The January Trust Matters Review

/0 Comments/in /by

Trust Equation

Peter Roche takes on the question of whether risk management destroys trust—and performance.

Rajdeep Sardesai discusses the problem with trust in media – but in India!

Improvisational acting and trust, what does one have to do with the other? More than you might think. Read Jaime Castillo at the American Counseling Association to find out more.

Emily DeMasi discusses the Edelman Trust Barometer finding that trust in business has increased. Really?

Santa Claus explains his business model in reply to process criticism from Jon Wetzel.

Mattel’s CEO Robert A. Eckert speaks on trust, among other things. A CEO you can trust?

Arianna Huffington makes the case that the Wikileaks releases are fundamentally about transparency, accountability and trust.

The BBC’s trust survey of corruption around the world finds a troubling trend: business has been surpassed as the most untrustworthy institution.

Chris Edmonds looks at something rarely covered: the actual dollar value of being trusted, and the cost of being mistrusted.

The shocking thing about Eddie Buckle’s article on British trust in banks isn’t what the rating is now, it’s what it was in 1983. It really was a different world and a different business. Remember when banking was boring?

The Trust Matters Review highlights the best articles and posts on trust our research has turned up in the last month.

If you’d like to share a great article about trust, let us know, in the comments here or through the Trust Matters Review submission form. Thank you to our readers for your submissions towards this month’s review.

For more links to outstanding articles on trust, see:

Trust, Violence and Congresswoman Giffords

/17 Comments/in /by

The attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords in Tucson this weekend is related to trust.

I’m not talking here about interpersonal trustworthiness. Nor am I talking about polls and surveys about which institutions or professions are up or down in the public’s sentiments.

I am talking about what the academics call “generalized trust.” (See interview with Dr. Eric Uslaner for more on this). In a nutshell, generalized trust means our inclination to trust strangers, or to believe that people by and large have good intentions toward us.

That kind of trust is suffering a long, slow, secular decline (again, see Uslaner). And the Tucson tragedy throws it into relief.

Politics, Psychology and Violence

Some people debate whether the killer was politically motivated or merely psychotic, or some combination of both. From a trust viewpoint, I think it’s irrelevant.

Similarly, it’s also not always useful to debate cause and effect: did the shooter react to socio-political dialogues, or are those dialogues caused by events like Tucson? Does the media merely report polarizing events, or does its reporting contribute to the polarization? The answer is yes.

We have seen in the US in recent years an increase in the willingness to trust “someone like me.” This is not a good thing; it mainly means a decline in the willingness to trust other sources—media, advertising, business, government. We are a society that seeks trust in self-defined groups (think inbound marketing), while seeking protection from ‘strangers.’

High trust people feel in control of their lives and expect well of others. Low trust people feel that others control their lives and that “they” have bad intentions.

Add it up and what have you got? A society increasingly polarized with declining social trust, increasing micro-tribal trust (and its cousin, demonization of other tribes), and declining civility. My tummy tells me the odds of a Jared Loughner are increased, not decreased, with this cultural soup.

Drivers of Social Trust Issues

I find myself linking to Professor Uslaner several times in this post. “Congress,” he says, “is much like the rest of us—the incivility in Congress reflects the declining trust among the public.” Congresspersons clearly have a responsibility to role model more trustworthy behavior. The business literature is replete with examples of followers emulating leaders’ behaviors; Congress should read it.

The media are another key constituency. The old media is under economic attack from other media—blogs, tweets, YouTube—which offer far greater immediacy. We all lose when mainstream media start playing SEO games with headlines.

Business leadership is a critical part of the puzzle. Steeped in a 40-year ideology of competition, and seasoned with neo-Randian economics, business has come to believe far too much that all business is about doing battle with regulators and customers, confusing ‘ethical’ with ‘legal.’ The belief that everyone’s out to get you is not conducive to social trust.

