by Pia Infante
The Context
Recently, we
hosted a salon on The Role of Trust in
Our Work – attended by a mixed group of funder friends, grantees, capacity
builders, and consultants. The prompt
sparked our thinking about how to design relationships, collaboration and convening
that intentionally scaffold trust building.
We all agreed that powerful social good impact cannot happen without
trust, and often we get to new solutions and effective collaboration towards
community and policy change at “the speed of trust.”
The conversation brought forth a
number of different forms and paces of trust that I found compelling. Here is a brief (incomplete) list for types
of trust building that could be of use in our collective practice:
Types of Trust
Building
(A Small Compendium)
Cumulative Trust: At TWI, we’ve often used the phrase “time over
time” to acknowledge that building trust in relationships (at the individual or
group level) is accrued by demonstrations of reliability (and
vulnerability/intimacy) over time. This trust is evidence and
relationship- based – a person or group consistently demonstrates that
they will do what they said they would do and that they can be counted
on — and do so in a way that encourages relationship and
interdependence.
Accelerated Trust: Others spoke to human centered process design to
accelerate trust building, particularly when there is pressing common
purpose. Some of these include peer-to-peer sharing about the value of
the group, creating opportunities for vulnerability and mutual support, and
encouraging people to show up fully in their purpose, strength, and
vulnerability. Actually, when these types of accelerated processes are
reinforced over time, the power of relationship builds – and so cumulative
trust grows even stronger.
Assumed Trust: We talked about this type of trust as the human
yelp function – that often we immediately trust those whom our trusted partners
and advisors trust. This is not a new concept – businesses are built on
referral and many tech platforms integrate ways to see who and what our friends
trust to leverage possibilities for opportunity and connection in our wider
social networks. It is powerful when investors take this trust stance, and shoulder the work of vetting for fit (with a leader or group) themselves.
Implicit (“Burst-y”) Trust: We talked, too, about the physiology of
trust – many of us assess within seconds whether or not a new person or
organization is trustworthy. This type of immediate, or “burst-y” trust,
we realized, can also be attributed to our inherently tribal nature. We
trust those who look and smell like us. We trust those who exhibit signs
that they share our frameworks and worldview. This immediate instinctual affinity creates little "bursts" of excitement, empathy, love-at-first-sightedness that is literally heart warming! We realized that this
trust can build in implicit bias, so needs to be questioned, but is a very
human way to behave. We might also use the label “Intuitive Trust” for this
one, to name the role that intuition can play in guiding our investments of
time, talent, and resource.
Cross Institutional Trust: One reflection on our conversation was
that we were often discussing trust between individuals, when there is a great
need to build trust across institutions. For instance, in philanthropy,
greater trust between institutions could lead to both more streamlined
grant-making and greater social, political and economic impact. Trust
between institutions also enables the organizations to maintain their
relationship when key individuals or leaders leave the organization, which is a
promising way to ensure that institutional wisdom and influence does not have
to be lost when key staff transition out.
Trust As A Way Forward
Trust As A Way Forward
“Humans are
basically trustworthy.” When this sentiment
was expressed, the group sighed a collective sigh. It seemed so incredibly true. Except when it doesn’t – like when public
servants demonstrate they cannot be trusted or accountable to the public
good. I won’t dive into grappling the simplicity vs. complexity of this premise, but invite you respond to this or anything else in
this post that strikes you.
What does
feel true to me in this moment is this - explicitly naming that trust plays a
vital role in advancing equity in our community, advocacy, and philanthropic
initiatives is rare and important.
Our hope is
that TWI can be louder and braver in naming the role that trust and relationships of equity play in moving social, political, and economic dials
towards a brighter, better world for all (not just some) of us.