Trust. Ever increasingly becoming the topic of discussion, and especially in these uncertain and disturbing economic times.
But, I have to ask one question, and we should just think about this for a minute. What were we expecting?
As trust is about relying on people, companies, products and services to deliver an outcome to us, what outcome did we trust in others, in the markets to deliver? What was promised to us that drew us to that place of comfort and trust that made us maybe a little too complacent?
If we are expecting constant and consistent growth with no downside, then we are all in la-la land. There are cycles. Remember, what goes up must come down. Everything ultimately balances out - always. It's the two sides of a coin, the yin-yang. Life is about balance.
Should we expect 'bad' things to happen? No. But I do believe we should expect that sometimes things go well and sometimes not so well.
We should know that ultimately we will be okay - maybe not the way we expect, but our needs will be met, and anyone who promises that things will always be a bed of roses frankly does not deserve to be trusted.
This blog has moved to truthabouttrust.blogspot.com.au and covers a huge range of aspects of trust - from trust in organisations, trust in families and trust in communities. Come and join me there :)
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Lest we forget
I've not posted anything for a few weeks, which now seems a bit slack. What I have been doing is responding to an amazing response to the PR we are currently doing in the lead up to The truth about trust in business hitting the bookstores on 1 May in Australia.
While on one hand I obviously think it's great that there is such a huge interest in the concept of trust, there is also a part of me that is surprised that, across the globe, we have actually forgotten just how critical this 'trust' thing is to all of us.
Like the air that we breathe, like the concerns for global warming, environmental issues, it seems to me that, in all our cleverness, speed and advancement, we have lost site of and forgotten how to care for the very things that sustain us.
Just as we need the basics to survive as a human race - air, water, food - so we also need trust. Why? Because trust is our ability to rely on each other. No man is an island they say. We must be able to rely on others to survive, whether we are relying on the transport to get us to work, our employers to continue to pay us, our partners to love us, our children to behave, our friends to support us - we need trust.
This is why I am now so busy, and it's only the tip of the iceberg!
Check out the new entente website at www.entente.com.au.
Take care
Vanessa
While on one hand I obviously think it's great that there is such a huge interest in the concept of trust, there is also a part of me that is surprised that, across the globe, we have actually forgotten just how critical this 'trust' thing is to all of us.
Like the air that we breathe, like the concerns for global warming, environmental issues, it seems to me that, in all our cleverness, speed and advancement, we have lost site of and forgotten how to care for the very things that sustain us.
Just as we need the basics to survive as a human race - air, water, food - so we also need trust. Why? Because trust is our ability to rely on each other. No man is an island they say. We must be able to rely on others to survive, whether we are relying on the transport to get us to work, our employers to continue to pay us, our partners to love us, our children to behave, our friends to support us - we need trust.
This is why I am now so busy, and it's only the tip of the iceberg!
Check out the new entente website at www.entente.com.au.
Take care
Vanessa
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Trusting others is risky business
I saw this article the other day (see http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=6391) that caught my eye. Why do we feel that trusting others is risky?
The whole thing about trust is that is all about our ability to rely on others (and sometimes its about relying on ourselves). If we are relying on others and they let us down, the response can go from mild disappointment to full-on violence, and the response is largely dependent on how important the whole thing was to us, and whether we come from a blind trust or a sceptical trust base.
What we often do, though, is we trust others without telling them:
1. that we are, in fact, trusting them, relying on them
2. what we are trusting in them to do
3. how important that is to us
If we don't articulate these things, then the risk is huge. If we do take the time to articulate these things, we also give the other person the opportunity to let us know if they want to take that on. Can they truly promise to deliver that for you? If not, then you're trusting the wrong person.
Trust is a two way thing, and some of us will blindly trust and often be let down, others will hold back from trusting others and will miss out on great opportunities and wonderful relationships.
Yes, trusting others can be risky, but as they say in financial cirles, the greater the risk, the greater the return! Just make sure you communicate first!
The whole thing about trust is that is all about our ability to rely on others (and sometimes its about relying on ourselves). If we are relying on others and they let us down, the response can go from mild disappointment to full-on violence, and the response is largely dependent on how important the whole thing was to us, and whether we come from a blind trust or a sceptical trust base.
