The SPEED of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything

by Stephen M.R. Covey

As Friedman says: Without trust, there is no open society, because there are not enough police to patrol every opening in an open society. Without trust, there can also be no flat world, because it is trust that allows us to take down walls, remove barriers, and eliminate friction at borders. Trust is essential for a flat world . . . .

How you go about achieving results is as important as the results themselves, because when you establish trust, you increase your ability to get results the next time. And there’s always a next time.

The problem in organizations, however, is that many “ethics” solutions focus on compliance. The compliance definition of “ethics” is not one of integrity or integratedness; it is a watered-down, devalued definition that essentially means “follow the rules.” Ethics training, therefore, is often focused exclusively on conformity to Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulatory and rules-based legislation—and not on clarifying values and fostering integrity to those values and to enduring principles. As a result, companies have huge, complex policy manuals. In addition, people can be duplicitous or even brutal in how they treat others, but unless they’re caught fudging on an expense account or violating some other measurable rule, as long as they’re getting results, most companies typically won’t do anything about it.

People who are congruent act in harmony with their deepest values and beliefs. They walk their talk. When they feel they ought to do something, they do it. They’re not driven by extrinsic forces, including the opinions of others or the expediency of the moment. The voice they listen and respond to is the quiet voice of conscience.

Most people that I meet in my daily life… are anything but.

By drawing on the power of such principles and living in a way that was totally congruent to them, Gandhi was able to produce amazing positive results in India and throughout the world—despite the fact that he never held public office or any formal leadership position.

Humble people can negotiate intensely. They can drive hard bargains. They can express themselves firmly and clearly in intense situations in close personal relationships.

The trust we have in people and in organizations comes, in part, from believing that they do care.

It’s important to keep in mind that sometimes, unfortunately, poor behavior turns out to be bad execution of good intent. That certainly was the case when my father left my mother stranded alone on the highway! His intent was good, but his execution was poor. It’s also good to keep in mind that people typically judge us—and we judge them—based on observable behavior. Thus, we need to do all we can to ensure that our behavior accurately reflects our true motives and agendas.

Others have good intent—they sincerely want to do what’s right and seek the welfare of others—but their expression or execution of intent is poor.

In life, these are the people we should seek out and ally with. Help them.

You should not be satisfied with being a victim, nor with being a survivor. You should aim to be a conqueror. There is an extraordinary quality of spirit that leads one to aspire to conquering rather than surviving.

Someone asked him, “What if you train everyone and they all leave?” He responded, “What if we don’t train them and they all stay?”

Now as you hear this story, do you feel acutely that all of us are sitting with our feet on pieces of vitrified kaolin and hydrous aluminum silicate—with ants under them? Lord Chesterton answers: “There are no uninteresting things; there are only uninterested people.”

I know of one extraordinary person who for years would get up very early every morning and read for two hours. His goal was to learn everything possible about organizational behavior and development, human behavior, management, and leadership. And he did.

This creates a huge issue for organizations today. What do you do with someone who gets the results, but in ways that violate company values?

Peter Aceto, former CEO of Tangerine—a Canadian direct banking company—put it this way: I agree in principle with the adage “Hire slowly and fire quickly.” I’ve made both of those mistakes, hired too quickly and fired too slowly, partly because I believe that people want to be great, and given the opportunity they will improve. There’s an easier way to look at it—by breaking everything down into two qualities: being good at your job and being good at fitting into the culture. People who perform well in both will thrive. People who are high performers but don’t care about the culture will eventually pollute your workplace. Low performers who get the culture can be trained to grow. And low-performing culturally incompatible types must be let go with urgency.

The point was that when I accounted to him, I had to account for results. That lesson turned out to be the beginning of a major learning in my life: It’s vital to take responsibility for results—not just activities. This approach unleashes creativity. It helps you understand that if you can’t get results one way, you try another way—you don’t just sit there and whine, “Well, I did what you told me to do!”

The lesson from the story is this: If you’re not a caring person now—but you desire to be a caring person—then go out and behave in caring ways. If you’re not an honest person now—but you desire to be honest—then go out and behave in honest ways. Just do what caring and honest people do. It may take time, but as you do these things, you can behave yourself into the kind of person you want to be.

