The Long and The Short Of It

Episode 113 - Repairing Trust

Transcript:

Pete: Hey, Jen.

Jen: Hey, Pete.

Pete: So last episode we talked about trust, and we threatened that it might become a three-part, four-part, five-part series.

Jen: There is so much to unpack.

Pete: There is. And true to form, we got some really generous feedback from two listeners in particular, Mary Freer and Ivory McKay, who asked a version of the same question, I think, which was around: what happens when trust is broken? What does it look like? Is there a way forward? What does that way forward look like? I feel like there's something in here for us to unpack.

Jen: Yes, that is juicy. This is The Long and The Short Of It.

Pete: So thank you, Mary, and thank you, Ivory, for this generous, generous question, or idea. So, maybe I'll just kick it to you to start. What do you think about when we hear this question around trust breaching, or breaching of trust?

Jen: I immediately think of two things. One is needing to pull from the effective communication toolbox. And two, Brene Brown's episode about apologizing.

Pete: Oh my gosh, that episode is so good. The two-part episode, right?

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: Oh my gosh, that podcast, that...I want to start there. I want to start with that podcast. Brene Brown and Harriet Lerner do this two-part podcast where they unpack what a good and what a bad apology sounds like. And one of the many reasons I love that podcast is hearing Brene's like visceral reaction to some of the things as she's realizing that she's been apologizing incorrectly, or she's been guilty of falling for some of the tropes of a bad apology. I just think even just listening to her reaction is quite refreshing and amusing, to sort of be like, "Oh, okay. So even Brene Brown gets it wrong sometimes."

Jen: Yeah, I quickly googled it. So these are Dr. Harriet Lerner's nine essential ingredients of a true apology.

Pete: Yes.

Jen: Which I think speaks directly to trust. So, one: Does not include the word "but". Two: Keep the focus on your actions, and not on the other person's response. Three: Includes an offer of reparation or restitution that fits the situation. Four: Does not overdo. Five: Doesn't get caught up in who's more to blame, or who started it. Six: Requires that you do your best to avoid a repeat performance. Seven: Should not serve to silence. Eight: Shouldn't be offered to make you feel better if it risks making the hurt party feel worse. Nine: Does not ask the hurt party to do anything, not even to forgive.

Pete: I mean, come on.

Jen: That's all so good.

Pete: So, in hearing these nine painstakingly mic-drop worthy rules of apologies...and it makes me think about, you know, collaboration in particular is what we've been talking about around trust. And hearing, especially the first few rules around owning your part of the apology, it just makes me wonder and I'm curious and think about the idea that I don't want to be true, which is in a collaboration, if trust is broken, it's usually as a result of an action or actions by both parties. It's not necessarily that one person did one thing...it might be that they did something, but I think there's a level of looking into the mirror in a collaboration when trust has been breached that we have to go, "Okay, what was my role in this breaking down?"

Jen: Yeah. I mean, two things immediately come to mind here. So, one is boundaries and expectations. That when boundaries are not clear, and when expectations are not clear, it's really easy for trust to erode. Because if I had expectations that you are going to do x, y, and z, and then those weren't done, now I feel like I can't trust. Or if I haven't put clear boundaries in place (and like, this is so not true) but if it's like, if I don't work after 6pm and then you keep texting me after 6pm, I'm like, "What is his problem?" Well, if I haven't explained to you the boundary, how can I expect you to adhere to the boundary? So boundaries and expectations, I think they are inextricably linked. They go hand in hand, and they are crucial for building trust. And then the other thing that I thought of was I had a situation where there was a trust breach, and the person who I was engaging with at that time said, "I'm sorry if I overstepped," or whatever the person said. I was recounting it to my ten-year-old and she said, "The problem is the if."

Pete: Yeah.

Jen: And it's true. It's not, "I'm sorry if I overstepped." It's, "I'm sorry I overstepped." So adding the "if" invalidates what I have brought to the table and I'm expressing, so we need to remove the "if" and just acknowledge what is true...(I'm pausing because I'm recognizing that trust and true have some linguistic relationship)...and acknowledge what's true for the person who has brought up whatever the situation is.

Pete: Yeah. I think that the same (from memory, in that episode), it's the same rule or the reason we don't say "but" or we shouldn't say "but" in an apology. Because whatever comes after the "but" is a justification for the thing that you did, and so the apology is not true.

