Trust: A Chicken and Egg Problem
When it comes to gathering information, what is it that makes you trust a particular source? How do you know you can count on the information you receive?
To help me get started on the right foot (since I’m, you know, right-handed) with my shiny new career as a consultant, I asked a couple of friends of mine to help me out with applicable tips, thoughts, material, etc. worth looking into.
My buddy Dennis sent me a short reading list, and one of the books, Strategy and the Fat Smoker: Doing What’s Obvious But Not Easy, is a new release by a gentleman named David Maister. As I was perusing the (ridiculously long) Amazon page, scrolling down… and down… and still down… I finally ran across the “customer reviews” section.
In light of the many recent “fake customer” scandals, I tend to approach these things with something of a grain of salt (not to mention the shaker and the entire salt mine with it). I mean, who are these people, anyway? And why should I listen to them? Are they even real? How do I know? Or can I? And what about Mary Lou?
It’s like that annual Publisher’s Clearing House Sweepstakes. How do you know those are real people? Surely you’ve had the same thoughts at least occasionally pass by your brain, right? (And yes, I know; don’t call you Shirley.)
When it comes to information sources, I must admit I tend to be from, well, Missouri rather than Texas. (Ed. Note: for those who might not be familiar with it, the colloquialism, I’m from Missouri – when not referring to the actual U.S. State, that is – is an Americanism that means Color me skeptical, or perhaps, Go ahead, Bubba; prove it to me.)
Anyway, as I started reading these supposed “Customer Reviews”, I stopped dead in my tracks (sound of me screeching to a halt) when I actually recognized one of the reviewers as none other than my Spooky friend Mike DeWitt! Well, you could have knocked me over with a feather (sound of me, being knocked over with a feather)!
But it’s what happened internally that’s the most interesting. Suddenly my attitude about the book changed completely (sound of attitude being, er, changed). In an instant, I went from “Hmmm… I wonder if this book is really all that,” to, “Hey, if he thinks this is a good book, then it must actually be a good book!”
(Note: No disparagement against Dennis’ opinion; I was already predisposed toward it from his opinion alone. But now I had TWO recommendations!)
So what made the difference? Why would I choose to accept what was being said about the book from Mike – and why I accepted Dennis’ opinion? The difference, my fine feathered friends, is my relationship to the source of the information! Because I know (and trust) the provider of the information, I can therefore trust the information.
As I thought about this a bit more (sound of grinding gears), I realized there are several ramifications to this line of thought.
Trust Should Be Uncommon
At first blush, this sounds like a rather cynical statement. Please hear me out.
We all know people we kindly refer to as “too trusting”, right? So what’s the problem with that? The problem, as you well know, is that when people trust everything, then they are easily fooled into believing anything.
You don’t need a PhD to know that such an attitude can lead to serious consequences. Ever received an email from someone you don’t know about a large sum of money hidden in a bank in Nigeria and just “waiting for you to send your bank account number…”? The prosecution rests.
No; trust should be reserved for something (or someone) special. And may I also add that the degree of trust is important, too. After all, that’s part of what makes trust such a special quality, right?
The Key to Trust is Relationship
If we trust a particular source, friend, company, bank, etc. it’s essential we have a relationship with the object of that trust. There’s just no way around it. You have to be familiar enough with what or who you are trusting to be comfortable with the level of trust you’ve assigned to it.
That’s why I have to snort (which is particularly messy when drinking a beverage at the same time) when I hear TV commercials assure me I can “Listen to Channel Blah News; with (name of Talking Head here), the trusted source for your information needs.”
I mean, c’mon! You have no actual relationship with this person, do you? How can you possibly trust them? How can you know that what you hear is actually the truth? Or the whole truth, for that matter. (Luckily, these days we have a vast resource called the Internet, filled with people who only print the *ahem* truth.)
I guess what comes to mind is the fact that in America, this is a Presidential election year. Having survived many such fun-fests over the years, especially the last three or four, it’s only fair to warn you that trust in your information sources is going to be more and more crucial.
(Perhaps you may recall a certain prominent newscaster who’s still battling the consequences of the loss of trust that occurred during the last Presidential election season. Talk about going down in flames!)
The Key to Relationships is Trust
All right, perhaps this sounds like a contradiction (sorta like the old chicken and egg question – which came first?). But I assure you, it’s not (go ahead; say those last two words three times really fast!)
Hopefully, though, you’ll come to realize the truth. Any relationship, if it’s to become a deeper and more fulfilling one, has to have trust as a foundation. But that implies that trust comes first. Or does the relationship come first, before you can start trusting? Hmmm… sorta brings to mind the chicken and the egg question, doesn’t it? (For which, by the way, I have the correct answer.)
