I wrote about trust in business relationships a few months ago. But the issue of trust in relationships keeps coming up again and again in the work I do. Really, it is the lack of trust that continues to reappear. The issue is so foundational to healthy relationships, I feel compelled to write on the topic again – and explain the nature of trust more deeply.

What is trust, really? One definition is: “to place confidence in” or “rely on”.

Recently, I have worked with families, family businesses, couples, parents & teens, Boards of Directors (numerous ones) where a number of individuals within these systems don’t trust one another. And, unfortunately, the problem is that they have learned not to trust. That is, in many cases there was some level of trust previously that has now been undermined.

How does this happen?

Let’s first talk about some key components that are needed for trust to exist. One model defines trust as being comprised of three core components: competency, reliability, and looking out for your interests. Let’s look at each component more closely.

Competency. As I have stated previously, trust is situation-specific. Trust can only truly be defined within a context. No adult (except foolishly) trusts someone for all things in all situations. [Children may, but I have to think about that.] This is because no one is competent in every skill needed in life.

I may trust my financial advisor to develop a balanced approach to investing my savings, but I am not going to entrust my body to him to do heart surgery – because that is not his area of competency. We trust people in situations for which we believe they are competent.

Reliability. Part of trust has to do with the belief that a person is going to “be there” when they are supposed to. An employer expects a worker to show up for work day after day. A child expects their mother to “be there” when they need them. When we have a team working together on a project, we expect our team members to show up and be prepared for their role. Conversely, you may have a gifted and talented team member who really shines during presentations, but if they occasionally are late to meetings, come not prepared, or don’t show at all, then your trust for them in those situations is seriously undermined.

Looking out for your interests. If an advisor for your business is highly competent and reliable, but you are not sure they are primarily considering your interests in the work they are doing for you, you probably have an undertow of mistrust in your interactions with them. This is at the heart of the problem of trust in many business relationships – there are competing interests among various individuals and groups. And if you are not convinced that your interests are being considered (at least as highly as others’ interests), then it will be difficult for you to fully entrust your situation to others without seriously evaluating how they will benefit from the transaction.

From this perspective, trust is much like a three-legged stool. You can have two of the legs, but the stool won’t function without all three. Let’s examine each scenario:

Competency + Reliability – Looking Out For Your Interests. This combination leads to mistrust of the other person’s motives. No matter how well they can perform, you always feel like you have to “watch your back” so you won’t be taken advantage of.

Competency + Looking Out For Your Interests – Reliability. This is the “I just wish …” scenario. You have a competent individual whom you trust their desire to help you. But they just can’t keep it together to show up reliably (or on time), be prepared, and follow through on commitments made. You would like to partner with them, but you are concerned about the ramifications when they let you down.

Reliability + Looking Out For Your Interests – Competency. These are quality people who are faithful, will show up when they say they will, and they want to help you out. But they just don’t have the skills, training or experience needed to get the job done at the quality level you need. Often they are “over-reaching” their skill and ability level out of a desire to help (or to grow professionally), and as a result, often others need to come in and help finish the job.

Trust rarely is “all or nothing”. Remember, trust is situation-specific. In most of our relationships, our willingness to trust (or not trust) is not a black-and-white, “all or nothing” position. Rather, there are certain situations that we would be willing to trust the person, and there are other circumstances where we would not be willing to trust them.

This is an important point because in meetings I often hear people say, “I don’t trust him”, or “I’m sorry, but I just can’t trust her” – as if it is a carte blanche position. I work hard at helping people reframe both their thinking and their speech – to more clearly delineate “for what” they currently are unwilling to trust the other person. (“Currently” is an important word as well, because we want to frame the situation whereby the other person could potentially demonstrate they are trustworthy, and be trusted in the future in a similar situation.)

The Creation of Mistrust. An important question is: how do individuals come to mistrust others in their lives (family members, business partners, colleagues, suppliers)? The obvious answer is: “from a lack of one (or more) of the three requisite ingredients for trust.” And this is true. [I would propose that a lack of reliability is a common source of mistrust, especially in personal relationships, while doubt about the other person’s genuine concern for your interests is a more common source in business-related relationships.]

But a closer examination of relationships characterized by mistrust actually leads to some additional sources.

Lack of adequate, clear communication. Unfortunately, mistrust can develop through a lack of information communicated, or communicated clearly. How often do you hear, in the midst of a conflict, someone say, “Oh! I didn’t realize that”, or “Well, if I would have known that I would have reacted differently.”

Guilt by association. Some business professions have a reputation for being largely self-interested (used car salesmen, professionals who sell life insurance) – that their primary goal is to make a sale, whether the product is what you want , need or not. This puts trustworthy individuals in these professions at a disadvantage. They must work harder to demonstrate that they are considering the interests of the potential customer in the transaction they are proposing.

