Trustin Organisational Life

Journal of the Association for Management Education

and Development

Volume 23 ● Number 4 ● Winter 2016

Edition Editors: Rob Warwick and Bob MacKenzieThanks to Triarchy Press for their continuing support.

© AMED 2016. ISSN 2042 – 9797. You may freely print or download articles to a local hard disk, provided they are for your personal and non-commercial use only. Please ensure that you acknowledge the original source in full using the following words

‘This article first appeared in e-O&P Vol 23 No 4, Winter 2016 and is reproduced by kind permission of AMED www.amed.org.uk’.

For permission to reproduce article(s) from this journal more widely, please contact the AMED Office www.amed.org.uk, Tel: +44 (0)300 365 1247.

The views expressed in this journal by both editorial staff and contributors are not those of AMED or any of the organisations represented by the editors, but reflect the opinions of the individual authors only.

Cover image: Wolf Dog is the first dog in the domestic dog sled competition, photo by Venpia

Kaleidoscope images by Muu-karhu from Wikimedia Commons

e-O&P Editorial Board:Bob MacKenzieDavid McAra

This edition of e-O&P may be downloaded from the AMED web site www.amed.org.uk , priced at: £10 for networkers and non-members or £5 for visitors to the Triarchy Press website £0 for full members of AMED and e-O&P subscribers

and members of … If you wish to make a donation to AMED’s operating costs,

please click here:

DONATE

e-Organisations and People is also available on the EBSCOhost database http://www.ebscohost.com

Contents

Contents

KALEIDOSCOPIC VIEWS OF TRUST 1Rob Warwick and Bob MacKenzie 1

THE RATCHET EFFECT 11Bob Whipple 11

REVEALING TALES ABOUT TRUST 16Alison Donaldson 16

PLACING YOUR TRUST IN DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS 26Sarah Harvey 26

SAFEGUARDING MY OWN TRUSTWORTHINESS 34Louie Gardiner 34

THE RISE OF HORIZONTAL TRUST 45Paul Levy 45

HIC SUNT DRACONES 53Peter King 53

NAKED TRUST 61John H. Tobin 61

A SELECTION OF FORTHCOMING EVENTS 73

YOUR INVITATION TO BECOME MORE INVOLVED WITH E-O&P 74

A NOTE ABOUT AMED 75

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 0 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

Kaleidoscopic views of trust

Rob Warwick and Bob MacKenzie

Keywords: Trust, conversation, human relating, Bortoft, holism, co-inquiry

IntroductionContexts of trust: a human ecological perspectiveFrom what we have read and discussed so far, it seems to us that there is always a specific context within

which we consider moments of trust and trusting. In our project, we have found it illuminating to adopt a

human ecology perspective. According to Jackson (2016: 2-3), human ecological or ecosocial systems are:

‘(a) set of relationships and interactions among the people, resources, habitats, and other

residents of an area for the purpose of living. ….. While all ecosystems are complex adaptive

systems that learn to live with, and when necessary adapt to, their environment, the making of

meanings and sharing of understandings (learning) are a primary interest and purpose of human

ecosocial systems, together with their continuous development and improvement for the purpose

of living’.

Although Jackson is particularly concerned with exploring creative pedagogies within Higher Education

learning, we suspect that a similarly ecological perspective would be fruitful in enriching our co-inquiry into

trust and trusting. Hence an ecological perspective underpins our approach to curating this edition, and it

could well be a strand that is worth unravelling further in our post-publication Gathering.

In working together on editing this special edition of e-O&P, given our different backgrounds and

experiences, we (Rob and Bob) wondered how we might frame this introductory article most helpfully, in a

way that honours different intellectual and experiential traditions that have a bearing on trust and trusting.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 1 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Having considered a range of possibilities, and acknowledging the influence of notions such as complex

responsive processes (e.g. Stacey 2007) and ecological perspectives (e.g. Bronfenbrenner 1979; Bortoft

1998; Jackson 2016), we decided:

To try to reveal some of the assumptions – both spoken and unspoken - when the words ‘trust’ and

‘trusting’ trip off our tongues;

To highlight the importance of exploring such innate human forms of relating from a number of

different angles, such as – reflexively – how the ‘whole’ of the trusting process is more than the sum

of its parts, and how ‘the parts’ are formed by the ‘whole’

To try to understand better our trusting practices as we trust or do not trust others, including

remarking on the experience of co-editing this edition in a spirit of critical friendship (MacKenzie

2015), when relating with authors, with each other and with others who have been involved in this

writing, reading and conversational project.

To engage in conversations with others about trusting practices, and to invite and facilitate further

explorations in a variety of fora, and

To provide a brief overview of the articles in this edition.

An assumption and some questionsWe embarked upon this project of commissioning and editing this special themed issue of e-O&P with a

shared assumption that trust is an essential feature of hopeful personal and organisational relationships.

Yet as soon as we started to think self-consciously about trust, it seemed beyond our comprehension.

Questions such as: What is trust? How can it be measured? What are its ‘parts’? How can we improve the

quality of trust? all seemed inadequate. Yet, daily, we form trusting relationships, we offer something, we

show vulnerability to, and see it in, others. There is clearly a response and context through which trust is

either mediated or undermined. Intuitively, we knew that trust is important for us and for those around us.

There is fear of being let down, yet a hope that relationships might develop in mutually beneficial ways. And

we can envisage that such hopes and fears are mirrored in those with whom we interact. We sense

powerfully that – whatever it is - trust is important. If so, can we find helpful ways of talking about and

embodying trust? We embarked upon this writing project to see whether – with the contributions of others –

we could find some answers.

Trusting as a form of dancing?Personally, we might reflect on the subject of trust as we interact with others who we are starting to get to

know. We would gauge the cues that we embody, see and hear that are inherent in such interactions. We

might also consider the context within which we are seeking to trust. At any particular moment, should we

trust absolutely, provisionally, or not at all? In embarking on new relationships, it might help to imagine it as

akin to engaging with a new dance partner. Initially, we might want to impress the other whilst at the same

time remaining cautious in case they tread on our toes. Then, when our dancing routine is perfected, our

moves become instinctive.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 2 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

From an organisational perspective, how can we form more trusting relationships with and between people

on a larger scale: teams, departments, organisations, sectors, communities of practice - the mêlée of what

aspires to become a thriving society? How can we create, sustain and nourish appropriately trusting

relationships? What conversations and actions might we encourage to facilitate this?

Children dancing in a ring (Der Kinderreigen), 1872: Hans Thomas [1839-1924]. Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe .

Perspectives on trust: a philosophical noteAs co-editors, we hope to shine a light on how people talk about trust, and on some of the pitfalls of such

conversations, and to suggest different perspectives that might play their part in increasing our

understanding and practices of trust. We assume that this understanding can only occur when we

acknowledge that we are part of a communal, interactive, emerging process. It seems to us that it might help

to think of trusting relationships in two different but related ways. These ways are (1) holistically, in terms of

their intuitive essence; and (2) deconstructively, in considering the characteristics that – together - come to

make up trust. In this edition, we and other contributors explore how these two connected perspectives might

interact and inform each other to enable us to develop a more mature and useful understanding of trust and

trusting.

An holistic perspective A ‘big picture’ perspective would allow us to view trust’s broad brush features, if not its detail. As the

American academic and authority on trust Eric Uslaner observes (pace vegetarians and vegans!):

Trust is the chicken soup of social life. It brings us all sorts of good things, from a willingness to

get involved in our communities to higher rates of economic growth and, ultimately, to satisfaction

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 3 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

with government performance, to making daily life more pleasant. Yet, like chicken soup, it

appears to work somewhat mysteriously. It might seem that we can only develop trust in people

we know. Yet, trust’s benefits come when we put faith in strangers. (Uslaner, 2002).

What can we read into this? Poetically we get it. It conveys that holistic sense of what trust is. There is a

sense of movement and connection with the people around us and with those far beyond. We and society at

large are at one in a positive endeavour, motivated by faith and hope. Uslaner’s reference to chicken soup

arises from a distinctive (Jewish) culture, redolent of the author’s heritage, faith and values, and of those

most immediately around him. But ‘community’ also embraces people outside of a distinctive cultural

grouping, and encompasses people we might call outsiders. Uslaner’s reference to mystery implies that we

don’t know for sure how trust works, and even, perhaps, that we should not enquire too closely. Like a

magician’s spells, once we know how they work, the magic is lost. Another way of imagining the workings of

trust is as if it is glimpsed out of the corner of an eye: we sense it and feel that we know what it, but as soon

as our gaze is fixed upon it, its essence disappears.

Explicating trust in this way might suggest that it is impossibly elusive to grasp cognitively, and should not be

tampered with. But that would be wrong and unhelpful. Instead, we could try adopting a different approach

to identifying its various characteristics.

Some elements and characteristics of trustWhat are the essential characteristics of trust? Mayer and others (Mayer et al., 1995) describe trust as a:

… willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation

that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to

monitor or control that other party. (Mayer et al., 1995)

Here we are introduced to some component ‘parts’ of trust and trusting. These include vulnerabilities; the

presence of parties; expectations; actions; and processes of sensing, monitoring and controlling – scanning

and measurement. The Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2014) refers to four

‘pillars of trust’: benevolence, integrity, predictability and ability. The word ‘pillar’ has connotations of fixed

structure, strength and rigidity. Once trust is ‘built’, we are protected in what we have created. This view

takes little account of a process by which trust is provisional, shifting and under continual negotiation.

Somehow, talk of constructed features seems inadequate, conjuring up images of static entities when

considered in isolation from a wider and more complex perspective. Nonetheless, the simplistic metaphor of

‘pillars’ can be seductive, and perhaps it has its uses as a way of communicating about and engaging with

the phenomenon.

In our view, it’s essential to take account simultaneously of both the ‘entirety’ and the ‘parts’ of trust. So next,

we focus on how we might consider both aspects together as a distinctive way of understanding it better.

A multi-faceted perspective on trustSomeone who can shine a light on the subject is Henri Bortoft. Bortoft was a student of the quantum

physicist David Bohm, and his intellectual curiosity also led him to the early nineteenth century German

polymath, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Being a quantum physicist, Bortoft had learnt to become wary of

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 5 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

either/or solutions to problems - a concern illustrated by the popular analogy of Schrodinger’s Cat. His

project became an investigation into the nature of ‘wholeness’. In a chapter called ‘Encountering the whole –

the Active Absence’ he explains:

We cannot know the whole in the way in which we

know things because we cannot recognise the whole

as a thing. If the whole were available to be

recognised in the same way as we recognise the

things that surround us, then the whole would be

counted among those things as one of them. … But

the wholes come into presence within its parts, and

we encounter the whole in the same way as we

encounter the parts (Bortoft, 1998, p285).

Portrait of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe by Joseph Karl Stieler [1781-1858], Wikimedia Commons

Here, Bortoft is suggesting that the whole has a different quality than its parts, and offers the example of

reading a text (an exercise which you yourself might try here). When reading, in moving from a word to a

paragraph, to a chapter of a book, a person loses awareness of an individual word or words (unless they

make a particularly memorable quote). Yet this is not to say that the words have become nothing:

We do not take the meaning of a sentence to be a word. The meaning of a sentence is no-word.

But evidently this is not the same as nothing, for if it were we would never read! The whole

presence within parts, but from the standpoint of awareness that grasps the external parts, the

whole is an absence. This absence, however, is not the same as nothing. Rather it is an active

absence inasmuch as we do not try to be aware of the whole as if we could grasp it like a part,

but instead let ourselves be open to be moved by the whole. (1998, p286)

In the context of trust, both the holistic and separate characteristics are simultaneously useful and limiting.

We need to grapple with both. The last few words of the previous quotation - ‘let ourselves be open to be

moved’ – merit careful attention. To trust and be trusted is an essential process of movement and

engagement which requires a reflexive ability.

Kaleidoscopic shifts in trusting

Kaleidoscope tube; picture by Rodrigo Nuno Bragança Cunha

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 6 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

In our attempts to understand trust better, we are

drawn to the metaphor of playing with a kaleidoscope.

We see that kaleidoscopic images are made up of

hundreds of reflected shards of coloured glass.

However, our attention is drawn to the bigger patterns

of colour and uniqueness. We are aware of how the

larger picture is formed from the fragments, but this

comes to life and patterns change every time it is

turned and we sense a process of movement and

becoming. Kaleidoscope view: Picture by Muu-Karhu

Viewed in this way, developing trust is a heuristic and continuous process of noticing, learning and

interaction. We can talk usefully of its constituent parts, but only in the context of a wider picture of forming

and movement. In this way we can accommodate both the metaphors of chicken soup and pillars.

Enhancing the prospects of trusting relationships through co-inquiryCharacteristics of this edition: an overview of each articleA particular strength of AMED’s journal e-O&P is its eclectic nature. Unlike many journals, we are not

wedded to one single style, ‘school’, methodology or theoretical or ideological perspective, other than

seeking to give voice to multiple perspectives and to make more widely available fresh and innovative

approaches and conjectures. We are interested in fostering connections between academics and other

practitioners, and in illustrating a variety of research methods and practices, as this edition demonstrates.

Hence, in this case, we are able to pay attention to different ideas and experiences of trust, and to provide a

space to explore both its holistic and deconstructed characteristics, as well as the processes (the turning of

the kaleidoscope) of developing those inter-relationships.

Stretching spaghetti: William Heath Robinson

When we first put out the invitation to write on trust, we

did not know if it would strike a chord. Quite soon we

had our answer. One of the first responses was from

Bob Whipple in the USA. Bob works with people to

develop trust. Our imagination was immediately caught

by Bob’s use of an intriguing gadget to communicate

insights about trust. To our British minds, it immediately

drew us to the madcap inventions of William Heath

Robinson. In what other aspects of human interaction

might someone come up with a machine to spark

important conversations? Yet that is what Bob was

drawn to do. And in Bob’s article we hear (and see) how

such conversations can be enriched through this very

physical, tangible approach. We hope that you are

similarly intrigued.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 7 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Continuing with a conversational theme, Alison Donaldson chooses to add life to the subject of trust

through literature and stories. In doing so, Alison draws attention to the limitations of analytical frameworks

to convey complex human feelings. Literature and stories offer different avenues for exploration, ones that

connect their characters’ own dilemmas, doubts and vulnerabilities with our own. It is interesting to dwell on

the three-way reflective interaction between us as readers, Alison, and the characters in the story she has

chosen to explicate. We sense how Alison has been moved in this reflective article, we appreciate the

dilemmas of the characters in the stories, and – as readers - we, too, are affected. In describing the power of

stories, Alison points out that:

‘…, they tend to stimulate associations, insights and feelings in us. As we read, we often

compare the events described with our own experience, and this may shift our thinking.’ (Page

XX).

In this way, Alison explores the nature of knowledge differently, subtly drawing attention to the limitations of

the common approach of abstract knowledge, by which we mean insights that imply universal truths

irrespective of context. Instead, our attention is drawn to connections, intuitions and imagination between

different worlds. (It’s worth noting that, previously, Rob worked with Alison on a trust project sponsored by

Roffey Park ).

In Alison’s article, we hear the story of healthcare CEO who did not have that ‘people thing’. This theme is

taken up in Sarah Harvey’s article, which draws upon Stephen Covey’s ‘Emotional Bank Account’. We hear

Sarah’s reflections as an experienced Organisational Development practitioner, as she engages with people

who seek to develop more trusting relationships. Trust, she argues, is a fundamental feature that enables

those all-important challenging and difficult conversations to occur (a process she refers to as ‘savvy

conversations’). She points out that ‘Whilst busy managers often have good intentions, many have told me

that they don’t have time for “small-talk”’ (Page XX). Yet these very gestures constitute the glue that holds

trusting relationships together.

Louie Gardiner explores her own experiences of trust and mistrust, and explicitly reaches out to us, her

readers. As with Sarah Harvey, Louie works with groups and has developed an approach to discussing how

we relate to each other that she calls ‘P6C’. In a VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) world,

Louie proposes that, in order to develop our ability to progress and thrive, we must hone our reflexive

abilities and understanding of the complexity in which we are immersed. She offers us a way of slowing

down, thinking and engaging, to consider what we can change, what we cannot, and how we can hold

ourselves to account.

Reflecting Louie’s VUCA theme, Paul Levy considers trust in the context of our evolving digital lives against

the backdrop of the 2008 banking crisis and other events that are profoundly shaking the sta tus quo. Are we

glimpsing beginnings of new approaches of how people might relate and trust each other? Paul introduces

us to ideas about ‘horizontal trust’, the sharing economy, cryptocurrencies, and social movements. Rather

than deferring to a higher authority in a vertical, hierarchical relationship, we can negotiate and work through

issues of trust ourselves in a community process. As we write this editorial, we are mindful of recent

unexpected events in the US, with the election of Donald Trump as the next President. What are the

challenges that this raises for what counts as reliable knowledge to make those trusting

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 8 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

decisions in what has been called this ‘Post Truth era’? Paul makes a powerful point in stressing the

importance of ‘access to accurate information, clarity of communication, and the ability to validate that those

who are delivering services have relevant skills and knowledge’ (page XX). Paul raises some important

questions. Yet, in a spirit of co-inquiry, where we are all engaged in a shared process of exploration, Paul

enjoins us to remain hopeful.

Peter King addresses trust from yet another angle. In using the ancient cartographer’s warning ‘Here be

dragons!’, he takes on the academic establishment, inviting us to glimpse trust differently. We sense trust as

a collection of unexamined norms and practices that a community falls into. In so doing, this can harm both

the wary traveller or newcomer, and the establishment itself. Peter charts a course through the lure of

statistics, culturally-conditioned ways of looking at the world, and the blind spots that these create. His

concern is less about ‘to trust or not to trust’ as conscious decision making, but rather about how we hear of

power and long-held tradition, and how these come to exclude, stifle and downplay new and challenging

thoughts and ways of relating.

In proposing yet another way of understanding trust, John Tobin considers the work of the US pragmatist

philosopher George Herbert Mead. Mead is concerned about what happens as we interact with each other in

the hope that greater understanding can lead to improvement. Here, John takes Mead’s notion of ‘Cult Value’

and considers it in relation to trust. The more we speak of trust, the more it develops properties that become

unachievable: it becomes a form of external ideal state. But as John points out, that is not all bad. It affects

the nature and patterns of conversations whereby we talk and think about trust, and this can be inspirational

and helpful. Yet at the same time, paradoxically, it can be draining and destructive. John pays attention to

trust as an organisation-wide ‘project’ of power that consists of different emergent person-to-person

interactions as individuals and groups relate to each other.

What might you contribute to this co-inquiry? Finally (for the moment) we return to our opening invitation about how – collectively – we might sense the

nature of the whole of trust as distinct from it various parts. This edition reflects a number of different views,

perspectives, feelings and philosophical arguments. We would be the last to claim that – together – they

constitute the final word on the subject. We’re eager to know what you think. Having read and reflected on

some of the text in this edition, how – if at all – do you now think of and experience trust differently? We’d be

keen to learn whether - in addressing this question as a co-inquiry - a different form of ‘wholeness’ of trust

might emerge.

A particular feature of several of the articles here is the attention paid to conversation. By this means, we can

affect, nudge, pay attention to the nature and practices of trust by the way we talk about it and by the

connections that we might draw from such interactions to make our understanding even more vivid and

embodied. So as you engage with the ideas articulated in this edition, we would welcome a dialogue with

you to explore how your own ideas are developing in this process of shared learning, so that ours, too, can

grow. We hope we have an opportunity to do this both in online conversations with you via the Forum that

we’ve created here, and in person at a post-publication gathering at the University of Chichester in March

2017 (date tbc – possibly on Thursday 9th or 16th).

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 10 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

ReferencesBortoft, H. (1998), “Counterfeit and authentic wholes: finding a means of dwelling on nature”, in Seamon, D.

and Kajonc, A. (Eds.), Goethe’s way of science, State University of New York, New York, pp. 277–299.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-22457-4

CIPD. (2014), Experiencing trustworthy leadership Research Report September 2014.

Jackson, N. (2016). Exploring creative pedagogies and learning ecologies: http://www.creativeacademic.uk/creativehe.html.

