Why Should Someone Trust You?

How do we determine that someone should be trusted? Is there a definitive test that we subject others to that gets us to a reliable and defensible answer? Are there black-and-white criteria with boxes that we check off as we reach a pre-determined grade or score?

Would that trust were so easy.

We are seeing this question played out practically every day in the political environment. We watch and read bellicose statements that sound more authoritarian and bullying than collaborative and bridge-building.

On the other hand, Rex Tillerson, the new Secretary of State, today included this statement in his remarks to the staff at State: “Hi. I’m the new guy.” With a bit of candor and humility, he may have gained a few points toward the trust that he will need to lead the country in its foreign policy.

We’ve seen the former in our Church, too. We are not exempt. And gratefully, we have heard the latter as well. For folks like me, we were fortunate enough to hear Cardinal Joseph Bernadin refer to himself as “our brother.”

But words are words. And we know it. “I’ll believe it when I see it,” we think, even if we don’t say it.

It’s our actions that speak loudly, and tend to be the building blocks of trust.

Within a few months of starting a new job, I realized that there was a great deal of mistrust between my committee and my position. My predecessor had not followed through on their decisions, and they were mad. With good reason. “Trust me” because I was new wasn’t going to cut it. So I chose actions–regular, detailed communication, opening the budget, as much transparency as possible. Slowly, we built trust between us.

Officials were suspicious of Jesus. His words were probably familiar since there had been others who claimed to be the prophet, the savior, the messiah during his time. It was his actions that distinguished him, and earned the trust of his followers–sitting next to a Samaritan woman at the well, touching the unclean, spending hours and days with the poor and dispossessed.

Let’s leave our words aside, and look at what actions we can take to build the bonds of trust that we need as a Catholic community.

Complimentary or Complementary?

ColorI think of myself as “color-challenged.” I don’t often know what color to pick when it comes to shoes or paint or much of anything else, so I resort to the basics of the color wheel.

Limiting myself to the 6 options of the primary and secondary colors, the internal conversation goes something like this. “If the room is blue, then what are the adjacent and opposite colors?” Answers? Green and purple, and orange.

When it comes to leadership culture, I can be equally challenged, but find that I take a similar tack in addressing the question, “What kind of leader do I need to be in this particular situation and for this particular group?”

The summer issue of Harvard Business Review includes a “Defend Your Research” article on how leaders should complement their culture, not embody it. Sort of counter-intuitive, but I’ve seen it in action in my own experience. I find the answer is similar to my color challenge — go with the opposite or complementary skill set.

Does the program or office need someone who is task-oriented to right or steady or focus the ship? Then you are called to bring your organizational and administrative skills to the vision of the ministry so that it can be its most effective.

Does the ministry lack vision or direction, but has lots of great volunteers and doers who are generous and willingly give of their time and talent? Then you need to provide and communicate that vision at every turn, stay out of the proverbial weeds, and help them see how they plug into it and can make it concrete and human.

Start with recognizing your own leadership strengths and which specific skills they naturally support (are “adjacent to”). Then look at which skills are opposite yours — or complement them. How do you bring a balance of these complementary gifts so that your ministry can be the most successful and effective?

 

Rule #2: Share All Relevant Information

When sharing information, I’m pretty much the queen of starting with A, then B, and then jumping to J, K, and L, and finishing right with T. With all of those gaps in between, no wonder I get blank stares or long, silent pauses once I stop speaking.

It isn’t intentional. At least, not consciously. The adage that “information is power” is frighteningly true, but many of us withhold information out of negligence rather than malice.

To break the habit, try these 4 things.Board's Role

  1. List out the information that you are trying to share. Then go back and ask yourself the journalist’s 5 “W’s”–who, what, where, when, why,–plus “how.” Anticipate the information that you may be excluding.
  2. Practice a conversational style where you encourage your colleague or partner to question you about the information you have shared. It’s important to realize that what you think is relevant might not be relevant to them, and vice versa.
  3. If you have newsprint or a board available, map out the information. Start with the central piece of information you are sharing, then draw lines extending outward. On each line walk through–as a group–what additional information is needed to fully understand the information. Keep adding sublines until you all agree that what you have is complete. (See “mindmaps” for a great illustration of this.”
  4. Practice a little humility, and confess straight out that you know you will forget to share something, and give your colleagues permission to ask questions as they need to.

 

Give and Take

GiveIt’s probably rare that we think about what we do as Catholic leaders as “mergers and acquisitions,” but when I think about all of my attempts at collaboration, I see it all around me.

I spend a lot of time building collaborative relationships to help make our work in publishing and developing Catholic leaders successful. The scary part is that I can see very clearly when I am in “acquisition” mode, e.g., Could you share your mailing list? Will you be a sponsor/partner?

But what is it that I have to give to them?

A recent article in the Harvard Business Review (June 2016) got me thinking.

Companies that focus on what they are going to get from an acquisition are less likely to succeed than those that focus on what they have to give it. (This insight echoes one from Adam Grant, who notes in his book “Give and Take” that people who focus more on giving than on taking in the interpersonal realm do better, in the end, than those who focus on maximizing their own position.

So, what gets in the way of giving more than we take when we collaborate? What is it that needs to change in the way we even start the conversation to ensure that the relationship is fully two-way?