Is Trust Inherent in Human Nature?

Do You Think Certain Levels of Trust Are Just Inherent in Someone’s Nature or Natural State of “Being”?

That was a question asked of me by a client.  As he suspected, I do have a perspective about trust. 

For me trust is an essential context for any relationship, and a "must have" for collaboration and coordinated action. Without it everyone and everything is suboptimal – relationships, collaboration, knowledge sharing, the way we think, invent and create, the way we deal with setbacks... All of that is impacted by the presence or absence of trust

That a certain level of trust is inherent is some people's nature, is in my view, more a function of upbringing and early training than some natural inherent state of Being for human beings.
For me, the most powerful way to relate to trust/trusting is that it is a declarative state rather than an inherent natural state.

For example, if I declare that Larry is trustworthy. Which means I say [as in I declare] that I unreservedly and unequivocally trust Larry, then all my interactions with Larry are conditioned by that declaration or stand. I will not be on my guard vis-a-vis Larry. I will not second guess him or question him in my dealings with him. In all my interactions I will be biased to be open – vulnerable even – given I trust him I have nothing to hide or protect.

What  Does Relating To Others Coming From, I Trust You Make Possible?

If in relating to Larry from I trust you Larry, I observe something in his actions, or way of being with me that is inconsistent with who he says he is, or inconsistent with the agreements we have with each other, I will call it out, with the intention of waking him to the need for a correction. Given I trust Larry my perspective will be that the circumstances I observe must be/are the result of our human bias to be unconscious from time to time. 

Now, if the situation persists, then I would encourage Larry, and support him [coach him], to either be more conscious and to do some work to strengthen his practices, or, change how he speaks about who he is and what he can be counted on for, so his speaking matches his way of being and his actions. 

Our Default Relationship to Trust and Trusting

The default relationship to trust/trusting that most people have, is to hold trusting in abeyance till you "prove you are trustworthy" – and that takes time. So you don't get to be trusted immediately. The first "slip" on your part will be evidence that you are not yet ready to be trusted. 

In the paradigm in which I don't yet trust you, when we are not yet in a relationship predicated on trust/trusting, I don't have any room or context to "confront you" about your behavior or way of being except from a background context of making you wrong — which, when expressed, will prompt your self-protection/defensiveness. In other words, you will justify or make excuses for whatever happened that is the source of my complaint or upset, which just gives me even more reasons to withhold trusting you. I conclude you are not responsible, you are not someone I can count on/trust.

The best case scenario in this paradigm is a tentative transactional relationship in which I am just waiting to be let down by you, at some point about something. 

The worst case, is one in which I am coming from find the flaw/find the evidence of your untrustworthiness in all my interactions with you, I will experience an escalation of disappointments, mounting evidence that you are not trustworthy to deliver what I want or Be who I want you/need you to be, which inevitable leads to a break in the relationship — or in an organizational setting, you being fired.

President Reagan's Favorite Slogan Was, "Trust, But Verify"

My version, the perspective I prefer is Trust, as in I declare you are trustworthy AND I trust you – most often implicitly expressed. Also, implicit in a trust-based relationship, is the understanding that you can count on me to support you to act consistently with your espoused values, and commitments, and to support you and collaborate with you when your actions and way of being are inconsistent with who you say you are so you can wake up and correct.

My experience the place that most senior leaders come from is trust needs to be earned, it's not a given lightly. And, even when it is given, it is given sparingly and conditionally. Even after years of working, some folks never experience being trusted, and that is consistently expressed in the employee satisfaction surveys and exit interviews. 

In the scenario in which most interactions have, as the underlying context, find the flaw, the mark of a good manager is one who can find the flaw before any harm is done, before any opportunity is lost or risk incurred. This causes those being managed to Be tentative, conservation, risk-averse, honing to the tried and true, and when the chips are down relying on their relationships with their managers to get off lightly when flaws are [inevitably] found, or when breakdowns occur.

When Trust and Trusting Is Part of the Context/Culture 

When trust and trusting is part of the context/culture responsibility and accountability are natural expressions, as is straight talk, having difficult conversations, giving and receiving feedback and so on. 

We don't need to be defensive or guarded in a trusting relationship; we can be who we authentically are. When people are expressing who they authentically are, hiring is easier, putting people in the roles where they can contribute most is easier, fessing up to where we are not reliable and need help and support is easier, just so much of what it takes to create a great company is easier.