The Long and The Short Of It

Episode 319 - The Trust Equation

Transcript:

Pete: Hello, Jen.

Jen: Hello, Peter.

Pete: I've stumbled across a framework on trust that I want you to help me make sense of / pick apart / give me some thoughts on.

Jen: Great.

Pete: Because I have a bunch of workshops coming up around building trust within teams, and how do we be effective partners and leaders, and I think a massive part of that is trust.

Jen: Well, I trust that this will be an interesting episode. This is The Long and The Short Of It.

Pete: Alrighty. So we have recorded episodes on trust before, I can pop some in the Box O' Goodies. They're back in the 100s. Here we are in the 300s.

Jen: Oh my gosh.

Pete: I know, isn't it wild? And as is often the case in the topics that we come up with, this topic comes from a bunch of conversations that I've had recently with organizations and teams around, "How do we build trust," as a question, and, What does it look like for us to build trust?" And I have a bunch of thoughts and ideas, and I thought I would poke around and see if there are other thoughts and ideas or frameworks that I hadn't considered and hadn't discovered before. Lo and behold, there's a bunch. Surprise.

Jen: Okay.

Pete: And there's one in particular, which I, as a little maths nerd from way back, was quite curious about. It's called The Trust Equation, and it comes from a book called The Trusted Advisor by David Maister, Charles Green, and Robert Galford. They, apparently, all co-wrote this book. So I haven't read the entire book, but I have read a bunch of blogs and articles and listened to podcasts about this particular equation. And I think it's got some legs, hence why I wanted to bounce it off you. Maybe we could see if it makes sense, and you could add your two cents on how you think about trust. And maybe you've got your own equation.

Jen: Okay.

Pete: Maybe I want to start there. Do you have an equation for trust? Like, what is your equation for building trust?

Jen: Well, I don't know the answer to that yet. But as soon as you asked the question, "How do we build trust," I immediately wrote down, "Should that actually be the objective? Like, am I doing things to build trust? Or is trust the outcome?" So I'm curious about this equation piece, because it feels like trust is on the other side of the equal sign.

Pete: I totally agree, yes. Yes, you're right. And it is. In the context of their equation, it is. So, how they've written it...and we can debate the language, because there's some language where I'm like, "I'm not sure about that word." But anyway, how it's written is: Trustworthiness = Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy ÷ Self-Orientation.

Jen: Okay, wait, hold on a second. I'm writing this down, so I can visualize this. Let me repeat back to you what I just heard, and you tell me if I got this correct.

Pete: Deal.

Jen: But I'm going to flip the equation, because my brain prefers that. Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy ÷ Self-Orientation (and I'm not sure I understand what that term means) = Trustworthiness.

Pete: That's correct. That is the equation, as they have articulated in this book. So I think there's like some real richness and merit in this, and I can give you a sense of how they think about each word and what that means. And I feel like we could Jen-ify this / Pete-ify this. We could probably make up our own words, because I feel like it's saying something that we would say but maybe just in different language.

Jen: Hmm.

Pete: Like, I think the premise of it is really good. So should I just run through each one, maybe?

Jen: Yeah. Because at first glance, I don't get it.

Pete: Right? I know, me neither. Especially the divided by, I was like, "Wait, wait, wait. You lost me at the divided by."

Jen: "Wait, wait, wait. Huh?"

Pete: "What?" Okay. So "credibility", I think, is relatively self-explanatory to most people, but this is essentially about the words we speak and our expertise. It is about us being believable and demonstrating knowledge in the eyes of others, in my mind. And I think that's some version of what they said, they talk about reflecting how knowledgeable and believable we are.

Jen: Okay.

Pete: So for example, if I'm a technical expert on airplanes, then my credibility would be that I demonstrate that expertise, and I'm perceived by my peers to have said expertise as it relates to planes, for example. Do you agree with that? I feel like we're down with credibility.

Jen: Okay. Yeah, keep going.

Pete: Okay. And then, "reliability" is around kind of, I guess another word for it in my mind is like "dependable", so the actions we take and the consistency in which we take them.

Jen: So, showing up.

Pete: Right. Showing up and delivering on the promise that we made. I can be relied upon to deliver what I said I would deliver.

Jen: Okay.