What Pogo said is also true: we have met the enemy and he is us. I saw a blogpost today that was critical of Francis Fukuyama’s book Trust. Except that the blogger hadn’t read the book. He was suspicious of it because he didn’t like the title of another Fukuyama book—which, again, amazingly, the blogger had not read.

We accept far too readily emotional outbursts as substitutes for dialogue. The online comment columns on daily newspaper stories are full of graffiti—a (usually venomous) opinion with a name attached.

How to Restore Social Trust

Uslaner is very clear in his prescription. What destroys trust is corruption, economic inequality, suspicion, and lack of education. You may not like it, but the data show greater economic inequality and lower levels of education lead to lower social trust.

Leaders have to step up to the challenge of acting like leaders. The US Congress and politicians in general have done a conspicuously poor job of this. That Congresswoman Giffords appears to have been an exception to that rule simply draws the irony more sharply.

The media have to figure out another economic model besides emulating the tabloids and creating blogysteria. The Shirley Sherrod case was a lesson for anyone listening. Thus far, it seems like it’s been relegated to the archives.

Business has simply got to drop the selfish ideology it has embraced. Institutions like the Chamber of Commerce need to stop fighting government and begin working with it. Business schools have got to stop teaching ethics in one classroom and contradicting it in strategy classes down the hall.

And the rest of us: we all need, in our little daily behaviors, to adopt better manners. Civility. Respect. Empathy. Listening to the other person.

The link between an uncivil society and a society terrorized by psychotics is hard to prove, but not hard to feel. Aristotle suggested that actions arose from character and from thoughts. Combative people talking hard-talk are suborning bad behavior from those around them.

There are no quick fixes to trust. Seeing this as mainly an issue of better police protection would be a profound mistake.

Upcoming Events and Appearances: Trusted Advisor Associates

/2 Comments/in /by

Join us at one or more upcoming Trusted Advisor Associates events. This January we’ll be hosting and participating in events in Fairfield, New Jersey; Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon and through the globally accessed radio show “Trust Across America.”

Also, a few words about the new Trusted Advisor Mastery Program, and an offer to vote in this year’s Annual Top Sales Awards.

——————————

Wed. Jan. 12th Global/Radio Charles H. Green

Charles H. Green will be guest-hosting the Trust Across America Radio show, interviewing David Gebler on trust and ethics in business.

Thurs. Jan. 20th Fairfield, NJ Charles H. Green

Charlie is speaking, hosted by Wharton Alumni Club of New Jersey on Trust, Influence and Advising. Club Cucina Calandra, Fairfield NJ, 6PM. Open to public: Sign up through January 12, $59. From January 13 – 19, $79.


Wed. Jan. 24th Seattle, WA Charles H. Green

University of Washington, evening: Details/venue to be announced: email us at [email protected] to be notified of details when finalized.


Mon. Jan. 25th Portland, OR Charles H. Green

Charlie is luncheon speaker at the CFA Society of Portland luncheon; subject Building and Maintaining Trust with Clients and Prospects. Open to the public, click to register here.

———————————–

The current edition of the Trusted Advisor Mastery Program is entering its fifth week. Members are sharing, experiences, generating insights. Some perspectives: 62 Tips for Selling in a Recession.

Don’t miss being notified about the next Trusted Advisor Mastery Program, write to: [email protected]

————————————

Vote for your favorite Sales Blog at The Annual Top Sales Awards.

Tell Your Customers Why They Don’t Need You

/7 Comments/in /by

You probably want your customers to trust you. And you probably tell them the truth about why they should buy from you.

You might think that’s enough for them to trust you, but of course it’s not. Oddly, what’s missing is telling them something about why they might not need you. Here’s why.

Consider these two sentences:

1. If you’re serious about wealth management, then you should consider whole life insurance as part of your portfolio.

2. If you distinctly need insurance coverage in addition to an investment product, then you should consider whole life insurance as part of your portfolio.