MacKenzie, B. (2015). Critical friendships in coaching and mentoring in writing. e-Organisations and People, Vol 22, No 1, Spring. pp. 42-51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309593283_Critical_friendships_for_coaching_and_mentoring_in_writing, accessed 24/11/16

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An Integrative Model of Trust”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709–734.

McKnight, D.H. & Chervany, N. L. (nd): The Meanings of Trust. (Working Paper) http://www.misrc.umn.edu/workingpapers/fullpapers/1996/9604_040100.pdf . accessed 11/10/16

Stacey, R. (2007),"The challenge of human interdependence", European Business Review, Vol. 19 Iss 4, pp. 292 - 302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555340710760125 Downloaded on: 04 November 2015, At: 16:30 (PT)

Uslaner, E. (2002), The Moral Foundations of Trust, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511614934.

Image attributions

Children dancing in a ring (Der Kinderreigen), 1872: Hans Thomas [1839-1924]. Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe. Public domain. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Hans_Thoma_-_Der_Kinderreigen_%281872%29.jpg?uselang=en-gb.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: By Joseph Karl Stieler - Transferred from nds.wikipedia to Commons..org by G.Meiners at 12:05, 15. Okt 2005., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=375657

The kaleidoscope CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=474056

The Heath Robinson Device: By Amada44 - From the Book: William Heath Robinson Inventions, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39266759

AcknowledgementsAs co-editors, we would like to thank the authors whose articles appear in this edition, as well as those in

the references we have cited. We would also draw attention to the Roffey Park groundwork on trust that we

refer to in the text. Others, more subtly and invisibly, have played an essential role in publishing and

disseminating this edition. Our thanks go to David McAra for his excellent formatting and design work for

this publication behind the scenes. Linda Williams, Juliana Goga-Cooke, who co-edit our post-publication

e-O&P Digests and Ned Seabrook, who subsequently disaggregates individual articles, have also made

their largely invisible contribution. To everyone who has contributed, wittingly or unwittingly to our co-inquiry

we offer our grateful acknowledgements and invite your continuing participation.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 11 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

About the editors Rob Warwick is a senior lecturer at the University of Chichester specialising in strategy and leadership. He

has a particular interest in action learning, conversation and complexity as a way of enabling effective

organisational change and personal practice. Prior to the life of an academic Rob was an NHS manager in

blood and organ donation. His doctorate was in healthcare policy formulation and how this comes to affect

the lives of those on the front line. He can be contacted at r.warwick@chi.ac.uk.

Bob MacKenzie is commissioning editor for e-O&P, and convenor of the AMED Writers’ Group. He is also

Professor of Management Learning with the IMCA Business School. As an independent consultant, facilitator

and critical friend, Bob has developed an abiding interest in the processes of writing and conversations for

facilitating personal, management and organisational learning and development. He has worked and

travelled in Africa, India, Europe and the USA, and wrote his doctorate on ‘A Learning Facilitator’s Uses of

Writing’. bob_mackenzie@btopenworld.com; www.amed.org.uk.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 12 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

The Ratchet EffectBob Whipple

The importance of building trust in any organisation is paramount to

obtain maximum performance. First I introduce the relationship between

trust and engagement of people. Then I discuss how the ways to build

trust are numerous, but one concept has more power than the others to

create and maintain trust within any organisation. I call that concept

‘Reinforcing Candour’ and provide a vivid demonstration for how the

technique works by using a metaphor of a ‘Trust Barometer.’ I offer

some tips on how to employ this logic in any group activity.

Keywords: trust, candour, engagement, productivity, ratchet, betrayal

Introduction: The Missing Element of TrustHow would you like to “crack the code” to higher engagement through a better culture? Through decades of

research and practical experience in leadership, I have found that trust is the most important ingredient for

engagement and productivity. Every leader would like to improve trust in his or her operation, but few

leaders are consistently successful at doing it. I set out to determine why this aspect of leadership is so

elusive and discovered there is usually a missing element. Teaching leaders that missing element has

become the cornerstone of my consultation work with organisations of all types in all industries.

The ways to build trust are myriad and are well documented by many authors. For example, in The Trusted

Advisor Fieldbook (2012), authors Charles Green and Andrea Howe provide numerous ways of accelerating

trust within organisations. In my own seminars, it takes groups only about 15 minutes to come up with a list

of 40-50 behaviours leaders can use to build trust: the ways are obvious. Consider this partial list as some

of the more important ways:

Do what you say,

Treat people well,

Tell the truth,

Be transparent,

Treat others the way you want to be treated (Golden Rule),

Be ethical,

Admit mistakes,

Adhere to your values,

Be consistent,

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 13 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

The list goes on for numerous other ways that we already know.

If we agree that trust is of critical importance, and if we know numerous ways to go about building it daily,

then why are so many organisations still experiencing low trust, especially in their leaders? For over a

decade, I studied the issue of how trust is built and lost, to uncover a missing foundational concept that

needs to be in place in conjunction with the obvious behaviours listed above.

Trust works like a ratchet; it is built in small steps over time. The accumulated equity can be destroyed by a

single misstep. When leaders create a ‘safe environment’, it prevents the catastrophic loss of trust. One

way in which leaders do this is by not punishing people when they are candid. So ‘Reinforcing Candour’ is a

key leadership behaviour that enables the consistent growth of trust. Since very few leaders are skilled at

reinforcing candour, it turns out to be the missing link in many cases.

Illustrating “The Ratchet Effect”Trust between people is similar to a bank account - a concept

introduced by Stephen M.R. Covey in The Speed of Trust (2006).

There is a balance of trust at any point in time, and we can make

deposits that increase the balance, or make withdrawals that

reduce the balance. Of course, the idea is to keep the balance as

high as possible, so we can enjoy the benefits of high trust.

Making large deposits in the trust account with people is more

difficult than making small ones. It usually takes a special

situation to make a big deposit. For example, if I am walking by

your house and you come running out screaming that your house

is on fire but your dog is trapped, that represents a unique

opportunity. If I go in and save your dog, it would be a large trust

deposit, because I risked my life to save something that is

precious to you. It was a special circumstance in which I had the opportunity to make a large trust deposit.

Normally we make deposits in small steps, but the account builds up over time.

A few years ago, I generated a model for demonstrating how trust is built and lost. I call it my ‘Trust

Barometer’ and use it to illustrate the ratchet effect. It has a gear with a handle and a crank that can wind up

a weight suspended by a string, and I have a scale showing how much trust is in a relationship at any given

time.

The trust scale has a numbers from 1 to 10. The ratchet is held in place with a pawl that prevents it from

rotating backwards. When there is a trust withdrawal, the pawl disengages, and the resulting loss of trust is

obvious. It seems very comical, but it is a great illustration of how trust is built and lost in our lives.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 14 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

The trust barometer

The barometer works well to illustrate an important principle. Trust

is usually gained in small steps like the individual clicks of a

ratchet, so over time we build up trust with another person by

making small deposits and winding up the weight. We do things

like treating people with respect, following up on promises, helping

out when there is an opportunity, and hundreds of other small

things that all add to the trust account.

You simulate a trust withdrawal by pushing in on the bottom of the

pawl, which causes the top to disengage with the ratchet. The

weight crashes down to zero almost instantly, setting off the

screaming panic button. A key feature is that the ratchet has

significant mass, so it overshoots when the weight reaches the

panic button. This causes slack in the cord, which is a critical part

of the metaphor when you try to rebuild trust later on.

In plain English, the ratchet effect sounds like this. I have known

Mark for several years. I’ve always trusted him; he has never

given me any reason to doubt him, but after he said that in the

meeting yesterday, I’ll never trust him again.

An example of the Ratchet EffectA real example of this happened years ago with a department manager who was reporting to me. His name

was George, and we had been together for over 10 years. We had a solid relationship of high trust that had

been earned through countless deposits made by one or the other of us over the years. I heard a rumour

that he was having an affair with a female employee named Barbara who was working in his department.

George had a beautiful family and was head of a bible study group at his church. I just could not believe he

would do such a thing.

A few weeks later, an HR manager in our area told me that she saw the two of them going into a local motel

room. I was shocked and confronted George in his office that same day. I told him about the rumour that I

did not believe at first, but that was confirmed later on that he was having an affair with Barbara. George

looked me square in the eye and said, “I know about that rumour, but it is not true.” I gasped! To me, that

statement was essentially the end of our relationship, and George was quickly removed as the manager of

that department. Trust had been reduced to zero in one sentence.

When we experience a catastrophic betrayal of trust, it is devastating because it takes so long to build up the

account of trust and it can be destroyed in a single sentence or even some body language in a meeting.

Trust can usually be repaired, but it is a long and difficult process. The trouble is that when we go to rebuild

trust, it takes a long time before the deposits even register at all in higher trust. That phenomenon is caused

by the slack in the line as the ratchet overshoots. In essence, the trust level goes negative, and you need to

make a lot of additional deposits to just get back to zero. The best way to understand the dynamic is to view

this brief video of my trust barometer in action.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 15 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Why “The Ratchet Effect” points to “Reinforcing Candour” as the missing ingredientThe reason reinforcing candour works is that it takes the leader off their pedestal, because they show a

willingness to listen and potentially be wrong. It reveals a kind of humbleness or vulnerability that is a

growing medium for trust. Displaying an open mind allows people to see the leader as approachable and

lowers fear, so people become more open about their thoughts. That openness is what stops the ratchet

from falling to zero. Reinforcing candour is more than the willingness to listen without judgment. It results in

the affirmation of the worth of the employee.

Every leader is going to make a trust withdrawal with people at some point. We are all human beings who

have the ability to do things that are ill advised on occasion, especially in the pressure situations at work. In

organisations where the environment is not safe to point out to a leader that he or she is contemplating

something that would backfire, it is much easier to make a significant withdrawal that causes the trust ratchet

to go negative. If the leader has created an environment where it is safe to point out the consequences of

something a leader did or is planning, then it prevents the ratchet from falling to zero, and most of the trust

equity can be preserved.

When leaders positively reinforce or thank people who bring up difficult consequences of actions, it allows

the environment to become one of higher trust over time. All the leader needs to do is refrain from clobbering

people when they bring up scary stuff. Make them glad they brought it up, and it will prevent the trust from

going to zero or negative. Most leaders find this difficult or impossible to do. They have done something that,

according to their analysis, was right, so if an employee challenges the rightness of the action, it is only

human nature to push back.

In their excellent book, Triple Crown Leadership: Building

Excellent, Ethical, and Enduring Organizations (2012), Bob and

Gregg Vanourek point out that the best leaders flex between

‘steel and velvet’ when working with people. They are firm, like

steel, when it comes to matters of principle or values, but they flex

and have the ability to listen well at other times, even letting

others lead. This restraint creates a safe environment,

unleashing other leaders and encouraging people to tell them if

something does not feel right.

I have taught thousands of leaders that resisting the temptation to

educate an employee who is challenging one of their decisions on

why the employee is dead wrong is the single most powerful way

to create an environment where trust grows consistently. When

leaders understand this one foundational concept, it enables all of

the other trust building actions to work like they are on steroids.

The result in several organisations I have coached has been that trust goes from being the most significant

weakness in the organisation to the most significant strength in less than a year. The leverage of that

change is immense.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 17 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

ExerciseToday, simply be aware of the transactional nature of trust such that you have a balance in the trust account

with people, and every time you interact with them you’re either making deposits or withdrawals in the trust

account. Notice how, when there is a withdrawal, it can be a very serious withdrawal very quickly. That is

the phenomenon demonstrated by the ratchet effect.

Leaders need to recognise that it takes a long time of consistent deposits in the trust account to build up an

impressive trust balance, but that balance can be wiped out in a single sentence or gesture or email or any

other interaction with the other person. In order to maintain a good balance of trust we need to be consistent

with deposits and avoid the mega trust withdrawals. Reinforcing candour is a difficult skill to master, but

those leaders who can do it find the rewards are worth the effort.

NoteThe preceding article was based on an episode in “Building Trust,” a 30 part video series by Bob Whipple

“The Trust Ambassador.” To view three short examples (three minutes each) at no cost, go to

http://www.avanoo.com/first3/517 . All book covers are reproduced with permission from their authors.

ReferencesCovey, Stephen M.R. (2006). The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything, New York: Free

Press

Green, Charles H. & Howe, Andrea P. (2012). The Trusted Advisor Fieldbook, Hoboken: Wiley

Vanourek, Robert & Gregg (2012) Triple Crown Leadership: Building Excellent, Ethical, and Enduring Organizations, New York: McGraw Hill

Whipple Robert. Introduction to the Trust Barometer, 18 Apr 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE3jd0bzULI&list=PLDegj3VJpCn0yQX7-eAAmS-nReyCyx6D9

About the Author:Bob Whipple, MBA, CPLP, is a consultant, trainer, speaker, and author in

the areas of leadership and trust. He is the author of four books including:

Trust in Transition: Navigating Organizational Change, The Trust Factor:

Advanced Leadership for Professionals, Understanding E-Body Language:

Building Trust Online, and Leading with Trust is Like Sailing Downwind.

Bob has served many years as a senior executive with a Fortune 500

Company and with several non-profit organisations. You can contact Bob

at www.Leadergrow.com, bwhipple@leadergrow.com or 585.392.7763

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 19 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Revealing tales about trust

Alison DonaldsonWhile reading a short story by Camus – ‘The Guest’ – I was struck by

three themes regarding trust in human relationships: acknowledging

people as people; feeling under pressure to implement unwelcome

orders; and vulnerability. When I compared ‘The Guest’ with some ‘true’

stories collected for a project on ‘trust’ funded by Roffey Park Institute, I

found some strong echoes of these themes. This confirmed to me that

stories, both fictional and true, can do something that analytical

frameworks on their own cannot, namely deepen our understanding of

the dilemmas of human relating. They can also be used to stimulate

useful learning conversations in organisations.

KeywordsHuman relationships, trust, organisations, learning, conversations, stories, fiction, narrative, frameworks,

dilemmas, complexity, context

How do we get a better understanding of how trust works within human relationships (which are, after all,

the life-blood of organisations)? Do we learn mostly from our own experience, or from theories and

analytical frameworks, or from stories we hear and read? Or all of the above? I will declare my bias

straightaway: I have come to think that stories (whether ‘true’ or fictional) combined with reflection on our

own personal experience are the richest sources of insights about human relating.

In 2015, I worked with my colleague Rob Warwick on a research project on the subject of trust, funded by

Roffey Park Institute in the UK. One of our aims was to produce written stories that would help managers,

practitioners and students deepen their understanding of how trust ebbs and flows in working relationships.

We collected stories from a range of organisational settings (Donaldson & Warwick, 2016a and 2016b).

More recently I was reading a short story by Albert Camus – The Guest, or L’Hôte in French – and found it

to be a rich and thought-provoking account about trust and human relationships.

Here I draw on both types of story before briefly considering a more analytical approach suggested by

Onora O’Neill in her 2013 TED talk on trust, and comparing this with the use of stories to stimulate

reflection and learning.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 20 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

A tale of human relating in a tense situationCamus’ short story, The Guest, unfolds against the backdrop of the Algerian war of independence. The

conflict was deeply disturbing to Camus, who was born in Algeria of French and Spanish parents and grew

up alongside people referred to at the time as ‘indigenous’. Camus’ tale is a short and subtle account of

trust, mistrust and vulnerability playing themselves out between three human beings of different status and

cultural background: a teacher, a gendarme and an Arab prisoner. The story takes place in winter on the

high plateau of Algeria

One evening, the teacher, Daru, sees two men trudging

through the snow up the steep hill towards his school.

One, on horseback, is an old gendarme. The other man

follows on foot at the end of a rope, with head bowed.

As they come into sight, Daru is lost in looking at the

prisoner, who is wearing traditional apparel – a faded

blue jellaba, his feet in sandals but covered with heavy

woollen socks, and head wrapped in a chèche.

As soon as the men arrive, Daru invites them in to get

warm and he makes them some mint tea. The

gendarme (Balducci) explains that the prisoner (an Arab

who is never named) has killed someone in a family

quarrel and that Daru’s orders are to deliver him to a

prison in the next town the following day. The rest of

the story unfolds over about 12 hours, with an ironic

twist at the end (which I do not intend to reveal).

Throughout the story, Camus lets us see detailed

interactions between the men almost as if we were there Biography of Camus by Olivier Todd

in the school with them. He describes words, looks and gestures exchanged between them, and it becomes

clear that the teacher and the prisoner are watching each other’s every move. Occasionally we get a

glimpse of what is in Daru’s mind, but mostly Camus leaves us space to imagine, or make sense of, what is

going on between the three characters. For example, when Daru watches the prisoner coming up the hill, is

he feeling curious, suspicious or compassionate? Perhaps all of the above.

I have chosen here to hold my magnifying glass over three scenes. To my mind, each one speaks volumes

about how people relate to one another in a certain context – in this case colonial and therefore cross-

cultural and power-infused. Three timeless themes emerged for me from my close reading: (i) the

importance of acknowledging people as human beings, no matter what social group they belong to; (ii) facing

the dilemma of having to carry out orders that seem wrong to us; and (iii) feeling vulnerable and taking risks.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 21 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Colonialism and mint tea: acknowledging people as people In sparing words, but hinting at the full complexity of the situation, Camus relates the first encounter, just

after gendarme and prisoner have entered the school:

When he held out the glass of tea to the prisoner, Daru hesitated, seeing the man’s bound hands.

“We can perhaps untie him.” “Of course,” replied Balducci, “it was for the journey.”

The gendarme started to get up. But Daru,

putting the glass on the floor, had already

knelt down by the Arab, who – without

saying anything – was watching him with

feverish eyes. When his hands were free,

he rubbed one swollen wrist against the

other, took the glass of tea and started

drinking the scalding liquid in small fast sips.

Camus in Fowlie (1988) p.27 Photo by Seagull L, from Shutterstock

One thing that strikes me about this scene is the way in which Daru demonstrates respect and hospitality for

both his visitors, regardless of status and cultural background. He even kneels down beside the prisoner to

untie his hands. (Perhaps the title of the story, “L’hote”, which means both guest and host, is a clue to the

high value placed on hospitality in the society in which it is set.)

Daru’s words ‘perhaps we can untie him’ seem not only compassionate towards the Arab but also respectful

to the gendarme, whom he has known for years. And Balducci’s response, ‘Of course, it was for the

journey’, seems to have an accommodating tone – one could imagine that a gendarme on duty might have

spoken in a more authoritarian way, but in this case, we sense the degree of familiarity between him and the

teacher. And both speak French, using the familiar form of address, ‘tu’.

Some 60 years after The Guest was published, with mistrust between people of white European and North

African or Arab origin on the rise in some places, this small encounter seems all the more poignant. It leaves

me with a tiny sense of hope, by suggesting that it is possible to acknowledge ‘the other’ as a human being.

My hope is further reinforced when I hear about recent attempts to open up dialogue between people with

conflicting views or from different backgrounds. One example is the Public Conversations Project in Boston,

USA, and Peter Hughes (2016) points to another one, in Melbourne, Australia.

Having explored The Guest in this way, I was curious to see what resonance there might be between it and

the stories I recently collected from 21st century organisations. Even though 1950s Algeria seemed a long,

long way from life today, the echoes were strong. For example, one of the people I interviewed in 2015, a

former civil servant, explicitly mentioned trust growing when she felt acknowledged as a person:

“Our team was an interesting group of people and [our head of department] knew a bit about

everybody. I moved flat and he knew about it. I was very tired and went on holiday and when I

came back to work he came to see me. I clearly remember him dropping by my desk. It was

acknowledgement of me as a person.”

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 22 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Conversely, I heard stories about trust collapsing when leaders failed to engage with staff as human beings.

One manager working in the UK’s National Health Service said:

Not long ago our Chief Executive left after 12 years, and the new Chief Executive came in with a

lot of promises about doing things differently… She had a long history of NHS management, but

she didn’t have that people thing. I can give you an example. Along this corridor at that time, we

had our Patient Experiences team, who deal with all the complaints, compliments and so on.

And then we had the Recruitment team, and then my team – Patient Engagement. On that day

she was due to meet myself and the head of Patient Experiences, Steve. She came to see me

first, and as I was walking her down to her meeting with Steve, I said ‘This is the Recruitment

team.’ And she said to them ‘I’m not meeting with you today,’ and just walked off. Not ‘Oh, you’re

doing a great job, we’re recruiting so many people, how nice to meet you all, I’ll come and see

you another day’.