Pete: So "credibility" and "reliability", those two, I think, are relatively self-explanatory. "Intimacy", I had a funny time with this word but I kind of get what it's saying, which is around, from their perspective, around the safety we feel or the security we feel entrusting with someone sensitive information. So it sort of reflects the closeness or the personal connection in the relationship, like, "How intimately connected to you am I?" In a corporate context, again, I feel like this word is a little bit of a funny word. But I get what it's saying, which is like the strength of your closeness or the measure of closeness.

Jen: Okay.

Pete: So I stop there for a second, because I go, "Okay, so do I believe that Trust can look like Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy?" I think I kind of do. I feel like each of those three things deliver an outcome of more trust. If I'm super credible, very reliable, and I build intimate and close relationships, I feel like that's a good way to build trust. Do you agree?

Jen: Yes...but I think now the equation is erroneous.

Pete: How come? Tell me why.

Jen: It's missing an ingredient. So if these are the three ingredients, I would say it is Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy x Time Spent.

Pete: Oh, that's good.

Jen: Because none of these things are first glance.

Pete: Right.

Jen: And a lot of our trust comes from first impressions. So we're now talking about, beyond the first impression, this is actually the building trust piece, as opposed to the instant trust piece.

Pete: That is a great call out. I mean, I don't know how we add a multiplicator...we need to put brackets around this, and then times by time.

Jen: I know. Oh my gosh, please do not send me back to algebra.

Pete: This is so funny, okay. But no, I catch what you're throwing. I think you're right. I think there's a time scale that's relevant here, that it's difficult to display (I mean, all of them) intimacy in a five-minute first meeting, but you can build that over time, which builds trust over time.

Jen: And what's ironic is that if you did try to get intimate in the first five minutes, you would have zero trustworthiness.

Pete: It would probably go the other way, yeah.

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: Okay, which I think maybe leads to the ÷ Self-Orientation.

Jen: Yes, what does this mean? I don't understand.

Pete: Let me see if I can land this with you...so ÷ Self-Orientation. So "self-orientation", they describe, is the extent to which we focus on ourselves versus focus on others.

Jen: Got it.

Pete: So if I have a high self-orientation, I am focusing on myself a lot. So if you remember maths, if the number that you're dividing by is high, then the result of the trust number is going to be low, if that makes sense.

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: So trust is going to be lower, the higher self-orientation is, even if you nail the first three. If you're constantly talking about yourself, then their argument is, trustworthiness will be low. So the point of this is to try and keep self-orientation as low as possible, i.e. focus on the other, because that helps build trust. So, they are the ingredients (I'm mixing metaphors) for the equation. I think there's merit in each of them. But like, to your point, there's some nuance here around time. And we can play around with it, but I was just keen to bounce it off you and see what you think.

Jen: Yeah. Um, I'm still a beginner in The Trust Equation.

Pete: I mean, me too.

Jen: And some of you out there, who know me personally, know that one of my hobbies is finding loopholes and jumping through them. So, that's where my mind is going right now.

Pete: This is why I like to bring these things to you.

Jen: I'm like, "How can I debunk The Trust Equation?"

Pete: Yes, please. Because I read it and I, as a, I don't know, an Upholder...I guess maybe it's something to do with that. I read it and go, "Oh yeah, that makes sense. That's a really clever framework." And so, I feel like I need to bring it to you, to help me question it.

Jen: Yeah. I think right now, I am comfortable with these things being ingredients.

Pete: Uh-huh.

Jen: And I worry that it might just be a very vanilla cake, and it might need some texture within the batter and some frosting and some toppings.

Pete: Here we go. Here we go. Okay, so I already like this idea of it's a recipe versus an equation. Because an equation feels definitive, "This is exactly how you build trust." Like, mathematics is very much about the right answer.

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: And what a recipe, in my mind, invokes is, "Here's a bunch of ingredients, but like, you can play around with it and you might get a different outcome. You could add some extra sugar or some extra butter and get a slightly different flavor, and maybe even make it better." So, I kind of like the idea of a recipe versus an equation.

Jen: Yes. And side note, one of my best friends in the whole wide world, Steve Pacek (who, maybe he's listening right now), we have this ongoing joke that when you go to an ice cream store and they have, you know, like a hundred flavors, and you say, "What is, you know, Hot Mama Crunch," and they're like, "Well, it's a vanilla-based ice cream," and everything is a vanilla-based ice cream.

