[OSList] Interdependence and Vulnerability: a delayed reframe re: Trust

[Chris Kloth]

Trust & Trustworthy - A bit long

Following up on Eric's question about my distinction between trust and 
trustworthiness I first want to thank him for triggering this reflection 
for me. I also want to note the way in which he wanted to make sure I 
did not misunderstand his intention as some sort of judgment... an act 
of trustworthiness. He recognized the potential vulnerability I might 
experience in order for us to learn together.

When I got to the heart of the artichoke I mentioned earlier I 
discovered that the key to the distinction for me is that I prefer to 
think of trust as a verb, much more than as a noun.

For me trust as a noun feels like a thing, a commodity to get, have or 
lose. I have your trust or I need to get it and try not to lose it. 
Leaders, managers, organizations try to get it and hold onto it. We feel 
betrayed when someone abuses our trust. We don't like it when someone 
takes advantage of our trust but we try to leverage the trust of others.

For me the verb shifts the focus to relationship and effort, to passion 
and responsibility. For me learning to trust and be trusted is at the 
core of building sustainable individual, group and community 
relationships. Trusting is an act of intimacy. Trusting is a process 
that people need to nurture so it can grow and thrive. It takes work, 
risk, vulnerability and commitment.

I remember being a member of an executive team in a state agency many 
years ago. I had decided I was finally going to raise an issue with the 
team that was going to meet strong resistance (vulnerability). Part of 
deciding to raise it was checking with a frequent ally to make sure I 
wasn't totally alone in taking a stand (interdependence). However, my 
ally arrived a few minutes late for the meeting and when I raised the 
issue he was silent (vulnerability). Later I asked him why he didn't 
speak up. He said the reason he was late was that he had been read the 
riot act by agency counsel about a stand he had taken in an unrelated 
context. He was shell shocked. My choice was to understand the tough 
spot he was in and that we would need each other's support in the future 
(interdependence).

In that relationship it was my responsibility to understand what 
happened rather than rush to judgment. I had to understand that we all 
have multiple relationships, roles and responsibilities. Sometimes my 
role in one relationship does not align with my role in another. I have 
to accept responsibility for making the choices I make and understand 
that, having built a trusting relationship, recognize that others may 
also have to make tough choices.

In the context of the work we do when opening and holding space (or 
hosting or facilitation or convening or being agile or using any other 
credible tool for creating sustainable shared responsibility for 
bringing about what we desire) we typically do not know well or at all 
the people who have gathered. We often are inviting them to trust a 
process that they are unfamiliar and/or uncomfortable with. They may not 
be comfortable with each other.

Much of my work that I have done over the years has involved addressing 
deep conflict rooted in cultural, racial and/or class bias. Often 
actively maintaining mistrust of "them" was seen as a survival skill. 
That does not mean they could not work together effectively in open 
space. At some point some people decided that they needed each other and 
were willing to risk vulnerability to get unstuck and move to a 
healthier place.

For years on this list we have shared with one another all the ways in 
which we are more or less effective in opening and holding the space. 
How we do it is a methodology question. I submit that what we are doing 
is creating a crucible within which people can bring their senses of 
passion and responsibility to bear on something they care about with 
people they may or may not be in relationship with yet, but who they 
need. In the process they will explicitly or implicitly plumb their 
shared senses of vulnerability and interdependence.

If we re-read old posts we will find many attributes that describe our 
behavior, demeanor and spirit when we are at our best. Each of us has 
said, "The key to doing this work is..." For me all these skills and 
attributes fall under the umbrella of being authentically trustworthy. 
They are helpful in building trust, but they do not equal trust.

Finally, unless I am going to maintain an ongoing relationship with 
their work, there is not time (or need) for them to achieve some state 
of being with me called trust. They only need to experience a sense of 
safety or trustworthiness sufficient to hold the container for their 
work. To expect more suggests that I am trying to get some need of my 
own met. Yes, I love to feel the senses of satisfaction, excitement and 
anticipation as they invest in their work and any compliments or 
appreciation they express for my role. I just don't call that trust.

Please note that my new e-mail address is chris.kloth at got2change.com. You may also contact me by using the Contact Page at www.got2change.com.

Shalom,

Chris Kloth
ChangeWorks of the Heartland
chris.kloth at got2change.com
www.got2change.com
phone - 614.239.1336
fax - 614.237.2347

Think Globally, Act Locally

Please think about the environment before printing this e-mail.

On 2/10/2014 12:40 PM, Eric Hansen wrote:
> Hi, Chris:
>
> I know I am a stranger on this list. My wife, Elaine Hansen, I think is more
> active, and is friends with Suzanne Daigle, who also responded to your post.
> I did not respond on top of Suzanne's response so as not to "muddy the
> waters." None of which matters except to provide some context for who I am.
>
> You're email caught my eye for several reasons. The comment that struck me
> most is this one:
>
> "They had determined that I was trustworthy, which I would suggest is short
> of trust. They were willing to risk vulnerability, in part, because I had
> demonstrated fairness, transparency, truthfulness and presence... enough to
> take a risk on the process."
>
> I am wondering: Could you tell me (us) more about why, for you,
> trustworthiness falls short of trust.
>
> I am not asking you to justify the distinction, only to explain it more. At
> this point, I do not understand.
>
> If you do decide to provide an answer, I would then invite you to answer one
> more question:
>
> Why is that distinction important to you?  Again, I am not asking you to
> justify that distinction. I am, instead, inviting you to reflect on why the
> distinction has meaning for you and then to share that meaning with the
> list.
>
> Eric Hansen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140213/e37cd9af/attachment-0008.htm>