Working at your highest level of trust

To build rapport and openness it is important to work at the highest level of trust in which you can. Stuart Wells discusses four levels of trust which provide a useful framework to build the relationships you need to win the knowledge game.

Starting with negotiated , which is the lowest level of trust, we progress through conditional , then co- operative and, finally, to the highest which is unconditional . The premise behind this framework is that you can evolve to a higher level of trust at any time if both parties are prepared to partner at that level. Let me make a brief comment about each.

Negotiated trust is when an exchange of trust is at its lowest. Here both parties only act on those matters which have been clearly agreed to.

Detailed actions and milestones would be a central part of this agreement. This is often seen in early discussions between untrusting parties.

The next level of trust is conditional. In this context people work on the assumption that the other party will get the benefit of your doubt until you see how they perform. If they do well or they meet your expectations you will trust them more. Here you are setting up an often unspecified probation period for the other party to prove their worth and trustworthiness . This is a little more liberating and freewheeling than the negotiated level of trust.

Third is co-operative trust which works on the belief that if a party fails to meet their commitments it does not automatically mean that trust will be eroded. You realize that all parties will sometimes experience difficulties and these will be sorted out. What is more important is building a long- term relationship.

Unconditional trust, the highest level of trust, relies on the deepest integrity and intention of all. Here you are not concerned about the levels of trust, you have moved on to more enlightened perspectives such as bringing about required change, making positive reform and sponsoring innovation. As a result, you begin to spend your energies on getting on with the job rather than checking and balancing the behaviour or performance of the other party. If a situation arises that is not desired, there is enough faith in the parties involved that the problem will be discussed and resolved.

I have found, in applying this model, that one soon discovers that many deeper questions or issues about trust bubble to the surface. For example, in recent times I have pondered on the following questions:

• What level of trust am I capable of, when giving or receiving?

• What can be done to improve the level of trust and or trustworthiness?

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of trusting more?

• What are the possible consequences of my current level of trust?

• Do the costs of trusting more outweigh the benefits?

• Am I displaying the right level of checks and balances ?