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: So, "I'm sorry, Jen, I did that. But you weren't clear enough." So, I've just passed all the blame back onto you. And so then, it's not a true apology. So yeah, I tend to agree with that.

Jen: Yeah. And I am so guilty of number one.

Pete: Oh yeah.

Jen: Especially with my daughter. "I'm sorry. But..."

Pete: The other one that's linked to all of this that comes up at some point is around apologizing for how someone else feels. Like, "Jen, I'm sorry you feel that way." Like, I can't apologize for how you're feeling. I can apologize for the thing that I did that made you feel a certain way. But yeah, there is obviously something I did. This is, again, like, what was your role in this breach of trust? What was your role in the breaking down of communication? And it might be as simple as, to your point earlier, "I probably could have been clearer with my boundary or my expectation." Like, I feel like that's really...I don't want to put a percentage on it. But like a high percentage of the time, there is a breakdown in one party being clear on their expectations, or their boundaries.

Jen: Okay, this is really interesting. I can't believe I didn't connect this sooner. So someone messaged me about, I guess it was two episodes ago when we were talking about collaboration. And said, "When you are entering a collaboration with someone, is it important..." and I'm butchering the question, but the sentiment is there. "Is it important that you establish the boundaries of the collaboration, and create values for the collaboration?" And I think the answer is probably, "Yes." I mean, I'm not sure if we need like a formal boundary setting meeting, although maybe we do. Like I'm thinking about when you and I were starting this podcast, we did all of that. Like, we established boundaries, we established goals, we projected ourselves into the future to sort of see where we thought we were headed. We did pre-mortems, like, we did. And we did a ton of "who's it for", "who's not for", "what's it for" work. So anytime we were starting to be pulled in a different direction, we had something to rely on to bring us back to why we started this in the first place.

Pete: Yeah, we actually sat down. I think it was inspired by The Nod, which is a really great podcast. We did a...I remember the call.

Jen: Aw, I miss The Nod.

Pete: I know. We did a one-pager, which was around...it was very much like boundaries of what we can and can't talk about, or should and shouldn't talk about. And even to the point where, I mean, I'm happy to give an example. There was one that I really liked, which came straight from The Nod, which was, "If one of us is on fire, has a really, you know, important point, or has a bunch of really important points about the topic that we're talking about, just let them go." Like there's no rule that we have to speak for 50% of the time each episode, which is why some episodes it's like Jen's doing 80% of the talking, and other episodes it's like Pete's doing 80% of the talking. There is this expectation, this boundary that we intentionally set which was like, "Whoever's on fire, basically, just let them go." Like, you have permission to just go.

Jen: Yeah. Oh my gosh, I kind of feel like we...oh, this is going to turn into a twelve-part series. I kind of feel like we should go back and review all of the early trust-building stuff that we had done. Because now, in hindsight, we weren't thinking of that as trust building as we were doing it. We were thinking of it as setting the podcast up for success. But what it ultimately did was set our relationship up for success.

Pete: Woah. Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah. Yeah. Yeah, maybe we go back and review. Tune in for another episode on trust, coming up soon.

Jen: So, what Mary and Ivory were both asking as sort of like follow-on questions was: Once trust is broken, is there a way back, or should you just move on? I'm not sure that there's a universal answer for that.

Pete: No, I don't know if there is. Just prior to you asking that, I was going to add a couple of elements which I think will help with this. Not to make this entire episode about Brene Brown, but here we are.

Jen: Why not? Why not?

Pete: Why not? Exactly. The two other things that I've heard her say that I think about so much, I think that apply here....One is that without information, we create stories.

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: And this, I think, is like at the root of so many disagreements or trust breaches. Where one party didn't have the information that the other party had, and so they told themselves a story about what was going on, which may or may not have been true. And so all of a sudden, there's (again, back to boundaries and expectations), there is a misalignment with, "Oh, my expectation was up here because I didn't have the information, but your expectation's down here because you had the information to tell yourself this story, or vice versa." So, without information we create stories, I think is such a rich insight. And then adding another Brene Brown-ism to that is the "clear is kind" idea. So clarity in the information that we share, so that expectations, boundaries are very much clear, which is kind to the collaboration. So I feel like maybe there's something there that would help with can you, how might you make it back from a trust breach.