The first paragraph is a form of manipulative selling–like the assumptive close (“OK, shall we start on Monday or on Wednesday?”), or inducing a series of ‘yes’ answers (“Now, I assume you want your children to be taken care of, right?”).

Most people get annoyed when asked a question to which there’s only one reasonable answer. And most of us consider being asked that question a reason not to buy from the asker. So–don’t do that.

Instead, ask a question that allows reasonable people to answer differently.

Ask Questions that Allow Buyers to Self-Select

The second sentence is different. It provides information by distinguishing between people who might find value in the product and those who might not. Phrased that way, it not only educates the customer, it allows the customer to make a decision to opt-in or opt-out.

Most salespeople get nervous about questions that allow customers to opt out. Not, however, salespeople who understand the power of trust.

By giving a customer knowledge that permits opting out, a salesperson is putting him—or herself at risk. But without risk, there can be no trust—only control and the illusion of choice.

The reason trust works in sales is because human beings reciprocate when they are trusted. They appreciate being treated as adults, they appreciate not being manipulated and they appreciate being given choices that help them make intelligent decisions.

And they show their appreciation by buying, disproportionately, from those who treat them that way.

Let your customers know why they might not need you.

What Costs More Than a $1,000 Per Hour Lawyer?

/17 Comments/in /by

Beginning just three years ago, some large firm legal fees reached that amount – about $17/minute – providing fodder for legal bloggers, and Internet articles on a variety of topics, including new marketing opportunities and excessive fees for bankruptcy matters to name just a couple. Only senior lawyers in the largest firms actually charge that much, and that’s to large companies on non-commoditized work. What about the rest of us? What makes a service worth that much to us? On my daily walks with Sam, we have a lot of epiphanies. Here’s one we came up with just before a Nor’Easter looming on the horizon. And no, this isn’t a rant about lawyers and their fees.

This is about snowplowing. I can only talk about the Boston area. Here, snowplowing costs anywhere between $35-50 per 3 inches of snow per driveway (the rest of you can fill in your own numbers). The average time per driveway – 3-5 minutes.

Here’s what’s interesting to me. Why is a homeowner willing to pay about $10/minute to anyone with a snowplow, yet would complain about that rate for most other services. I applied the Trust Equation to this question.?

  • Credibility: We’d prefer they not wreck the lawn or dig up the driveway, but if they do, well, things happen. We do want them to actually clean up the snow though.
  • Reliability: Jackpot. We’re paying for them to show up. Fast, and often if needed. If they show up relatively on time, they’re worth it. If they don’t, they’re not. Simple as that.
  • Intimacy: No need to empathize with us or share. Just do what is a straightforward job.
  • Self-orientation: If they want to tell us how great they are, it’s fine–just do the job.

This is a transaction, so Intimacy and low Self-orientation just don’t matter. However, Reliability is so important that we’re willing to pay more per minute than just about any other service we get. Credibility is important only in that the job be done reasonably well.

This made us think–where else is Reliability and Credibility so important that we’re willing to pay extraordinarily high rates so we can get it? Here’s our very short list:

a. Ambulance services. This is way out of line on a per minute basis. We’re paying for the competency to be available when we need it. Imagine if the costs were less, and they were only available at certain times. We have to pay more so they’re ready when we need them.

b. Travel–last minute. When you have to get home fast, you’ll pay multiples of the regular cost. I was in Dallas, and was required to stay 4 hours later than my flight. My round trip was about $350. My return flight 8 hours later on the same day was $1800. I wasn’t happy but I was willing to pay it. While air travel is not incredibly reliable, it’s more reliable than alternatives to travel long distances. I knew I’d get home.

Conclusion? Time sensitive needs merit higher rates, particularly where there are limited resources (like snowplows during a storm, planes to a specific destination, ambulance services), knowing you can use the service and it’s reliable is worth whatever it costs up to a point. What that point is depends on our need at the time.