What we often do, though, is we trust others without telling them:
1. that we are, in fact, trusting them, relying on them
2. what we are trusting in them to do
3. how important that is to us
If we don't articulate these things, then the risk is huge. If we do take the time to articulate these things, we also give the other person the opportunity to let us know if they want to take that on. Can they truly promise to deliver that for you? If not, then you're trusting the wrong person.
Trust is a two way thing, and some of us will blindly trust and often be let down, others will hold back from trusting others and will miss out on great opportunities and wonderful relationships.
Yes, trusting others can be risky, but as they say in financial cirles, the greater the risk, the greater the return! Just make sure you communicate first!
Rudd keeps his promises
I've always found it interesting that there are so many pre-election promises made. We know why they are made - because the more a certain party's promises appeal to us, the more likely we are to vote for that party.
In Rudd's case, he appears to be doing a pretty good job so far in keeping those promises (see http://news.theage.com.au/rudd-outlines-progress-on-promises/20080213-1s3a.html).
What makes any politician or political party think they can make promises and then not keep them? Core or non-core!
My company, Entente Pty Limited (http://www.entente.com.au/) ran a survey across Australia in 2006 to find out, amongst other things, what was the key to building trust. Entente's model for trust focusses on 3 core things - managing expectations, meeting needs and keeping promises. Of these three things, keeping promises came out way on top.
When promises are made by another person, company (or in this case, political party) product or service, we subconsciously make a connection between the promises made and the needs that we have (be they basic needs for survival, for safety and security, for health, education, affordable housing, etc). If the promises made sound like they are going to meet our needs, we then expect those things to happen, and we place our trust in that person, company, party, product or service.
When the promises are broken, as they often are, our trust also breaks down. When trust breaks down, we usually choose to go somewhere else, use a different product, or vote for a new party.
Let's hope, for Rudd's sake, that he continues his run and keeps honouring those promises. I did send him a copy of my book 'The truth about trust in business' in the hope that he reads it - fingers crossed!
Vanessa
In Rudd's case, he appears to be doing a pretty good job so far in keeping those promises (see http://news.theage.com.au/rudd-outlines-progress-on-promises/20080213-1s3a.html).
What makes any politician or political party think they can make promises and then not keep them? Core or non-core!
My company, Entente Pty Limited (http://www.entente.com.au/) ran a survey across Australia in 2006 to find out, amongst other things, what was the key to building trust. Entente's model for trust focusses on 3 core things - managing expectations, meeting needs and keeping promises. Of these three things, keeping promises came out way on top.
When promises are made by another person, company (or in this case, political party) product or service, we subconsciously make a connection between the promises made and the needs that we have (be they basic needs for survival, for safety and security, for health, education, affordable housing, etc). If the promises made sound like they are going to meet our needs, we then expect those things to happen, and we place our trust in that person, company, party, product or service.
When the promises are broken, as they often are, our trust also breaks down. When trust breaks down, we usually choose to go somewhere else, use a different product, or vote for a new party.
Let's hope, for Rudd's sake, that he continues his run and keeps honouring those promises. I did send him a copy of my book 'The truth about trust in business' in the hope that he reads it - fingers crossed!
Vanessa
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Dr Phil's betrayal of trust?
I don't profess to know the in's and out's of the recent Britney Spears drama, but what jumped out at me in the news reports was the fact that the Spears family was reportedly claiming Dr Phil had 'betrayed their trust' by making a public comment about Britney following a visit to her in hospital.
The question here is what were they trusting him for? If they had trusted him as a friend (as he is reported to have known the family for a few years), it appears he acted as any friend would - he went to visit her. If they were trusting him as someone who could help her, he made an attempt to do that, too.
When any of us have this feeling that someone has betrayed our trust, and we all have them at different times in our lives, what we need to reflect on is 3 core things:
1. what did I expect?
2. what did I need?
3. what did they promise me?
Often what we become aware of is that our expectation may have been unrealistic, our need/s may have been something that the other person had no ability to meet (ie we trusted the wrong person), or that they promised something and did not keep it. It might be a combination of all these things, or it may be just one that applies. In any case, not meeting these ENP's as I call them, is actually how trust breaks down.
In Dr Phil's case, the Spears family may have had a need for privacy, and expectation that anyone involved would respect that, but Dr Phil may never have actually promised that (albeit he would be bound by confidentiality due to his position). And from what I've read, it doesn't look like he actually disclosed anything other than the fact that he had been there to help her.
