game well, for he had precious little else to depend on.

Trusted Transactions in the Mortgage Business 

Fast forward to 1995, Dwight Crane, Robert C. Merton and others published The Global Financial System: a Functional Perspective. A masterpiece of what sociologists knew as “functionalism,” this book laid out the case for transactional trust, viewing the mortgage business as one part of a complex and, ideally, integrated financial system.

In the chapter on mortgages, they ran down the characteristics of a system you could trust. It would have markets – markets for deposits, markets for mortgages, markets for loan originations. The book listed the costs of not having a systemically integrated system: risk of meltdowns, differential pricing within very narrow geographic regions, low liquidity, gross inefficiencies.

In short, George Bailey’s relationship-driven-trust was considered too risky, too costly, too uncreative and too unresponsive. Above all, it was too expensive. Consumers – the would-be purchasers of mortgages – were subjected to higher prices than necessary, driving up the cost of home ownership, and therefore driving down the economic livelihood of those seeking the American dream.

You simply could not trust such a system, the good professors opined.  “It’s a Wonderful Life” was now half a century old. George Bailey was quaint. (No one noticed that only one year before the 1995 book, contributor Robert C. Merton had become a Board Member of the soon-to-be-notorious little hedge fund called Long-Term Capital Management L.P.)

In business, Progress was synonymous with all these terms: systemic, low-cost, efficient, market-based, liquidity. No one was about to cast doubt on the important and positive nature of all these terms.  The academics and wunderkind of Wall Street were creating institutions you could trust.

The new trust was almost entirely cast in terms of systems and transactions. Transactions replaced relationships. Where markets couldn’t handle the job, models could. Of course, from today’s vantage point, this looks as naïve as the academics’ view of George Bailey a few decades ago.

In a few short decades, the “trust” pendulum swung from a man’s word to the solidity of a system. We went from high personal trust to high systemic trust – each extreme without the moderating influence of the other.

We Need Rich Trust

The transactional revolution in mortgage banking indeed delivered on most of its systemic promises. Markets were established, costs were lowered, liquidity was raised. But it all, as we know, ended very badly.

The confusion over trust went way beyond semantic. Alan Greenspan himself in 2008 famously said:

“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.”

In other words, Greenspan thought that transactional trust would have the same sort of reputational bias that relationship trust had. He was, sadly for all of us, mistaken.

Transactional trust absent relationship trust had its own internal seeds of destruction. The absence of long-term relationships was crystallized in the Wall Street acronym IBGYBG – I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone, let’s do the deal. Just as personal trust doesn’t scale easily, so transactional trust doesn’t easily foster ethical behavior.

George Bailey wasn’t wrong, he just had no system. The professors weren’t wrong, they just assumed relationships. The truth is: we can’t afford just one form of trust or another, we need a rich mixture of both.

Well Beyond Mortgages

The mortgage industry is but one example. The electorate, reflecting it all, ends up exerting single-issue us-vs-them pressure on its own.

The polls are basically right: we do have a crisis of trust. But what crisis? It is not just a failure of morality. We cannot fix it solely by getting back to ‘family values,’ or seeking out leaders of impeccable morality. Those are, in fact, necessary conditions, but they’re not sufficient.

On the other hand, those who insist that the system is sound, it just needs tweaking, are dead wrong as well. This is not a matter of incentives needing adjustment. This is not a matter solely of transparency in markets. Those too are necessary conditions – but not sufficient.

We live in an interconnected world: transactional trust is critical for us to do live a life built on global commerce without it.

At the same time, there is no social structure or business process that can work without humans. There is no lock that can’t be picked, no code that can’t be broken. There is no inhuman system that can’t be perverted by humans.

Did anyone say Facebook? Uber? Airbnb? Zuckerberg and Sandberg today are as enamored of the potential for better algorithms to solve trust problems as Crane and Merton were about the potential of markets to unilaterally fix trust back in their day.

Trusted transactions? Or trusted relationships? Yes. We need ‘em both. Always have, always will.