Crying In Your Beer Is Just a Waste of Good Beer

/12 Comments/in /by

I’m a huge fan of country music. In small doses, that is. One of the great things about country music is how it speaks to the heart, about real human emotions.

Then again—after a certain point, dwelling on those emotions can turn toxic on you. It’s easy to get addicted to crying in your beer and there are plenty of country songs to feed the addiction.

Dwight Yoakam, for my money, has got the top spot of this genre nailed down. Here’s verse 1 and chorus from Lonesome Roads:

Where did I go wrong

You know I haven’t got a clue;

I must’ve just been born no good–

Bad’s the best that I can do.

Lonesome roads, the only kind I ever traveled,

Lonesome rooms, the only place I’ve ever stayed.

I’m just a face out in a crowd that’s turnin’ ugly—

Poor ol’ worthless me’s the only friend I ever had.

There is something comforting about a beautiful song that articulates your own melancholy. Early Bob Dylan could do that for me (think Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands, or better yet, Visions of Johanna). Come to think of it, the words don’t even have to make sense; they just have to mirror your deep melancholy.

But then there’s life. The sun comes up the next morning and the dishes are still in the sink, the car’s engine light is still blinking, and your secret inamorata at work still doesn’t appreciate the ennobling of your soul that can only come from crying in your beer alone with Dwight or Bob. All you’ve done is waste some good beer.

The trouble with emotions is they attract the same. You empower what you fear; you attract what you put out. Beer-crying is the ultimate in high self-orientation; it’s a trust-killer. Why would anyone trust someone whose aim is to amplify his feelings of misery?

Five Steps to Stop Crying in Your Beer

You don’t need me to tell you it’s a stupid waste of time. As David Maister wrote in his book Strategy and the Fat Smoker, the issue is not one of diagnosis, but of implementation. What can you do to get out of the funk? Here are five steps.

1. It may sound obvious, but it belongs #1 on the list: give Yoakam and Dylan a rest. Go listen to something a bit more extroverted. Pretty much anything will do. Though may I suggest Robert Randolph and the Family Band?

2. If you’re hungry, get something to eat. (Unless, that is, you’ve got eating issues. In which case, do not revert to beer).

3. If you’re tired, go take a nap.

4. Get outdoors, preferably in the daytime. Get some exercise. Go volunteer to walk dogs at the local animal shelter.

5. Go meet some other human beings. (Preferably not in a bar. Though if bar is unavoidable, look for pop, rock or jazz on the jukebox).

And if you can’t manage that, then give my regards to Dwight. I miss the guy from time to time.

A Better New Year’s Resolution

/3 Comments/in /by

I wrote a good blog post at this time four years ago, and haven’t improved on it yet. Here it is again.
Happy New Year.

—————–

New Year's resolution 2011My unscientific sampling says many people make New Years resolutions, but 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.

Take My Gift Card–Please: A Trust Moment in the Restaurant Business

/4 Comments/in /by

Establishing Trust in the Restaurant BusinessI seldom get to deal in up-beat stories. At the heart of my practice in financial litigation and disputes lie the predations of the white-collar malefactors, abusing their roles of public and private trust in ways of questionable legality and dubious ethics and morals.

So I was recently pleased to be on the receiving end of a restaurant employee’s demonstration that trust in “doing the right thing” works to everyone’s advantage. Here’s the story:

My father-in-law seriously loves Joe’s Stone Crab in downtown Chicago. But he is deprived, largely confined out in the far suburbs. So to elicit favor in the family, I volunteered to arrange an order that I would deliver in person.

When I passed by Joe’s for the pick-up, I met in person my order-taking telephone contact – the personable and accommodating Emily. Emily was swamped on a busy Saturday, doubling as coatroom attendant and take-out order manager. But she was the picture of helpfulness; what more can you ask than, “It’s ready – right up from the kitchen.”