Wherever possible in our relationships, we need to get into the habit of clarifying and articulating our expectations and needs, and making sure that the people we are involved with and interact with are able to promise to meet those. If they can't, then we're trusting the wrong people.
The question here is what were they trusting him for? If they had trusted him as a friend (as he is reported to have known the family for a few years), it appears he acted as any friend would - he went to visit her. If they were trusting him as someone who could help her, he made an attempt to do that, too.
When any of us have this feeling that someone has betrayed our trust, and we all have them at different times in our lives, what we need to reflect on is 3 core things:
1. what did I expect?
2. what did I need?
3. what did they promise me?
Often what we become aware of is that our expectation may have been unrealistic, our need/s may have been something that the other person had no ability to meet (ie we trusted the wrong person), or that they promised something and did not keep it. It might be a combination of all these things, or it may be just one that applies. In any case, not meeting these ENP's as I call them, is actually how trust breaks down.
In Dr Phil's case, the Spears family may have had a need for privacy, and expectation that anyone involved would respect that, but Dr Phil may never have actually promised that (albeit he would be bound by confidentiality due to his position). And from what I've read, it doesn't look like he actually disclosed anything other than the fact that he had been there to help her.
Wherever possible in our relationships, we need to get into the habit of clarifying and articulating our expectations and needs, and making sure that the people we are involved with and interact with are able to promise to meet those. If they can't, then we're trusting the wrong people.
Promises made
I was reading a recent article about the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf who reportedly (reported by Associated Press) was making promises in DAVOS, Switzerland that national elections scheduled for next month would be "free, fair and transparent," dismissing fraud concerns and brushing off criticism over his dismissal of the Supreme Court chief justice.
The interesting thing about promises is that, the greater the need, the more likely we are to believe the promises made by others - especially if the promises connect with our greatest needs.
In this case, to not keep these promises could plunge Pakistan into the same violence we are seeing in Kenya - IF the pakistani people feel the need to ensure that there truly is fairness and transparency in the elections.
None of us like to be lied to - honesty is a need that exists in most, if not all of us, to varying degrees. But if the consequences of some kind of trickery or fraud in any election or selection process (political or business related), are that an ineffective leader wins the seat, or worse, a leader that drives economic and social decline, then we have a serious problem.
What I've observed, though, is that often it is not the consequences themselves that cause the distress and tension (and in Kenya's case, rioting and violence). It is the fact that the promises were broken.
Keeping promises is the quickest and easiest way to build trust, and NOT keeping them is the quickest way to break trust. And when trust is broken, watch out - things can get pretty nasty.
The interesting thing about promises is that, the greater the need, the more likely we are to believe the promises made by others - especially if the promises connect with our greatest needs.
In this case, to not keep these promises could plunge Pakistan into the same violence we are seeing in Kenya - IF the pakistani people feel the need to ensure that there truly is fairness and transparency in the elections.
None of us like to be lied to - honesty is a need that exists in most, if not all of us, to varying degrees. But if the consequences of some kind of trickery or fraud in any election or selection process (political or business related), are that an ineffective leader wins the seat, or worse, a leader that drives economic and social decline, then we have a serious problem.
What I've observed, though, is that often it is not the consequences themselves that cause the distress and tension (and in Kenya's case, rioting and violence). It is the fact that the promises were broken.
Keeping promises is the quickest and easiest way to build trust, and NOT keeping them is the quickest way to break trust. And when trust is broken, watch out - things can get pretty nasty.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Trust Me
I have a song called 'Trust Me - Famous words' that I wrote in response to so many people that think it's OK to just 'assume' trust. I actually sing a part of it in my keynote speech!
I saw, today, that one mining company appears to be saying just that - 'Trust me', to shareholders over a cash offer. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23068783-16941,00.html
While they might rightly feel that they do not need to provide evidence to support their rejection of the offer, no-one has the right to assume trust - it needs to be earned. Not just earned generally, but situationally.
What does that mean? It means that we assess our ability and willingness to trust someone (a person, a company, a group of people, a product or a service) based on how much we can rely on them to deliver what we expect, what we need and what they have promised us (implicitly or explicitly). What we often do is assume that, because we we were trusted in one situation, that we can automatically expect them to trust us in other situations. This is where trust comes tumbling down.