What constitutes a “deposit” to one person may not to another. I may think it’s a deposit to take you and your partner out to dinner. But to you, it may be a withdrawal. Maybe you don’t like to eat out with business associates, or you’re on a diet, or you really want to spend the evening at home, but you feel obligated because you don’t want to offend me. Or I may think it’s a deposit to publicly acknowledge you for some positive thing you did. But to you, it may be a withdrawal—even a huge withdrawal—because you wanted your deed to remain anonymous. Always remember: It’s important to know what constitutes a deposit to a person when you’re trying to build trust.

Sometimes entire cultures are held hostage by a downward cycle of spin and posturing. This diminishes trust and creates an additional “withholding tax” where people withhold information and keep things “close to the vest.” As a result, companies often have three meetings instead of one: the premeetings (to prepare and position), the meetings themselves (where, because of all the spin and withholding, very little discussion of the real issues take place), and then the “meetings after the meetings” (the smaller meetings where the real discussion happens and the real issues are aired).

However, I also know that seemingly little demonstrations of disrespect can lead to the bigger withdrawals that ultimately wipe those Trust Accounts right out. As one publication on abuse points out: The beginnings of both spouse and child abuse can be found in seemingly insignificant things, such as belittling the abilities and competency of another, constantly criticizing, being insulting or calling names, refusing to communicate, manipulating, causing guilt feelings, repeatedly making and breaking promises, intimidating, threatening physical harm, making unfounded accusations, or destroying property.

From the standpoint of speed and cost, transparency makes enormous sense. You don’t have to worry about hidden agendas. You don’t have to second-guess. You don’t have to waste time and energy trying to maintain an appearance or keep up with which approach you took with which person.

Tell the truth in a way people can verify. Declare your intent. Get real and be genuine. Be open and authentic. Err on the side of disclosure. Be transparent about not being able to be transparent (e.g., when the law or ethics preclude it). Operate on the premise of “What you see is what you get.” Don’t have hidden agendas. Don’t hide information.

When I think of delivering results, I think of the movie trilogy Lord of the Rings. You watch nine hours of film, but in the end, it’s all about Frodo getting that ring in the volcano. Without that, not much else really matters.

Don’t assume that just because you deliver what you may think are good results, you’re going to hit the mark. If you really want to build trust, you have to know what “results” mean to the person to whom you’re delivering.

Many felt that he not only failed to deliver, he also pointed the finger, attempting to shift the blame to others. One reason why taking responsibility and holding ourselves accountable is challenging is that we live in an increasingly victimized society.

If you’re on the right side of the curve—spending all your time listening and never bringing the conversation to the point of decisionmaking, counseling, or influencing—you may want to focus on courage (Integrity), acting in the person’s best interest (Intent), developing decision-making and collaboration skills (Capabilities), or simply getting things done (Results).

So I had a dilemma. I decided to apply what my late colleague Blaine Lee called the 10-Year Rule. I asked myself, Ten years from now, what will I be glad I did?

If you have to miss a deadline, attempt to renegotiate expectations as early as possible; don’t just ignore it and be late.

Companies should trust people to work at home more. Commuting kills so much time and energy that could be spent creating. —SIR RICHARD BRANSON, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, THE VIRGIN GROUP

How does Buffett handle a span of control that includes 77 direct reports? He operates on the premise of what he and his business partner Charlie Munger call “deserved trust.” They assume their people deserve trust unless they prove otherwise. It’s not blind trust; it’s smart trust. It includes discernment in the selection of people, communication of clear expectations, and establishing high standards of accountability. Above all, it includes the intentional extension of trust. People respond to being trusted. They thrive on it. They’re inspired by it.

My father shared with me an experience he had once when he did a presentation for a gaming organization in Las Vegas. The management showed him the gambling floor of the casino. They pointed out that because of the low-trust environment, coupled with the high risk of theft, the gambling floor had four to five levels of management. Thus, they had people watching people watching people watching people. In a high-trust culture, however, one to two levels of management would likely have sufficed.

Completely disagreed though. In some situations highly prone to exploitation and various uncontrollable factors, closely guarding key elements of business should stand.

It’s hard to even imagine a world without trust. As Thomas Friedman contends in The World Is Flat, trust is essential to a flat or open society. And the principal aim of terrorists is to destroy that trust. It’s to make us fearful of doing the things we do every day. While a flat, open global economy thrives on behaviors such as talking straight, creating transparency, righting wrongs, practicing accountability, keeping commitments, and extending trust, a closed, terroristic society thrives on counterfeits and opposites—on deception, hidden agendas, justifying wrongs, disregarding commitments, blaming others, and trusting none except those in an elite “inner circle.” Even then, trust is fragile and is subject to the whims of those in charge.