Pete: "But we've just added a little bit of crunch, a hazelnut crunch." And you're like, "Okay, so it's vanilla and hazelnut. I get it, yeah."

Jen: Right. But the wonderful thing about a vanilla-based ice cream is that you can keep changing what it needs to do and the context. And so with my cake metaphor, I actually am loving it because I'm like, "Oh yes, a lot of cakes start with a vanilla cake. But then, based on the context, if I'm going to a fancy party and I'm bringing the cake, I'm going to bake that cake a certain way. But if I'm bringing it to a six-year-old's birthday party, I'm going to bake a different cake with a different flavor profile. But they both start with vanilla."

Pete: Hmm. Love that, yeah.

Jen: I'm thinking about the scenarios I am in with my clients, where they are walking into audition rooms with creative people with whom they have never worked, and in under five minutes, must make a human connection, present material at a level of excellence that inspires, and essentially move the people who are watching their audition to want to spend more time with them. And a lot of that is based on skill. You know, the credibility and the reliability piece. There is little-to-no time in an audition to build the actual deep intimacy. And still, so much of the decision about whether or not to call someone back and see more of their work has to do with how much you instantly trust them. So I'm asking myself, "If I'm baking an audition cake, what are the toppings I need to sprinkle on it?" And here are some of the things that came to mind...

Pete: Great.

Jen: Eye contact, the willingness to make eye contact. Now, maybe that would fall under "intimacy".

Pete: No, but I like the calling it out. Because, I mean, the thing I like about that, just really quick...the thing I think was tricky with "intimacy" is, it's not a behavior.

Jen: Right. It's a feeling.

Pete: Like, if you go, "Go be intimate," you're like, "Sorry, what?"

Jen: Right.

Pete: "What do you mean by that?" Whereas, "Go make eye contact," it's so much more actionable as a behavior, yeah.

Jen: Okay. So the eye contact piece, which I think goes like at the heart of it, is the willingness to see others and to be seen yourself.

Pete: Mmm.

Jen: Which, I guess is intimate, vulnerable...what have you.

Pete: Yeah.

Jen: The willingness to speak to someone, as yourself. So you know, sometimes when you're nervous, your voice will jump to a different octave and you'll say things that just you can't believe came out of your mouth. And like, really successful auditions, where the other people instantly trust you, you come in, you talk in your normal voice, you say words that your mouth would normally say, while looking people in the eye. So like, there are these like...I hate the word "authenticity".

Pete: So do I.

Jen: So, I'm trying to replace it with something else.

Pete: Like "humanity"?

Jen: Yeah. There are these authentically human behaviors that warrant trust. And not to like take us way far down the rabbit hole, but there's some really interesting research (and if I can find it, I will pop it in the Box O' Goodies) that we actually make a split-second decision about someone's trustworthiness...when I say split-second, I mean less than one second. It's like, less than 1/100th of one second.

Pete: Wild.

Jen: And so, engaging with someone for the first time does require like some good preparation. I think I'm turning this into a different episode, about like how to prepare to meet people.

Pete: No, that's good. Because like the thing I hear, which is perhaps...and the book is called The Trusted Advisor. So it's, I guess if you're thinking about a relationship, it's an advisory role. It is, you have the benefit of time to build credibility, to build intimacy, to build more trustworthiness. And the thing I hadn't quite considered (which you are so right on) is, but how do you kickstart trust in the first five seconds, five minutes, less than one second, so that the over time part becomes even easier? So that you start off with a high level of, as high as possible level of credibility and reliability? And then, you demonstrate that over time, continuously, and with a low level of self-orientation. Like, it's like a short-term trust building and a long-term trust building, they're almost two separate kind of conversations. So another

Jen: So another piece of this that I'm curious about (and it might live under one of these already existing headings) is something you talk about so much in your work, which is "humility".

Pete: Hmm.

Jen: And maybe that falls under self-orientation, but not necessarily. I'm thinking about humility as not only not focusing solely on yourself, and turning outward, being a good listener, being a giver, being generous, but also like being willing to say when you're wrong. I think that's a huge component in trustworthiness.