In all these examples, we see the importance of recognising people as human beings, whatever their status

or background. When today’s senior managers are busy or preoccupied, it can be all too easy for them to

treat people as faceless members of staff, blind to the fact that each one is a living and breathing individual

with human needs ranging all the way from hunger and thirst to feeling respected as a person.

A dilemma: feeling pressure to carry out unwelcome ordersIt soon becomes clear in The Guest that Daru is willing to challenge the order to deliver the Arab to prison

next day. After a brief discussion about what the prisoner has done – killed his cousin in a fight over the loan

of some grain – Daru says:

“I will not hand him over.”

“It’s an order, son. I repeat it.”

“Alright. Repeat to them what I told you: I will not hand him over.”

“No. I’ll tell them nothing.”

Balducci made a visible effort to reflect. He looked at the Arab and at Daru. Finally he made up

his mind.

“I won’t denounce you. If you want to let us down, do so, I will not denounce you. I have the

order to hand over the prisoner and I’m doing it. Now you are going to sign this paper for me.”

“There’s no point. I’ll not deny that you left him with me.”

“Don’t make trouble for me. [‘Ne sois pas méchant avec moi.’] I know you will tell the truth. You

come from these parts and you’re a man. But you have to sign. That’s the rule.” p.285

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 23 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Eventually, Daru relents and signs the

paper. As the gendarme moves to leave,

the teacher wants to accompany him to the

door but Balducci says: “No, there is no

point in being polite. You have insulted

me.” And with a sad sniff, he looks at the

Arab and turns to the door, saying to Daru

“Goodbye, son.”

In this scene, as in the first, we see two

people juggling obedience, trust and

loyalty. Balducci seems offended yet hePhoto by Alison Donaldson

parts from Daru with warm words. But he also needs to be seen to have carried out his part of the orders

from above. And having obtained the signature, he leaves Daru free to choose how he handles the situation,

giving the teacher a revolver with the warning: “if there is a revolt, no one is safe”.

For me, both the scenes examined so far illustrate the fundamental interdependence of human beings. The

gendarme and the teacher seem concerned to preserve their relationship, which means they cannot just say

anything to each other. They must choose their words carefully.

Drawing parallels with our 2015 research again, another person in the National Health Service told me a

story about feeling under pressure to carry out orders he disagreed with. At the time of the events described,

Tim (not his real name) was working in a Primary Care Trust (PCT) that had been buying in its health and

safety activities from a nearby Acute Trust (a hospital). He got on well with Ray (not his real name), who was

responsible for health and safety at the hospital. Everything had been going fine, but a problem arose when

relationships between the two organisations were undergoing change (the hospital was in the process of

becoming a Foundation Trust). On top of that, the government was demanding budget cuts, so the PCT’s

Director of Finance proposed getting someone internal to take responsibility for health and safety.

Tim explained what happened next:

They just cut the relationship with the Acute Trust, and I was in the position of having to discuss

this issue with Ray. And even though we had only paid a very small amount per year, Ray was

going to end up losing a member of staff. So he was saying to me ‘Can’t you take this person

on? They’re valuable.’ And I replied ‘No, we’re looking to cut funding.’ So I was in this cross-

organisational issue, and it was the first time I had to do something that really I felt was, one,

wrong, and, two, unnecessary.

Tim clearly recalled one particular moment vividly:

I’m envisaging the meeting we actually had. Imagine a Victorian workhouse-style hospital. We

were sitting in one of those rooms and I remember the sunlight streaming through the windows

and me sitting there having to go through step-by-step what was going to happen and why. And I

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 24 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

remember Ray coming back at me with ‘But this doesn’t make sense.’ And I’m having to both

defend the decision that’s been made and agree with him, because my natural inclination was to

say to him ‘You’re absolutely right, this is really silly, I’m stuck.’ But I owed some level of loyalty

to my managers. It’s just that horrible, hollow feeling that you get because you’re delivering this

rather unnecessary news. I was being pushed from behind, which is a deeply unsettling feeling.

Ray and I never spoke again.

The resonance between The Guest and this NHS story is loud and clear. In both cases, somebody feels

divided between, on the one hand, their loyalty and duty towards those who have issued the orders, and on

the other hand, their sense of what is right and their sympathy with those who will ultimately be affected. A

true dilemma.

A sleepless night: vulnerability and risk-taking

In The Guest, all three characters clearly have cause

to feel vulnerable. The gendarme has put himself at

risk by entrusting the Arab prisoner to Daru, who

makes it clear he is reluctant to carry out the order.

But Daru himself takes risks, first by refusing to obey

the order and then, after the gendarme leaves, by

letting the Arab eat and sleep in the same room with

him, untied and free to escape. He even leaves the

revolver out of reach in the classroom overnight. Not

surprisingly, he has a restless night:Photo by Greg Paris at Morguefile.com

He had got into bed after taking off all his clothes. He usually slept naked. But when he found

himself in the bedroom without clothes, he hesitated. He felt vulnerable and was tempted to get

dressed again. Fowlie (1988) p.293

Daru continues to lie on his bed thinking and watching the Arab. During the night the wind grows stronger.

The chickens stir outside and then quieten down. And Daru listens to the breath of the Arab close to him,

which has become heavier and more regular. The man’s presence bothers Daru, not just because he is

used to sleeping alone:

... It bothered him also because it imposed on him a kind of brotherhood which he refused under

the present circumstances and which he knew very well. Men who share the same room,

soldiers or prisoners, form a strange bond as if, when their armour is removed with their clothes,

they came together each evening, despite their differences, in the ancient community of dreams

and fatigue. Fowlie (1988) p.293

I will leave the story there so you can discover for yourself what happens next, should you wish to. Suffice to

say that not only is Daru thinking about his dilemma, but he also seems acutely aware of his vulnerability and

the risks he is taking.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 25 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

On the theme of vulnerability, the owner of a small business told me a story about a member of staff (‘Paul’)

who was disgruntled about decisions that had been taken about the organisation’s structure. Paul had been

with the company for some time, and it was reliant on him to lead an important project. The business owner

sensed that Paul was feeling unappreciated and that something had to be done. He took a courageous step:

I was finding it really difficult to cut through the past history and baggage. The thing that really

helped unlock it was that I decided just to completely let go of the control that I was feeling over

this project. I just made my mind up that I was going to put my trust in Paul … So we went out for

a coffee and I said ‘You’re going to get paid more than you’ve asked for, you’re going to get paid

regardless of performance, and I’m going to completely trust you to care about my interests in

this project. I’m not going to request that you are accountable to me in any particular way but just

trust that you engage with me in whichever way you need to get the job done.’ I just made myself

completely vulnerable, basically, and it completely disarmed him! It really unlocked the situation.

This story contrasts with that of another interviewee about relationships in the NHS ambulance service,

where managerial control has evidently reached a zenith:

There’s a massive thing around our frontline staff not being trusted to do a good job, or feeling

they’re not being trusted, even if they are. It feels like a fairly autonomous job because you go

from job to job and you see quite a variety of patients, and you’ve got your crew mates. It sounds

quite nice. But now they have to press a button when they’re available, they have to press

another button when they get to hospital, and press another button when they’ve done their

paperwork. If they don’t do it within so many minutes they get a phone call. So they’re all

monitored. If you go to a control room you can see where all our ambulances are, whether

they’re moving, how fast they’re going, who’s on board. It’s so Big Brother it’s beyond belief.

Ambulance staff felt so closely monitored and measured that some of them started to resign, leaving the

NHS with the cost of overtime and/or buying in private ambulance services.

In all these stories, we see how anyone with responsibility for human beings takes part in a balancing act

between controlling and letting go. As Henry Mintzberg (2016) neatly puts it: “We have to measure what we

can; we just cannot allow ourselves to be mesmerized by measurement―which we so often are.”

How do stories work?While I was writing this paper, somebody asked me “Does it matter that fiction is not reality?” I

said “No, it doesn’t” and tried to explain why. Fiction, I recall saying, can be especially evocative

and thought-provoking, and it also allows us to explore with each other experiences that might be

hard to approach more directly. In other words, part of the value of fiction is that it is ‘not real’.

But my friend’s question got me thinking more generally about how stories work.

As I see it, stories don’t tell us anything. Instead, they tend to stimulate associations, insights

and feelings in us. As we read, we often compare the events described with our own experience,

and this may shift our thinking.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 27 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Each person will make their own connections and meaning from a story. Indeed, the same

person can read a story more than once and make something different of it each time. But that is

not a weakness, provided we accept that there is no one ‘truth’ in human affairs. It simply means

that what strikes us about a story may alter as our own circumstances change.

And yet, despite their fluidity of meaning, stories can often surface themes that have general, if

not universal, relevance. No doubt that is why pre-literate societies made such extensive use of

myths, parables and fairy tales. In other words, good stories are not just arbitrary or subjective.

They resonate for us. After all, stories are an ancient part of human life and, as Jerome Bruner

observed, very young children can understand complex matters presented as stories when their

powers of comprehending general concepts are almost non-existent (Sacks 1985, citing Bruner).

And many adults find that books and films that have touched them stay with them all their lives.

What matters in organisational life is that stories can convey a sense of the true complexity of

human experience in a way that bullet points and analytical frameworks can never really do. As

we have seen here, even a short piece of dialogue can stimulate rich insights into how people

trust and distrust one another.

Comparing stories with a frameworkLet’s now briefly ponder whether stories are more or less useful than a more analytical approach, taking

Onora O’Neill’s TED talk on trust as an example of the latter. O’Neill invites us to ask ourselves: “Is the

person with whom I am developing a relationship honest, competent and reliable?” (O’Neill, 2013). She

suggests we ask these questions in the context of a specific situation. For example, can I trust this person to

post a letter for me? The person might be both competent and honest but we may not feel we can rely on

them to remember. Although the criteria act more as a heuristic than a full-blown theory, they serve well as a

comparison. So let’s try applying them to some of the stories we encountered earlier.

1. In The Guest, Daru the teacher evidently does not know enough about the Arab to be sure of his honesty,

competence or reliability. He has to act without that certainty. Camus doesn’t spell out why Daru behaves

as he does towards the prisoner, but we can surmise. Perhaps (like Camus himself) he empathised with the

plight of the ‘indigenous’ people. Perhaps he was in the habit of treating others as human beings whatever

their background. Or perhaps within the first few moments of meeting the Arab he simply felt some level of

trust or affinity with him. Possibly all of the above. Camus also provides a strong hint that Daru was acting

from a further motive: “This man’s stupid crime disgusted him, but to hand him over was contrary to honour.”

So Daru finds himself in a dilemma: how can he do the minimum in terms of complying with orders while not

violating his own honour? There is so much more going on than just honesty, competence and reliability.

It’s all about context, including values.

2. In the NHS story about the outsourcing of health and safety, we know that the two people involved had

previously got on well together, so probably they viewed each other as honest, competent and reliable. But

a new policy (insourcing) prompted Ray to lose his sense of trust in Tim’s honesty and reliability.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 28 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

3. In the story about the ambulance service, staff were minutely controlled by systems designed to monitor

the organisation’s performance against targets. This left them feeling untrusted (dishonest, incompetent,

unreliable, or all three?). O’Neill herself clearly recognises this scenario – she mentions a midwife who had

to spend as much time on paperwork as on delivering the baby – concluding that the very systems of

accountability that are supposed to make it easier for us to judge the trustworthiness of certain professionals

have the converse effect (O’Neill 2013).

To my mind, O’Neill’s criteria do have some value, in that they help distinguish between three bases of trust

– honesty, competence and reliability. But stories shed a different kind of light on the dilemmas and

complexities of human relating. They also tend to resonate with our own experience, which is what makes

them invaluable for stimulating conversations about trust in the organisational context. One of the editors of

this special issue and I explored this earlier this year (Donaldson & Warwick 2016b). Rob (Warwick 2016)

has also written separately about the value of fiction in management learning.

I wonder whether the stories we have looked at here have stimulated memories and associations for you?

What stands out for me is the strong part that outer circumstances play – whether the setting is 1950s

Algeria or 21st century England. In other words, trust isn’t just about the individuals immediately involved. It

can easily be undermined by environmental factors beyond their control. When the teacher in Camus’ story

meets the prisoner, there is so much more at stake than just a glass of mint tea.

ReferencesCamus, Albert (1957). L’ Hôte (transl. The Guest). Re-published in Fowlie, Wallace (Ed.) (1988).

Donaldson Alison & Warwick Rob (2016a). The emergence of trusting relationships. Research paper for Roffey Park Institute, 2016. Free PDF from Roffey Park.

Donaldson Alison & Warwick Rob (2016b). Trust and the emotional bank account. Available   as a Croner Strategic Briefing, April 2016.

Fowlie, Wallace (Ed.) (1988). French Stories/Contes Français: a dual language book. New York: Dover Publications.

Hughes, Peter (2016). Trusting against the odds in open source thinking. e-Organisations & People, Spring 2016, Vol. 23, No. 1.

Mintzberg, Henry (2016). Analyst: analyse thyself. http://www.mintzberg.org/blog/measure-it-manage-it Excerpt from Managing the Myths of Health Care (forthcoming).

O’Neill, Onora (2013). What we don’t understand about trust. TED Talk filmed at the Houses of Parliament. Accessed 11 October 2016.

Sacks, Oliver (1985). The man who mistook his wife for a hat. London: Picador.

Stacey, Ralph (2007). The challenge of human interdependence. European Business Review, Vol. 19, Issue 4, pp. 292-302. Download available on ResearchGate.

Warwick, Rob (2016). Doubt, uncertainty and vulnerability in leadership: using fiction to enable reflection and voice. Submitted to Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry. Pre-publication version received from the author.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 29 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

AcknowledgementsThanks to: Dan Lucy and Roffey Park for funding and supporting our earlier research on trust; the people

who kindly agreed to let us share their stories about trust (anonymously); Rob Warwick for being a great co-

author and friend; Bob MacKenzie for his unfailing support for writers and for giving us the chance to test

our narrative material at the 2016 AMED writers’ workshop in Brighton; and Chris Rodgers for giving us a

similar opportunity among organisation development practitioners in London in January 2016.

About the authorAlison Donaldson is an author and writing coach. She has a doctorate in organisational change from the

University of Hertfordshire, where she studied under Professor Ralph Stacey. She subsequently co-

authored Communities of Influence: improving healthcare through conversations and connections (2011),

based on a long-lasting collaboration with Macmillan Cancer Support. She is currently working on a new

book on human relating, in which she draws insights from selected works of fiction, and is mainly based in

Hove, UK.

Alison blogs at: www.writinginorganisations.uk .

Email: alison@writinginorganisations.uk

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 30 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Placing your trust in difficult conversations

Sarah Harvey

“Our lives succeed or fail gradually, then

suddenly, one conversation at a time… The

conversation is the relationship.”

[Susan Scott 2002]

Keywords: trust, credibility, difficult conversations, emotional bank account, relationships, conflict, savvy conversations

IntroductionSince October 2013, through research and practice, I have made it my business to understand what it takes

to turn difficult discussions into highly effective conversations. By effective, I mean that the conversation, or

series of conversations, gets positive results whilst at the same time maintaining positive relationships. My

observations working with business leaders, managers, individuals and teams has led me to investigate this

subject in more detail and experiment with different approaches. Having assessed the feedback from this

work with around 1000 individuals, I have identified six key considerations for having an effective

conversation. Of these, ‘trust’ appears to be the most crucial underpinning factor.

By building and maintaining positive relationships, we are able to talk constructively to virtually anyone about

anything, no matter how sensitive the topic. I have spent the best part of my career either having difficult

conversations, helping others have difficult conversations or dealing with the fall-out of poorly handled

conversations. These experiences have challenged and inspired me to specialise in this area of

organisational and personal development, which I now refer to as ‘Savvy Conversations’.

In this article, I argue that difficult conversations cannot take place effectively where there is no trust, and

trust cannot exist in the absence of personal credibility. I highlight some research around organisational

trust levels and then take the notion of trust back to basics, going on to explain how Stephen Covey’s (1989)

model of the Emotional Bank Account can provide a useful framework for anyone who is interested in

maintaining trusting relationships in the workplace.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 31 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

What constitutes a ‘Savvy Conversation’?In my view, there are six key considerations for every effective conversation. These are:

(The six elements of ‘Savvy Conversations’. © Sarah Harvey)

Each of the six elements is important in its own right, but the central theme does seem to be ‘trust’.

How we manage our ‘emotions’ in the here-and-now impacts directly on our behaviour, and observing our

behaviour is one of the ways in which people will decide whether they can trust us or not. You cannot have

‘safety’ without there being a level of trust. When we seek to speak the ‘truth’ and aim to have the right

conversation, in the right way, at the right time, we help to further build that trust. And without , we don’t

really have a ‘relationship’ because, as Susan Scott identifies, the conversation (in other words the

‘exchange’) is the relationship.

If trust is a central theme which enables effective conversations to take place, so too is the presence of

credibility. Without trust, we simply don’t have credibility.

Credibility [definition]

Believability, believableness, integrity, plausibility, reliability, tenability,

trustworthiness.

(Collins English Dictionary)

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 32 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Credibility and trust are interlinked.So credibility and trust are key. You can’t have one without the other. With credibility you inspire belief in

others. It generates a feeling of trust and respect. It means you are capable of being believed. If you have

credibility you are likely to be perceived as trustworthy and reliable and consistently demonstrating integrity.

You will also be thought of as dependable, honest and sincere. These are all key attributes for being able to

get results whilst at the same time maintaining positive relationships.

Trust and trustingTo trust someone, we must believe that they are well intentioned towards us and that they have our best

interests at heart. To place confidence in them, we must have faith that they don’t intentionally wish to

cause us harm. This is true whether they are selling us a product or delivering a service, whether they work

for us in a team we manage or whether they are our manager.

It is possible to be reasonably comfortable with others even when we disagree with them, provided we trust

that the other persons’ underlying motives and intentions towards us are honest and without hidden agenda.

As soon as we start to question someone’s intentions towards us, trust starts to erode and we instinctively

become more guarded. In such situations, our primary objective becomes to keep ourselves safe.

This usually means we either withdraw from the conversation (which closes communications down

completely), or alternatively we may become defensive or go for the verbal attack (the classic fight or flight

reaction when we feel under threat).

The range of so-called ‘difficult conversations’ where such trust is important is vast. In the workplace,

difficult conversations may typically involve addressing a worker’s ability to do their job, carrying out an

appraisal or giving a lower than expected performance rating. It could require discussing reasons for

sickness absence, addressing a personal hygiene issue, or exploring why one team member doesn’t appear

to get on with others. By their very nature these conversations are often regarded as ‘, and without trust

they become even more difficult.

As trust evolves, conversations and relationships flourish.In recent years it has been widely reported that trust in general is at an all-time low. Rock bottom levels of

trust in the banking sector have been well documented, but in addition trust in politicians, trust in large

organisations, and trust in leadership in general has suffered (and it appears to have been in decline for

several years, certainly pre-dating the current financial crisis). In the 2013 British Attitudes Survey, 47% of

respondents said they didn’t even trust other members of the public. (Warren 2016).

In their 2013 publication ‘Are Organisations Losing the Trust of their Workers?’,, the professional body for

HR and people development, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), reports that

public trust in big business has been falling for some time and this has implications for the trust which

employees place in their leaders. (CIPD 2013)

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 33 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Furthermore this report states:

Leadership, culture and behaviour make a big difference to trust. When trust is lacking, this affects

productivity and organisation performance.

Employees spend more time watching out for management and covering their own backs. Managers

spend more time checking up on employees. Employees who do not trust their employer are more

likely to want to leave.

Employees in low-trust environments are discouraged from sharing knowledge and taking risks –

wasting innovation potential.

Employees may also be reluctant to challenge the behaviour of leaders or colleagues, thus creating

risks for both an organisation’s performance and its reputation.

Back to basics on developing and maintaining trust

Can I trust you, and do you trust me?

This is a key unspoken question in every single relationship we have.