So how can this be, you ask? Well, for what it’s worth, here’s what I think.
Trust and relationship are actually two sides of the same coin. If you’ll think about it, you’ll realize you can’t have one without the other. Thus, they must be different aspects (or manifestations, if you will) of the same thing.
Go ahead; try it for yourself. Try to develop a relationship without trust. Can it work without first trusting them to some extent? (And bear in mind, I’m talking about a relationship, not just a surface acquaintance. You know the difference.)
So what’s your opinion? Think I’m on the right track? Or, has my train of thought derailed itself, fallen off the Bridge of Reason, and crashed in Crackpot Gulch, exploding into an expanding ball of superheated steam?
(You might want to also read this related post: Consider the Source)
No responses yet
Middle Zone Musings is a comfortable place to stop, have a cup of coffee, swap a few stories and share practical ideas for the real world. I don't ask for much, just a bit of your brain every now and then. Have a seat, take a load off, and relax...
Relationships without trust are like lox and bagels without cream cheese. Gotta have it. But I don’t see trust and relationships as two sides of the same kind. Trust has to be earned, and that takes time. Sometimes trust has to be tested, and that can take a great deal of time. Sometimes you don’t know who you’d want next to you in the foxhole until you’re in the foxhole. Whether your relationship starts with an attitude of trust or not, I don’t think you can really have trust until the relationship is tested.
With online reviews, it’s a little different. There, you have trust in numbers. After I saw “No Country for Old Men”, I wanted to read the book. (Is that what Texas is really like?) There were a slew of book reviews on Amazon and the opinions were all over the board. But I read enough of them to reach the conclusion the book wasn’t for me. It’s a total numbers game. Making a decision based on one or a handful of reviews is risky.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the endorsement! My view on the trust/relationship conundrum is that it’s a spiral – either a virtuous, growing spiral of increasing trust and strengthening relationship or a doom loop of growing distrust and dissolving relationship (with constant feedback loops).
Did that help?
Mike
Hi Robert
Thanks for introducing me to “I’m from Missouri”
(I am)
I know this wasn’t the subject of your post, but for me this is what social media is all about.
It’s why blogging has the power to transform business relationships. Because we’ve got switched off to ‘marketing’ messages and want to hear what ‘real’ people think about products and services.
Because we get to ‘know’ people by reading their stuff over and over again. Because if they recommend a dud they know and we know that it will affect their reputation and credibility. They’ll lose us. Which means if we trust them and they say ‘this stuff’s good’ it’s a turbo powered recommendation.
Joanna
PS I’m in the middle of reading Cluetrain Manifesto – as Brad’s written before it’s a bit OTT in places but some of it has given me a real ‘aha’ moment… and insight into how and why the web is developing the way that it is.
PPS Curious as to whether my picture’s going to appear when I hit ‘submit’…
@Brad – I dunno; I still feel that trust and relationship are so intertwined (in this context, of course!) that I have a hard time distinguishing how one can exist without the other. But I agree that time is a key element that ultimately allows them to develop and flourish. Neither one happens instantly (although it can be pretty quick sometimes!)
You make a good point about numbers, though. When online, for instance, it’s all I have to go on. But is that actually trust? I trust my friends; I don’t really trust the book – until I’ve read it for myself and know it’s what I wanted. On the other hand (how many hands is that, anyway?), I trust an author I’ve read and like, even if I don’t now them personally.
@Mike – “doom loop”… oh, that’s good; the most fitting description of a falling out I’ve ever heard! But what about the relationships that reach a plateau and go no farther… but don’t go away, either?
Actually, it’s a good question. What do you do with those kind of relationships? The polite thing is to keep the lines of communication open. What you’d like to do is end it because it doesn’t “do” anything for you. Hmm… sounds like another post in making… sound of grinding
@Joanna – I guess you’re just doomed to that “curious” look forever *sigh*. But speaking of curious; now I am.
Which is it? Are you really from Missouri? Or are you a “show me” person?
Anyhoo -
I think you’ve got it right – the reason blogging is so much more powerful than simply marketing is the two-way nature of the medium. It allows people to get to know each other in ways that was impossible (or too slow to matter) before.
I know there’s a lot of debate about the “Wisdom of Crowds” thing, but for me, this is one of the strongest things about having so many of us out there: it’s sometimes pretty easy to spot the fakes!
love this thought stream, personally i am of the give all a chance and tend to be way too giving, trusting and open – most of the time I get that all back in turn and it’s fulfilling and wonderful. Yet when I run across someone shifty or unkind or not used to a giving spirit – well it can get uncomfortable and odd. I can also get stomped on. I have had that experience a few more times than I like and in significant relationships – these for me are my life lessons. I am grateful for the learning and still searching for that great balance that makes it all sortof work right – ya know?