Pete: Yeah, agreed. I guess you would perhaps make an argument that would fit within credibility too, of like, "I am credible enough to know when I have some input and when I don't know what I don't know, and I'm comfortable saying it." Like, I think of humility as...you know, there's a confidence in humility, to know, "Here's what I do know and here's what I am good at, here are my strengths or superpowers. And here is a bunch of the things that I don't know, and a bunch of the areas I am weak in, and I'm willing to admit that and surround myself with people who can help me with that." To me, that's a level of humility that, I guess you could argue, builds credibility.

Jen: Okay, I have one more.

Pete: Please.

Jen: Is this annoying, that I'm like tearing this apart?

Pete: No, this is great. It's actually really helpful, because I feel like there's an equation behind the equation, there's a recipe behind the recipe, which is, underneath credibility, and underneath reliability, underneath intimacy, underneath all them are like, there are behaviors that we could think about, which are far more actionable than running a workshop where you go, "Go and build credibility," versus, "Next time you're in a meeting with someone, focus on your eye contact." It's so much more actionable. So, I feel like the behaviors are the equation behind the equation or the recipe behind the recipe. So please, keep going.

Jen: Okay. I said there was one more piece, but I actually think there's two. As I'm looking at this, I'm thinking to myself (you can fact check this), "This equation was written by cis straight men." And I don't know who wrote this, so that's just a shot in the dark. But I'm thinking, as a woman, there is another element to building trust that has to do with feeling safe. And I'm not only talking about psychological safety, I'm talking about like physical safety. Like, someone respecting...well, maybe so it's respect. Someone respecting space, respecting boundaries, respecting women, respecting people who may not be in traditional positions of power or may not be seen as people in traditional positions of power. So, there's something there. And then, the final piece that I will share is the integrity, which maybe has to do with credibility, of being who you say you are.

Pete: Yeah. Does that fit with what you said before, about like authenticity? Is that similar?

Jen: Well, I'm going back to this from the female perspective, when someone's like, "I really respect women...go get me a glass of water," or something like that. Like, well, be who you say you are, because that's not who you said you were.

Pete: Yeah. Right, right, right, yeah. Your actions, yeah, as opposed to what the words are. Yep. Okay, I like that. I like that. I like that. I'm trying to rewrite the equation, at the moment.

Jen: Well, you know what's interesting? Before we logged on, or maybe right at the top of this, you said you were about to run a workshop about this. And I think if I were running the workshop about this (not that you have to do what I would do), I would put this up on the board and say, "How would you change this?"

Pete: Yeah.

Jen: Because at the end of the day, it's this conversation that we're having right now that is creating the intimacy between you and I. Like, I feel like we know each other better, now that we've discussed what makes us trust someone.

Pete: Yeah, that's meta. I like that. I like that a lot. That, just as we like recipes because we can experiment with them a little more than we can equations, there's, ironically, a level of humility and I think even credibility that comes from going, "Here's this framework that some people have said is effective. What do you think?"

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: "How would you rewrite this? What do you make of this? And make of it what works for you." Because ultimately, the goal is still the same. The "= Trustworthiness" is still the goal. How you think about getting there should depend on, I mean, to your point, maybe your gender, your personality preference, your style of communicating, the relationships that you have and need to be cultivating based on the industry that you're in. So it's sort of like a choose-your-own-adventure recipe / equation, as opposed to a definitive, "Here is the only way to build trust," which feels much more in alignment with how I think about these things.

Jen: Yeah, I'm really vibing with the idea that this is the most basic formula, the vanilla cake.

Pete: Yeah.

Jen: All of it is right. Everything that you said makes total sense to me. And then, it needs to be personalized and tailored to the scenario.

Pete: I totally agree. And that's what I am going to go and experiment with, very shortly, with a bunch of leaders. Thank you for being my guinea pig, and helping me noodle on and whiteboard and unpack this idea. I mean, it feels like a great reminder for me in terms of the meta learning of, just because you read a really cool framework or idea from a book, or just because you hear someone talk about it, doesn't mean you need to take it as the only way to approach these things. I just like feel like this is a reminder for myself to look at things like frameworks, I mean, like some of the things that we share, and to take what works, to disregard the rest, and / or to feel free to customize and personalize these kinds of things to suit your own context.

Jen: And you know, Pete, your birthday is coming up. So for your birthday, I'm going to bake you a very delicious vanilla-based cake, with all sorts of toppings of trust.

Pete: I want to know how we're going to get that from New York to Brisbane. We'll figure it out.

Jen: I have my ways.

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