Igniter - Latest Comments in Exploring 'trust'

Re: Exploring 'trust'

duncanwork — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:05:49 -0000

By "sales role" I think you mainly mean "persuasion". "Sales" is a term that is mostly tied to persuasion for the purpose of receiving money. Really good sales people understand that trust is essential for both current and future sales (in non-fly-by-night operations). But still, when dealing with social capital, the word "sales" doesn't ring true.

It's important for you to make a good case for an introduction that you think will be mutually valuable because many people are busy enough to not follow-up on an introduction if they don't see the purpose -- no matter how much they trust the introducer. In addition to a mutually trusted connection (and sometimes instead of that), people need logical justifications and context in order to prioritize their time. This is why, for example, LinkedIn works best when people who use it have well-completed profiles (providing context: roles, expertise, affiliations, etc.) and when they take the time to explain the purpose and mutual value of making a connection (or forwarding one).

So, yes, the person who is deciding to take an introduction is considering both of these things: How much do I trust the introducer? And how much do I trust his/her judgment about others, and about my interests?

Trust is generally the same as having confidence. You can have confidence in (trust) logic, past experiences, particular authorities, etc. Personal trust (most related to social capital and reciprocity) is about having confidence in people and their competence, integrity, and willingness to help you.

Re: Exploring 'trust'

Michael Lewkowitz — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:05:48 -0000

There is something in the experiences that have been related where trust is built. Very simple expectations - more at a felt level than a rational level. E.g. dw's son didn't expect anything more than he wouldn't be hurt. Dh, your expectations also seemed to be quite simple - perhaps that your time wouldn't be wasted or that there was some sort of felt compatibility.

I think now of one relationship I'm trying to broker between two strangers - both who are public, high-networth individuals. My focus started with expressing the commonality I saw, and then after no repsonse moved to trying to clearly articulate the value proposition - which then got a timely response.

What was being asked for was time (their most strained resource) - the value proposition was knowledge exchange. I articulated the value of the experience of the one seeking the connection - and also in essence vouched for the belief that there would be a mutual respect of the sensitivities related to their positions of wealth and power. As I was suggesting the connection I was also doing a 'sales' role (articulating the value proposition and trying to build the case that their investment of time would be worthwhile).

This sales role adds another dimension that should probably be separate from the trust conversation. Trust is much simpler. Sales is about conveying mutual benefit. Trust is maybe more about meeting (or not failing to meet) expectations.

Thanks for this great conversation folks!
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

Re: Exploring 'trust'

Duncan Holmes — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:34:06 -0000

Trust is a multi-faceted dynamic that is being worked by politicians and media and companies trying to sell us anything.

It reminds me of something I read recently about companies "Loyalty Management Program" Loyalty has become something to manage not something to earn. I think many companies and people in political life do the same with trust. The problem is that it is a shallow approach to trust. I want your trust for my benefit.

Trust is a two-way (at least two) street. I am guessing I do not trust people or institutions who do not value my trust or who do not trust me. I met you, Michael, because someone I trusted and who trusted me, said I should meet you. I did not ask why. I just said great, let's do it. It is also how I met my husband. Someone I trusted said, you might like to meet Derek. If someone I did not trust suggested meeting someone, I'd be more hesitant and questioning.

I think trust is something that is built up. As Duncan Work says, his son stopped and looked at the grate before being willing to cross over. Many people who have negative experiences with on-line banking or with credit cards, are very hesitant to use them because they do not trust them.

I was surprised the other day in talking to my Visa company about their new Infinity cards. I said "I understand that the new cards will mean merchants are charged more, is that correct?" I expected to get a vague answer or justification. The actual response was "Yes, that is what we have been told." And nothing more. When I then said I wanted to keep my old card, it was quickly done. That earned some trust. The simple straight forward answer to the question.

So trust is related to truthfulness or knowing that what you expect is what you will get. Trust is lost a lot more quickly than it is gained in relationships. Truth in relationships is often harder to deliver on when an individual does not think they are living up to their end of the 'bargain'.

I think I am rambling now. I will quite and reflect some more. Great dialogue

Re: Exploring 'trust'

Michael Lewkowitz — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:32:25 -0000

I actually do think that most people's understanding of love does emerge from it's 'opposite'. From a want to be loved - to fill some void/some lack. True love doesn't, but I don't think that's what most people relate to. True love is entirely sufficient - detached from anything - present in everything.

In the definition of trust it seems to relate to a belief, statement, or position which are all entirely subjective which is where the problem seeps in I think. Perhaps then the question about trust has more to do with what the scope of what the trust is being applied to. The more we are relating trusts to our perspective on the truth of the subject (it's values and intents) vs. Claims/positions/outcomes the less likely it is subject to subjectivity. That reads clunky/confusing as I type but it feels as if there is something in there.

Maybe another question is 'what is being trusted?' And 'for what purpose(s) do(es) trust need to be exhanged?'
- to know that claims are true?
- to filter values alignment?
- to filter relevance (in subject matter - in ability/appropirateness in fulfilling reques)?
- ?

When I trust someone - my test for whether or not it is met is based on a supposition about purpose in the interaction. If my supposoition and that of the other party are not aligned the experience will likely lead to mistrust.

Is it as 'simple' as expectations managment?

Re: Exploring 'trust'

duncanwork — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:39:49 -0000

Does love only arise from hate?

You could say that trust is natural, mistrust is not natural. You get born. Your parents love you. You trust them. You don't think about it; you just trust them. You learn to distrust when things go wrong. But to distrust doesn't have to mean to close off or repudiate. It can simply mean, "I need to verify."

Wise people don't 'hoard' trust, or social capital. But they aren't profligate with them either. Successful people are, of course, very careful both with how they use their time and with how they use their social capital. To use social capital wisely is to make sure that when you ask for something, the benefit will be mutual, or else you are giving back in some other way or some other times.

You could say that privacy is the flip side of trust. If I trust someone, I'm open to their messages, ideas, and requests. If I don't yet have trust in someone, I'm not that open, or not at all. So, yes, filtering is an important part of trust. That's why any good system for facilitating the exchange of trust has to include a natural way to indicate trust that is also tied into a system for controlling access to time and attention.