Evidence, proof that it's OK to trust me, is needed every time the situation is different. If the directors of Allegiance have been in this situation before, or something similar, and their decision faired well, then sure, shareholders could trust the decisions this time around. But shareholders will first think about their needs - is this offer going to satisfy those? If so, why is it being rejected? If the reasons are not clearly outlined, then some shareholders may very well begin to distrust Allegiance, regardless of how well they may have managed the business to date.
This is a great example of remembering that trust is earned, and should be respected and nurtured - always remember ENPs.
What do they expect?
What do they need?
What have I promised them?
I saw, today, that one mining company appears to be saying just that - 'Trust me', to shareholders over a cash offer. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23068783-16941,00.html
While they might rightly feel that they do not need to provide evidence to support their rejection of the offer, no-one has the right to assume trust - it needs to be earned. Not just earned generally, but situationally.
What does that mean? It means that we assess our ability and willingness to trust someone (a person, a company, a group of people, a product or a service) based on how much we can rely on them to deliver what we expect, what we need and what they have promised us (implicitly or explicitly). What we often do is assume that, because we we were trusted in one situation, that we can automatically expect them to trust us in other situations. This is where trust comes tumbling down.
Evidence, proof that it's OK to trust me, is needed every time the situation is different. If the directors of Allegiance have been in this situation before, or something similar, and their decision faired well, then sure, shareholders could trust the decisions this time around. But shareholders will first think about their needs - is this offer going to satisfy those? If so, why is it being rejected? If the reasons are not clearly outlined, then some shareholders may very well begin to distrust Allegiance, regardless of how well they may have managed the business to date.
This is a great example of remembering that trust is earned, and should be respected and nurtured - always remember ENPs.
What do they expect?
What do they need?
What have I promised them?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
War for talent a dangerous time for companies
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23054780-5012426,00.html
The ongoing war for talent is now looking at setting wage increases, and companies are already beginning to promise more benefits in an attempt to attract staff.
The danger? Breakdown of trust by not managing ENPs (that's Expectations, Needs and Promises in my language). This is just the time when companies begin to make all sorts of promises, raise expectations of potential employees, and tap into their greatest needs to attract them - and then what? They fail to deliver.
The number one reason people leave organisations is because their expectations have not been met. And they decide real quick - most within the first week, and certainly by the end of the first month.
In my experience, companies seem to think that telling the truth will somehow put them out of the race - what the heck makes them think that lying is a better option? The thing is, you get found out by the very people you were trying to attract! So then retention becomes the next problem - we get the people, but we can't keep them. Why? Because you broke their trust. Their expectations were not met, the promises you made to them were not kept, and their needs were not met, or at least it was all looking like the wall was crumbling down.
The thing is, when people's ENPs are looking unstable, they bail out. The greater their need, the quicker they get out of the situation.
If you are an employer looking to not only attract, but also to retain your people, you seriously need to think about what expectations you are creating, what needs you are meeting, and what you are promising - can you actually meet all those? If not, think again.
Honesty is always the best policy, even if the job means long working hours, or a small desk, whatever. You will attract the right people, not just anyone, to the job. If you need to offer more, be damned sure you can keep your promises, or you'll lose out in the end.
The ongoing war for talent is now looking at setting wage increases, and companies are already beginning to promise more benefits in an attempt to attract staff.
The danger? Breakdown of trust by not managing ENPs (that's Expectations, Needs and Promises in my language). This is just the time when companies begin to make all sorts of promises, raise expectations of potential employees, and tap into their greatest needs to attract them - and then what? They fail to deliver.
The number one reason people leave organisations is because their expectations have not been met. And they decide real quick - most within the first week, and certainly by the end of the first month.
In my experience, companies seem to think that telling the truth will somehow put them out of the race - what the heck makes them think that lying is a better option? The thing is, you get found out by the very people you were trying to attract! So then retention becomes the next problem - we get the people, but we can't keep them. Why? Because you broke their trust. Their expectations were not met, the promises you made to them were not kept, and their needs were not met, or at least it was all looking like the wall was crumbling down.
The thing is, when people's ENPs are looking unstable, they bail out. The greater their need, the quicker they get out of the situation.
If you are an employer looking to not only attract, but also to retain your people, you seriously need to think about what expectations you are creating, what needs you are meeting, and what you are promising - can you actually meet all those? If not, think again.
Honesty is always the best policy, even if the job means long working hours, or a small desk, whatever. You will attract the right people, not just anyone, to the job. If you need to offer more, be damned sure you can keep your promises, or you'll lose out in the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)