Energize Others: Create a Trustworthy Process
by Ed O'Malley
Progress on daunting challenges takes time. Stakeholders need to be mobilized to do work they would rather avoid. The whole effort can be thought of as a process with fits and starts, two steps forward, one back, one forward, one back, etc. Part of exercising leadership is working to ensure it’s a trustworthy process. Don’t confuse trust with a conflict-free environment. A trustworthy process doesn’t mean there’s an absence of tension, but rather progress through tension.
The idea here is the entire concept of “trustworthy process.” Trust plays a role, but that is not what this is entirely about. You do have to trust people “enough” to work together, but you do not necessarily have to trust them fully as we often think is necessary. In fact, sometimes the excuse gets used “I barely know these people, so how can I trust them” which ends up being a way to avoid the work instead. It’s not about “liking” people or “trusting an individual.” It is about finding a way to work together in the best way possible for the common good.
One way to see this distinction is through the participants in our programs. They come together from different places and walks of life. We challenge them to immediately work together to help each other make progress on their own individual dilemmas. In the short amount of time they are together, and the tough expectations laid out before them, it is unrealistic, maybe impossible, to think they could establish any kind of full trust to work together. What does happen though, is through a trustworthy process in place based on transparency, collaboration, and confidentiality people are able to dig deep, and fast, to share deep and meaningful things with their new counterparts for the purpose of helping each other make progress.
Leadership is more about the process challenges rather than the content challenges. You don’t have to have the answers, but if you can convene and catalyze a process that engages, honors and challenges people, you stand a chance of having the group discover the right answers for its situation. All along the way, the process must be trustworthy.
Why? Because there is too much at stake. Remember, leadership is about change and change means loss. People stand to lose things – for real or just in their heads – if the change you are promoting succeeds. They are already on edge. Fostering an untrustworthy process could send them over the edge. Here are a couple examples:
- A teachers union president is promoting new models for paying teachers. The current “years of service plus education level salary grid” has been in place for decades. The teachers are on edge from the beginning. This would be a big change and will be hard to bring about regardless. However, it will be nearly impossible if the stakeholders (teachers, parents, administrators, school board members, students, etc.) don’t trust the process.
- A civic official is spearheading an effort to generate generous economic incentives to lure businesses. The incentives will redirect tax-payer dollars from things like streets, sidewalks and public safety to the private accounts of for-profit businesses. Community unrest may boil over if citizens don’t feel the process for distributing those incentives is trustworthy and above board.
- A group of employees long for a better culture at work, a culture that promotes sharing, curiosity, learning and asking for help. Other employees are skeptical. They fear poor performance reviews if they ask for help and worry others will get promoted over them if they share knowledge. The culture won’t change if the instigators can’t figure out how to create more trust among the crew.
What are characteristics of a trustworthy process?
- Those with the problem are the ones working on the problem.
- People know where they are in the process.
- People have an idea of the next steps in the process.
- People show vulnerability and an openness to growth.
- The lines of authority and non-authority become blurred.
- Failure is embraced versus feared.
- People are free to express ideas, thoughts and opinions without being afraid.
How do you create a trustworthy process?
- Ask open ended questions. Lots of them. Broad questions allow people to share what’s on their mind. Use trust building questions like: What concerns you the most about this issue? What would make this successful from your point of view? Of all the things we could do, what should we do.
- Listen to understand. Most of us listen just enough so we can reply. Forget about replying. Just understand. Discern the song beneath the words.
- Be around. If you are there, with the people, they’ll have more chances to visit with you informally and formally. Being super-busy and running from meeting to meeting, event to event, creates an image of “I’m too busy to talk about what’s on your mind.”
- Design the process together. Ask others: How should we work on this issue? What’s important to you about how we work on this?
- Create multiple environments. Take people to coffee to chat. Convene all the stakeholders for collective discussion. The more different types of environments the more likely everyone will experience a type they are comfortable with.
- Depending on the group/team/individuals involved, consider establishing group norms at the start of the work. For example, “We agree to give honest feedback to one another in the spirit of learning and growing. In return we agree not to take things personally. There will be no ‘dancing’ around issues. Let’s have a mindset of gathering data versus failing.”
Q and A
Question: As a newly elected legislator, I’m concerned about what my district thinks now that the campaign is over. With all of the mud-slinging and distrust in politics nowadays, how can I get to work for people who already don’t believe I will do a good job?
Answer:
What History Tells Us
Elections in the U.S. are trustworthy compared to other countries…
Inspiration
“If you bring the appropriate people together in constructive ways with good information, they will create authentic visions and strategies to address the shared concerns of their organization or community.” ~David Chrislip
Resources
Book: “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In” by Roger Fisher, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton
Move: Les Miserables
Religious connection – The twelve tribes of Israel were often in struggle with one another, but being ‘remembered by God in his covenant with Abraham’ still bound them together against outside foes.
Our Next Book 
I wonder if we need to address how “trust” fits into this. You start to do that when you say “Don’t confuse trust with a conflict-free environment. A trustworthy process doesn’t mean there’s an absence of tension, but rather progress through tension.” I think I remember our discussion on this topic highlighting that trust plays a role in this, but that’s not what it’s about. The role trust plays is that you do have to trust people “enough” to work together, but not necessarily trust them fully as we often think is necessary (or use as a way to avoid doing the work). Participants in our programs come together all of the time from different places and walks of life. They are challenged to work together to help each other make progress on their own individual dilemmas. In the short amount of time they are together and the expectations before them, it is unrealistic to think they could establish any kind of full trust to work together. What does happen though, is there is a trustworthy process in place that allows people to dig deep, and fast, to help figure out what they need to do to make progress.
Possible resources:
Movie: Les Miserables
Book: “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In” by Roger Fisher, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton
Rather than ‘Discern the song beneath the words’ perhaps ‘Discern the melody beneath the words’
Trust is the tricky word here. For many people who are trying to make progress on a difficult issue, they may feel that they are up against a barrier because they don’t ‘like’ the other people they have to work with (maybe like a homeowners association) and the liking and trusting becomes conflated to the point that a person decides they just can’t emotionally afford to get involved. Where this is different is around suspending the need for trusting folks on a personal level and trusting in the much larger purpose that has the promise of benefiting more people. It is a common or greater good which unites people.
Religious connection – The twelve tribes of Israel were often in struggle with one another, but being ‘remembered by God in his covenant with Abraham’ still bound them together against outside foes.
On characteristics:
People know where they are in the process.
Under characteristics you say ‘people know where they’re at in the process’…
What does this mean or look like? I want to push back a bit, because I think of participants who are constantly asking for where we consider them in the process or where they even think they’re at. We leave them with ambiguity and discomfort for some of that stuff including refusing to answer some of those where they’re at questions. Is that something we should do differently if helping them know where they’re at is part of a trustworthy process?
Under ‘How To’…
Depending on the group/team/individuals involved, perhaps establishing group norms from the start will help. “We agree to give honest feedback to one another in the spirit of learning and growing. In return we agree not to take things personally. There will be no ‘dancing’ around issues. Let’s have a mindset of gathering data versus failing.”