![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.trustacrossamerica.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Screen-Shot-2022-02-25-at-9.57.34-AM.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nWith apologies to David Letterman\u2019s signature skit series of a decade+ ago, Charlie Green and I wrote an article with this original title for the FCPA Blog back in January 2019. After recently speaking with Charlie, the title is being borrowed again to highlight (and update) a few of the many misunderstandings about the nature of trust in business. (This updated article could also be called Trust 101: Back to Basics Again.)<\/span><\/p>\n Here\u2019s our list of Five Stupid Ideas About Trust in Business, followed by some comments about the flaws.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Do these flawed views of trust merit actually being called \u201cstupid\u201d? You be the judge.<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Trust is synonymous with \u201ccheck-the-box\u201d ESG, DE&I, sustainability, \u201cgreening\u201d your organization, etc.<\/span><\/p>\n 2. Blockchain is a road to trust.<\/span><\/p>\n 3. Loading up corporate communications with trust words\u00a0du jour\u00a0<\/i>elevates brand or organizational trust.<\/span><\/p>\n 4. Elevating data security is a pathway to trust.<\/span><\/p>\n 5. Trust can be chemically induced.<\/span><\/p>\n While all these ideas represent flawed views of trust, they are not all \u201cwrong\u201d in the same way. Exploring how they are flawed tells us a lot about what real trust concepts, tools and metrics look like.<\/span><\/p>\n In each case that follows, we\u2019ll explore the flaw in the concept; then we\u2019ll give a proactive definition of trust and some valid metrics for evaluating it.<\/span><\/p>\n Trust-as-ESG, DEI, sustainability, etc. <\/b>If your business is promoting equality and sustainable practices, good for you. You may also be creating some positive vibes for your brand, and even \u2014 dare we say \u2014 being rewarded in the real for-profit world for doing so.\u00a0<\/span>But don\u2019t confuse these actions with trust. The most powerful form of trust is personal, not institutional. Policies \u2014 whether for equality, sustainability or money-laundering for that matter \u2014 are about as impersonal as you can get. <\/span><\/p>\n Second, if you are indeed making money by, for example, being sustainable, congratulations \u2014 but you\u2019re also raising questions about your motives. If you\u2019re \u201cdoing good\u201d in order to be \u201cdoing well,\u201d then your motives are suspect, and are actually reasons for most people not to trust you.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Blockchain.<\/b>\u00a0First, count us among those who see the virtues of blockchain quite apart from its dubious connections to digital currencies \u2014 certainly Bitcoin. Blockchain is a legitimate and powerful tool, with valid applications that are only beginning to be scoped out. Emerging technology always comes with unanticipated risk.\u00a0<\/span>That said, blockchain doesn\u2019t enable \u201ctrust\u201d \u2014 it brings clarity and efficiency to the anti-fraud capabilities of commercial networks (e.g. documenting supply chains, or eliminating the need for title searches in real estate).\u00a0<\/span>You are no more likely to \u201ctrust\u201d a realtor or seller with blockchain or without: you are simply more sure of the precise level of impersonal systemic risk of fraud inherent in the business.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, the most powerful form of trust is personal. Those who trusted Bernie Madoff were betrayed by Mr. Madoff, not by the system in which he operated. You can reduce systemic risk by regulation \u2014 or by blockchain \u2014 but the decision to trust an advisor, or anyone for that matter, is ultimately a personal one. You can\u2019t regulate or technologize your way to personal trustworthiness.<\/span><\/p>\n Trust words du jour.<\/b>\u00a0It is true that consciously altering an organization\u2019s shared vocabulary can have an unconscious effect by nudging people\u2019s perceptions and behaviors \u2014 including for trustworthiness.\u00a0<\/span>But words alone don\u2019t do the job. In fact, if words are the only effort taken, they can backfire \u2014 words are also the favored tool of the best propagandists in history. Context, intent and behaviors also matter.<\/span><\/p>\n Words divorced from action \u2014 including merely perceived action \u2014 actively fuel cynicism. In a world where, broadly speaking, trust is on the decline, cynicism is rising. In the face of cynicism, words without action are predestined to produce the opposite of what was intended. CEO \u201cactivism\u201d can also create a \u201cbackfire effect\u201d when the words are directed at a third party while the CEO\u2019s headquarters are burning.<\/span><\/p>\n Data Security.<\/b>\u00a0In most of the Western world (China is a partial outlier on this one), data security is increasingly important. At the simplest level, this is about fear of having our identities stolen and misused with economic consequences. But it also extends to concerns over privacy.\u00a0<\/span>It\u2019s tempting to think greater data security adds to trust. But this is the same issue we saw with blockchain, above: a reduction in quantifiable risk is not essentially about trust.<\/span><\/p>\n Worse, getting closer to risk-free doesn\u2019t mean we\u2019re increasing trust \u2014 it just means lower levels of risk in our trust decisions. Since trusting is essentially a positive inclination to take a risk, higher levels of data security merely remove roadblocks: they don\u2019t say anything about positive levels of trustworthiness.\u00a0<\/span>(And by the way, business leaders who have bought in to employee surveillance software are killing any opportunity to build interpersonal trust.)<\/span><\/p>\n Chemical Trust.<\/strong>\u00a0We\u2019re talking about the popularly cited papers on Oxytocin, sometimes called \u201cthe trust molecule.\u201d It\u2019s oh so tempting to believe that trust can be reduced to a neuro chemical phenomenon. But there are two powerful reasons to resist that temptation.