Recharge your trust at work
Monday, December 8th, 2008OK. I am going to get a bit scientific this month. Recently I got together with some networking colleagues and had a discussion on trust in the workplace. Is it being eroded? Does it exist? Or does everyone have an inherent level of distrust because of their own personal values and what they are trying to achieve? I have tried to capture my thoughts based on those aspects of the discussion that resonated with me, and have drawn on some university research I did.
An Illustrative Connection Of Trust And How It Is Impacted
My reflection led me to try and “make sense” of what role I thought trust played in the context of workplace management but more importantly (for me), how the states of trust referred to by Maija-Leena Huotari and Mirja Ivonen in their book “Trust in Knowledge Management Systems in Organizations”, are impacted by the influences my fellow participants raised in the discussion. Knowledge remember, is considered power!
Figure 1 articulates this for me and I will use this as the centrepiece of my reflection.
Two theorists, Huotari and Ivonen, say that trust means different things to people but systematically contains 3 things:
• A mere mental attitude (prediction and evaluation) towards another person, a simple disposition;
• A decision to rely upon the other, i.e., an intention to delegate and trust, which makes the trustor “vulnerable”
• A behaviour, i.e., the intentional act of trusting, and the consequent relationship between the trustor and the trustee.”
These are shown across the top of figure 1 above.
I found myself questioning these three states and testing them against my current and held beliefs on trust. I formed the opinion that I fluctuated between each of these states depending on the condition or impact at the time.
If the situation was one where there was a lot of emotion involved then I could relate the volatility of the moment and the types of situations where different emotions would impact my trust of an individual. If I feel elation for instance I would have a positive mental attitude, would more than likely favour a person to with a decision to trust and the act or behaviour that would ensue would re-enforce the relationship with that person. Conversely, if I feel anger then all three would tend to be negative and the subsequent trust would be almost non-existent.
Similarly, there was an extensive amount of conversation about the validation of information from experts in order for them to be cited as a trusted source. Whilst it was argued that most of the participants needed to have some validation that the information/knowledge was from a trusted source, there was also some, myself included, that argued that knowledge from a critical mass could be trusted just by sheer weight of agreement. The need for validation however, was observed as an impact on my “states of trust” and in particular on my mental attitude or disposition towards the source as well as my decision to rely on that source.
One very strong observation I made is that context has a massive impact on each of the states of trust and influence debate and discussion consistently. As examples or “context” were given, discussion and debate would change and modify based on that context and this would help people form opinion on trust. An example was the debate between self-publishing verses publishing through a recognised authority. Whilst it incorporated the natural debate of validation it also raised questions as to what context the publishing was taking place in. If it was in a reputable Blog (or the recharge lounge) for instance then it might be considered a trusted source. If published in a WIKI then maybe not? I concluded that context will impact the states of trust consistently.
Reciprocity was an impact that seemed to hold a strong place of consideration amongst the participants. The view was generally held that in order for trust to take place reciprocity was a needed behaviour. I generally think that the impact of reciprocity is required in relationships and impacts the behavioural state of trust. But conversely, if the trust you seek is purely whether to trust a certain piece of information, then reciprocity is not required as an individual takes it upon themselves to “make sense” of whether they can trust the information or not. I therefore concluded that reciprocity was an impact only on the behavioural state of trust.
The impact of history is something else I thought needed to be taken into account when considering the impacts on the states of trust. It would appear that the more history a relationship or piece of knowledge has, the more each state of trust is impacted. My observations centred around the research I did for the topic and what in particular I found to be trusted conversations and resources. In addition if you look at what other participants cited in their research it would seem that the longer a connection or piece of knowledge had been in place the more it appeared to be reliable and worth trusting.
I would love to hear your feedback. Take a look at how I mapped the impacts against the states of trust in Figure 1. Of course you may not agree and I would love to hear more about what you think.
Rob Wilkins is a Learning and Development professional with over 20 years experience in Corporate Learning and Development, Management and Executive Development, Learning Technologies and Organisational Performance Improvement. Currently completing his Masters in Knowledge Management and Business Information, Rob is considered a specialist in eLearning and Personal Learning Environments with a strong Knowledge Management influence guiding his research and professional development. Email: dawilkos@tpg.com.au : or more of his insights on a daily basis: Blog: http://roalp.blogspot.com



