Jen: This is bringing me to a moment, Pete. Which is the, "You know what drives me crazy?" Because without information, we create stories.

Pete: Yeah. Yeah.

Jen: So, you know what drives me crazy, Pete? Is when someone says to me, "Just trust me on this, Jen." No, I won't. Because I've just expressed that I'm missing some information to help me trust whatever this idea is, and you telling me to just trust you actually makes me not trust you (or the idea) at all. So, give me the information so that I can understand. I think this just goes right back to the without information, we create stories.

Pete: Yeah. Yeah. And it's just, it's so dismissive of your point. If someone has heard what you've said (well, seemingly heard what you said), and then said, "No, no, no. You've just got to trust me on this," it's a bit like the apology with a "but". It's like you just completely dismissed everything I just said in a sweeping statement, which is, "Trust me on this." And we don't need to get too far into it, but I feel like it's often, you know, like a demonstration of status, or power, or hierarchy that someone is kind of like, "Well, I don't know if I can be bothered dealing with that feedback. And I hold the highest position in the hierarchy. So just trust me, Jen. That will be enough. I'll just say that."

Jen: Yeah. You know, I'm thinking like...if you are someone who is seeking to build trust, then I'm speaking to you. If you're someone who just enjoys your status, this is not for you. But if you are someone who is seeking to build trust, if you ever hear yourself say, "Just trust me on this," let that be a cue that there is a trust issue in this very moment. So instead of asking for blind trust, if you hear that come out of your mouth, pause, breathe, and ask what information this person might be missing, or provide information that you think this person might be missing. Or ask the person you're talking to, "Tell me about your concerns. I want to hear more about where you're coming from," because that builds trust.

Pete: Yes, yes, yes. I just want to like pause because I feel like that is such a mic drop, what you just said. So, I'm just sitting with that. And then coming back to, again, Ivory and Mary's question. I'm still like, in my head trying to unpack, "Have I got an example? Is it possible? What does it look like, again, to go from someone who's breached my trust to I feel like I can trust them again?" I mean, I can't actually think of an example off the top of my head, where I've really systematically gone, "Okay, I'm going to rebuild my trust with this person."

Jen: I can think of a time when I was the trust-breaker, and had to earn back the trust. This happens a lot when you're a director. So you know, you basically make a promise to your cast that you are going to deliver something to the audience that we've all been working together for. You make the promise to your cast, to your designers, to your technicians, to the theater that you're working with. And I can think of a very specific moment when I was directing something and we had our first preview, and it was bad. Like, it was legitimately bad. How did I know this? Because one of my most trusted friends, Drew Wutke (I'm sure I've talked about this before), told me it was bad. And he saw it and he was like, "No, this is not good enough. This is not your best work." And I immediately wanted to blame everyone else for the situation. And I had decided very impulsively, "Well, that means that tomorrow we're going to be in rehearsal all day, and we're going to fix all these things." And then Drew took me, literally took me to a waterfall and asked me to like meditate on what was going on. And once I had a clearer mind, I brought the whole cast together. I sat them in a circle, and I said, "We all know that what we and I delivered last night was not good enough. And I think the best thing we can do is remember that each one of us is a unique contributor to the success of this. So, I'd like to spend our rehearsal time today telling each of you why I cast you." And so, we went around the circle. We didn't rehearse it. And I just told people why I thought they were special. And then that night, the show was amazing. It was incredible. And we sort of like, we righted the ship. Because I was not going to reject my responsibility to take care of this group and make them like figure out how to do it, which was my initial impulse, if I'm being completely honest.

Pete: Yeah. Because you're a human being. Yeah. What I hear you say, in terms of how we might rebuild trust (if and when it's broken), is a bit like the apology podcast that we started with: owning our contribution to the trust breach. Being clear, and being kind, and transparent, I would add, in the part that you are owning, and then providing space for everybody else in that trusted collaboration to realize they belong in this collaboration, feel empowered to move it forward, and feel like they have some agency in what it might look like to rebuild that trust.

Jen: Oh my gosh, Pete. My brain just exploded because I've just realized something which maybe you knew all along, but I didn't. Trust is a collaboration.

Pete: And that is The Long and The Short Of It.