Mother Earth aka Karen Hanrahan
@Karen – I understand what you’re saying – and sorry ’bout the “stomped on” part! But I guess that’s part of growing, too. It’s not a good thing to be TOO trusting; for them or for you.
But in the end, the person with the kindest spirit will come out OK anyway… usually.
Balance, as you say, is an important key to life.
That’s the beauty of blogging. It makes a large world small. Suddenly, it’s possible to have “relationships” with people that you would never meet face-to-face.
It’s true that after reading someone’s blog for a while, you feel that you “know” that person. At least, I do. And to some degree, if the blogger has been transparent and honest, you do.
Of course, who knows what would happen if we met some of our blog friends face-to-face. Would we be annoyed by their obnoxious laugh, their habit of interrupting, their bad body odor? I’ve often wondered what my blog friends are like. Would be friends if we had met some other way?
Food for thought…
I know what you mean, Laura. It’s one reason I didn’t put a photo of myself on the site at the beginning. I wanted to see if people would still take a shine to me even after they found out I looked like this!
A fine post! And I have to chuckle, because:
a. I completely agree with you about the trust-relationship linkage,
b. I actually know something about it, running a business called Trusted Advisor Associates, c. Best of all, I can testify to your principle because David Maister forwarded your post on to me, and I know David personally. In fact, David and I (and Rob Galford) co-authored the book The Trusted Advisor. (I also wrote a book called Trust-based Selling).
And of course, all the characteristics of your reactions to seeing Mike DeWitt’s name on Maister’s list were exactly echoed by me, having it “pre-certified,” if you will, through the personal connection of David.
Trust, I say to anyone who will listen, is predominantly an interpersonal relationship. In The Trusted Advisor, we proposed the “trust equation,” which links (Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy), all divided by Self-Orientation. Most people focus on the first two, which we tend to think of as less personal–however, even credibility and reliability have major personal components. And intimacy and self-orientation are almost by definition personal.
Most people who talk about online trust or corporate trust work through either heavy reliance on Reliability (think Amazon or e-Bay scores), or try to do it through connections. The trouble with the latter is that X degrees of separation has a pretty fast decay rate with every degree.
Then there’s the Big Lie approach you mention–claiming you are trusted. Think about it: what are the two most trust-destroying words you can say? Trust me! Right? So why would CNN say “the most trusted name in television?” No one believes it, people like you and me are going to make fun of it, etc.
I could go on and on, and so could you but I just want to agree strongly with your basic point. Relationships and trust are intimately and powerfully connected. (Of course, don’t trust me on it–trust DeWitt. Better yet, trust your own gut; that’s what we all do, and it generally works pretty well.
Thanks for a fine post.
Greetings (and 8″ of snow) from the Show-Me state.
I think we each have our own certain level of trust we reserve for our fellow human beings.
Over time, if we get to know someone better, either our trust grows — or our distrust grows.
Of course, this all hinges on whether we decide to pursue a relationship in the first place (which requires at least a tiny bit of trust).
It sure sounds a lot like the chicken and the egg… LOL.
Robert,
Your train of thought may well have “derailed itself, fallen off the Bridge of Reason, and crashed in Crackpot Gulch, exploding into an expanding ball of superheated steam?” I love that description!
But I agree with the chicken-and-egg aspect of trust/relationships.
Robert,
I believe that, as we begin a relationship, we must be open and willing to learn to trust the person, over time, provided the person proves worthy of our trust. (In other words, at the beginning we sort of give people the benefit of the doubt–albeit cautiously–as long as they don’t give us reason not to.) Then, trust builds gradually, over time, as the relationship grows. Just as you say, trust and relationship go hand in hand.
Great post!
Jeanne
@Charles – Howdy, and welcome to The Middle Zone! Hey – I know that book!
That Trust Equation you mention is interesting to me. It looks like a very good way to determine trust when it comes to individual people. But I wonder – is it also applicable to organizations? Ow would there be some additional factors needed.
I ask this because the choice of labels (we call them the ” -ilities”) are many of the same ones (or variations) we use in building trust in, say, a refinery: Reliability, Maintainability, Capability, Availability.
Interesting. I’ll have to look into this more. And pick up your book
Thanks for dropping by the Zone, Charles!
@Dar – Yep; I think you proved my point, there!
And you don’t have to show me the snow – I believe you! (shudder)
@Lillie – Thanks!
@Jeanne – It’s funny how you have to sortof give to get in any relationship, isn’t it?