Positivity – Trust

[Anonymous]

Trust and Neuroscience The TRUST model for priming conversations

Trust, and it’s opposite Distrust, live in different parts of the brain. Once triggered, one becomes the master and the other the slave. They operate as a system; we can’t turn either of them off, yet we can influence them. Distrust is signaled through the amygdala and trust is signaled through the prefrontal cortex.

The prefrontal cortex is where we compare our expectations of what will happen (or what does happen) against reality. This is where we match our worldview with that of other people; where those views align we feel the greatest trust. This doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with others. In fact, we often put the greatest trust in those with whom we can disagree without negative consequences. In the prefrontal areas of the brain we are assessing the credibility, intentions, and predictability of a person’s behavior in the future.

The amygdala, the lower brain, is the area where we access another person’s threat level, this is the area of the brain where we experience the fear of loss. If the amygdala is triggered by threat signals, it shuts the door to our higher brain centers. Fear and conflict not only change the chemistry of the brain, they also change how we feel, how we behave, and how others perceive us. It also activates the limbic part of the brain, which stores all of our old memories. Once triggered, this part of the brain begins to remember other similar hurts and threats and lumps them together in sort of dramatic ‘movie’ that we are afraid to share. There’s a gap created between what we’re thinking and what others are thinking about what’s real, not to mention what’s smart, right, and fair.

Moving from distrust to a foundation of trust is actually a process of closing those reality gaps and opening up views that will elevate the conversation.

In her book Judith E. Glaser has worked out a five step TRUST Model that’s closely connected to the neurochemical processes in our brain, five steps that trigger the trust network in the prefrontal cortex and quells the amygdala fear networks:

Step 1: TRANSPARENCY is about quelling threats and fears
Be Present. Make yourself open to others by being tuned into your relationship environment. People want to connect, and if you are more Transparent about what is going on you will send the signal that “we’re all in this together.” Being present with others enables them to move from “protect” to “connect” at the visceral level, the first step to building trust.

Step 2: RELATIONSHIP addresses listening to connect
Tell people where they stand. People need to know where they stand so they can let go of their fears and the questions “Am I good enough?” and “Do I belong?” and can refocus on contributing. Once they know their status in the team, they often discover that their imagined fears were much worse than reality. Build and strengthen Relationships by letting people know where they stand.

Step 3: UNDERSTANDING is about stepping in the other person’s shoes, seeing the world from their eyes
Provide context in every communication. A picture with a frame becomes a different picture. Without background, fear can be elevated by confusion and uncertainty. Context can make things are bad seem right—or at least far less worrisome. Providing context moves people from uncertainty to Understanding.

Step 4: SHARED SUCCESS has to do with painting a picture about what is possible
Catalyze co-creating in conversations. Frame conversations as dialogues rather than monologues, so people’s voices are heard. Create higher levels of engagement and co-creation so people can build a picture of Shared Success, which diminishes the fear of being lost in the crowd or overshadowed by people with greater status and power.

Step 5: TEST ASSUMPTIONS & TELL THE TRUTH by listening to close reality gaps
Use honesty at all times. No one likes to tell the truth when it will hurt someone or make that person look bad. So we fudge. When the truth surfaces, the impact is twice as bad as it would have been without the fibs. At all times, Tell the truth—tactfully and within the appropriate context. Context, in this case, does not mean spin. Don’t make a situation sound better than it is, even if you can.

There is so much more on this subject, I’d recommend anyone who’s interested, to read the book from which I derived this material:
Conversational Intelligence: how great leaders build trust and get extraordinary results, by Judith E. Glaser. ISBN 978-I-937134-67-9

[Anonymous]

Here is a great article on trust that was published in the Harvard Business Review on February 2016.
When Trust Is Easily Broken, and When It’s Not
By Michael Haselhuhn, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Laura Kray abd Jessica A. Kennedy
Feb. 17, 2016

“I cannot forget the follies and vices of others so soon as I ought, nor their offences against myself,” Mr. Darcy tells Elizabeth Bennet in a pivotal moment in Pride and Prejudice, before famously admitting: “My good opinion once lost is lost for ever.”
Plenty of people would agree with Mr. Darcy on matters of trust: that trust is difficult to gain, easy to break, and tough to repair once broken. Or they’d say that a major violation of trust is more likely to lead to a broken relationship than a minor infraction.

