The Speed of High(er) Trust Leaders: Part 2

FranklinCovey's Leading at the Speed of Trust program provides useful tools for trust-building but oversimplifies its complexity. A more effective approach embraces satisficing, focusing on practical actions that balance ideal frameworks with real-world challenges, with trust developing through iterative interactions that are shaped by cultural, structural, and relational factors. By adapting trust-building efforts to these dynamics, leaders can create sustainable, high(er)-trust environments that foster resilience and cultivates long-term success.

In last week's column, The Speed of High(er) Trust Leaders: Part1, I explored the considerable benefits that accrue from FranklinCovey's Leading at the Speed of Trust training program. However, enthralment to any framework thinking it has the answers to 'life, the universe, and everything' is always fraught with problems, therefore it is essential to maintain a healthy level of doubt—yes, even in high(er)-trust environments. The reason for this is twofold.

First, in the absence of doubt a false sense of sufficiency is created, whereby individuals or organisations assume that adopting a framework's principles at face value is inherently transformative. This reductive approach ignores the complexity of trust, which is deeply contextual, relational, and requires ongoing effort tailored to specific intrapersonal, interpersonal, and team dynamics.

Second, it risks indoctrination over critical application, particularly in environments with limited critical literacy or organisational maturity. By uncritically adopting a prescriptive system, individuals may neglect the nuances of positional authority, cultural factors, ethical challenges, and environmental dynamics, ultimately enabling superficial compliance rather than authentic, sustainable trust-building. When combined, like some kind of malfunctioning Power Ranger, these risks can degrade trust rather than enhance it, as genuine trust cannot be imposed, manufactured, or messaged into existence by mandating employees follow a formula.

Over-Simplification of Trust-Building

The Speed of Trust workshop simplifies trust as a construct that can be systematically developed through behavioural steps. However, trust in organisations is not merely an outcome of behaviours. It is a complex, and at times irrational construct—think when people continue to trust a colleague despite consistent displays of incompetence—influenced by history, context, culture, and reciprocity. There is also a deeply reciprocal element to trust:

… individuals trust another individual or entity, based on what they put into and what they receive from a relationship. When individuals perceive an imbalance in the exchange and experience dissatisfaction, trust decreases.

Fulmer & Gelfand (2012)

Meaning that no matter how much the leaders of an organisation may think they do for their staff, if employees feel they give far more than they get, trust is unlikely to be high. This imbalance can happen at a behavioural level, but also in very tangible ways (e.g., pay, promotion, and working conditions). These deeper relational and historical dependencies, that vary across individuals and organisations, raise a number of problems in operationalising the relatively mechanistic approach promoted by the Speed of Trust program—which does not adequately capture these subtleties. Raising concerns about the program's applicability in contexts where trust dynamics are complex and context specific.

One way to understand how reciprocal factors that can strengthen, or undermine, trust is through Frederick Herzberg's two-factor theory. According to Herzberg, motivation is not a continuum on which satisfaction is at one end and dissatisfaction at the other. Instead, there are two-factors in play, motivators and hygiene.

Motivators: challenging work, recognition of achievements, responsibility, opportunities for meaningful contributions, involvement in decision-making, and a sense of significance within the organisation, are factors that contribute to positive satisfaction. These motivators stem from intrinsic aspects of the job itself, including recognition, personal achievement, and opportunities for individual growth and development.
Hygiene factors: status, job security, salary, fringe benefits, working conditions, and paid leave, are elements that do not generate positive satisfaction or increase motivation, but their absence can lead to dissatisfaction. The term 'hygiene' is used to indicate that these factors serve as maintenance conditions necessary for preventing discontent. These factors are extrinsic to the nature of the work itself and include aspects such as company policies, supervisory practices, or compensation. Herzberg also referred to these as 'KITA' (Kick in the Ass) factors, highlighting that they involve external incentives or the threat of punishment to prompt action, rather than fostering intrinsic motivation.

While Herzberg was focused on motivation, each of these elements also comes into play with trust reciprocity. If a manager requires employees engage in challenging work, but does not provide recognition of achievements, trust will be eroded. Similarly, if a manager demands loyalty to the organisation but offers limited job security or benefits in exchange, trust will be undermined.

Limited Acknowledgment of Organisational Structures

In focusing on interpersonal trust between leaders and team members, the Speed of Trust program neglects the ways in which trust is often contingent on organisational structures, policies, and reward systems. In organisations where rigid hierarchies or inconsistent practices exist, any interpersonal trust that is built is unlikely to also accrue to the organisation. This is because while there is often a symbiotic relationship between personal and organisational trust, the two can also operate quite independently. This is evident in the inevitable organisational survey which, if conducted well, will likely surface high trust in individual managers but low overall trust in the organisation—leading to flight risks. The whole, in this instance, being less than the sum of its parts.

Given trust is not only a function of individual actions but is also significantly affected by the broader organisational environment, inconsistent or overly punitive organisational policies can erode trust despite an individual leader's best efforts. This is a key failing of the Speed of Trust program because the lack of structural considerations can lull senior managers into thinking 'it's all about the leader'—problematically minimising the pivotal role organisational culture plays in trust relationships. Worse still, more authoritarian organisations will assume 'good' tone is being set from the top and blame middle or junior managers for lack of employee trust in the company, when in reality staff have high trust in their line manager, organisational trust however is being undermined through inconsistent policies, lack of transparency, or an absence of meaningful strategy.