I proffered a gift card for $100 – change for the $97 order neither expected nor offered. Then came her sheepish smile:

“I’m sorry, sir, but there’s a problem. Our gift cards say they’re only good Sunday through Friday.”

My countenance has almost no ability to conceal my feelings – not least of the reasons I never think of playing poker. Fortunately, something in the spirit of the holiday season impelled me to disappointment, rather than frustration or irritable hostility.

“Emily, that surely can’t be the right answer. It’s just a take-out – it’s not as if there’s a group taking up a table.”

(I chose not to press the point, but a pre-paid gift card differs from a freebie or a discount coupon, for which there would be some arguable justification for limits to off-peak use. Here the restaurant had enjoyed the full advance use of the cash value for months.)

“I’ll see what I can do,” and off she went. Meanwhile I contemplated a Plan B – I could simply walk out in a snit.

But then the already-packaged order would simply go to waste, and I would let down my in-laws. Lose-lose-lose.

She was back in less than a minute. “It’s fine – we’ll take the card. No problem.”

Far better than “no problem.” Using her tact and flexibility, Emily bolstered her employer’s revenue, encouraged a sure-to-repeat customer, and delivered to me both a burst of good will with my relatives and a lovely example of the benefits of empowered workers.

Thanks to you, Emily, and to whoever trained and trusted you to do a good job.

Rachel Maddow Live: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal

/0 Comments/in /by

I had the pleasure last night of seeing Rachel Maddow broadcasting her MSNBC show live from the 92nd Street Y in New York. A lot of themes were hit, but one—the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell—was particularly striking.

The Appetizers: Nouriel Roubini, Matt Taibbi

As usual, the themes du jour were served up. Nouriel Robini, aka Dr. Doom for his prescient prediction of the recent financial meltdown, was there to comment on prospects for real estate and the economy (bad, and not-so-great, respectively, due to governmental gridlock and political avoidance).

Matt Taibbi, of Rolling Stone (you know, the ‘Goldman vampire squid’ guy) was there talking about his most recent book, Griftopia. Asked by Maddow how to explain Congress’s gross inefficiency at dealing with substantive issues, he answered, “Congress is very efficient at doing their real job, which is delivering on the wishes of those who fund it.”

The audience of about 800 was strongly pro-Maddow. There were probably 3 Republicans in the room, though that’s just a guess.

The Main Course: Four US Military Personnel

Maddow started by acknowledging her own missed prediction that the Senate would never be the agency for repeal of DADT. She then introduced four distinguished service members, each of whom spoke in ways that can only be described as moving.

To a man (actually, 3 men and one women) they held no resentment toward the military that had destroyed their careers, and at least in one case, nearly his life. Their message was uniformly pro-military and service, looking only prospectively.

High Bandwidth Television—Live and in Person

I hadn’t been to a live-broadcast TV event in some years, and it reminded me of a few core trust principles. The higher the “bandwidth” of one’s experience with another, the greater the impact. (Look for me—I’m with the 100 or so others in the right front section of the auditorium).

Impressions: Rachel Maddow is even more slender than she looks on TV; she wore red sneakers with black jeans. She was completely at ease expressing her complete emotion about the significance of the evening, and the supportiveness of the audience. She’s the most genuine and authentic Rhodes Scholar you’ll meet–totally un-full of herself. I find it hard to imagine that anyone could find her not likable, regardless of one’s politics.

Impressions: when you’re close enough to see the emotions on the faces, hear it in the voices, things are qualitatively different. Powerful. Affective. Effective.

A good thing happened yesterday in the US Senate; human civil rights were advanced. Here were live witnesses testifying, up close and personal, to the human meaning of that action.

They were impressive.

Are You Just Selling a For Sale Sign?

/4 Comments/in /by

For sale by OwnerKierkegaard described philosophy as, “You see a sale sign in a store window. You go in, but find it is only the sign that is for sale.”

I sometimes feel that way in our increasingly online world.