But the challenge with understanding what ‘trust’ is and precisely how it is developed, is that different

approaches will be needed with different people in different situations. Trust is an emotional response,

making it uniquely personal. Yet at the same time there are certain common trust ‘indicators’ which give us

a broad set of social norms to signpost us to who we should trust and who we should not. This makes trust

hard to quantify as an absolute, and harder still to know what we can do to build and maintain trust within

every relationship and context we find ourselves in.

Task-by-task approaches to trustIn the workplace, we may often be able to take a pragmatic approach. So rather than an all-or-nothing

approach to trust (where we either trust someone or we don’t), we can learn to instead think of trust on a

task-by-task basis. For example, I can’t trust you to deliver that report on time, but I know I can trust you to

give good customer service. This task-by-task approach can be given in degrees and will vary according to

the specific situation. You don’t have to trust someone 100%, but as they prove themselves capable in one

task, your trust in their abilities grows, and over time you trust in them to carry out a wider range of more

complex tasks. This is a relatively straightforward application of trust and one that can be useful for

managers to adopt when delegating to, and managing staff.

Relational approaches to trustBy contrast however, the type of trust issues that generally come into play when needing to have difficult

conversations are far more complex and don’t tend to be related to specific task completion. Trust in this

context tends to be driven from our beliefs and values, and is more about our motives. More specifically it is

about calling into question the motives and intent of the person we are talking with. This aspect of trust (or

lack of trust) is intrinsically linked to concerns over safety. It can put our relationships into conflict, which in

turn can reduce trust further still.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 34 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

During the course of my work I have found that the most useful and practical metaphor to describe the

amount of trust in a relationship is the Emotional Bank Account. (Covey 1989).

In The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (p188), Covey introduces the concept of the Emotional Bank

Account:

Image by Sarah Harvey

“We all know what a financial bank

account is. We make deposits into it and

build up a reserve from which we can

make withdrawals when we need to.”

“An Emotional Bank Account is a

metaphor that describes the amount of

trust that’s built up in a relationship. It’s

the feeling of safeness you have with

another human being.”

So if the relationship is a good one where we like, respect and trust one another and we share some

common goals, there will ‘credits’ in our account. Through being courteous, kind and honest with each

other we build up a level of trust that we can then call upon when we need to, such as when a potentially

difficult conversation is required.

Even if one of us makes a mistake from time to time, perhaps through saying something that may be a little

blunt or upsetting, the positive reserve we have built up in our Emotional Bank Account will compensate for

it, and trust levels will remain reasonably high (or at least in credit).

By regularly investing in our Emotional Bank Account and keeping it in credit, our relationship should feel

relatively easy, pleasant and well balanced. However, if it becomes ‘overdrawn’, one way or the other, we

are likely to experience difficulties. We may feel that we have to watch what we say for fear of being

misunderstood. Tension can become high as we call into question each others’ motives and intentions.

Before too long tension turns into full blown conflict and we no longer feel we can talk to one another without

arguing, getting upset or angry. Trust has all but gone and will take some continued and sustained effort to

rebuild.

Trust in conflict

“Trusting environments can lead to more innovation, problem solving and sharing of knowledge.”

(Hope Hailey, cited in Claire Warren 2016)

Of course, there is a school of thought that conflict can be positive, and that there are benefits to conflict that

people and organisations ought to harness. Rather than trying to quash or manage conflict, there is a belief

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 36 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

that we should be embracing it or even encouraging it. I have observed that whilst a certain amount of

conflict can promote personal growth, creativity and innovation, this needs to be within the right

organisational culture to make it work. In my experience, so-called ‘positive conflict’ is only possible where

trust is already strong and where people feel safe to voice opposing views, to disagree and to challenge the

status quo without risking damage to their underlying relationships.

How can we create and maintain trust in such varied settings?So how do we know how to create and maintain trust when what is needed to create and maintain trusting

relationships varies from person to person?

Drawing upon the Emotional Bank Account, we can create trust by making investments or credits such as:

Helping the other person

Paying them a genuine compliment

Showing interest in them and what they are saying

Saying thank you

Being honest and kind

Keeping our commitments

And we may find ourselves making withdrawals of trust, as from the Emotional Bank Account, by:

Saying ‘no’ to the other person when they ask for our help

Asking the other person to change their behaviour

Making time to speak to them only when there is bad news or criticism

Being rude or treating the other person badly

Letting them down/breaking promises

Handling a difficult conversation badly!

On the face of it this may seem quite straightforward, but the reality is that people in organisations risk

damaging relationships all the time by failing to invest in their trust account in the right ways, or by making

regular withdrawals, often without realising they are doing so.

Three particular groups who might benefit from trust-based conversations There are three categories of people that managers often need to have difficult conversations with:

1. Those with whom we share a positive historyThese people will have already earned our trust, and we theirs. We may have known them for

months or even years. We will have developed a mutual respect for one another over time through

what we have done together, through information we have shared and through how we have

behaved towards one another. The state of our Emotional/Trust Bank Account is good; it is in credit

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 37 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

and in balance, because we have both invested in our relationship equally. We bring all of this

‘history’ to any future conversations we have and our mutual trust and respect will help us have

honest and effective conversations, provided that we don’t do anything now to damage that trust.

2. Those with whom we need to co-author our storyWe also need to have conversations with people we don’t yet know very well or even at all. We may

have only just met, or this may be the first time we have really had a detailed conversation. We have

no shared history to draw on. We only have the here-and-now and the quality of the conversation

we are having with them right now to start to create and earn their trust. We need to give them,

through what we say and how we say it, sufficient evidence to suggest that they should trust us. And

they need to do the same for us too.

3. Those with whom we share an ‘uneasy’ historyThese are the individuals with whom we have a less than positive shared history! In the past, trust

has been damaged because of what one or other (or both) of us has said or done. Perceptions and

perspectives are everything in this situation. We may not even know what happened for the trust to

be destroyed, but we do know it is not there! Having a difficult conversation effectively in these

circumstances will take far more care and more time, as we seek to recreate trust in order to

establish a feeling of safety between us.

Trust evolves but it does not simply grow with the passage of time.When it comes to understanding how day-to-day trusting relationships are developed, Covey’s Emotional

Bank Account encourages us to focus on the fundamentals that make the difference.

As a people manager myself, I have learnt that it is vital to keep consciously and deliberately investing in

every important relationship. It can be helpful to reflect from time to time on who we need to get on well with.

Which colleagues, bosses, team members, customers? Whilst busy managers often have good intentions,

many have told me that they don’t have time for ‘small-talk’. But a ‘credit’ in the trust bank is far from small-

talk, it is an investment in the relationship. If we have invested plenty of credit, we are less likely to become

overdrawn as a result of a difficult conversation. If we have neglected to invest in the relationship, our

account can easily slip into the red when times get tough and conversations get difficult.

Trust only evolves between two or more individuals when they each believe the other understands their

interests and we must believe someone is not intending to put their own interests ahead of ours. Above all,

we need to feel we can trust people to do the right thing by us.

“Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the

foundational principle that holds all relationships.”

[Stephen Covey]

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 38 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Whether it is someone we have just met or someone with whom we have an established relationship, if we

want to get good results and maintain positive relationships, we can really help ourselves by taking the time

to invest the right trust ‘credits’ at the right time.

The Savvy Conversations ‘Trust’ Equation

To get results and maintain relationships:

Content + Approach = Credibility

Where Content = What you do + Approach = How you do it

And, If Credibility and Trust are interlinked, then

Trust in difficult conversations = What you say and how you say it

ReferencesScott, Susan (2002). Fierce Conversations, Piatkus.

Covey, Stephen (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Simon & Schuster UK Ltd.

Warren, Claire (2016) “Truth and Consequences”, CIPD Work Magazine (Autumn 2016). Issue 10, pp: 37-49.

CIPD Megatrends. The trends shaping work and working lives. Are Organisations Losing the Trust of their workers? Issued: November 2013 Reference: 6413

About the authorSarah Harvey is an Organisational Development (OD) consultant, training facilitator and executive coach.

With over 25 years experience of managing and leading people personally, as well as working alongside

managers and leaders at all levels, Sarah has experienced the highs and lows of managing people and

performance from the perspectives of first line managers through to CEO’s and Board members.

Sarah now specialises in working with individuals and teams to get results and maintain relationships at

work, whether the aim is to avoid conflict, plan for important conversations, give more effective feedback,

carry out better quality 1-1’s, transform appraisal discussions, resolve differences of opinion or simply get the

best from individuals and teams.

Company Website – http://savvyconversations.co.uk ;

Twitter - @SavvySarahSPM

Linked In - https://uk.linkedin.com/in/savvysarah ;

Email sarah@spm-ltd.com

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 39 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Safeguarding my own trustworthiness

Louie GardinerThis article is a personal illumination, and a mutual exploration involving

me and you as reader, of trust-making and trustworthiness. In what

follows I offer a different way of seeing and understanding these notions.

I first use myself and the process of writing this piece as source material.

What I reveal about my inner processing was real and present in the

moments of writing. What I suggest might be going on for you as you

read this piece is clearly imaginary…. until or unless you confirm that you

did indeed experience some or all of what I suggest you might! I offer a

short introduction to the principles of complexity thinking and Complex

Adaptive Systems (CAS).

I then show how I apply these principles to illuminate the components and dynamics of how we make

meaning – illustrating how ‘meaning-making’ can be seen and understood in the context of CAS. I show

that judgements about trust and trustworthiness are made in relationship to others within contexts and that,

even though we cannot control the meanings others make, we can personally take action to safeguard our

own trustworthiness

Keywords: trust, trustworthiness, complexity, patterns, Complex Adaptive Systems, fast/slow thinking, Potent 6 Constellation

What is trust?Trust is a much used term. How do I know if others are to be trusted? Can I trust that person to do their

job? Do I trust that dog with my children? Do I trust my friend with my story? Can I trust the surgeon with

my life? Can I trust my colleague not to steal my idea? Do I even trust myself? Such questions assume the

answers are binary – yes or no. Am I trustworthy… or not? The answer being sought is an absolute. The

implication is that whatever the response, it is true about you and me - always.

These questions reveal that the concept of trust can be understood as a judgement – an interpretation, a

conclusion, an assumption. Does this mean that the notion of trust/ trustworthiness is only in the minds of

another or is something else at play? Look see! She is trustworthy – but I would not trust the bankers! And

on what basis do we determine someone’s trustworthiness? What exactly is it and how is it made? What

does it mean when we say that trust has been destroyed? And can it be fixed? These questions expose

additional assumptions – the idea that trust might be something tangible that can be created/ destroyed,

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 40 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

given/ taken away. Of course we KNOW that trust is not an object or badge we can pick up and wear. But if

it is not a thing, what then is it and how does it come to be? What do we do, or can we do, that might

influence what and how others see, experience, judge and react to us?

Mistrust in the makingLet me return to an earlier question to unpack this a little more. Am I trustworthy? I explore this question

using the components aka ‘portals’ of a framework called the Potent 6 Constellation (P6C) – see Figure 1.

The portals are mentioned in [square brackets] below. The labels used for the portals will be familiar to you

but their persistent presence and the interplay between them is unlikely to be. {NB. If your preference is for

explanation over unfolding discovery, you may want to head to Paradigms, patterns and portals before

continuing reading}.

When I turn the question on myself, I connect with the discomfort I feel [feelings] when I think that others

might conclude that I am either trustworthy or not. Yet the moment I expose the implicit absolute assumption

[fictions] that “I can/ cannot be trusted always, in every situation, with every person”, I reveal the weakness in

the assertion. Interestingly, as I write those words, I become aware of a tumble of personal stories coming to

mind. The numerous times I have demonstrated my trustworthiness seem hard to recall. Not so the few

occasions in which I or others have judged me to have acted in an untrustworthy manner.

For each of the negative examples I feel an insistent urge to defend/ protect myself [purpose] for what I did/

did not do: “I can explain! There was a context! None of it was straightforward! Please don’t jump to

negative conclusions about me!” I wonder if I should explain myself to you [decision]? I pause. I recognise

that if I were to do that, I would be trying to prove myself [purpose] to be trustworthy thereby hoping to

protect [purpose] myself from imagined unwanted consequences [outcomes] e.g. you making negative

judgements about me; my being laughed at or rejected. As I sit with the possibility of these future imaginings

[outcomes], I reconnect with the shame and guilt [feelings] about my past actions and remember the cascade

of internal accusations/ assumptions [fictions] I once screamed at myself such as: “you really ****** this up!

You could and should have behaved differently! You useless ****!’” Then, as I imagine sharing what I

actually did/did not do [facts], I notice yet more fictions showing up in my mind - this time, about you: “You

won’t understand. You will spread gossip about me. You will ruin my professional reputation irrevocably.”

The moment these thoughts arrive, I recognise that I am in danger of seeing you as untrustworthy.

My spin, spins youYou know none of the content nor context of my stories…. And yet, despite this, I know you will not be able

to stop yourself making meaning [fictions] even though I have given you no details [facts]. You may imagine

[fictions] what my stories might have been and may remember experiences of your own [facts, fictions,

feelings]. And even though I have not shared any details [facts], you may find yourself thinking that I must

have done something dastardly [more fictions] and that I therefore must be untrustworthy [outcomes]. By

reflecting on what might go on in you, I can see that my decision to withhold the facts of my stories might

reap the very outcomes I want to avert. This is a trap in which we unconsciously and repeatedly get caught.

In the above example, I show how I fall into it and how you may fall in with me.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 41 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Let’s continue the not-so-fantastical fantasy. As you continue reading, you may notice feelings evoked by

recalling your own experiences. Perhaps you feel irritated and annoyed that I have reconnected you to

things that you, quite frankly, want to forget?! If so, yet more unwanted fictions and uncomfortable feelings

will likely accumulate and spin within you until finally – perhaps – they may spill over causing you to react.

You may stop reading. You may blurt something out loud. You may even continue reading. In all cases,

you will most likely have acted without engaging in a rational decision-making process. Something deeper

and beyond consciousness will have been running. Your behaviour will point to purpose(s) playing in/

through you. Perhaps you feel excited and full of curiosity as I introduce new ways of seeing and

understanding? If so, you will keep reading because you want to know more. Perhaps you are comforted

because I am sharing a perspective similar to your own? You will continue reading to affirm your own views.

Alternatively, you may disagree with me and may feel angry, frustrated or even a little scared? Or perhaps

you are bored with my mental processing – thinking it is all pure abstraction? In both these final scenarios

you may stop reading… OR you may continue so as to equip yourself to disprove or discredit my

propositions.

Your actions/ inactions will be a culmination of your sense-making process involving an unconscious internal

interplay. Let me draw this together.

Above, I revealed part of the internal processing that actually played out within me as I started writing this

article. Drawing on my past experiences with clients and myself, I then imagined [fictionalised] what might

go on for you as the reader. Without ever meeting each other, a pattern of mistrust potentially will have

arrived in the space between me and you: you mistrusting me because of what I did/did not reveal; and I

mistrusting you as I judged you judging me as untrustworthy! For many of us, the patterns, processes and

content of our sense-making is largely inaccessible. If this remains the case, what hope do we have of being

able to mitigate the consequences of our misunderstandings?

We find ourselves in these spins because, no matter how desperately we want our inner processing to be

tidy, logical and sequential, actually it is contextual, nonlinear and unbiddable. Moreover, our usual ways of

trying to grasp and manage what is going on within and between us, do not reflect the complex reality at

play. Although the example I have used is in part, imagined, I hope I have shown through the P6C portals in

Figure 1 below that the personal and relational sense-making dance is real enough. More of this later.

Fast and slow thinkingI consider myself to be a strong reflective and reflexive practitioner, yet I remain a fallible, often reactive

human being. I am affected by the unconscious categorising human processing which happens within me

from which my repeating personal patterns emerge. Daniel Kahneman (2011) suggests this “fast thinking” is

a necessary and central feature of the human condition. It is helpful when it alerts us to actual threat and has

us running for the nearest emergency exit. However, it is problematic if we are blindly controlled by

unfounded assumptions. If left unchallenged these may drive us to decisions and actions that could bring

forth the very dangers we wish to avoid. Our thinking can get stuck in out-dated ruts unless new information

is accessed.

For example, the assertions proffered by Trump in his 2016 US presidential campaign allude to a man being

played by that which is invisible within and to him. No amount of parading alternative evidence before him is

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 42 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

making him alter his perspective or behaviours. Kahneman suggests that it takes conscious effort to engage

in ‘slow’ thinking – and it is this that enables us to break out of default patterns of thinking, being and doing.

Sometimes events may shock us into unfamiliar territory, enabling us to see what we previously could not

see. However, it still takes time and effort to process new data and unless we engage and tussle with it, it

will not invoke internal change or learning. As cognitive neuroscientist, Walter Freeman (2007:no page

number) says: “the self can only know and incorporate what the brain makes within itself.” This is true too

when acquiring a new skill or benefiting from the process of digestion: you showing me an apple and telling

me how good it is for me, will not nourish me.

Image 1: Seeing is not eating (Creative Commons photo by Danielle Helm)

I must bite the apple, chew it, swallow it; break it down even further in my gut so that my digestive juices can

make use of it. Only then can it help me grow.

So, it seems we cannot change others simply by talking at them or showing them pictures and presentations

with compelling pre-digested information. Newness can be confusing and worrisome. If the new or different

does not match our expectations, we will try to squeeze it into our ready-made, fast-thinking categories. If

we cannot make the data fit, we may end up resisting, discrediting or discarding it - thereby keeping our

existing frames of reference neatly intact.

Returning to Kahneman’s proposition, we can assume that

without engaging in slow thinking Trump will hold on to the

views generated by his fast thinking – and he will be driven

to follow through on the actions he advocates. And here is

the rub when it comes to being seen as trustworthy or not.

If you agree with Trump, and he consistently lives up to

what you want and expect of him, you will deem him

trustworthy. Yet if you disagree with him, your judgements

will be different. Is this really what we mean when we talk

about trust/ trustworthiness: that we trust someone when

they say and do as we want AND expect them to; and

when they do not deliver, we doubt them?

Image 2: Trump fixed on winning (CC Creative Commons public domain)

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 44 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Paradigms, patterns and portalsHow else might we understand what is going on? This article is about trust and trustworthiness, and at a

deeper, more general level, it is about internal and relational processes that affect our interactions and

actions. Essentially, I am suggesting that our internal meaning-making can be understood as a self-

organising, complex adaptive system (CAS) (Prigogine, 1980; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Nicolis, 1989;

Prigogine, 1997; Holland, 2006). See further explanation by clicking on this hyperlink (p22). A CAS can be

defined as a collection of diverse individual ‘agents’ that have the freedom to act unpredictably and whose

actions are interconnected in ways that create system-wide patterns, which in turn influence the behaviour of

the agents. When I apply this CAS definition to single individuals, I am proposing that the portals of the P6C

constitute the basic components of our inner processing. In my earlier exposition (Mistrust in the making), I

demonstrated how it is possible to identify activated content/agents present and interacting in each portal.

Why and how is this helpful?

Towards a Paradigm shiftA conventional worldview – as that embodied by Trump - would have us believe that life is simple: things are

black or white/ right or wrong; we can manage, control and change ourselves, others and the world on

command; walls will keep people out; buses, trains and planes could and should arrive according to their

timetables; people could, should and will do as they say; our truth is the only truth (and everyone else is

wrong); we can plan the future, set five-year goals and make everything happen as designed and expected.

Despite being faced with oceans of evidence suggesting the contrary, many people hold steadfast to such

beliefs. So much so, that - even when unexpected events confront us with our volatile, uncertain, complex

and ambiguous (VUCA) reality - we variously resist, deny, rebel, walk away, give up, start pushing harder or

pulling tighter on the reins of control. Believing we can predict, manage and control complexity and make

change happen on demand does not mean that we can.

We think we know much more about how we as human beings process our experiences. Yet still we

struggle to translate new knowledge and theories about complexity into accessible day-to-day practices that

help us embrace, engage with and navigate our lives and relationships with greater ease, joy and wisdom.

This quest preoccupied me until, after years of ongoing research and emergent inquiry, the P6C finally

revealed itself to me.

