The Calculus of Trust
A mathematical exploration of how trust works.
Many of my friends distrust their internet providers. The cable company I subscribe to for internet services, for example, has clearly demonstrated that they don’t care about my family. To fix a recent bandwidth issue, we had to call several times, explain our problem to several people and ask to speak to a manager to finally get a technician to visit our home to troubleshoot the recurring latency issues. Their gross demonstration of incompetence and lack of concern for me led me to have deep feelings of distrust for the firm. Even though the technician who ultimately resolved the issue was competent and clearly wanted to do a good job, the corporate bureaucracy, incompetence, and clear placement of profits over people broke any trust I had down. While my family is still paying for the service, the moment a better alternative comes along, what do you think we will be doing? I assure you, based on many conversations that I have had since the incident, that I am not alone.
If we take the time to break trust down and describe it mathematically, it will help us to be more purposeful with our language when we speak about it and when we use it to lead others. It will also help us to brainstorm and craft our tactical approach to earning more trust in more powerful ways with our teams.
THE RESEARCH
I have been doing some grounded research on the language used to describe trust in the workplace for the better part of two decades. From this work, I assembled a database of the definitions of trust used by CEOs and key corporate leaders during talks, seminars, and workshops I have facilitated with my team over the past decade and have discovered a few powerful patterns in the language. In my research, the simplest definition for “trust” that I could find is in the Meriam-Webster online dictionary, where it is stated as:
“One in which confidence is placed.” — Meriam-Webster, Definition 1(b)
The authoritative sources of the English language use the word confidence to describe “trust” about three times more frequently than any other word. Business leaders also commonly describe trust with the word confidence. Trust is issued when we are reliant upon the future worthiness of the subject of trust for our own success. When we have confidence in someone or something, we are convinced that the other party is both competent and authentically cares for us. The words used and actions most commonly observed in the context of confidence can be placed into two distinct categories:
- The demonstration of competence in the domain of concern.
- The demonstration of authentic caring for those you are trying to earn trust from.
For example, words like reliability, consistency, reputation, and capabilities are words that can be categorized into the domain of “demonstrated competence.” Words like vulnerability, transparency, listening, and openness can be classified into the domain of “demonstrated caring and collaborative intent.” These are some of the most common words that are used to describe trust. Another phrase that I have frequently heard used to describe trust, is that the other has our “best interests” in mind. We will revisit these concepts later.
THE STEP FUNCTION
In order to earn trust between two parties, there must be an experience in the context of the evaluation. I use the word confidence to describe the perception of competence and caring in my definition at the beginning of this article because we use trust as a tool to determine the future worthiness of the thing we need to accomplish. Sustainable trust is formed when competence and authentic caring are demonstrated over an extended period of time. Important relationships in our lives require a repeated pattern of trustworthiness over long periods of time. In order to earn trust, one needs to be afforded the opportunity to create an experience for the other, in the context of the trust. Thus, trust is a step function that occurs by earning confidence, through experience, over time. This is how it would appear on a graph:
This confidence is only earned when there is an experience for the subject. Thus, trust is a step function that occurs through experience, over time. To further break it down, trust is the confidence that is earned when both competence and caring are consistently demonstrated, over time.
Mathematically, it would break down as follows:
The last time you felt either significant trust for someone or for an organization, it most likely involved both their demonstration of relevant competence over time and your belief in their positive intent. Now consider the contrary, by thinking about those whom you distrust deeply. It is likely they have either demonstrated gross incompetence in the domain you are assessing or that they exposed, in some way, manipulative, selfish, or otherwise negative intent, like my cable company in the example above.
In new relationships, the benefit of historical experience is not available. Thus, it is difficult to observe the caring component necessary for sustained trust. Positive intent is often assumed until the other has the opportunity to prove negative intent. The competence component, however, can often be directly observed from past activities or from the described experiences of others. This is why organizations spend so much money and effort on marketing and reputation management. They want to have an impact on those early experiences that consumers have with their organization.
