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

[David Osborne]

Chris,

I have found your reflection and thoughts on trust....as a verb and it's
connection with vulnerability and interdependence has deepened my
understanding and awareness.

Thanks for sharing

Davdi


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Chris Kloth <chris.kloth at got2change.com>wrote:

>  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 Heartlandchris.kloth at got2change.comwww.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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>

--

David Osborne



www.change-fusion.com | dosborne at change-fusion.com | 703.939.1777
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140213/35da589e/attachment-0008.htm>