Thriving too

Social Brain Lab: Introduction to trust building

{Image above from the S1NGLETOWN installation)

For nearly two weeks I have had writing this post on trust on my list.  However every day I do or say something stupid myself... and if I wait until I am better at this stuff myself this will never get written... so here it is.  

Why is trust so important?

We all know its important, particularly when we want to work with others.  The more complex the situation or collaboration, the more trust plays a part in achieving success.  Studies have shown that relational trust, or more particularly lack of trust between people, has a direct cost to organisations – everything costs more money because it slows everything down and without trust you also have to create much more elaborate processes to compensate…

Studies have shown that relational trust also has indirect effects and collectively this can have some powerful results.

A large and influential study that focused on the importance of relationships within school communities was conducted by Anthony Bryk and Barbara Schneider and was published as Trust in Schools, in 2002.  This important work studied the effects of high and low relational trust in schools and they concluded that there was a direct correlation between the levels of relational trust in the whole school community: students, parents and teachers, and the academic results of the students.  Additionally they concluded that:

Relationship trust is forged in daily social exchanges. . .Relational trust constitutes the connective tissue that binds these individuals together around advancing the education and welfare of children. (Bryk &  Schneider, 2002, p 137 + 144)

 So high levels of relational trust makes things faster, cheaper and better….

Trust and the Social Brain

Chances are that without understanding in detail how trust works, we may be trustworthy in some ways and not others. The problem is that parts of the human brain sort of aggregate all the data about us, and then print out a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the trust question without saying how it got this answer.  Trust is a very finely tuned biological safety feature.  We all know about our 'fight or flight', an automated system, which is constantly and instantaneously on the look out for signs of danger. On a more subtle scale this system is quietly gathering data on everything going on around us – then it synthesizes all that information and jumps to a conclusion. On the one hand very useful and on the other sometimes rather annoying.

What this means is that there is no way around the system. Although our brains might be more or less finely tuned (we can for example become 'hyper-vigilant' to trust issues after a few negative experiences) …  no amount of acting classes are going get you past the everyday ability of a human to detect a lack a trustworthiness in another person.

We are so biologically tuned into one another that we effect each other's heart rate and blood pressure within minutes of entering the same space.  The blood-pressure of a sick person reduces when another person sits with them - even if they are unconscious or asleep.  This subtle back and forth between us leads us to share moods quickly and easily, and it also gives us very strong instincts about trust... sometimes instantly and sometimes based on a lot of data gathered by our brains over time.

Trust behaviours 

At the highest level trust is about being honest and maintaining a high degree of integrity.  The word ‘integrity’ means ‘being whole’… integrated.  So what you show on the outside should reflect what’s on the inside.If it isn't... if we pick up some inconguity, however sublte or hard to define, between what people might being presenting to us, and what we think their real intentions might be, we start to distrust.  Being a person with a good reputation for integrity also involves a person demonstrating their integrity outwardly.  If you are a hermit it would be difficult for people to know if you were trustworthy or not.  

You might not wish to think that you are being highly judgmental about people around you – but you will find that your brain likely has been working on your behalf.

Trust in a community context

We said that our focus in the Social Brain Lab was to look at these issues in the community context.  I mentioned above that in the Trust in Schools research they showed that relational trust correlated to student’s grades. How many other effects might come from a high trust community?

I have blogged a lot against approaches to getting communities active that use conflict as a deliberate tool.  Agitating groups of people around grievances I believe is very manipulative and very ineffectual long term.  If you believe, as I do, that we are going to develop better social outcomes through collaboration, between local authorities, schools, community groups, councilors etc ... then building relational trust has to be an integral part of building ‘collaborative capacity’.

In my experience conflict in local communities divides and fractures existing social networks … and people can behave in shocking ways.  The most common narrative is that the object, person, organization takes on some very unpleasant characteristics.  This ‘demonising’ gives the campaigning group permission to do or say pretty much anything in order to win.  

If you want to collaborate on community projects trust is also essential.  When you work in organizations there are processes, which to some extent compensates (poorly) for lack of trust. 

We have for years tried to do this in communities by working through stifling committee structures, often attracting only the most determined and skilled… but repelling the majority.   Thankfully we see signs of change... and in all the new examples of communities working creatively and collaboratively that we have studied,  you will find trust at the core of their success.