COMPETENCE AND TRUST
When competence is present, there is a perception of capability. There is a belief that you can do the thing you are being trusted with. More trust is earned when more competence is demonstrated that is specific to the relevant context of the trust. You wouldn’t, for example, trust your automobile mechanic to make informed decisions about your health any more than you would take your doctor’s advice in the context of your automobile. We rely on a broad and complex medical system, with its checks and balances to certify that our doctor is reliable in her domain. In essence, the more important the outcome, the more intense the amount of trust we required. The same logic applies when the thing you are being trusted with is challenging or requires specialized skills or knowledge. The more challenging the thing, the greater the intensity of the demonstrated competence we require to issue trust.
The words that business leaders use to describe competence are words like reputation, repetition, and consistency. In another daily example, when people on your team show up for work, every day of the week for a year, prepared and energetic, having demonstrated a pattern of reputable competence, consistency, and commitment, they earn an immense amount of trust.
“Trust is a pragmatic, tangible, actionable asset that you can create” — Stephen M.R. Covey
This allows one to be reasonably confident that these people will continue to show up, in the same way, tomorrow, the next day, and for the foreseeable future. When competence is missing, inconsistency is present, or a lack of commitment is demonstrated, trust is diminished and we lose confidence.
CARING AND TRUST
Caring is the belief in the positive intent of the other.
“Trust is when you make something valuable to you vulnerable to the actions of another.” — Charles Feltman
When we trust something, to use Charles Feltman’s definition of the word, we make something of value to us vulnerable to another. We are making an assumption that it is safe to do so and that the entity we are trusting has the best of intentions with the thing we are making vulnerable. The more vulnerability that is required, the larger the opportunity for trust to build.
“Trust is the choice to take care of the other at your expense.” — Adapted from John Gottman
For example, when a member of your team regularly demonstrates authentic caring for your concerns, personal success, or value as a person beyond what is required to get the job done, more trust is inherently built. This occurs powerfully when we see the demonstration of transparency, vulnerability, and active and purposeful listening. These behaviors earn more confidence that the team member is worthy of our trust and our own vulnerability.
THE CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT
To make the formula even more accurate, we would add an exponential variable to each of these metrics to add differing weight to both competence and caring. You would change these variables based upon the context. For example, you might be exponentially more concerned with competence in the medical or automotive scenarios above, while you would weigh caring much higher in your important and interpersonal life relationships. The context matters.
Now that you have a mathematical formula for trust, you can do some other operations on the formula to see if it makes sense. For example, the derivative of this equation represents the “Trust Trajectory” at any given time. It would tell you whether you were trending up or down in trust.
TRUST EQUITY
The integral of the equation would represent the area under the curve. This is really powerful to consider because of what it means. The area under the curve represents the amount of investment the other has made in the relationship over time. It visually demonstrates the amount of “Trust Equity” that has been built between the two parties.
Before enough experiences have occurred to determine if another is trustworthy, one relies mostly on their perception of both competence and caring. For example, when you hire someone into your organization, you make evaluations based on their stated reputation, their appearance of consistency, and whatever other perspectives and data points you can get your hands on. Until the opportunity to evaluate actual competence occurs in the course of the work, it is merely the perception of confidence that causes the person to get hired. In the long term, it is the demonstration of authentic caring for their team that builds strong cultures and teams over time in addition to their contributions through their competence. We hope, that over time, relationship equity is continuously built up. Trust is at the foundation of all relationships. It is a proxy for how worthy someone is of being trusted. You earn this equity, represented by the area under the curve, over extended periods of time. There will be ups and downs in the relationship, It is this equity that forms the basis of almost all relationships of value and it is this equity that allows one to make mistakes, take calculated and reasonable risks, and ultimately, to innovate.
DISTRUST
Sharp declines in relationship equity can occur if one is deemed to be not worthy of trust. One of two things generally occur that causes sharp declines.
a. Gross Incompetence is demonstrated.
b. Non-positive intent is demonstrated.