But our research shows that although trust violations can rupture relationships, the impact of a violation depends less on the type of transgression and more on the mindset of the trusting party.

Some people believe personal attributes, such as negotiation ability and moral character, are stable. Others believe that these attributes are malleable.

Here’s how these beliefs work. Imagine two job candidates negotiating their respective signing bonuses. The first candidate spends a great deal of time preparing for the negotiation, doing her homework and practicing with her friends. The second exerts little effort preparing, instead deciding to “wing it.” The two candidates negotiate, and the first achieves a $10,000 signing bonus, whereas the second attains a bonus of $8,000. Consider the effort they invested and their outcomes. Who is the better negotiator?

Some might think that the first candidate is superior — she not only attained a great outcome, but she also worked hard to develop skills that will help her in the future. People who think the first negotiator is better are likely to perceive that negotiation ability is a skill that can be learned over time. Others, however might think that the second candidate is the better negotiator. After all, he was able to attain a reasonable outcome while putting forth little effort — he must have an innate ability to negotiate. Individuals who give this response tend to believe that key attributes are fixed, and that people either do or do not have the ability in a given area to succeed.

We’ve found that these mindsets play an important role in how people react to being deceived in a negotiation. Individuals with a fixed mindset “lock in” to an initial view of others. If they believe that someone is trustworthy, they fixate on that view and believe that they know what this person is like. Even in the face of disconfirming evidence, their initial beliefs are slow to change. As a result, someone with a fixed mindset is more inclined to maintain trust in a negotiation counterpart who disappoints them. (The converse is also true. Someone with a fixed mindset who forms the initial impression that someone is untrustworthy will be slow to update that belief as well.)

In one study, we tested this effect with 94 MBA students. The students completed a negotiation, and immediately afterward, they reported how much they trusted their counterpart. Then, we informed negotiators about the full facts of the case. As it turns out, many of those negotiators had been deceived. How did their perceptions of trust change? It turns out that people with growth mindsets did what we might expect — they paid attention to the new information. After learning that they had been deceived, they revised their beliefs and trusted their counterparts less. People with fixed mindsets, however, discounted the new information and maintained their trust in their counterparts.

In a follow-up study with 258 participants, we explored this result in more detail. When we presented people with information suggesting that someone they had trusted had deceived them, we found that people with fixed mindsets tended to give the transgressor the benefit of the doubt, explaining away or excusing the deceptive behavior. People with growth mindsets integrated the new information and revised their perceptions (and trusted that person much less).

In much of our research, we focus on how people react to a single violation, but we have also found that mindsets influence trust following multiple violations. As you might expect, after many violations, people with both fixed and growth mindsets update their beliefs — and stop trusting the transgressor. It just takes people with fixed mindsets longer to get there.
Of course, there are often good reasons to forgive others and give people a second chance. And our research suggests that although people with growth mindsets are quick to lose trust in those who’ve deceived them, they’re also more accepting of apologies and promises to change. Individuals with fixed mindsets, though slower to lose trust in others, are much less likely to believe an apology and less inclined to think that a deceiver will change.

But if you’ve broken the trust of someone stuck in a fixed mindset, you do have hope. First, recognize that they may be locked into their beliefs about you. If you have changed or your organization has changed, you will have a hard time convincing people with fixed mindsets. When you communicate with these people, you will be more effective if you first convince them that people can change. (Sharing past examples of how other people have changed will help.) You may also have to bombard them with persistent and overwhelming evidence that you’ve changed – subtle changes may not be noticed.

So is one approach better than the other? The data suggest that a growth mindset is preferable — unfortunately, deception is common, and if you are deceived it is wise to update your perceptions quickly. You can always change your opinion of someone again, if they prove themselves more reliable in the future.

Moreover, a large body of research has found that believing that change is possible has a number of benefits. People with a growth mindset are more likely to overcome negative stereotypes, are more creative, and ultimately tend to be more successful.
So if you tend to believe people’s characters are stable and fixed, try to notice those times they surprise you. Everyone can change – including you.

[Author]

Posts