\u00a0<\/span>One is that the early\u00a0research<\/b><\/span><\/a>\u00a0appears to be just plain wrong. See\u00a0here<\/b><\/span><\/a>, and\u00a0here<\/b><\/span><\/a>, and\u00a0here<\/b><\/span><\/a>. Sorry, folks, it just ain\u2019t true.<\/span><\/p>\n And even if it were true \u2014 that we could isolate a particular set of chemicals (or synapses, or even genes) which \u201cexplain\u201d trust \u2014 we likely wouldn\u2019t trust the resulting \u201ctrust.\u201d Merely describing something in reductionist physical terms doesn\u2019t account for the full human meaning of trust.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The only practical application of chemical trust would be through chemical induction. But consider: would you trust someone\u2019s declaration of lifelong friendship if they said it under the influence of five martinis? Would you trust your child with the babysitter if said sitter showed up high as a kite on weed?<\/span><\/p>\n Defining Trust<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n So far, we have only nitpicked at \u201cstupid\u201d definitions of trust. It\u2019s time for us to be more proactive, and to put our own stake in the ground.<\/span><\/p>\n This means a lot of popular statements are fatally imprecise. If, for example, you see a statement (usually after a survey has been published) like \u201ctrust in business is up,\u201d should you infer?<\/span><\/p>\n That business is more trustworthy? Nonetheless, it is possible to speak more clearly about trust.<\/span><\/p>\n Other great trust models exist for measuring trust at the individual, team and organizational level. <\/span><\/p>\n Organizational trust<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0If, as we have argued all along, personal trust is stronger than institutional trust, then what sense does it make to talk about trust at the corporate level?<\/span><\/p>\n That is a very good question, and one that most trust researchers fail to address \u2014 it may be the \u201cstupidest\u201d trust trick of all. Merely focusing on corporate reputation, sustainability, \u201crules\u201d or other corporate attributes does not address the core personal level of trust \u2014 the most powerful form, and the one that tends to take a back seat, probably because it requires the most work.<\/span><\/p>\n Our definition of organizational trust addresses the issue head on.<\/span><\/p>\n A trust-based organization is one in which people behave in trusting and trustworthy manners toward each other, and toward all stakeholders.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n The right way to think about trust is that it is all driven and experienced at the personal level: the role of the organization is to help those personal experiences become trust-positive.<\/span><\/p>\n Trust Glossary<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n And finally, we would like to leave you with a glossary that defines the various relational components of trust. While some may believe this adds unnecessary complexity, the definitions can be an important reference when we talk about trust.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Trust:\u00a0<\/i>\u00a0(the noun) is a relationship between trustor and trustee, in the case of individuals. \u201cThe level of trust is down.\u201d In its simplest form, some, like Trust Across America,\u00a0 <\/span>describe it as the outcome of principled behavior.<\/span><\/p>\n Trust:<\/i>\u00a0(the verb): To trust, or not to trust, the decision to trust, the risks of trusting.\u00a0 \u201cI trust him (or her) (or them).\u201d\u00a0 The field of psychology focuses on this definition.<\/span><\/p>\n Trustor:<\/i>\u00a0(noun): The one taking the risk, the one choosing to trust \u2014 or not to trust. \u201cHe trusts them; me, I\u2019m usually more hesitant about it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Trustee:<\/i>\u00a0(noun) One to whom something is entrusted or the acceptor of the trust. \u201cShe\u2019s the one in the group to trust.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Trustworthy:<\/i>\u00a0(adjective) Deserving of confidence based on ethics, competence, dependability and reliability. \u201cHe\u2019s highly trustworthy.\u201d \u201cThat company is trustworthy.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Trusting:<\/i>\u00a0(gerund) the trust action taken by the trustor<\/i>. \u201cI\u2019m nervous about trusting them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Propensity to trust:<\/i>\u00a0An inclination to trust people or institutions. \u201cI leave my car unlocked in the driveway.\u201d \u201cI trust my doctor with my life.\u201d The fields of sociology and group psychology focus on this definition.<\/span><\/p>\n ____<\/span><\/p>\n Barbara Brooks Kimmel <\/i><\/a><\/span>is an author, speaker, product developer and global subject matter expert on trust and trustworthiness. Founder of Trust Across America-Trust Around the World she is author of the award-winning <\/i>Trust Inc., Strategies for Building Your Company\u2019s Most Valuable Asset<\/i><\/span><\/a>, Trust Inc., 52 Weeks of Activities and Inspirations for Building Workplace Trust and Trust Inc., a Guide for Boards & C-Suites. She majored in International Affairs (Lafayette College), and has an MBA (Baruch- City University of NY). Her expertise on trust has been cited in Harvard Business Review, Investor\u2019s Business Daily, Thomson Reuters, BBC Radio, The Conference Board, Global Finance Magazine, Bank Director and Forbes, among others.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n Charles H. Green<\/i><\/a><\/span> is an author, speaker and world expert on trust-based relationships and sales in complex businesses. Founder and CEO of Trusted Advisor Associates, he is author of\u00a0<\/i>Trust-based Selling<\/b><\/span><\/a>, and co-author of\u00a0<\/i>The Trusted Advisor<\/b><\/span><\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0<\/i>Trusted Advisor Fieldbook<\/b><\/span><\/a>. He majored in philosophy (Columbia), and has an MBA (Harvard). He has authored articles in Harvard Business Review, Directorship Magazine, Management Consulting News, CPA Journal, American Lawyer, Investments and Wealth Monitor, and Commercial Lending Review.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n\n
\nThat people should trust businesses more?
\nOr some composite measure of both?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n\n