Misunderstanding of the other person’s intent. In situations where self-interest can be a factor, and where there has not been a long-standing trusting relationship, the misinterpretation of motives can easily occur. Many times people mistrust others because they have a misunderstanding of the potential benefits that might be realized, and think the person is acting primarily from self-interest.

Mismatch of expectations. Sometimes relationships are strained with one party’s expectations not met by another’s well-intended actions. If a friend volunteers to help decorate the banquet room for a fund-raising event, and the quality of the work is below your expectations, tension can arise. Often this is the result of lack of clear communication about what is expected.

A summary word: trust is easily lost, especially when people quit communicating with one another. Whenever possible, if you believe another person is struggling with trusting you in a situation, be proactive and find out what the issue is. I think you will find that the beginnings of mistrust can quickly be corrected either through an apology (if you have not followed through on a commitment made), clarifying your actions and intent, or coming to an understanding of unmet expectations and how these might be addressed in the future.

Over the past few months, I have had the opportunity to work closely with business teams comprised of highly talented and successful professionals. Some of these high-powered teams work together well and achieve amazing results, while some of the teams are struggling a bit in working together effectively. And one of the teams had to reorganize because the team members couldn’t figure out how to work together.

I’ve made some observations as well as pulled some information from other sources, about what needs to happen for a team of “All Stars” to be successful as a team.

Characteristics of Successful Individuals

First, let’s look at some of the characteristics of highly successful individuals. Successful people:

*Know how to accomplish tasks. They get things done. And typically, they have found ways of doing things that work for them. (With a team, they may have a hard time approaching a task differently from their personal strategy.)

*Are confident in their abilities. Since they have had success, they have developed confidence in their abilities and their approach. They believe their way works (and sometimes believe that their way will work for everyone.)

*Are proactive. They take initiative, develop action plans, and act on the plans made. (In a team context, they sometimes can act before coordinating with other team members.)

*Persevere. Persevering, “stick-to-it-tiveness” is generally a positive personality characteristic. (But perseverance can translate into stubbornness, if the individual is unwilling to accept and adapt to reality-based feedback – that this strategy just isn’t working in this context.)

*Have high energy. Most successful individuals have a lot of energy – mental, emotional and physical. They often run at a fast pace. (But in the context of working with others, they can have difficulty waiting, and sometimes can “act” before they should.”

Characteristics of Successful Teams with Highly Talented Individuals

Although working with a team of very talented, capable and successful professionals can be challenging, there are ways that these “All Star” teams can become incredibly impactful. There are many areas of life from which examples can be taken: music groups, sports teams, legal and political teams, strategic business partnerships. (And unfortunately, there are probably more examples of “Super Teams” that failed.) What seems to be necessary?

*Team members voluntarily submit to a selected leader. There has to be a clear, designated leader. And the team members must consistently follow their leadership, even when they disagree with the leader (and they will).

*Individuals “hold back” in fully using all of their talents and focus their efforts on what is needed for team success. In a team setting, individual stars don’t “shine” and do everything they do as individual stars. They have to pull back and figure out how to mesh with the other team members.

*Team members value and appreciate the role and contributions of other team members. Not only do team members constrain their performance, they also truly value the strengths of others and the strengths their teammates bring to the team effort. There is usually a genuine mutual respect among the teammates.

*The approach or strategies used by the team to reach success may be different than previous successful strategies used by the individual team members. Certain strategies work well for individual tasks, but frequently different approaches are needed for cooperative ventures. Deference to the team leader and accepting their approach for the team is critical in this area for the team to be successful.

*There is a disciplined, strategic approach to reach the team goal that the team members are willing to submit to. This may seem redundant, but the issue is that many times “All Star” teams are put together for a specific project or limited time. Otherwise, most successful professionals would not be willing to participate in a cooperative project – because it would interfere with their personal career and requires them to perform in ways they are not typically used to.

Lessons from The Five Dysfunctions of a Team

(by Patrick Lencioni).

Finally, let’s look at lessons shared by Patrick Lencioni in his best-selling book. These principals dovetail nicely with the observations described above.

Issues That Lead to Problems on a Team

*Absence of Trust (resulting from a lack of vulnerability among team members)

*Fear of Conflict (which can lead to artificial harmony). Team members need to be able to engage in passionate debate about ideas.

*Lack of Commitment (by keeping goals and plans ambiguous). Lack of true “buy in” by all team members leads to poor execution and implementation.

*Avoidance of Accountability (which keeps performance at low standards of acceptability). Team members must be willing to confront off-task or counterproductive actions and behaviors of other team members.

*Inattention to Results (stemming from a focus on individual needs such as status, ego and recognition). It is critical for team members to agree on the categories of results to be tracked to assess success for the team as a whole.