The P6C represents a paradigm shift towards nonlinear practice. It offers a practical way to illuminate the

variables and self-organising dynamics that invoke our personal and relational patterns. The process of

illumination invokes self-organising, transformational shifts. Expanding further on the nonlinear deployment

and dynamics of the P6C is beyond the scope of this article. However, I think it is helpful to say a bit more

about patterns to give a sense of the essence of the P6C in action and how this illuminates the topic in hand.

Influencing patternsWe need only look back on our lives, to recognise our own repeating patterns and their consequences. If

changing our personal patterns were as easy as ‘just think differently’ or ‘just do something else’, we surely

would all be living more joyful, untroubled lives! In CAS, we cannot change a pattern on command. Why?

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 45 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Because patterns are emergent properties. In other words, they arise out of the conditions/ variables that

are in, interacting with and affecting the system(s). To influence a pattern consciously, we need to notice the

variables.

The other difficulty, is that even if we modify a variable, this will not guarantee that the pattern will change in

the direction we want or anticipate. Why? Because the interplay between the variables is nonlinear – this

means that simple cause-and-effect relations do not apply. Nonlinear causality essentially means that

infinite variables are affecting infinite other variables making it impossible to predict, manage or control what

happens when one of the variables or one of the interactions changes. Hang in there with me. What am I

actually saying is happening within you and within me?

I am suggesting that our personal and relational (fast-thinking) patterns emerge in situations/ contexts from

the interactions between specific ‘content/agents’ within ever-present sense-making components - as per the

six portals in the P6C. The P6C equips us to reveal these fast-thinking patterns. In the process, it shifts us

into slow-thinking which affords the possibility of a transformative turn in our seeing, sense-making and

action-taking. It does this, not by rational cognition nor on demand, but by making the act of illumination

simple. I think of the P6C as ‘mindfulness map’ helping us to notice what is present and noticed; and what

might be activated but out of view.

Figure 1: P6C as Complex Adaptive System - reveals what activates our being, doing, feeling and thinking patterns

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 46 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Each of the P6C portals can be viewed as a ‘type of agent’ interacting with the other types of agents,

generating patterns. Moreover, each agent is simultaneously a pattern generated by the interplay of the

other interacting agents. This notion ties in with the principles of CAS and Semantic Fields Theory - SFT

(Hardy, 1998; 2000) .

So, in every situation – such as my decision to write this article – content/agents in each of the portals gets

activated. As if they are individual agents, they interact, generating patterns. These can be feeling patterns,

thinking patterns or behavioural patterns. Some patterns may remain ‘hidden’ within us whilst others will tip

out (Gladwell, 2001) and manifest through our interactions with others. Hence, you and I could end up

mistrusting each other, even though we have never met and the only material data exchanged between us is

my writing this article and you reading it . Mistrust or trust, in this context, constitute patterns of thought

which may be agents/components in other thinking, feeling or behavioural patterns. {Now would be a good

time to return to Mistrust in the making if you skipped it earlier}.

Transformative tips Let me now bring these threads together using an example that occurred nine years ago when the title of this

article first materialised: Safeguarding my own trustworthiness . The context and manner of its arrival

anchored an important insight that much later, contributed to the formation of the P6C and my coming to

understand how to deploy it.

The phrase emerged during a leadership programme involving an incredibly diverse group that included

community members and employees from mixed-sector partnership bodies in an impoverished

neighbourhood. We began our learning experience by trying to establish what we meant by confidentiality.

At its most obvious, it meant not sharing another person’s story - not ever, not anywhere - without their

express permission to do so (with the usual legal safeguarding caveats i.e. unless we were concerned about

someone harming themselves or others). The unspoken yet unanimous decision-pattern being enacted

amongst us was this: “I am not sharing anything meaningful about myself unless I can be sure I can trust

everyone.” We saw that while ever we held that position, we would never open up to each other. Everyone

was waiting for everyone else to prove they could be trusted FIRST. This was brought shockingly into view

by one of our group. He said that if he told us what was really going on his life – and if one of us passed that

on - then his life would be in danger. The pattern of mistrust was already present amongst us and it was

based on not knowing very much about anyone else in the room!

We explored further. We tried to unpick what we understood about trust. This line of inquiry brought no new

insights. Then I asked a different question: “What is that leads us to talk about others or share stories that

are not our own?” Boom! Out came a cascade of revelations. For example, we might share another

person’s story to:

fit in/ belong with others (if I tell you about that person you might include me in your group/ gang).

gain favour with someone else (if I tell you this thing about that person you might give me special

treatment).

feel special/ enhance my reputation (if I tell you their awful story…. you will see that people are

willing to trust me… so I must be important, worthy etc.).

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 47 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

divert negative judgement away from me (if I tell you theirs… I can distract your attention from my

own … which would show me in a worse light).

feel better about myself (if I tell you…. you might like me more… and if you like me then I must be

OK).

We recognised that beneath

these more easily identifiable

intentions was the driving

purpose to protect ourselves.

Exposing our deeper hidden

assumptions about ourselves and

others, revealed how flawed our

unconscious thinking patterns

were. Through sharing the facts

of another person’s story infused by our interpretations / fictions - and doing so without their permission - we

actually seeded unwanted and unintended outcomes for the other person AND ourselves. The purpose

paradox became clear: when unconsciously and unquestioningly acting on fear-fuelled, self-protective urges,

we rendered ourselves and others less

safe - potentially damaging others,

ourselves, our relationships and our

reputations. Finally, we understood how

it was up to each of us to safeguard our

own trustworthiness - that it started with

ourselves and not with anyone else.

Our shared insight landed in the space between us. All but one signed our simple written agreement “I agree

to take personal responsibility for safeguarding my own trustworthiness.” The person who feared for his life

chose to leave. Our process of coming to that profound insight and shared agreement forged a deep

commitment to each other’s growth, and held us together throughout an amazingly stretching, challenging

and transformative year-long programme.

Images 3, 4 and 5: Inspiring Leaders Graduation ~ A Community Celebration, 2008 (©Louie Gardiner

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 49 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Implications for me, personally and professionallyIn the years since that experience, many things have become clearer to me. I came to realise that

safeguarding my own trustworthiness called for so much more than ‘keeping confidences’ - especially as a

professional working with and supporting others in their own lives, relationships and work. When it comes to

trustworthiness, I see consistency as necessary but insufficient if it is playing in a context that denies the

humanity of and care for others. Implicit in my conception of trustworthiness is the notion of ‘caritas’ – care

and compassion.

Image 1: Sharing P6C at ‘Seeds of Inspiration’ 2016, Switzerland (copyright free)

I realise that I cannot control another’s meaning-making; but I can influence it by what I do and how I

engage. I can hold myself to account to that which I hold dear; illuminate what activates and is activated in

me and work towards resolution and coherence. Thus, , even if I find myself alone, I can stand alongside

myself with authenticity, courage, caritas, dignity and humility. The P6C helps me do this.

Safeguarding my own trustworthiness is a profoundly bold intention and aspiration which sits at the heart of

my personal and professional practice. I use it to guide me – and in true human fashion, I still miss things

and mess things up. I seek out the support of others to make amends for what has gone awry.

Crucially, I also invite others to take this commitment on as their own; and I pass on the P6C as a way of

equipping all of us to live into it. In recent years our small Community of Practice of coaches has been

growing and our influence is beginning to touch lives in new places locally and globally – as in the trust-

building fellowship, Initiatives of Change in which I situated my doctoral research.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 50 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

As I come to the close of this article I find myself with another answer to the question about why I am

undertaking my Doctorate and why I am subjecting myself and my praxis – including the P6C – to academic

scrutiny. Why bother, when I know it works in practice? Quite simply, I realise I am safeguarding my own

trustworthiness and am seeking to safeguard the trustworthiness of others who choose to take this work on

for themselves and in their work with others.

References/further readingBergen, B. K. (2012) Louder than Words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. . New York,

NY: Basic.

Clark, A. (2015) Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind.Oxford University Press.

Covington, C. & Wharton, B. (2013) Sabina Spielrein: Forgotten Pioneer of Psychoanalysis.Routledge.

Freeman, W. J. (2007) A biological theory of brain function and its relevance to psychoanalysis: a brief review of the historical emergence of brain theory, in Piers, C., Muller, J. P. & Brent, J. (eds), Self-organising complexity in psychological systems. London: Jason Aronson.

Gardiner, L. (2014a) Changing the Game of Change-making. Coaching Today, 12.

Gardiner, L. (2014b) The Scottish Referendum: Complexity Perspectives. e-O&P: Journal of the Association of Management Education and Development, 21 no 2.

Gardiner, L. (2014c) The Sweet Bitter of No. e-O&P: Journal of the Association of Management Education and Development, 21 no 3.

Gardiner, L. J. N. (2000) What are the roots of managerial behaviour and how could an understanding of these enable more effective management of change? MBA Sheffield Business School.

Gardiner, L. J. N. (2013) Adaptive capacity: looking at human systems dynamics. Coaching Today(6), 19-24.e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 51 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Gladwell, M. (2001) The tipping point : how little things can make a big difference. London: Abacus.

Hardy, C. H. (1998) Networks of meaning [eBook]. London: Greenwood Publishing.

Hardy, C. H. (2000) Psi as a Multilevel Process: Semantic Fields Theory. The Journal of Parapsychology, 64(1), 73.

Holland, J. (2006) Studying Complex Adaptive Systems. Journal of Systems Science & Complexity, 19, 1-8.

Johnson, B. (1992) Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable problems.Human Resource Development.

Johnson, M. (2013) The Body in the Mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason.University of Chicago Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Translated from English by. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999) The embodied mind, Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thoughtBasic books.

Launer, J. (2011) The Genius of Sabina Spielrein. Postgrad Medical Journal, 87, 791-792

Launer, J. (2014) Sex and Sexuality: An Evolutionary View. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 34(8), 831-846.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964) Eye and mind. Images: A Reader, 131-134.

Merleau-Ponty, M., Davis, O. & Baldwin, T. (2004) The world of perception.Cambridge Univ Press.

Merleau-Ponty, M. & Lefort, C. (1968) The visible and the invisible: followed by working notes.Northwestern University Press.

Merleau-Ponty, M. & Smith, C. (1996) Phenomenology of perception.Motilal Banarsidass Publishe.

Nicolis, G. P., Ilya (1989) Exploring complexity : an introduction. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Piers, C., Muller, J. P. & Brent, J. (2007) Self-organizing complexity in psychological systems. Translated from English by. Lanham: Jason Aronson.

Prigogine, I. (1980) From being to becoming : time and complexity in the physical sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Prigogine, I. (1997) The End of Certainty: Time's Flow and the Laws of Nature. New York: Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group.

Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1984) Order out of chaos : Man's new dialogue with Nature. Toronto: Bantam Books.

Spielrein, S. (1994 [circa 1912]) Destruction as the Cause of Coming Into Being. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 39(2), 155-186.

Spielrein, S., Bennett, P. & Wharton, B. (2001 (1923)) A dream and a vision of shooting stars. The Journal of Analytical Psychology, 46(1), 211-214.

Spielrein, S. & Wharton, C. J. (2001 (1913)) Sabina Spielrein: Psychoanalytic studies. The Journal of Analytical Psychology, 46(1), 201-208.

Thompson, E. (2007) Mind in life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

About the authorLouie Gardiner is a doctoral researcher and founder of Potent 6. She is a master-accredited coach,

facilitator and consultant with a passion for enabling personal and systemic transformation. She is a pioneer

– frequently finding herself playing alone on the edges, eagerly waiting for others to come along and join in

the next adventure. Next on the horizon, Louie is working with artists on a project to place art at the centre of

personal, social and civic transformation.

Email: louie.gardiner@potent6.co.uk

Website: www.potent6.co. Twitter: @Potent6

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 53 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

The rise of horizontal trustImplications for Organisation Development practitioners

Paul LevyThe purpose of this article is to explore the concept and practice of

horizontal trust (as distinct from vertical trust) and its implications for

organisations and the people who work in them. The concept of

horizontal trust isn't new, but the recent growth in horizontal trust, both

inside and outside of organisational life is novel interesting and possibly

even represents the beginnings of a paradigm shift in the way people

organise their lives and work. The article traces the longevity of traditional

forms of vertical trust, attempts to define horizontal trust, offers examples

of it in organisations and in the external environment, also noting the

overlap between these two forms. The article concludes that horizontal

trust, arising from dissatisfaction with vertical trust and the model of

hierarchy that underpins it, will manifest more widely and in different

ways in the future.

KeywordsOrganisation, blockchain, bitcoin, credit union, crowdsourcing, horizontal trust, vertical trust

Introduction: in the beginning … was vertical trustA revolution has been taking place in the realm of trust in business, organisational and social life. It has

accelerated with the emergence of the Millennial generation and the breakdown in trust that arose out of the

2008 "banking crisis". (The Millennial generation - not so easy to define* - often refers to those who were

born after the mid-1980s and reached adulthood around 2000).

Trust, in organisational terms, has been "vertical" for a very long time. Traditional theocratic and religious

views of the world have been based on trust being a vertical flow, from Deity to humanity, mediated by

hierarchies, both spiritual and physical/human. Traditional religious systems were (and are) hierarchical.

Those closest to the deity wield more power and authority because they are "closer to the ultimate source",

and worthy of greater degrees of trust from those lower down the hierarchy.

This has translated through the course of history into a range of different yet world-influencing, vertical

hierarchical systems - from government to army, from monarchy to educational hierarchy. At the top of the

hierarchy is the "head", be it the head teacher, high priest or chief executive. Those at the top hold the trust

of the entire organisation. In charities, the "trustees" are also the employer and hold the charities' objects in

"trust", underpinned by legal power, responsibility and accountability.

* For detailed references to internet-based sources, please click on the live links within the text.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 55 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Alternatives to vertical forms of trustWhen those at the top cease to be trusted (due perhaps to corruption and changes in fundamental belief

systems), vertical trust breaks and hierarchies can be undermined, even overthrown. History has tended to

show that, when this happens, when there is a revolution against the current vertical hierarchy, it is often

replaced with another vertical hierarchical system, even if this was not the intention at the outset. So, even

when a hierarchy collapses, the concept of hierarchy as a necessary form of management and control

perpetuates.

There have always been examples of alternatives to vertical trust. The notion of "peer-to-peer” trust can be

found in many cultural traditions, based more on the notion that leadership changes in a more emergent way

and that decisions can be taken on a horizontal level. In the medieval world of agriculture and industry the

"guilds" were an example of this. Respect was mutual and horizontal (though there was often still an

overlaying hierarchy even here). In academia, peer review, in sharing research findings in journals, is based

on the notion of trust being more effective when it is horizontal (though, this form of horizontal trust is a good

example of how horizontal trust can engender distrust, for example, if there are other dynamics at work such

as competition for reputation, promotion or research funds).

The growth of distrust in vertical trustSince the banking crisis, a tipping point seems to have been reached in terms of vertical hierarchy being the

sole or predominant the means of ensuring trust in different social and economic systems. A 2013 Gallup

poll found that 74% of Americans had "some or very little confidence" in banks, while only 10% said they

had a "great deal" of confidence. This underlines the important link between confidence and trust. Many of

these polls highlight that, when confidence, is low, so is trust. Other factors can also be at play here, such as

access to accurate information, clarity of communication, and the ability to validate that those who are

delivering services have relevant skills and knowledge.

Numerous corruption scandals, at an individual, group, organisational and even national level have created

a generation that mistrusts vertical hierarchy. We don't trust the banks. We don't trust pharmaceutical

companies. We think our leaders aren't telling us the truth, that corporations are spinning marketing lies and

hiding money in order to avoid paying tax. We think that those at the top are cartels, collusive cliques. We

think our scientists are in the pay of corporations, even that religion is dogmatically hierarchical, clinging

onto outmoded beliefs that have been usurped by current scientific knowledge. And this even extends to the

emerging hierarchy of atheism.

One example of this mistrust is that which is directed towards the mass media. Traditional newspapers and

broadcasters, most of whom are based on hierarchical organisation, are becoming increasingly mistrusted.

In a recent Gallup Poll, "Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully,

accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a

great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year."

Vertical trust is breaking down and a number of significant new phenomena in the social and economic

realms are suggesting that a horizontal "trust revolution" is taking place. Traditional vertical hierarchies have

recognised this, and are trying to co-opt this horizontal form so that it remains part of vertical control.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 56 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Defining horizontal trustAt the heart of horizontal trust is the notion of horizontal validation. In traditional banks transactions are

validated vertically. The bank acts as a "higher authority" to guarantee, for example, a transfer of money.

The larger the amount of money - and also risk - the higher up the vertical hierarchy validation occurs. For

example, a significant loan may have to be validated by a branch bank manager, or even by someone

higher.

Similarly, inside a traditionally designed business or public organisation, decisions tend to be agreed and

validated further up the hierarchy. A supervisor or line manager usually has to agree unplanned time off, or

a change in shift patterns. As with the case of a bank, significant resource decisions go even further up the

vertical "ladder" of validation and authority.

In the case of new, challenger banks and emerging cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, transactions are not

validated vertically, but are validated by a system of horizontally designed, distributed trust. Inside

organisations, horizontal trust surfaces as holacracy - a new form of organisation based on a much more

horizontally delivered shared trust and democratic decision making. (A challenger bank is ‘relatively small

retail bank set up with the intention of competing for business with large, long-established national banks’

(Oxford Dictionaries). Bitcoin is ‘a cryptocurrency and a payment system invented by an unidentified

programmer, or group of programmers, under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto’ (Wikipedia). Even in

vertically designed organisations there may be limited types of horizontal trust similar to Mintzberg's notion

of "mutual adjustment" where problems can be solved and decisions are made and validated at the level

they are articulated, requiring less - and sometimes even no - vertical reporting.

Horizontal trust is single level, and aims at validation occurring through single level organisation design and

goal setting and realisation.

Characterising horizontal trustSo, what does horizontal trust look like in our time? It has been led, largely by a disaffected generation of

Millennials, and has taken both positive and negative forms. When it is negative, it is terrorism, it is the dark

web and hacking. When it is positive, it is open source, crowd-funding, cryptocurrencies, credit unions,

holacracy and open space technology.

Horizontal trust seeks to create shared value, not through vertical control, but through lateral communication

and coordination. Leadership is "servant-leadership" (e.g. Greenleaf Centre), emergent, temporary and at

the service of its community. Control is a method of coordination, not a tool for power and influence over

others. Horizontal trust does not require decisions to go "upwards" to be validated. Transactions are

validated by the strength of trust in the freely-committed-to community.

These examples are on the rise all over the world. In the world of cryptocurrencies alone, we have a

revolution in financial horizontal trust. Bitcoin, and its underlying blockchain technology will transform the

world. There are both risks and opportunities here, as I go on to suggest.

Examples of blockchain technology include: alternative digital currencies that do not require banks to enable

transactions, validation of provenance where the blockchain technology can validate the provenance of

products such as diamonds, without need of vertical hierarchies, and even of validation of human identity.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 57 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Examples of Horizontal TrustThe trusted transaction: from traditional banks to cryptocurrencies; from hierarchical trust to shared,

horizontal trust

One of the first modern manifestations of horizontal trust in the digital space are cryptocurrencies. The most

established of these is Bitcoin. A form of digital money, transactions are not validated by banking institutions

but by an open ledger, where transactions are validated by "blockchain" technology. Bitcoin "miners" are

themselves rewarded with bitcoin by ensuring that the bitcoin transactions (for example, between buyers

and sellers) are assured and 100% trustworthy. The key thing here is that the process of ensuring that

bitcoins are bought and sold reliably doesn't require a vertical hierarchy but instead is based on a

community where trust is fairly distributed. The community becomes "self-assured."

Trusted contracts and ways of dealing with each otherThere are several examples here that refer to how transactions can be framed and realised through contacts

that do not require vertical validation.

The rise of the informal sharing economyCommunities are even leaving fairly horizontal platforms online, such as Ebay, to trade and share

directly with each other. The rise of apps such as Freecycle are even more horizontal than Ebay,

and there has been a marked rise in the maker community selling directly to each other without third

parties being involved. There are signs that Bitcoin may become the preferred alternative trading

currency by 2030.

