Reaching Out To Build Trust

Here are a few beginning observations about building trust one-on-one, particularly when trust seems to have been broken. As teams develop their communication and trust-building skills an increasing number of difficult topics and conflicts where trust is involved can be addressed in the team itself. But often this trust-building work starts gradually, with people in pairs learning to resolve differences.

Repair of trust, whether in a whole team setting or one-one, often involves sorting out beliefs and perceptions that may or may not turn out to be true. This can be hard work because beliefs about oneself and others are often a stable part of a person's world. They don't change automatically. While it is generally easy to see this truth about others, it is often hard to see it about ourselves.

What is clear is that trust doesn't improve without direct communication about the issues and problems that have actually arisen — especially the incidents that are driving our personal beliefs about one another. For example, if I think another team member "isn't accountable," simply telling another person that is not likely to have a positive impact. This is primarily because I as the receiver can't see what is causing the belief about lack of accountability. If I don't know what the observed behavior is, all I can do is get defensive.

This leads to uncomfortable feelings and the possibility of ongoing defensive behavior that feeds the conflict. The mistrust will build until the people sit down to have direct and sincere conversations with one another about what's going on. "What's going on" involves both 1) the behavior and specific incidents that have occurred, and 2) the conclusions that are being drawn. Only by discussing both can people discover together a better way, one they create together. Talking both of these points through, people often find that they've drawn mistaken conclusions from the behavior they's observed or heard about. They may also learn, if they are listening non-defensively, how some of their own behaviors may be contributing to the mistrust. As they work together to understand the conflict, clearing up misunderstandings, they may move toward taking each other at "face-value." This means they stop reading into situations negative assumptions or conclusions that inhibit their communication and efforts to rebuild the relationship.

EXAMPLES

Individual 1 (What Individual 2 sees about Individual 1)

Conclusion: Not a team player

Behaviors

• Doesn't come to regular staff meetings

• Waves people away with a dismissive hand gesture when too busy to talk

• Uses sarcastic tone of voice and put-down in meetings

Incidents

• Missed regular Tuesday staff meetings for two of last three weeks

• Used negative hand motions with Person A on Monday, with Person B on Tuesday regarding ABC project

• Sarcastic "Whateeever!" comments in two conversations in the last week.

Individual 2 (What individual 1 sees about Individual 2)

Conclusion: Thinks he's better than everybody else

Behaviors

• Talks over other people at staff meetings

• Interrupts ongoing conferences and meetings with minor requests

• Uses patronizing tone of voice with others

Incidents

• Took up about 50% of total airtime at last staff meeting attended

• Interrupted a conversation between Individual 1 and a staff member with an "urgent" request for assistance that could have easily been provided later

• Rumor mill buzzing about two staff members feeling uncomfortable in their exchanges with Individual 2

Can you see how in these examples there is a reciprocal quality, meaning they create a kind of cycle of mistrust? If Individual 1 and Individual 2 can talk these observations and conclusions out, noticing how that cycle works, they can find a way to build trust. Sometimes this is best done with a facilitated conversation, using a leader or another team member to facilitate. Sometimes an outsider, such as a third-party consultant, is needed.