Five Aspects of Functional Teams

1. They trust one another. (The confidence that their team members’ intentions are good.)

2. They engage in unfiltered conflict around ideas.

3. They commit to decisions and plans of actions.

4. They hold one another accountable for delivering against those plans.

5. They focus on the achievement of collective results.

So take a look at yourself and the teams on which you are functioning. See which of these issues are strengths and areas which need to be strengthened. It is pretty fun to be on a successful team, especially when the other team members are really talented!

Recently, in a variety of settings I am observing the issue of trust impacting business relationships.

Obviously, trust is at the foundation for business transactions – that the vendor will provide the goods or services purchased, that the goods or services will be at the quality level described initially, and that the customer will pay for the goods or services in the time frame agreed upon.

Another area of business where trust is impactful is in the employer / employee relationship – where the employer follows through on commitments communicated to the employee and the integrity level of employees to be trusted to access to information and resources.

This past week I was talking to a business owner who described a situation where he had hired a sales manager (in early 2008, prior to the financial crisis hitting) who in turn started hiring a fairly high cost sales staff. Whenever the current owners or management team raised issues or asked questions of the sales manager, he reported replied, “Do I have to earn your trust or earn your mistrust?” (implying they should trust him until he proved untrustworthy.)

I replied that this was the wrong question. And, in fact, I find much communication around the issue of “trust” is not laid out properly. I do not believe that the question is: “Do I trust you?” (or “Do you trust me?”). This is too broad.

Trust is situation specific. The more appropriate question, I think, is: “For what do I trust you?” Or, “What am I willing to entrust to you?” (responsibility, privileges, resources). I may trust you to hire staff within a budget amount but I may not trust you to have total access to all of the company’s financial data. Or, I may trust you to pay bills with appropriate procedural checks and balances but I don’t trust you to have total access to the company’s financial resources without monitoring.

Think back to common family situations. Teenagers often complain to their parents, “You don’t trust me!” But again, the real issue is “trust you to do what?” I do trust you to choose good friends and to tell me the truth about where you are going, but no I don’t trust you to drive three hours late at night in a car with four of your friends on a snowy night.

Generally speaking, trust is earned — either from prior behavior with other individuals (that is why we trust professionals who have gone through training and certification in their profession, but we often also check references of people with whom they have worked) or in their behavior with us. We trust others (in the defined areas of responsibility) based on previously demonstrated responsibility in similar areas.

[I do admit that in many daily interactions we confer trust to others when we have no specific basis to do so, other than assuming most people are trustworthy in daily life transactions. However, this level of trust varies greatly across individuals’ own personal history and life experiences.]

I find that people (both business owners and parents) tend to get “burned” when they give more trust and responsibility to others when the person hasn’t demonstrated a basis for that trust.

A second area where I find business owners and managers tend to get taken advantage of by others in the business world is when they ignore early warning signs of mistrust. Partly due to the self-reinforcing tendency that we don’t want to admit that something may be wrong (and that we made a mistake in hiring this person), and sometimes partly due to people’s propensity to want to believe the best of others - we wind up overlooking early warning signs of a person not being trustworthy. As a result, we continue to entrust responsibilities and resources to the individual and find out later they weren’t trustworthy in how they handled the responsibilities - digging a deeper hole and creating more problems for the business.

So, where do we go with all of this?

First, I would suggest to accurately define the parameters of trust in relationships. Using a framework such as, “I am willing to trust you to…” Sometimes, it may be appropriate to say, “I am willing to trust you with… because you have shown yourself responsible by… ” Additionally, sometimes you may need to add, “…but I don’t feel comfortable yet in giving you the responsibility to …” Finally, it is helpful to clarify what responsibilities need to be demonstrated in order for you to trust the individual with more areas (this is really helpful in dealing with teens - versus the arbitrary “when I feel comfortable”.)

Secondly, I would strongly encourage each of us to pay attention to early warning signs of problem behaviors. This can take many different forms, including:

*the facts just don’t add up

*you are getting reports from clients and customers and other trusted team members, about some problems in a team member’s behavior

*the team member responds to questions and challenges with a “don’t you trust me?” type of response

*the team member is quite adept at making excuses, blaming others or circumstances versus admitting they made a mistake or error in judgement.

How should you respond to early warning signs?

a) talk to the individual about your concerns; often your concerns may be due to misperceptions or miscommunication;

b) obtain verifying information by an independent third party;

c) set up processes and procedures to monitor transactions

d) document the issues and behaviors which are creating concerns for you. Often the weight of evidence over time becomes significant, while no one specific incident is that large.

I think it would be wise for each one of us to consider the following old saying,

“Wise individuals see danger ahead and avoid it, but fools keep going and get into trouble.”