Challenges in Quantifying Trust

The notion of quantifying trust as a basis for calculating organisational speed improvements and cost reductions is overly simplistic. There are inherent difficulties in objectively measuring trust because trust involves perceptions, which are often emotionally motivated and subjective rather than the result of critical thought and objective. Throw into the mix the reality that trust is highly influenced by situational variables, and it is clear that truly measuring trust makes other processes that are considered complex, such as valuing a company, look like child's play. While trust does have observable outcomes, attributing precise financial gains to it alone is difficult, bordering on impossible—though metrics to the contrary are easy to generate. Because of this, simplifying trust into a quantifiable metric often risks misrepresenting its nuanced role, setting unrealistic expectations for leaders.

Definitions always remain an Achilles heel of corporate training programs. FranklinCovey courses do better than most, in at least making a stab at defining the key concepts. However, as training begins to nest into sub-concepts, the need to "move along" outpaces the rigour necessary to discuss complex ideas. One example is the discussion "can an individual in a trust relationship be too humble or courageous?" In a European context, Courage is one of the four cardinal virtues—so long as not taken to excess. But it's counterpoise is not humility. Rather, the negative trait(s) of courage and humility are hubris and pride—considered the worst of the seven deadly sins.

Cultural Limitations of a Trust Framework

The Speed of Trust model is rooted in a distinctly individualistic, Western conceptualisation of trust, which prioritises personal credibility, integrity, and behaviour-driven relationships. This focus reflects cultural values prevalent in Western societies, where trust is often viewed as a product of rational assessments of individual competence and character. However, such a framework may fall short in collectivist or non-Western cultural settings, where trust is not merely an interpersonal dynamic but also a social construct embedded in group affiliations, shared identity, and relational networks. As research suggests, trust in these contexts is often derived less from observable individual actions and more from one's alignment with group norms and roles within established social hierarchies

collectivists prefer to belong to groups, and appear to place group interests above individual interests, not because they intrinsically like to do so, but because it is in their own long-term interest. In-group bias is learned, and is a function of an individual's social environment.

Huff & Kelley (2003)

In collectivist cultures, trust is deeply intertwined with factors such as familial or community connections, loyalty to in-groups, and deference to authority figures. In such settings, hierarchical standing and established relational bonds play a significant role in fostering trust. The Speed of Trust framework's emphasis on behaviours like "extend trust" or "confront reality" may resonate less in cultures where trust is built over time through shared experiences or where direct communication might conflict with cultural norms of harmony and face-saving. By not adequately addressing these dynamics, the model risks misalignment with the cultural realities of many organisations, particularly in global or multicultural environments.

To enhance its applicability, the Speed of Trust framework benefits from taking a more culturally inclusive approach that accommodates diverse trust paradigms. This could involve integrating insights from cross-cultural research to account for the relational and hierarchical dimensions of trust in collectivist societies. Additionally, adaptations could include recognising the role of communal identity and interdependence in trust-building and offering strategies for bridging cultural differences in trust perceptions. By evolving into a more flexible, context-sensitive framework, a more culturally inclusive model of trust can better equip organisations to navigate highly diverse workforces, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach that risks alienating significant segments of stakeholders.

Trust that is Satisficing

The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemingway

Trust, as both a concept and a practice within organisations, does not readily lend itself to being distilled into a simple formula or universal framework. While programs such as Leading at the Speed of Trust offer valuable behavioural insights, if their prescriptive nature is not critically assessed and carefully applied it will lead managers to pursue trust-building in overly simplistic ways. Applying the strategy of satisficing—making decisions that are 'good enough' within the constraints of bounded rationality—offers a practical alternative that allows people to find a balance between ideal frameworks and the pragmatic realities of organisational life.

As the quote from Hemingway underscores, trust has an inherently experiential side which cannot be fully pre-empted by calculative or capability-based models. Instead, trust evolves through iterative interactions and context-sensitive decisions. A satisficing approach encourages leaders to focus on actions that are sufficient to build trust incrementally—acknowledging that perfect trust is neither attainable nor necessary in most organisational settings. Which is why it is always preferable to speak of high(er)-trust environments given high-trust is a Platonic ideal or a nirvana unlikely to be achieved. By prioritising adequate and context-specific trust-building efforts, leaders can reduce the paralysis that often accompanies striving for idealised trust environments.

To this end, a holistic trust framework must address the interplay between structural, situational, and cultural factors while accommodating diverse forms of trust. Examples of these different forms of trust are:

Calculative Trust: The trustor evaluates the potential costs and benefits of the target acting untrustworthily, using this assessment as a basis for trust.
Predictive Trust: The trustor develops confidence in their ability to foresee the target's behaviour based on consistency or patterns.
Intentional Trust: The trustor assesses the motivations and intentions of the target to determine the likelihood of their trustworthiness.
Capability Trust: The trustor examines whether the target possesses the necessary skills, resources, or competence to fulfil commitments or obligations.
Transferred Trust: The trustor relies on external sources of proof, such as recommendations or endorsements, to transfer trust to the target.

Once trust-building efforts become adaptive and iterative, recognising that the 'good enough' trust established through satisficing is more sustainable than the pursuit of exhaustive trust perfection, leaders will find they have a more applicable approach to embed trust in organisations—capable of reducing administrative costs and enhancing agility. Better positioning teams and managers to navigate complexity, foster resilience, and cultivate long-term success.

Good night, and good luck.