Solomon and Flores explore the important idea of trust and its role in business and other arenas of life. They deconstruct the idea by looking at simple or naïve trust, blind trust, and mature or authentic trust. Simple trust is trust that is “yet unchallenged or unquestioned” (Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 31). This is the paradigm we have for trust, which is transparent and innocence, like a child’s trust in a parent. Blind trust is trust in denial; when trust has been betrayed, but the betrayal is ignored.
Authentic trust is “…fully self-aware, cognizant of its own conditions and limitations, open to new and even unimagined possibilities, based on choice and responsibility, rather than the mechanical operations of predictability, reliance, and rigid rule-following” (Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 59). Authentic trust is trust that is chosen and maintained with effort; it is a blend of both trust and distrust. It allows trust to be rebuilt if there is a breakdown of trust.
Often we think of trust based on familiarity, but as our world becomes smaller and more interconnected, we must trust others with whom we may have no personal relationship. More and more we must trust strangers in order to operate in our day-to-day lives. When considered from the context of entrepreneurial college, trust in our partners is critically important. If we distrust each other, we are less likely to develop a cooperative relationship. Trusting is taking a risk.
Developing authentic trust requires an openness and honesty that is often not desired in institutions. Instead, what replaces trust is “cordial hypocrisy” in which members of the institution pretend to trust, instead of exploring differences honestly. Harmony is maintained, but it is at the risk of undermining the health of the organization. Open distrust is healthier, because the institution can take steps to deal with something known. “Denial, not distrust, is perhaps the greatest enemy of trust”(Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 59). I think it is a vitally important to create a climate that allows for open expression of differences instead of fostering one that encourages a “happy face” that covers deep-seated problems.
In authentic trust, both parties understand the mutual obligations and responsibilities that each brings to the relationship. It is trust based on reciprocity. If there is a breakdown in trust, one must assess what is not working, and make changes needed to renew trust. Solomon and Flores contend that the way that trust can be restored is not just through earning trust, but also by giving trust freely. That seems naïve upon first consideration, but it does convey the message of giving someone a second chance. Trust lost is very hard to regain; it is better to limit one’s commitments to those that can be kept. Word, once given, needs to be kept.
The challenges of creating trust within an institution are amplified by the reciprocal nature of trust. When it is not clear who is responsible for something, it is hard to give trust. Trust is based on relationships; in large institutions individuals must often rely on others with whom they have little or no connections. Those individuals who are skilled at building relationships are often the ones who can get things done within the system; they know whom they can trust to follow through on commitments. Instead of systems that work effectively, often it will be a patchwork of individuals who can make things happen – an inefficient approach at best.
Trust seems to be a linchpin needed for creation of a healthy organizational climate. It is built daily by the actions taken by the leadership of the organization that are congruent with the values espoused. It requires trusting the individual employee in the organization to do his or her job in accordance with the mission of the organization. A trusting foundation allows the individuals within the organization to be open, honest, creative, innovative, and risk-taking.
Solomon, R. C., & Flores, F. (2001). Building trust in business, politics, relationships, and life.
New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This post gives me an excuse to point out three sources that should be particularly useful when dealing with the usually fuzzy concept social capital.
Nan Lin (2002) Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. (the book is available as an e-book through UTCat.)
Steven Brint (2001) Gemeinschaft revisited: a critique and reconstruction of the community concept. (in Sociological Theory).
Alejandro Portes (2000) The two meanings of social capital (in Sociological Forum)
The sources help clarify the the concept social capital. I'll refer to them today when trying to reinforce the idea that 'capacity' is embedded in the individual and in the group (social network). A social network can be thought of as structure. Trust is one aspect of individual and group capacity. Further, sustainability can be thought of as creating surplus capacity. Surplus capacity is then reinvested in both individuals and the group.
It seems that in many organizations, incentives are not put in place to give people a reason to trust others. If authentic trust, as the author defines it, is an active process, then what factors drive someone to continue trusting another individual, institution, or system of governance? Put bluntly, what is in it for them? Far too often, administrators require trust out of the staff that they direct based on superiority status or on a mantle of authoirty given to them by some board of trustees. Given that justification, is it any wonder why some people engage in "cordial hypocrisy"? People produce labor and are compensated for that, but they are also social creatures that care deeply about their personal identity and place in the world.
-Matt
Post a Comment