Peer-to-peer lendingHorizontal sharing has extended to informal lending - again, without the vertical validation provided

by formal banks. Some studies have even suggested that informal lending between family and

friends in the UK may be running into billions. There are risks associated with this lack of validation

by traditional vertical institutions such as banks or lawyers. The continued rise of the credit union is

another, less risky manifestation of horizontal trust. In the United States:

"Traditional, for-profit banks have to satisfy three groups of people, with often conflicting

interests: shareholders, customers and employees. Credit unions are owned by their customers,

whom they refer to as members. Rather than generating profits for shareholders, credit unions

return surplus income to members in the form of dividends." (Source: Forbes).

There is evidence that some of that growth is attributable to Millennials, who are often quoted as being

increasingly mistrustful of traditional banks. Though there may be a certain level of hierarchical design in the

administrative and managerial organisation of a credit union, the institution itself is horizontal, with

membership at the core rather than a customer relationship

Peer-to-peer lending is a more formal example of informal, horizontal lending, and there is evidence this is

also on the rise.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 59 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

The rise of horizontal resourcing and influenceSigns of three growing practices point to a rise in horizontal resourcing and influence. These practices are

crowd-funding, crowd-sourcing and relating through social media.

Crowd-fundingCrowd-funding and crowd-sourcing are examples of how resourcing of ideas and more tangible resources

such as money are replacing how we attract interest and resources to a project or enterprise. According to

a writer in Forbes: “We’re expecting 75-100% growth in U.S. equity crowdfunding volume of capital raised in

2016, approximately $3.5 to $4 billion,” Crowd Expert's David Pricco told me recently. "

Crowd-sourcingCrowd-sourcing ideas (including sharing through open source) is also less "governed", but is a sign that

people are putting more trust in the horizontally sourced wisdom of the "crowd" than in the traditional vertical

hierarchy of the "expert". I recently attended the 2016 Edinburgh Fringe Festival - the world's largest arts

festival - and noticed a huge increase in crowd-funded art projects as opposed to traditional, more vertical

arts funding routes, where committees sit as arbiters over who gets what funding, in a declining resource

base (largely due to austerity cuts).

Relating through social mediaThirdly, social media are increasingly being used as a tool for horizontal debate and conversation (the

recent Scottish Independence Referendum was called "the social media referendum"). After the even more

recent EU referendum, literally millions of people took to an online petition which got enough signatures to

force a debate in the UK Parliament. This was an interesting example of horizontal trust meeting and even

clashing with vertical trust. The debate lasted a short term and a small number of people in Parliament

quickly voted out the views of millions. Yet there is increasing evidence that such petitions have a

measurable impact on corporations and public organisations.

Horizontal governmentHorizontal trust is going even further and some of the early experiments using blockchain (distributed trust

and open ledger technology) are showing the potential of horizontal trust.

One early experiment in horizontal government - the case of Bitnation - is piloting decentralised (and de-

verticalised) government, based on the technology of horizontal, distributed trust. It has already piloted the

creation of I.D cards that are assured through this distributed, single level trust rather than through

institutionalised hierarchical validation. Guaranteeing identity without hierarchy would make a game-

changer in the field of governance. Much of this is made possible by technological platforms using

technology such as "blockchain", which is coded and maintained in ways that maximise trust and assurance

across a community, rather than up and down a hierarchy. These developments are in early stages but

commentators are predicting significant growth.

Employee ownershipThere are also examples that are more internal to organisations. Employee ownership is another example

of the trend towards horizontal trust-based organisation. Employee-owned businesses in their ultimate form

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 60 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

do not deny the role of leadership and its effect on performance. However, the trend here is towards the

election of leaders, temporary and emergent leadership, rather than replicating traditional, status-based

approaches and the notion that leaders are the ultimate arbiters of decisions.

The number of businesses owned by their own employees has doubled in Scotland over the last six years,

while UK wide, employee-owned companies now account for £30bn or 4 per cent of GDP. Employee

ownership is often, though not always, a sign that trust in traditional vertical forms of decision-making are

less trustworthy.

There are many other "symptoms" of traditional vertical trust breaking down. The increasing use of self-

organisation approaches such as Open Space Technology in the development of agile business, the rise of

more horizontal methods of management and organisation such as sociocracy and holacracy are being well

documented.

The examples discussedAll of the above examples point to experiments - more or less developed and established - in alternatives to

vertical trust. Here, trust is deployed without explicit formal hierarchy. Much of this has arisen through a

social rejection of traditional vertical control. Senior managers and political leaders are much less trusted,

and the organisations they lead are also increasingly deemed to be corrupt and less trustworthy. In the case

of one sector – banking - Millennials are most strongly leading the trend towards distrust. But financial

services are not the only problem. There is declining trust in other fields such as pharmaceuticals, even in

government.

The shadow side of horizontal trustOf course, we need to beware potential abuses of horizontal trust. Two in particular stand out; hacking –

especially for terrorist purposes – and corrupt practices.

Hacker communities and terrorist networksThere is a shadow side to horizontal trust. The rise of the "dark web" has spawned organisations and

communities that practice horizontal collaboration and trust that is not always necessarily for the benefit of

humanity. The hacker community is one example. Terrorists networks can be largely horizontal in the way

they communicate across the globe.

Potential for corruptionBy its nature, much horizontal trust isn't governed by vertical authority. It can be formally controlled by

technology, and validation will be increasingly controlled by digital innovation. But there is also space in the

informal aspect of it for corruption to arise as well. One example, in crowdfunding, is when a crowdfunding

project collapses and funders lose their investment and receive no money. These disasters can then fall into

chaos and lack of clarity in terms of formal rights and responsibilities. We have yet to develop more clearly

how governance can work if vertical control and accountability is absent. Currently this is largely addressed

through attempts to create cast iron and fool proof technology-based validation platforms, such as

blockchain technology.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 61 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Can horizontal trust really exist without vertical hierarchy?Most forms of horizontal trust are hybrid forms that still rely on vertical hierarchy for certain forms of

governance or transaction verification. For example, crowdfunding is still located on a digital platform

governed by Internet service providers (ISPs). Horizontal interchange via social media is still hosted and

governed by social media corporations such as Facebook. However, most would claim to practice neutrality

as far as possible.

In traditional formal vertical hierarchies, decisions are validated at a level, one or more higher than where

they are ultimately enacted. Where decisions are delegated, ultimate accountability still usually rests with

someone higher up, and thus consequences and results are still formally reported and ultimately validated.

Even in highly "empowered and delegated vertical hierarchies", delegation is still a form of validation - in this

case putting trust in actors operating at lower levels. Reporting structures - whether close to real time or

placed into chronologically arranged "staff gates" - are based on upwards reporting and validation of task or

decision effectiveness.

In horizontal trust, the notion of vertical trust theoretically fades and ebbs, ultimately disappearing as

validation of actions is based on shared and distributed trust. Validation can be enacted digitally through

high confidence and "unhackable" code. Physically, trust is enacted by "trustees": sign off procedures are

not based on status and vertical validation but rather through third party lateral validation (e.g. a notary) or

through democratic and transparent, peer-to-peer validation. Currently, there is still a strong element of

verticality, as people are still subject to national and international law, and many processes still have

interface with the world of vertical hierarchy. At present, very few businesses such as shops, cafes, hotels

etc accept Bitcoin so, at some point, we still have to convert our Bitcoins back into currencies that are

managed and control by traditional banks. So, most horizontal trust-based systems still have to deal with the

vertical realm.

That said, these disparate impulses and activities are, I believe, signs of a possible paradigm shift from

vertical to horizontal trust.

Conclusion: implications for OD practitionersHorizontal trust is offering new and different opportunities for individuals, organisations and wider society. It

is manifesting in very different but sometimes overlapping ways inside and outside of public and private

organisations. It represents a significant challenge to, and alternative to, vertical hierarchy as the default

form of organisational design.

It also raises questions about the organisational dynamics that are based on organising on principles of

horizontal trust. Organisation Development practice will need to understand these new dynamics and the

skills and actions required to transition to organisational forms and cultures rooted in horizontal trust.

Where OD practice mirrors vertical control, consultancies may have to reorganise.

A new skills and knowledge agenda also emerges around some important questions:

What organisational designs best facilitate horizontal trust?

What do OD practitioners need to do to continue to offer genuine help to horizontal trust-based

organisations and their people?

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 62 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

What role does vertical trust continue to have, given that it still largely pervades practice?

How will we understand and assess performance in organisations whose working practices are

imbued with horizontal trust?

An understanding of the processes of horizontal trust deepens and expands the potential for OD

practitioners to help organisations to design and redesign along the lines of more horizontal forms. Here we

have the definition of OD as "organisation design". How do we shift our organisation from a predominantly

vertical culture and design towards one that is more horizontal?

Over the past decades, OD practitioners have often facilitated horizontal trust within the organisation. There

has been less call for complete organisation re-design or for new start-ups to seek help with a purer

horizontal form from a blank page – a sort of zero-based approach.

In horizontal trust, new dynamics may also emerge, where validation and trust is peer-to-peer, right down to

the basic financial and legal transactions of the organisation. How do we build horizontal trust? Many current

experiments, as evidenced in this article, refer to trust being validated via digital technology, where trust is

distributed via encrypted and self-validating computer systems. But how might a "softer" form of horizontal

trust look?

A new research and development agenda for OD is emerging, as we try to understand the dynamics

between old (vertical) and new (horizontal) ways of relating, between traditional and post-Millennial

practices. The current OD conversation is still largely rooted in pilots and experiments, as well as in the

growth of forms of organisation that have existed for decades, but which are now growing and morphing

(such as credit unions and employee ownership). As researchers, facilitators and consultants, it is, perhaps

time to inquire more and advocate less. Has traditional OD consultancy become tainted with its decades-

long engagement with, and support for, vertical forms of organisation?

I'm excited about this future but I’m also aware that my knowledge base in what is emerging is developing

quickly. There is much more for us all to learn!

ReferencesHenry Mintzberg. Six coordination mechanisms. http://www.provenmodels.com/17/six-coordination-

mechanisms/henry-mintzberg. Accessed 21/11/16

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Prentice Hall

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organisations. Prentice Hall.

Justin Scamota (2014). Loans of love: how to borrow from family and friends. 16 May. http://www.choose.net/money/guide/features/informal-loans-family-friends-help.html, accessed 21/11/16

About the authorPaul Levy is Senior Researcher at CENTRIM (The Centre for Research in Innovation Management)

University of Brighton, United Kingdom. He is also a faciltiator for the Bitcoin and Blockchain Leadership

Forum, a director of CATS3000 Ltd, a change and transformation company based in Brighton, UK, and

founder of the online publication, FringeReview. Paul is the author of several books, including DIgital Inferno

(Clairview Books, 2014) and The Poetry of Change (Catten Publishing, 2015), You can contact Paul via ;

Telephone +44 7932 768980; Email: P.R.Levy@brighton.ac.uk. Web site: www.cats3000.com

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 64 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Hic Sunt Dracones Restoring trust in cross-cultural leadership studies

Peter KingAcademic research has frequently been plagued by plagiarism,

falsification, and a form of hypnotic trance that is induced by a fervent

belief in methodology. This plague extends not only to authors of

academic papers but also to editors and reviewers (Kingswell, 2015). As

a consequence, valuable academic research can be replaced by

spurious and specious findings or worse, discarded. This phenomenon

has been discussed and reported before but reports resemble the

parable of the blind men and the elephant (Allio, 2013). In this article I

aggregate much of what has been written or discussed about the

problem and describe its salient symptoms by using an example from

mediaeval cartography (mythical dragons on inaccurate maps) as an

analogy.

Keywords Academic research; methodologies; academic integrity; statistical methods; cross cultural studies, leadership studies

Imagining dragons

Ever since I was a child, old maps fascinated me

because they gave substance to tales of adventure

and romance. Tales of imagination woven by

authors such as H Rider Haggard, Joseph Conrad,

Arthur Ransome, and Wilbur Smith, could be set

into Mercator projections of the world to give a

tinge of veracity to help project a notion of reality.

What matter if the maps were not entirely accurate,

or were embellished with creatures that might well

have illustrated a Malleus Maleficarum – a

notorious German witch-hunter manual of 1486. Malleus Maleficarum (title page) by Heinrich KramerCover of the seventh Cologne edition of the Malleus

Maleficarum, 1520 (The University of Sydney).

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 66 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Indeed, some notations excited higher levels of curiosity,

such as the Latin note ‘hic sunt dracones’ (“here, there be

dragons”), which is inscribed in the early 16 th century

Lenox Globe.

Dragons? I could imagine fire-breathing, winged, serpent-

like, scaly creatures, with baleful eyes, forked tongue and

fangs, slavering over swooning maidens, awaiting rescue

by a brave golden-haired, blue-eyed hero (me, of course)

on a white, noble steed. Only much, much later did I

come to realise there are and perhaps, never were any

dragons. Full view of the Hunt-Lenox Globe with stand

The New York Public Library: Digital Collections

But if there had been any, they probably would all have lived in China. Still, the cartographer’s warning

stayed with me and became reality when I completed my Doctoral degree and entered the academic world.

The Lenox Globe. As illustrated in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th edition, Volume X, 1874, Fig.2.

I ventured forth armed with a keen sense of the need for rigorous examination and justification that more

than a decade of experience of auditing Canadian government expenditures as a member of the Auditor

General’s staff had developed in me. No fuzzy unsupported statements or vague generalisations would I

accept; integrity and righteousness would triumph as I cut through the detritus of shoddy thinking in pursuit of

truth and understanding. Oh well …. so much for dreams.

Explorers need maps The academic world concerns itself with explorations, examinations and reports of the physical and social

elements of cultures. Explorations are journeys into areas that are unfamiliar to the traveller and possibly to

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 67 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

all others. As Henry Kissinger once said, getting people from where they are to a place they have not been

before is a leader’s job, and thus a map can advise, alert and act as a form of leader or guide when setting

out on a journey into strange lands.

The great Chinese philosopher, Lao Tsu said "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" (千

里之行，始於足下). However, Lao Tsu neglected to suggest in which direction the step should be taken and

faute de mieux, a map at least can suggest which routes to take and which to avoid. Lao Tsu’s saying is by

no means restricted to travelling and is applicable to a wide range of different types of situations where

something needs to be done. With only a possibly hazy notion of where the journey may lead, a map is

useful in giving the traveller warnings of possible dangers to avoid. This admonition equally applies in

academic research

Over many years, academic standards have been established that guide, if not govern, how to explore,

examine, report and thence, how to understand and explain what has been considered. Yet, despite all these

guidelines and established standards, far too many academics, seeking renown, blithely wander into foggy

mires that lead into a dragon’s lair. So what is a dragon’s lair in academia, and what are the mires into which

too many academics so blithely enter?

Dragons’ lairs in academia In an academic world, a dragon’s lair is a place where many proudly

preening vain beasties congregate to virtuously propagate and viciously

protect the righteousness of specious and spurious academic endeavour

(Bryson, 2009). The existence of dragons’ lairs was demonstrated at a

recent international conference (that shall remain nameless to protect the

innocent) which was attended by over 1000 academics from several nations.

Approximately 300 papers were presented and doubtlessly some were

Blason fam fr Le Gentil.svg by Yricordel

Dragons in heraldry in Wikimedia Commons

excellent but I only heard three that I would term academically

sound. The focus appeared to be, not on sound academic

research but on how to support and present the afore-noted

specious and spurious reports. Only one presenter dared raise

the issue of the quality of research (Tsui 2016) but was drowned

in the cacophony of mutual admiration and self-congratulations.

Physeter, or Prister. Magnus, Olaus. Historiae de gentibus septentrionalibus.1555. http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41862918. 

The mires are the proclaimed scientific methods by which a lair is accessed but which can be compared to

the anecdotal proof that bumblebees cannot fly. Of particular interest to me are academics who study

Chinese management, leadership and cross cultural matters and develop grounded theory behavioural

predictions. Grounded theories should possess six characteristics (Dreyfus, 2001), while many modern

papers purporting to discover predictive behavioural patterns in management, leadership, and cross cultural

issues rely on so-called ‘scientific methods’. Dreyfus observed (Warwick & Board 2013) that scientific

methods apply where science is or should be able to predict outcomes reliably and grounded theories should

possess the qualities which in turn assume notional equality of characteristics among and between samples.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 68 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Yet humans, unlike ball bearings, do not possess equal characteristics that allow for reliable prediction. That

being so, can scientific methods be applied to predict reliably outcomes in cross-cultural leadership studies?

What gives us cause for concern?

Issues in cross-cultural leadership studiesMethodological issues often have been heavily influenced by Anglo-Saxon models and therefore lack

contextual elements in the analysis of social issues, including management behaviour (Kadar & Mills, 2011).

Furthermore, Miller and Mitamuro (2003) cautioned against the use of wording that may be understood

differently in different cultures. Existing etic research (which is conducted by researchers whose native

culture differs from that which they are studying) has been based on Western concepts of philosophy and

values. Significantly, however, indigenous or emic research (i.e. where researchers are studying aspects of

their own indigenous culture) includes different cultural and intellectual traditions which transcend any

problems in translations (Fahr, Cannella, & Lee, 2006; Harzing, 2006; Li, 2006; Stening & Zhang, 2007).

Sadly, many researchers fail to include cultural values and differences in thinking modes that differ from their

own (Fang, 2012; Goodall, Li, & Warner, 2007; Yooyanyong & Muenjohn, 2010). In cross-cultural leadership

studies, understanding of the questions presents greater challenges because western and Chinese thinking

differs (Fang, 2012) and deeper beliefs may be misinterpreted (Kadar & Mills, 2011). In a world of increasing

globalisation, what is required is consideration of behaviour operating within dominant cultural norms and

ideologies of the cultural group (e.g., Jung, Chan, Chen, & Chow, 2010) and such behaviour becomes

relevant when considering management practices (e.g., Jogulu, 2010).

Researchers in disciplinary fields other than management, leadership and cross-cultural studies have

identified influences that shape individuals’ opinions and or habits. But these influences are rarely, if ever,

included when leadership or cross-cultural surveys are undertaken. For instance, Thompson (2009) indicated

that society’s opinions influenced habits and Nisiforou, Poullis, and Charalambides, (2012) found that

opinions depended, inter alia, on the number of years of employment and how many people shared an office.

The respondent’s relationship with his or her superior is also likely to be a factor, although which is cause

and which is effect may need determination (Jiang, Law, & Sun, 2014; Morgan & Winship, 2007).

Leaders may exhibit different characteristics or may act differently according to situations at different times

(e.g., Amernic, Craig, & Tourish, 2007; Doz & Kosonen, 2008; Eliasoph & Lichterman, 2003; Meyer, Tsui &

Hinnings, 1995). Although research of past events and actions are measurable, situational contexts and the

individuals involved can change, so that predictable, verifiable outcomes in social research are not always

certain because outcomes do not always follow theoretical predictions (Silver, 2012 and the recent US

presidential election). Hunches and 'gut feel' or logic may also be effective in determining factors that lead to

an aggregation of data in which there may be some discernible pattern and lead to an outcome. Tetlock

(2000) found no contradiction between “the formal prescriptivism [sic] of decision making theory and the

informal ideological hunches of decision makers who cope with messy human and organizational realities

from day to day” (p.324).

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 70 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Mired in statisticsCase studies comprised the main method of management research until the mid-1970’s (George & Bennett,

2005), since when the use of statistics and formal models has preponderated. The reliance on statistics

derived from surveys, that may contain unperceived biases or faulty assumptions, is often presented as

viable and structured arguments, which are based on propositions or lack of contrary evidence, can also

offer convincing conclusions (e.g., Kuhn, 1996; Rottenberg & Winchell, 2009) but are frequently ignored.

Surveys often entail limitations, many of which are not recognised (Silver, 2012). Ioannides (2005) noted that

published research that conducted statistical testing resulted in high rates of error. One attempted effort at

verification of published findings found that "about two thirds of positive findings could not be replicated"

(Silver, p.11). Silver noted that people imbue numbers with meaning and “need to find patterns…. when

there are none there” (p.12). Further, people “love to predict” (p.13), yet their predictions “will always be

tainted by…subjective point[s] of view” (p.14).