My favourite quote on trust:

"Having spent many years trying to define the essential of trust, I have arrived at the position that if two people could say two things to each other and mean them, then there was the basis for trust.  The two things are “I mean you no harm” and “I seek your greatest good”

Jim Meehan, British Psychologist and Poet 

Total Transparency and Trust

Many people enjoy the level of transparency that social media has brought into their lives. I think that this level of openness can lead to trust on lots of different levels.  By revealing everything we can about ourselves, our work, ideas, beliefs, we give people more opportunity to trust us, because we aren't hiding very much.

But we often conceal our sadness or disappointments from social media because we don't want people to give us attention about this, or we think it makes us look bad in some way. How we stay authentic without showing our moany side too much? A modern dilemma. 

So would you be prepared to wear a flashing pendant that reveals to others what your heart is doing? This new device called HeartSpark shows to other people if your heart starts beating faster, through fear or excitement or anger or any other complex emotional cocktail which changes your physiology. 

Except when it is on the Fake setting, that is....

 

Trust is like Twitter

Trust is a big deal. Many people want more trust in their working and personal lives. I think that the research into trust has prompted this largely, because one of the characteristics of trust is that if you aren't living in a high trust way you really don't know what you are missing.

So here are some insights into how trust works. I found a great metaphor for trust in a clever post by Jay Cross about Twitter - hence this post's title. If you don't know Jay Cross yet, and you are into learning theory, informal learning in particular, I really recommend spending some time on his sites. Jay compared Twitter to a close up of a Seurat painting (Sunday Afternoon at the Grande Jatte). Seurat was a pointillist, who believed in the power of primary colour to create secondary colors in the viewer's imagination.
Jay said:

"Twitter is like pointillism. Up close it can be meaningless. Back away and a pattern emerges. Your subconscious shapes an image of the person from the Tweets. The whole is a phase change from the sum of the parts."

This is exactly how trust works. At the point where you decide to trust someone, or they you, the decision will be made up of hundreds of small pieces of information which enter your mind largely subconsciously - which then form an instinctual whole. While you may not be 'sweating the small stuff' ..... it all counts. Because trust is such an important emotion in terms of survival we use all the messages we get about an individual to make our judgements. People trust who we are, but who we are is demonstrated largely through our behaviours. If we want to build trust, we need to make sure that who we are 'inside' is exhibited on the 'outside'. Our actions need to matching our intentions.

1. Are you reliable? Do you reply to email, call back when you say you will, turn up?

2. Are you moody and inconsistent? Can people depend that when you show up you will be balanced.

3. Do you care? Do you demonstrate caring in all situations?

4. Are you tolerant? Do you show tolerance and acceptance widely, even when you are with close friends.

5. Do you listen? Listen at least twice as much as you talk.

6. Are you competent? Do you follow through, do a good job consistently?

7. Are you honest? No one can lie well. Our emotional systems can pick up even the slightest variations. Lie about the tiny details and you won't be trusted with the big stuff. Do you build closeness with people by being negative about other people?

8. Are you fair? When you are pressing your argument do you over-generalise, exaggerate, assume. These are old school debate tactics which push people away from each other emotionally rather than building relationships. Is your slice always slightly bigger or do you try to be generous even when this involves giving more time, expertise, work, ideas...? Or do you always try to ensure that you always create ways for people to pay you back?

9. Do you appreciate people? Do you always thank people, are you warm, friendly, open? Do you try and look for the good in other people or do you over-criticise or try too hard to impress?

Trust can be built, broken and fixed. It makes life worth living.

And all of the above 'comes through' on Twitter too. I have developed trust for a number of people through their Tweets. Through their charming honestly, their intense caring, their responsiveness, their warmth and humour...

But even after deconstructing it all down like this, the most important measure I have found for trust comes through in this powerful quote by Jim Meehan:

"Having spent many years trying to define the essential of trust, I have arrived at the position that if two people could say two things to each other and mean them, then there was the basis for trust. The two things are "I mean you no harm" and "I seek your greatest good"

Altogether much more complex and difficult than it looks....