Consider your own decision-making when it comes to trust. When someone has earned your trust suddenly demonstrates gross incompetence in the domain they are being trusted with, how likely are you to trust them again? On the contrary, we know that honest mistakes happen, and when someone we trust has built up enough relationship equity, we are always willing to give them a chance to rectify their mistakes and clean up their messes. What about those who demonstrate a blatant lack of concern for you, personally? Even if they demonstrate competence, it fractures the level of trust that you have with them. What happens to your confidence in any relationship when you feel that inauthenticity is at play? If enough relationship equity is built up, an opportunity may be available to rebuild trust, but if the infraction is strong enough, it can be difficult to recover from.
I chose to say that distrust occurs when “non-positive intent is demonstrated” to include the possibility of apathy. When apathy toward the relationship is displayed, it has a negative impact on trust, even when competence is present. Over time, demonstrations of apathy toward a relationship will have a profound effect on authentic trust.
SUBJECTIVITY AND REALITY
Can you use this formula to plot the trust you are earning on a real graph? Probably not. Trust is a problem of humanity and relationships, making it subjective. Trust is something that most sentient creatures experience, but only humans would attempt to describe and measure. Each of the factors in the equation is perceived by the observer: competence, caring, and the exponential factors that we would apply based on context are subjective. Time is the only component we could objectively measure. Each person being measured would use different factors and would describe them differently, making trust impossible to measure objectively. The best we can do is get an approximation based on the behaviors that we observe. If we want to scale the earning of trust on our teams, it pays to think clearly about how trust forms and what levers we can pull to systematically improve it.
Having these conversations, with your teams, is where the value lies. By taking the time to distinguish and define trust as a worthwhile component of your culture, you express its importance to your team and you influence the conversations that are occuring in the hallways when you are not around to hear them. No matter how big your team or organization, every improvement that you make to your ability to improve trust is valuable and will pay off in spades.
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
For a future article, I will explore the relationship between The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) of human intrinsic motivation and the authentic earning of trust. The SDT is a collection of theories from the brilliant minds of Ed Deci, Richard Ryan, and their research teams that form a framework for human intrinsic motivation. At its core are three fundamental human needs, the need for competence, relatedness, and autonomy. This theory, in my opinion, can be used to describe a lot more than just what causes people to be intrinsically motivated, it can be leveraged to fully understand things that are universally important to all people, like trust. These three needs are core to our social-emotional health and to the healthy development of relationships, organizations, and teams. These needs, when met at scale, for groups of people, drive our success together. Alternatively, when we fail to achieve trust, as a group, it is often because one or more of these needs are not met at scale for the group. There is a distinct relationship between competence, and caring (relatedness) in the context of this set of theories. If you were to separate Competence and Caring and put it on a three-dimensional graph with time, it would show trust emanating from the origin as a bubble where over time, trust elicits the autonomous, intrinsically motivated action from a group of people toward a shared goal.
I believe trust is a hallmark of great leadership and should be integrated into every organization’s strategy. Is trust something you could measure? Is it important enough to your relationships to think about and discuss more purposefully? Let me know what you think.
If you like this article share it widely, send it to your internet provider, and drop me a like or a clap.
References:
A Definition of Trust, Meriam-Webster
The Objective Measurement of Trust, by Sean Flaherty (2020)
The Thin Book of Trust, by Charles Feltman (2008)
The Speed of Trust, by Stephen M.R. Covey (2006)
The Science of Trust, by John Gottman (2011)
Self Determination Theory, An Organization Dedicated to the Pursuit of Understanding Human Intrinsic Motivation
The Handbook of Self Determination Theory, by Ed Deci and Richard Ryan (2004)
Ed Deci on Wikipedia
Richard Ryan on Wikipedia
Psychopaths, Sociopaths, and Great Leaders, by Sean Flaherty (2021)
Separate Your Strategy from Your Tactics, by Sean Flaherty (2021)