Where does trust come in?The rarely demonstrated link between opinion and habit may be valid, but is dependent on culture-specific

practices and assumptions. For example, leadership entails trust (Yukl, Gordon & Taber, 2002). Yet as

Fukuyama (1995) pointed out, trust is not only a cultural factor but also, of itself, establishes cultural norms.

In other words, the basis for trust establishes the immediate environment in which an individual may choose

to interact but that environment influences the nature of the individual’s trust. As a result, extrapolations

about behaviour in the future are likely to result in weak predictions if cultural factors are not taken into

consideration (Barabas & Jerit, 2010).

Silver (2012) noted that under specific circumstances, statistics can be accurate when considering a

collection of people in a specific or homogeneous situation. They are also more likely to be accurate the

closer the date of the survey is to the specific event being considered. For example, survey results predicting

the outcome of an election are likely to be more accurate for surveys conducted close to the date of the

event than for surveys conducted earlier, provided that the survey respondents have no hidden agenda

(Brexit and the US presidential election results notwithstanding). The likely behaviour of an individual can be

predicted with limited certainty if the individual is behaving within stipulated contexts and there is first-hand

knowledge of the individual.

Restoring trust in cross-cultural leadership studiesIn the light of the above, what can be determined about academic research in the fields of management,

leadership and cross-cultural studies? I looked over some 600 peer reviewed articles published over the

past 20 years. Of those, 30% relied on survey-supported statistical analyses to predict individuals’ behaviour.

Less than 10% can be considered viable. Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, (2007) concluded that in only 11% of studies

researched was there validity in the sampling methodology. Cao and Li (2010) noted that 70% of research

by Chinese academics either validated or replicated previously published material.

There are many challenges to overcome when researching cross-cultural leadership and I suggest that

addressing cross-cultural issues and leadership issues separately may compound the problems that the use

of statistics can entail. Although precautions are taken to avoid potential pitfalls, the number of steps

deemed necessary begin to resemble Scott Adams’ Dilbert witticism about engineers’ claims that “… it

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 71 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

doesn't have enough features yet”. Apparently a researcher on cross-cultural leadership is now expected to

become qualified in the use of statistics behind which the objective of the study may dissipate only to be

resurrected and presented as fact.

However, improvements in research techniques and recognition of limitations of the various methods have

led increasingly to integrative approaches that incorporate case studies, formal models and the use of

appropriate quantitative research. Nonetheless, whereas improvements may become evident at the

researcher level, such improvements predicate that researchers and academic teachers are ready to adopt

new ways of conducting research. In other words, they must be prepared to find paths through the swamps

and mires which do not engulf the intrepid explorer and avoid passing too close to any dragon’s lairs.

Dragons’ lairs will continue to survive with dragons ready to devour the unwary and unprepared explorer as

long as reviewers and editors fail to undertake reviews with integrity. All too often, reviewers and editors rest

on their research laurels and fail to recognise where improvements can and should be implemented. The

results can demoralise a budding research prodigy and slow the advancement of knowledge. Contributors to

and readers of peer-reviewed, published material should be wary and heed the admonition, “Here there be

dragons”. But even if the earnest researcher heeds such an admonition, he or she should also remember

what little is known of said dragons.

Any reviewer and or editor can be a dragon and, like the fanged, fire-breathing serpent, is only perceived as

inimical when it is too late. Under the guise of ‘helpful criticism’, the dragon can lure the hapless traveller into

the mires of methodological complexities. Then, by opinionated ‘suggestion’, they can seduce the traveller

into creating an opening through which dragon fire or fangs can be used to deliver the coup de grace. A map

serves to warn of the existence of such dangers, but may lack precision about when, where, or how such

danger will manifest itself. Likewise, trust in the academic world and elsewhere cannot be taken for granted,

but has to be earned!

Caveat viator, hic sunt dracones

The Lenox Globe, by B.F. De Costa

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 73 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lennox_Globe,_by_B.F._Da_Costa.png

NoteThe title of this article is inspired by The Hunt–Lenox Globe or Lenox Globe, c.1510, which – according to

Wikipedia - is the second- or third-oldest known terrestrial globe (the Rare Book Division, the New York

Public Library). It is one of only two known instances of a historical map actually using the Latin phrase HIC

SVNT DRACONES (‘here are dragons’). The text is more or less legible, just below the equator on the far

right of the map, where China would be. Sadly, rather than dragons, it is said to refer to the inhabitants of

the Kingdom of Dagroian.

ReferencesAllio, R. J. (2013). Leaders and leadership—many theories, but what advice is reliable? Strategy and

Leadership 41(1), 4-14.

Amernic, J., Craig, R., & Tourish, D. (2007, December). The transformational leader as pedagogue, physician, architect, commander, and saint: Five root metaphors in Jack Welch's letters to stockholders of General Electric. Human Relations, 60(12), 1839-1872

Barabas, J. & Jerit, J. (2010). Are survey experiments externally valid? The American Political Science Review, 104, (2).226-242 http://www.jstor.org/stable/40863718

Bryson, B (2003). A Short History of Nearly Everything. USA: Broadway Books. ISBN 0-7679-0817-1.

Cao, Y. F. and Li, P.P. (2010). Indigenous Research on Chinese Leadership: Problems and Suggestions. Chinese Journal of Management 7 (11), 1704 -1709.

Doz, Y. and Kosonen, M. (2008), Fast Strategy: How Strategic Agility Will Help You Stay Ahead of the Game, Pearson/Longman, New York, NY. Dreyfus

Eliasoph, N. & Lichterman, P. (2003) “Culture in interaction.” American Journal of Sociology 108(4):735–794.

Farh, J-L., Cannella, Jr, A.A., & Lee C. (2006) Approaches to Scale Development in Chinese Management Research. Management and Organization Review 2(3) 301–318 doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006. 00055.x

Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and Organization Review, 8(1): 25–50.

Fukuyama F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press Paperback

George, A.L. & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MIT Press.

Goodall, K., Li, N., & Warner, M. 2006. Expatriate managers in China: The influence of Chinese culture on cross-cultural management. Journal of General Management, 32(2): 57–76.

Harzing, A.-W. (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research. A 26 –country study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(2), 243-266. doi: 10.1177/1470595806066332

Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. Plops Med 2(8): e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Jiang, J.Y., Law, K.S., & Sun, J.J. (2014) Leader-Member Relationship and Burnout: The Moderating Role of Leader Integrity” Journal of Management, 10,(2), 223-247.

Jogulu, U. D. (2010). Culturally-linked leadership styles. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31(8), 705-719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731011094766

Jung, D., Chan, F., Chen, G., & Chow, C. (2010). Chinese CEOs’ leadership styles and firm performance. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 4(2), 73-79.

Kadar, D. Z., and Mills, S. (eds.) (2011). Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

Kingswell, M. (2015). Predatory journals take a bite out of scholarship. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/predatory-journals-take-a-bite-out-of-scholarship/article22275403/

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 75 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Kuhn, T.S. (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions.3rded. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

Li, S.-Q. (2006). Research in China. Theory, Culture & Society 23 (2-3), 572. doi: 10.1177/0263276406023002105

Meyer, A.D., Tsui, A., & Hinnings, C.R. (1993). Configurational Approaches to Organizational Analysis. The Academy of Management Journal, 36, (6) 1175-1195

Miller, A.S. & Mitamura, T. (2003). Are surveys on trust trustworthy? Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, (1). 62-70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3090141

Morgan, S.L. & Winship, C. (2007). Counterfactuals and Causal Inference. Methods and Principles for Social Research. Cambridge University Press

Nisiforou, O. A., Poullis, S., & Charalambides, A. G. (2012). Behaviour, attitudes and opinion of large enterprise employees with regard to their energy usage habits and adoption of energy saving measures. Energy and Buildings,55, 299-311

Rottenberg, A.T. and Winchell D.H. (2009) The structure of argument 6th edn. Bedford/St Martin's. Boston.

Scott Adamshttp://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/scottadams393470.html:

Silver, N. (2012) The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail — but Some Don't. The Penguin Press.

Stening, B. & Zhang, M. (2007). Methodological challenges confronted when conducting management research in China. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7(1), 121-142. doi: 10.1177/1470595807075179

Tetlock, P. (2000) Cognitive biases and organizational correctives do both disease and cure depend on the politics of the beholder? Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 293-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667073

Tsui, A (2016) Presentation given at the IACMR Annual Conference, Hangzhou, China

Tsui, A., Nifadkar, S., & Ou, A. (2007). Cross –national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33, 426 -478. doi: 10.1177/0149206307300818

Warwick R., & Board, D (2013). The Social Development of leadership and knowledge. A reflexive inquiry into research and practice. UK. Palgrave Macmillan

Yooyanyong, P., & Muenjohn, N. (2010). Leadership styles of expatriate managers: A comparison between American and Japanese expatriates. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge 15(2), 161-167.

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15-32.

About the authorPeter King studied Civil Engineering (McGill); Business Administration (University of Western Ontario) and

Management of Leadership Organizations (University of Phoenix), Retiring from a career in the military and

Public Service of Canada, he. was appointed Professor at Hearst University and Consulting Professor at

Beijing University of Technology. He received the Beijing Great Wall Friendship Award and awards from the

City of Ottawa, Ontario, and Canada. His interest is cross-cultural leadership and management. Residing in

Ottawa, Canada, his contact is kipet2002@yahoo.com

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 77 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Naked Trust Understanding trust as simple predictability in local interaction

John H. TobinIn this article, I argue that trust, as usually deployed in organisations, is

what Mead (1923) calls a cult value. This is an idealisation - rarely

achieved in reality—which can be paradoxically inspirational/aspirational

and destructive at the same time. When creating a culture of trust

becomes a management project, it becomes an instrument of power, with

the negative effects of stifling reflexivity, compelling conformity of

behaviour, etc. As professional organisations (e.g. Mintzberg 1989), in

which communities of practice are prevalent, hospitals are especially

resistant to top-down trust building programmes. In contrast to the

business literature on how to build an organisation-wide culture of trust, I

suggest that genuine trusting relationships develop spontaneously in

smaller groupings, both formal and ad hoc, which are characterised by interdependency, common interest

and stability over time. This has implications for how we understand and foster trust in organisational life.

Keywords: trust, cult value, functional stupidity, communities of practice, predictability, professional organisation

IntroductionWhen I retired after some 35 years as a hospital executive in the US, I planned to use the extra time that

retirement affords to do some reading, research, reflection and writing. I have always been interested in the

realities of management practice, and I have learned to rely on common sense and the practical wisdom

one gains through lived experience. A retiree’s freedom from the everyday politics of organisational life also

affords an opportunity to reflect on one’s experience from a more detached perspective, and therefore,

perhaps, with a bit more honesty and objectivity than is possible for one still so enmeshed. Over the years,

I’ve also “discovered” writers and thinkers outside of the standard business literature genre who think about

management issues and concerns in novel ways that resonate with my own experience. These people offer

much more to the thoughtful executive than the avalanche of often faddish advice of most orthodox

management theorists, consultants and other experts.

I hope to illustrate in this article how these ideas and reflections led me to a different way of thinking about

the concept of trust in organisational life.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 78 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Trust definedCreating a “culture of trust” seems to be among the hot topics currently making the consulting rounds. A

Google search of “trust in organisations” will turn up scores of articles whose authors define trust in terms of

certain positive values and traits--loyalty, caring, fairness, integrity, competence, consistency—and assign

leaders the role of creating a culture of trust within their organisations through behaviours that enact those

traits, such as ethical personal behaviour, open communication, social responsibility, sensitivity to employee

needs, and the like. They claim that trust, and a culture of trust so defined, is essential to corporate results

and performance, because it enables collaboration and fosters employee loyalty and commitment. A good

example: http://rube.asq.org/hdl/2010/06/a-primer-on-organizational-trust.pdf.

After introducing a bit of theory, I briefly explore why cultural context, the phenomenon of “stupidity

management”, and the peculiarities of the professional organisation render trust an elusive goal in many

modern organisations.

Trust: culture…or cult?

According to early 20th Century philosopher and social

psychologist George Herbert Mead (e.g. 1908; 1923),

ethical problems arise in society when the competing

values and needs of individuals come into conflict.

Historically, such problems were simply referred back to

the authority and rules of some powerful institution like the

Church. Mead believed that the more complex ethical

dilemmas of the modern world (and, indeed, modern social

problems in general), could not be reduced to compliance

versus non-compliance with fixed principles. Rather, they

could and should be resolved through application of the

same methodological principles that were at that time

having such spectacular successes in the natural sciences.

All factors and competing interests in play must be

subjected to rational analysis in order to formulate a course

of action satisfactory to all the actors. (Joas, 1985)

Mead (1923) acknowledged that there were barriers to such an enterprise in the social realm that ideally

should have no correlates in the natural sciences. Mead called these “cult values”—social controls in the

form of idealised values that develop within societies and are embodied in that society’s institutions. Cult

values are an important part of our social heritage and fundamental to societal cohesion. They can be both

inspirational and aspirational in that they hold out to members of a society that which is desirable, possible

and worth striving for, but rarely, if ever, fully realised. “Liberal Democracy” is such a cult value in the West,

a persistent ideal despite the manifest shortcomings of our actual governing institutions and processes.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 79 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Cult values are destructive and polarising when adherence suppresses rational assessment of the cult itself.

Opposing cult values and the ideologies they spawn, such as climate change, the Second Amendment to the

US Constitution, national border integrity, for example, are held by people at the opposite ends of the political

spectrum in the US with such tenacity that common-sense compromises based on facts and analysis are

impossible to achieve. When such cult values are espoused by a governing elite, they enable the powerful

to impose conformity on the rest of the group. Border security, for example, is contentious around the world:

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-border-wall-global-immigration-security-2016-9.

Cult values are not limited to whole societies, but can be found in any group or faction within that society—

including large corporations. Trust, as that concept is usually deployed in organisations, is just such a cult

value. When creating a culture of trust becomes a management project, it can become an instrument of

power that stifles reflexivity, compels conformity of behaviour, etc.

And, a bit more theory…

Stupidity management and the cult of trust

(Source of image: DILBERT © 2011 Scott Adams. Used By permission of UNIVERSAL UCLICK. All rights reserved).

A few years ago, in response to this marked increase of articles in the business literature concerning trust,

Stacey (2012) wrote a thoughtful article on trust, as it is treated in both the popular business and the

scholarly literature, for his Complexity and Management Centre blog:

(https://complexityandmanagement.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/trust-in-organisations/).

Stacey thoroughly researched ways in which the concept is defined by thinkers in various disciplines.

However, practising managers are not likely to think so deeply about trust or consult the scholarly literature.

For most of us, a good dictionary definition is more than enough: “Firm reliance on the integrity, character or

ability of a person or thing” or “Belief that someone or something is honest, good, reliable, effective, etc.” As

Stacey notes, management consultants also tend to define trust in this way.

Stacey then introduced his readers to a provocative article, “A Stupidity Based Theory of Organization”, by

Mats Alvesson and Andre Spicer (2012), in which the authors introduce the concepts of “functional stupidity”

and “stupidity management”, and which they further develop and expand upon in their new book, “The

Stupidity Paradox: The Power and Pitfalls of Functional Stupidity at Work” (Alvesson & Spicer 2016).

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 80 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

According to Alvesson and Spicer,

‘…functional stupidity is inability and/or unwillingness to use cognitive and reflective capacities in

anything other than narrow and circumspect ways. It involves a lack of reflexivity, a disinclination

to require or provide justification, and avoidance of substantive reasoning’. (2016, p 239)

Rhetoric versus realityStacey argues that the rhetoric of trust-building behaviours includes involving employees in decision making,

encouraging employees to demand and expect justification for decisions and policies, establishing self-

managing teams, and the like. But such “empowerment” behaviours threaten executives’ status and raison

d’être, and shift unwanted responsibilities to employees.

To avoid the resulting stress and uncertainty, leaders resort to behaviours that have the effect of suppressing

reflexivity, encouraging conformity, and deflecting challenges to management diktats. Examples include

setting agendas, promoting a cult of leadership (the boss knows best), promoting company ideologies (action

orientation, optimism), limiting criticism by defining when and how criticism is allowed (only criticise if you

have a solution to offer) and so forth. These are exactly the strategies that encourage functional stupidity.

Since many employees do not want the responsibility and accountability that accompanies empowerment,

they collude with management through actions and attitudes that Alvesson and Spicer call “stupidity self-

management”.

Cult succumbs to stupidityStacey was struck by the similarity between the rhetoric of trust building as it appears in both the scholarly,

but more particularly, in the mainstream business literature, and the reality of management behaviours that

Alvesson and Spicer describe and document. Linking this with Mead’s notion of cult value allows me to

suggest a plausible explanation for the fact that organisation-wide trust is rarely achieved in practice. The

strategies prescribed by experts to achieve “a culture of trust” are simply too threatening to management

power, status and legitimacy, whilst imposing unwelcome responsibility and accountability on workers. Both

employ the strategies of functional stupidity to undermine the trust-building project.

Trust and mistrust emerge in social processesWhat actually happens, Stacey argues, is that the dynamics of trust and mistrust in organisations emerge in

interactions among individuals and small groups at the local level. Individuals develop attitudes of trust or

mistrust toward other individuals or groups through lived experience in social interaction. Individuals coming

into an organisational setting are predisposed toward certain attitudes by their own social history. Attitudes

concerning trust and mistrust can be shaded and nuanced, rather than manifest as an either/or dichotomy,

and will evolve over time. In Stacey’s view, it is the emergent social structure itself and the institutions of our

disciplinary society that constrain behaviour in ways that enable collaboration and cooperation without having

to fall back on some illusory culture of trust at all.

With this as background, let us now look at the ways in which trust actually does emerge in the professional

organisation, one type of which is the hospital.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 81 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

The emergence of trust in communities of practiceTechnician as archetypeIn an article directly relevant to hospital organisations, Barley (1996) and his colleagues did an extensive

ethnographic study of technical work. Barley argues that the nature of work in modern, post-industrial

organisations has become increasingly technical in nature. The technician has emerged as an archetype of

the modern, post-industrial worker, while organisational and management theory, and the organisational

forms and management techniques that result, remain rooted in an image of work that obtained in the

industrial economy of the mid-20th century. To bring management and organisational theory into sync with

the nature of the modern workforce, Barley proposes the technician as a useful standard type upon which to

base further study and analysis.

Barley describes technicians as intermediaries between the real world and the world of signs and symbols. In

health care, technicians use technologies to abstract flesh and blood human beings into images and data.

These abstractions are then interpreted by medical professionals, who design therapies—still in the

abstracted form of drug dosages, radiation beams, electrical stimulation—that technicians, using their

machines and instruments, apply to flesh and blood humans to ameliorate their ailments. In a hospital, there

are many explicitly technical disciplines—laboratory technology, radiologic technology, for example--and

other disciplines, such as nursing and medicine, that have a significant technical component to their

practices.

‘Trust building’ as an entirely local processWhat is relevant here is the social construction of technical work and its bearing on the notion of hospital

leaders creating an organisation-wide culture of trust. Technicians tend to form highly localised, idiosyncratic

communities of practice whose members learn from each other, share information and workplace habits, and

work in a highly

interdependent relationship

with related professionals

(medical technologists with

pathologists, for example).

As Illustration 1 here

illustrates, members of

communities of practice work

in close physical proximity

with each other, share

common interests and speak

a common language--the

nomenclature and jargon of

their specialty (Etienne &

Beverley Wenger-Traynor

2015).

Illustration 1: Knowledge creation within a community of practice

(Source: Allan, B. (Designer). (2008). Knowledge creation within a community of practice. [Web]. Downloaded from https://convcme.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/communities-of-practice-a-framework-for-learning-and-

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 82 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

improvement/#comments )

Managerialising the hospital Although trends in hospitals today favour (or, perhaps, are forcing) integration of managerial and clinical

functions, the typical US community hospital has, for the most part, retained the organisational structure that

it has had for decades. When I began my career some 35 years ago, there was a clear division of authority

and responsibility between the managerial and clinical aspects of hospital governance. The executive and

board functions were responsible for managing the business of the hospital, such as billing and collections,

facilities maintenance, fundraising, and the like. Managing the care of patients was the responsibility of a

medical staff composed almost entirely of physicians in private practice. Nursing management was

accountable to and subordinate to both managerial and clinical strands of governance. They were

responsible to management for budgets, staffing levels and the like, and to physicians for actual patient care.