Social Evils

Joseph Rountree Foundation published the first three of eleven 'viewpoints' examining the issues raised by their Social Evils work.
The three papers can be downloaded on the links below:

Has there been a decline in values in British society?

Unkind, risk-averse and untrusting - if this is today's society, can we change it?

Social evils and social good

They are extremely well written, and do offer different viewpoints.

I felt that Anthony Graylings discussion around individualism was particularly well argued:

Julia Neuberger's discussion around CRB checks and risk taking I found rather uncomfortable. I worked with the NSPCC a number of years ago so I consider reducing risk around all types of child abuse to be an essential, if very unhappy, social safeguard.

Overall, I thought the essays were positive, thoughtful and realistic, although reading them makes clear how much our political views can colour our perceptions. There seems to be so much information now at our disposal that most people simply don't have time to have personally synthesised view points. We still rely heavily on traditional media to analyse the trends and big picture perspectives - and it seems to be letting us down quite heavily - both in terms of helping us get a realistic overview, but also in trying to see what the options are for individual citizens to help tackle some of the really serious issues. My thoughts are that perhaps this 'communication gap' is one that government should consider filling . . . .

To engage with a discussion on this subject have a look at Matthew Taylor's RSA blog

Other related posts:
Social Trust up 10% in UK
Development, Freedom and Happiness
Civic Revolutionaries
More to Give Research

Social Trust up 10% in UK

I hardly ever go on to the Social Capital blog and not find a brilliant post. Today I have been delighted to read in this week's post that societal trust is up 10% in the UK. Down in other places . . . but still very excited by this research. In the post Across countries, where social trust is high, crime and corruption are low they look at some detail at the Pew Research findings correlating trust and crime in various countries.

The boundless Dave Eggers

This is the TED talk by Dave Eggers who is an inspiration. He started a voluntary tutoring school which has become the heart of his community. It is no surprise that he won the TED prize. To quote " it offers a boundless sort of optimism and the possibility of creativity and ideas."

Please also visit his website Once upon a School which aims to help others to create similar projects around the world.

Clay Shirky on Love

Clay Shirky is about a lot at the moment - mainly due to his new book Here Comes Everbody which has just come out, which discusses the effects of technology on the forming of groups outside of traditional organisational structures. I know this because I am on page 46, and I fully intend to write a full review of this fascinating book in the near future. However in the meantime I stumbled on this presentation by Clay Skirky which talks about how now, thanks to all the wonderful tools at our disposal WE can do the most wonderful things collaboratively .... for love, and not money.

To watch this optimism filled, human-loving talk just click here

Evolutionary Networks

On two recent occasions I have been confronted with the realities of the information and population explosion. Sharing a meal with a well informed professional person, we have mentioned leaders in our respective fields of work, only to be faced with completely blank looks. These are social trials .... either trying to hide our shock at another's ignorance, or even worse pretending to know who is being discussed. It can be really quite embarrassing if we don't openly understand and acknowledge the reality of the situation. It has always happened to a certain extent, but it is getting increasingly difficult to keep up. And there is little authenticity in pretending.

In the revised Shift Happens film (below) it quotes that the amount of technical information is doubling every 2 years, there were 3000 books published today, 2.7 billion searches performed on google this month . . .

Which is why computers are no longer optional... and why social network sites have literally exploded. We need to manage all the connections and all the information. The truth is really quite profound. We cannot manage without people networks, where we have connections with lots and lots of other people. And with those connections can come a measure of confidence. Perhaps we don't need to be trying desperately to absorb so much information, perhaps it is OK to let others know lots of other things we don't . . . but are only a click or a call away? We need people, and we need to build trusting relationships with those people in order to collaborate.

I think that that this is a truly wonderful thing.

Memberships to associations and groups have in one sense become short hand personal branding. We scan through people's online profiles, including their memberships, as a way of creating a picture of that person.

I was fascinated reading Roland Harwood's post on the development of cities. There is certainly no doubt in my mind that self-organisation has already happened with regard social networking sites.

The challenge is to design systems evolutionary enough and quickly enough to ensure their relevance . . . next week.

There is a new site called The Membership Project which aims to explore these themes in closer detail, and to look at ways the networks can be used to help online collaboration and project development. Good luck to David Wilcox and Simon Berry