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.

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.

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?

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.