To the extent that administrative management was involved in clinical matters, it was in an essentially

supportive role, in respect of, for example, regulatory compliance, resources, facilities, and equipment.

Illustration 2 below shows these two distinct, traditional strands of governance.

Illustration 2: A simplified (US) Hospital Organisation Chart, 1970s

The growing predominance of the business paradigm in US hospital managementAs one would expect, the professional educational preparation for hospital executives was geared toward

this business management role. Now, however, driven by the increasing domination of the health care

industry by government bureaucracies, changes in tort law, the growing extent to which medical care is

provided by doctors directly employed by the hospital, and other factors, the hospital corporation as a legal

entity has become increasingly accountable for managing the clinical work, too. That, in turn, has resulted in

a gradual growth in the power and status of managerial function at the expense of the professional/technical

function. Despite this change, however, the education of hospital executives remains firmly rooted in the

business paradigm. For those of us who lived through this transition, it was possible to partially compensate

for this educational deficit by bringing physicians into the senior management team, by elevating the status of

nursing within the management hierarchy, and by picking up a certain amount of clinical knowledge

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 84 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

through personal effort and osmosis. But as the technology of medicine becomes more complex and

pervasive, managerially trained executives cannot function effectively in both worlds. Hospitals and other

professional organisations have become increasingly “managerialised”. Consequently,

professional/technical work is increasingly subordinated to management control and tensions (or outright

subversion) inevitably arise between the two groups. (Scott, 1990)

The culture clash in managerialised professional organisationsOne would anticipate that members of a close-knit community of practice, with its insider/outsider dynamics,

would be non-receptive – if not outright hostile -- to so called best practices and other prescriptions imposed

by outsiders to the community of practice, especially if those outsiders are perceived to be ignorant of the

nature of the work being performed. And in the typical hospital, senior management is just such an outsider:

“An increasingly horizontal distribution of expertise not only undermines hierarchy as a coordinating

mechanism, it undercuts management’s source of legitimacy. When those in authority no longer comprehend

the work of their subordinates, hierarchical position alone is an insufficient justification for authority, especially in

technical matters. Under such conditions, leaders who insist otherwise, risk making decisions based on

incomplete information, faulty understandings, and criteria that sacrifice long-run effectiveness, which, even in

the absence of a turbulent macroeconomic environment, should almost guarantee that firms will perform

poorly.” (Barley, 1996, p. 438)

Generalising the hospital argumentModern business organisations and social institutions are characterised by increasingly granular division of

labour and specialised function, and thus by a high level of interdependence among the organisation’s

members. Any work beyond the simplest tasks can only be done through collaboration. All organisations

generate many groupings, many of which are random assemblages (as far as the participants are

concerned) formed by the structure of the organisation itself. Such groupings include departments, sections,

nursing units in hospitals, groups who work together in large offices, and so forth. There are also ad hoc

groups put together for some specific purpose, e.g. committees, task groups and the like.

The following table (Table 1) suggests characteristics of the formal and informal groupings that can be found

in a typical US community hospital. However, it is essential to emphasise the obvious: formal and informal

group dynamics are going on within and among members of all groups all the time, and groupings continually

evolve and change. Therein lies the complexity of organisational life and the emergent culture of each

organisation. Reality never fits into neat tables or grids.

Table 1: Formal and informal groups in a typical US community hospitalFormal/Structural Formal/Special Purpose Informal

Example Divisions, Departments, Sections—the elements of a typical organisation chart

Committees, task groups, special purpose teams, regularly scheduled meetings (e.g., monthly Department Managers)

Highly variable: One-to-one friendships to communities of practice

Source of Authority/Legitimacy

Senior Leadership Senior Leadership Emerges within the group

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 85 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Formal/Structural Formal/Special Purpose Informal

Size Large: 25 to hundreds Smaller: 10 to 50, but may be larger or smaller

Small: 2 to whatever emerges within the group

Purpose Channels of authority and accountability as well as “official” communication

Completion of assigned tasks

Meet needs and interests of individuals involved. Usually a mix of social and work related activity.

Type of Communication

Some face to face conversation, but much written: reports, memoranda, email

Mostly face to face conversation, but some electronic. Work output mostly written: reports, minutes, presentations

Mostly face to face conversation, some electronic, rarely written.

Venue Within formal structure Within formal structure May emerge within formal structure, or emerge across organisational boundaries

Duration Years to life of the organization

Depends on function and whether convened for specific task or ongoing (e.g., standing committee). Weeks to years to life of the organisation

Highly variable and generally less stable. Some forms persistent while membership changes over time (e.g., communities of practice)

Content of Communication

Official, “public transcripts”

Task Oriented, but within official transcripts

Gossip, and “hidden transcripts”, but also trust building and knowledge formation and trans-mission (Scott, 1990, p14)

Structure Well defined by position, rules, policies

Well defined by position and skill set

Emergent, no specific structure

Group Leadership Defined by position. May involve “charisma” but rarely dynamic.

Defined by position, skills and experience. May be more dynamic, based on individual skills, experience and personal qualities.

Fluid and dynamic within the group, based on needs, personal traits, skills, experience and other factors

(Source: Tobin 2016)

Within and among these groupings are the technology based communities of practice I’ve described above.

In these smaller groupings, which tend to be relatively stable over time, the experience of day to day

interaction makes it possible to get to know, with a high degree of certainty, how one’s co-workers are likely

to behave in different circumstances. Interaction also helps to shape that behaviour, diminishing uncertainty

even further. No amount of exhortation from rather remote senior executives (especially in larger

organisations), no matter how eloquent they may be or how exemplary their personal behaviour might be,

can have an effect even remotely comparable to everyday, “up close and personal” interaction. In whichever

ways these local interactions play into the broader culture of an organisation, trust-building is an entirely local

process.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 86 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

My own experience has been that there is much more cohesion and camaraderie in these small groupings

than in the organisation as a whole. If asked why our hospital was a good place to work, our staff would

inevitably talk about their relationships with, and support from, their immediate co-workers.

There is a lot of how-to advice in the business literature on teamwork and trust building in teams, but I

believe that more genuine trusting relationships emerge spontaneously in these small groupings simply

because their members experience working together over an extended time.

Understanding trust as simple predictability in a local contextIf organisation-wide trust is an elusive goal, where does that leave managers who must facilitate

collaboration and engagement?

Most of the value-laden associations we have with the word trust are irrelevant for getting work done. Over

time, I have concluded that the essence of trust, at least the kind of trust that is necessary to get work done,

is nothing more than predictability. We learn through experience how to anticipate the likely actions of others

in given circumstances, and this reduces the uncertainty that can inhibit collaboration and cooperation. We

can trust, in the sense I am talking about here, devious and dishonourable colleagues, if their behaviour is

consistent over time.

It is also a simple reality in organisations—indeed, in social processes of any sort—that any one of us can

only sustain meaningful interaction with a limited number of other people at any given time. Relationships of

the kind that can foster genuine trust require time and effort to develop and sustain, and this only happens

through an on-going process of direct, interpersonal dialogue— i.e. simple, everyday conversation.

Within a work setting, our most important relationships will be with those who are most necessary to the

accomplishment of our own work, and we to theirs.

A Tale of One City (with Two Hospitals): the hypothesis as practice The small city in which I served as a hospital CEO is a typical New England factory town. The city has two

hospitals. Both organisations date from the late 19 th century; ours as a charity organisation founded by local

business leaders and industrialists, and the other a Catholic hospital established by the local Catholic

diocese to care for the mostly Catholic “working poor” immigrants who worked in the mills. The hospitals’

decades-long rivalry with each other was outwardly cordial, but privately mistrustful, not just at the executive

level, but also among boards of directors and respective medical staff members. The relationship had been

clouded by too many overtly competitive moves, too many misunderstandings, too much pride, too much

investment in local cultural, ethnic and economic class divisions.

As we moved into a post-industrial economy during the 1960s and 1970s, the community’s economy went

into a long decline. It became increasingly clear that the city could no longer sustain two hospitals, and both

hospitals became financially weaker. A prolonged work stoppage at our hospital showed that, if one hospital

was unable to function for any reason, the other couldn’t handle the patient load, and the entire community

suffered. A few leaders from each hospital’s board of trustees attempted to negotiate a merger of the two

hospitals to end what was seen increasingly as wasteful, destructive and ultimately pointless competition.

The merger project—the first of several—failed to overcome several obstacles, despite a good faith effort by

all involved.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 87 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Rather than give up on a merger altogether, the boards then charged the two CEOs with finding an

alternative means of moving the hospitals closer together and reducing unproductive competition. My

counterpart and I proposed a cancer treatment facility built around modern radiation therapy equipment.

Neither hospital had first rate cancer treatment equipment or facilities, and radiation therapy is primarily an

outpatient modality. Hence such a facility could meet a true health care need in our community, but could do

so without changing the hospitals’ relative competitive positions - the proverbial “win/win”. After some weeks

of negotiation, in which my counterpart and I participated directly (but no other executives from either

hospital team did) the hospitals reached an agreement. My own management team remained sceptical of

our new partner’s intentions, despite my reassurances. But, with the deal in hand, I went off on a long

planned vacation with my wife.

While we were away, my counterpart CEO made a comment that was quoted in the local newspaper. At this

point, I have no recollection of exactly what she said or how accurately she was quoted, but her comment

was interpreted by members of my management team as implying that our partner intended to renege on the

deal before it was formally consummated, and instead proceed to build a cancer centre on their own. I got

a frantic conference telephone call that evening with my senior team, who said, in essence, “See, we told

you…they are going to stab us in the back. You must come home immediately. We’ve purchased the plane

ticket, scheduled an emergency board meeting for tomorrow morning and a news conference tomorrow

afternoon. You have to announce that we are going to build a cancer centre on our own and beat them to

the punch.” I listened to this for a few minutes as all of this was sinking in, and I told them I thought their

reaction and proposed response were crazy. I instructed them to cancel the board meeting and press

conference, and told them I was absolutely not making an emergency trip back to CT. I said I would call my

counterpart in the morning to find out exactly what she said, to make sure she remained committed to the

deal we had made.

The following morning, I did have that conversation, and was reassured that the comment that precipitated

the mini-crisis was innocent and had been misinterpreted. We had a very nice conversation that served two

purposes. I was reassured that there was nothing amiss; but it also was a way to notify my counterpart of

the suspicions members of our leadership team and some of my board members held. Having given her

assurances to me directly, it would be very difficult to go back on that promise. I then called my board chair

and discussed the situation, and we agreed that everything was “on track” as it had been. My wife and I

enjoyed the rest of our holiday in peace.

The cancer centre project went forward. After raising $11 million for the project with a joint fund raising

campaign—another community first—we built a beautiful, modern facility that serves our community to this

day. The cancer centre was followed by another unsuccessful attempt at a full merger of the hospitals and

then by another joint project, this one to establish a joint open heart surgery program. Again, we achieved a

huge enhancement of the local health care system without giving one hospital or the other a competitive

edge.

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 89 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

All of this was possible without improving the underlying trust versus mistrust dynamics of the two competing

organisations. Gaining experience over time with the motives, biases and patterns of behaviour of the other

organisation’s leaders made it possible to develop an effective working relationship and to solve practical

problems.

Conclusion: the CEO’s role in trust building is important but limitedIn a professional organisation, such as a hospital, the CEO’s job is to make sure the work units are staffed by

competent people, that they have the necessary equipment and supplies, that they have means of

communication, that they have the resources needed to handle the unexpected, that they have a safe and

comfortable physical environment, and so forth. While that’s all important, senior management in a

professional organisation has very little to do with how work gets done “on the front lines.”

The CEO in any organisation serves an important symbolic role. It’s important for the CEO to “set the tone”

through example and to be considered by the workforce to be a person of competence, integrity and good

practical judgment. I certainly think of myself as a person of integrity, and always tried to act with openness

and honesty during my working years. But I also knew that I was just “the boss” to many of our staff, with all

the negatives that implies. I also believe that an ethical executive will act with integrity for its own sake, not

in pursuit of some corporate goal.

Many people enjoy working in a company with a charismatic, “rock star” CEO. But none of that matters much

in day to day work. High levels of work satisfaction, effective collaboration and “engagement” are all fine, but

it’s important to remember that the only people one needs to trust are most likely to be those standing next to

you.

Collaboration in organisations is built on interdependence, and on the means and ends of task

accomplishment. Of course, the most intimate relationships in our lives—family ties, close friendships, et

cetera--involve a great deal more than means and ends. But working relationships are primarily about

means and ends and other practical considerations. Understanding trust as simple predictability enables

collaboration, avoids clouding our business relationships with unnecessary and subjective baggage, and is

fundamentally more honest than preaching trust while practising stupidity management.

Suggested ReadingMead, G. H. George Herbert Mead never developed a complete system of ethics, and his ideas on ethics

are scattered among several essays and other writings. An excellent overview and analysis can be found in Joas, Hans (1997). G. H. Mead: A Contemporary Re-examination of His Thought, pp. 124-144, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.

Other relevant references for Mead:

Mead, G. H. (1908). “The Philosophical Basis of Ethics”, International Journal of Ethics, vol. 28, pp. 311-323

Mead, G. H. (1923). “The Scientific Method and the Moral Sciences”, International Journal of Ethics, Vol 33, pp. 229-147

Other sources

Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2012), “A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations”. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 49, pp. 1194–1220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01072.x

Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2016). The Stupidity Paradox: The Power and Pitfalls of Functional Stupidity at Work, London, Profile Books Ltd. (Kindle Edition)

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 90 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Barley, S. R. (1996). “Technicians in the Workplace: Ethnographic Evidence for Bringing Work into Organizational Studies”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 41, no.3, pp. some 354-441. Available at: http://web.stanford.edu/group/WTO/cgi-bin/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/pub_old/1996%20Technicians%20in%20the%20Workplace.pdf

Griffin, D. (2002). The Emergence of Leadership: Linking Self-Organisation and Ethics, London and New York, Routledge

Joas, H. (1997). G. H. Mead: A Contemporary Re-examination of His Thought, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. (originally published in German, 1980)

Mintzberg, H. (1989), Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organizations, New York, The Free Press, pp. 173-195.

Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, New Haven and London, Yale University Press

Taylor, J. R & Van Every, E. J. (2014), When Organization Fails: Why Authority Matters, New York, Routledge (Kindle Edition). Although not cited directly in this article it was important background reading. Leaders of professional/knowledge organisations will find “When Organization Fails” valuable in understanding the problems and conflicts that arise when upper management does not fully understand the nature of the work being done by those who deal directly with the organisation’s customers.

Wenger-Trayner, E. & B. (2015). Introduction to communities of practice: a brief overview of the concept and its uses. http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/. Accessed 15/10/16

About the authorJohn H. Tobin, DMan, MPH retired at the end of 2010 after a 35-year career in hospital management, 23 of

those years as CEO of Waterbury Hospital in Waterbury, Connecticut. He received a Doctor of Management

degree from the University of Hertfordshire in the UK in 2003, and a Master of Public Health from Yale

University in 1975. Throughout his career, he served on boards or committees of numerous professional

organisations as well as community service organisations concerned with social services, education,

philanthropy and economic development. John’s interests include the practical application of concepts from

the complexity sciences to everyday problems, particularly the ethics hospital quality and safety. You can

contact John at johntobin90@gmail.com

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 92 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

A selection of forthcoming eventsYou are most welcome to join usPlease click on the links if you’d like to find out more.

Date More info at: amed.org.uk/events

5 December

1.00 – 5.00 pm

Free Action Learning Seminar: creating organisational impact

University of Chichester

16 December AMED Writers’ Group: ‘Highlights of our writing year, and Private Passions’: AWG’s annual end-of-year celebrations, with Bob MacKenzie and Writing Friends. (Details to be confirmed.)

16-20 January 2017

Case Writing and Teaching Workshops , HEC, Paris, including ‘Writing Effective Cases’, with Trevor Williamson.

January 2017 Post-publication Gathering, London, on 'Fear in organisational life', exploring issues raised in the forthcoming Autumn edition of e-O&P', (Details to be confirmed.)

17 February, 1.15 - 4.30 pm

AMED Writers’ Group: ‘Reflective Journaling and Appreciative Inquiry’, with John Sweet.

London SE11

March Spring 2017 edition of e-O&P: Guest Editors: David McAra (AMED) and Dr Tony Miller (Deming Learning Network) are wondering why transformation is so slow and fragile. Still open for contributions: david.mcara@gmail.com

9 or 16 March, 11 am – 4 pm,

Post-publication Gathering, University of Chichester, on 'Trust in organisational life', exploring issues raised in the Winter 2016 edition of e-O&P.

University of Chichester

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 93 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

Your invitation to become more involved with e-O&PAbout e-O&P e-O&P is AMED’s quarterly online journal, available in pdf format, for academics, professionals, managers

and consultants at all stages of their careers.  It addresses innovative approaches to personal, professional

and organisational development in a reflective and accessible way.  It has a practical bias with a balance of

well-written thought pieces, case studies, interviews, articles, reviews and editorials.  Our articles are

succinct, engaging, authentic and easy to read. We maintain our high standards of writing through the

careful selection of relevant themes, through applying the principles of critical friendship, and through our

support of outstanding guest editors.

About our guest editors Once selected, our editors have a pretty free hand within a broad set of guidelines.  Guest editors deliver to

the e-O&P editorial board a set of articles of suitable quality, ready for publication, according to a pre-

arranged schedule.  This involves editors in inviting proposals for contributions, identifying authors,

commissioning stimulating articles, reviewing, and where appropriate, critiquing drafts and proof-reading final

copy and liaising with the e-O&P Editorial Board.

About our Critical FriendsFor their particular edition, guest editors often find it useful to create a small, temporary editorial team to

support them, including Critical Friends. The e-O&P editorial board is happy to help them find such

collaborators, and is on hand to explore any issues or concerns that arise, bearing in mind our limited time to

engage in extensive, detailed reading or conversations.

We are always looking to expand e-O&P’s network of Critical Friends, who would be available to guest

editors or individual authors on request.  Depending on their preferences and any specific need, Critical

Friends can help by reading drafts, offering constructive feedback, clarifying ideas, commenting on style,

providing encouragement, or by proof-reading or copy-editing pre-publication texts.  In return, this offers

Critical Friends the opportunity to develop greater insight into, and awareness of possibilities for, their own

writing and professional practice. They might even consider subsequently becoming a guest editor or author

for e-O&P.

Are you interested in joining our exciting project? If so, please contact one of us on the e-O&P editorial board as soon as possible. We’d love to hear from

you.

Bob MacKenzie Tel: 02380-238458 bob@amed.org.uk

David McAra Tel: 07917-689344 david.mcara@gmail.com

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 94 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

A note about AMED

AMED stands for the Association for Management Education

and Development, www.amed.org.uk. We are a long-

established membership organisation and educational charity

devoted to developing people and organisations.

Our purpose is to serve as a forum for people who want to share, learn and experiment, and find support,

encouragement, and innovative ways of communicating. Our conversations are open, constructive, and

facilitated.

Through AMED, we strive to benefit our members and the wider society. Exclusive Member benefits include

excellent professional indemnity cover at a significant discount, free copies of the quarterly journal e-O&P,

and discounted fees for participation in a range of face-to-face events, special interest groups, and our

interactive website. We aim to build on our three cornerstones of knowledge, innovation and networking in

the digital age. Wherever we can, AMED Members, Networkers and Guests seek to work with likeminded

individuals and organisations to generate synergy and critical mass for change. www.amed.org.uk, or

contact Linda Williams, our Membership Administrator, E: amedoffice@amed.org.uk, T: 0300 365 1247

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 95 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS

WINTER 2016 VERSION HISTORY

Date Version Description Name

29-11-2016 0-2 First compilation. Everything in already! David

30-11-2016 0-3 Spoke too soon. Tobin added. Sorry, John. Editorial tweaks applied

David

30-11-2016 0-3 Alison’s tweaks applied to her article and the editorial David

e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, WINTER 2016, VOL. 23, NO. 4 PAGE 96 WWW.AMED.ORG.UK

BACK TO CONTENTS