Comments for Trust as a growing structure

Comment from Luke Naismith on 2007-05-23

2007-05-24T03:47:22Z

Thanks for linking through Jack.
Just to clarify, I think Adventure is the first aspect - a requirement for openness, of having that small sense of vulnerability for trust to take hold. If there is no adventure, then there is no need to trust anyone.
In hindsight, I could make agreement and accountability balance each other as where they meet at the apex is where trust is regenerated in that cyclical manner you mentioned.
Authenticity would then become the other support along with adventure. This makes a bit more sense to me as the supports are more cultural and intersubjective, and the roofline is more social and interobjective. Apology remains the bridge or platform that builds internal strength if any of the other sections of the A-frame become weakened, brittle or exposed.
As you also mentioned on another post, trust is essential to KM as it is critical to the development of working relationships. What I find more interesting is when people know each other so well and become so attuned to each other (sporting teams or artistic performances are examples) that they do not simply trust that their team member will be there but that they look for subtle variations to further enhance and extend each other's performances. Wouldn't it be nice to be in a situation where we can achieve that with our work colleagues?

Comment from jackvinson on 2007-05-23

2007-05-24T04:17:33Z

Thanks, Luke. After I referenced these two trust articles, I have been thinking about something more cyclical. Or something... There is something about the initial level of trust I will grant a person based on how we were introduced or how we met. And it is through the adventure of interaction that the initial trust deposit is validated (or not) through some of these other legs of the A-frame.

Maybe this has a link to your thought about deeper levels of trust?

Comment from David Montgomery on 2007-05-24

2007-05-24T22:00:12Z

Luke has cleverly summarised a diverse range of views and encapsulated these in what he calls the five A. frame to which I would like to suggest a sixth: acceptance. When you trust and other person you accept their judgment, point of view, or advice since you know it to be reliable or in your best interest.

One of the best thinkers on trust that I have come across is Charles Handy who has observed that trust is ' a fragile commodity. Like glass, not once shattered, it is never the same again.' (Understanding Organisations, 1985, p.329). He also goes on to say that trust must be reciprocal and it is based on this thinking that I believe that acceptance is an integral part of trust. What a great pity this clever and very down-to-earth author has recently decided to stop writing.

And, yes Luke, wouldn't it be great if we can experience such levels of trust in the workplace where we go beyond simple trust of a fellow teammate -- and talking about team sports I suspect Freddie Flintoff et al may yet be harbouring somewhat different hopes for young Mr McGrath!

David

PS Jack, Luke will talk you through the Flintoff stuff, as A Scot it's beyond my comprehension!