I got a notification that I had a new twitter follower—let’s just call him Mr. X. I usually give those notices a quick glance. In this case, the person is “following” 11,844 others, and has 13,253 “followers.” (For comparison, my numbers are each under 2,000).

Punch line: he has written a grand total of one tweet, made back on August 28 (thanking Nattisco Artists for all their hard work). That tweet was then re-tweeted by 8 others whose ability to perceive value clearly exceeds mine.

Now, I’m an active twitter fan: I use twitter to point my readers to trust-related content I think is interesting, and to follow similar ideas from others. But this is different.

One might ask what he’s doing “following” 11,844 people; a much better question is, “what do 13,253 people think they’re doing ‘following’ him?” Not to mention the eight re-tweeters.

On the TweetLevel rating service, this makes Mr. X (a self-described actor in Sydney) even more popular than Tony Iannarino, who just won the Annual Top Sales Awards for best sales blog (congrats, btw, Tony!).

In fairness, TweetLevel rates Mr. X far lower in effectiveness and trust—as one would hope. But–then again, the highest-trust-rated twitter users on TweetLevel are Justin Bieber and Kim Kardashian (sis Khloe lags at number 3). That’s not TweetLevel’s definition of popularity: that’s their definition of trust in an online world.

The Kardashians are the modern-day equivalents of Zsa Zsa Gabor, the first one I think of as having been “famous for being famous.” They’re selling For Sale signs and calling it sales. You too can be like them. Just Do It. (And stop asking what ‘it’ is, it’s not important).
“For Sale” Signs Abound

Enough shooting fish in a barrel: Twitter, much though I love it, is fully of quirky adolescent silliness like that. But the Kierkegaard critique doesn’t just apply to Twitter.

The logic of social media is simply mimicking the recent logic of business—the gospel of first-mover advantage. Don’t worry about what you’re selling—get the For Sale sign out there. You can pick up the expertise after you’ve been labeled an expert. Ready, Fire, Aim is too damn slow. Just Fire.

It was 1968—ancient history—when Andy Warhol first said, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” Later, that concept came to be known as “so 5 minutes ago.” Oops, I’m dating myself.

The sales vs. For Sale issue is most notable in the media. It wasn’t that long ago that newspapers published what were meaningfully called “letters to the editor.” At some point, I suppose they worried about whether to print emailed letters before snail-mail letters had had chance to arrive. In any case, they were carefully written, and then they were vetted by real ‘editors.’

Today’s NY Times has an interesting piece from the Public Editor about what it’s like to keep up with the tsunami of commentary that comes in online these days. And the Times’ letters are nothing compared to the instant psychic-dumping that fills so many megabytes on so many news-and-commentary websites these days.

For Sale signs are all over the place: the logic and thought and reasoning behind what is being sold—not so much.

The publishing industry is about to undergo what the newspaper industry is already feeling—a meltdown of the curating function that institutions used to play. When “publishers” and “books” lose the social arbiters of how we define such terms, the first thing to happen is grade inflation.
Everyone becomes an author. Everyone can write a book. There’s a book out now on how you can write a book in a weekend. The For Sale signs are out all over. There’s just nothing being sold.

Grade inflation confuses the thing being measured with the measurement itself. For years now, the website TheWiseMarketer.com has un-self-consciously documented the slide of “loyalty” marketing from something vaguely resembling an emotion to an entire industry based on behavioral price-driven statistics. “Loyalty” itself is no longer being sold: it’s been inundated with For Sale signs.

David Brooks cites this work:

In 1950, thousands of teenagers were asked if they considered themselves an “important person.” Twelve percent said yes. In the late 1980s, another few thousand were asked. This time, 80 percent of girls and 77 percent of boys said yes.

The great thing about empowerment is that you free a lot of good people who have great ideas to tell and to sell.

The bad thing about empowerment is that you free a great deal more fools who think they’re selling when all they’re doing is holding For Sale signs.

And Good Luck trying to explain the difference to them.