Practical Ways to Build Trust within Teams
As we close out a month’s focus on building great teams, let’s break down the components of how to build trust. Without thinking critically about trust, the concept can seem so obvious – I know who I trust, I know how it feels when I trust someone (and, more viscerally, when I don’t).
Charles Feltman defines trust as “choosing to risk making something you value vulnerable to another person’s actions” (The Thin Book of Trust, p9). Something about the specificity with how he describes trust is really striking – we do indeed take a risk when we trust people, and the insight that we’re entrusting something we value with another person rings true to me.
But how do we build trust? And how do we become more trustworthy to those around us?
I turn to two practical frameworks on trust regularly: Brené Brown’s BRAVING framework from Dare to Lead and Charles Feltman’s four distinctions of trust from The Thin Book of Trust. I recommend reading both of their books in full; for now, we’ll zoom in on a specific portion of them.
BRAVING
The BRAVING framework is a way to break down the elements of trust into observable (and, thus, changeable) actions. Each letter represents a component of trust – upholding the component builds trust and neglecting it loses trust.
Here they are (from Dare to Lead, pp225-26):
Boundaries: Setting boundaries is making clear what’s okay and what’s not okay, and why.
Reliability: You do what you say you’ll do. At work, this means staying aware of your competencies and limitations so you don’t overpromise and are able to deliver on commitments and balance competing priorities.
Accountability: You own your mistakes, apologize, and make amends.
Vault: You don’t share information or experiences that are not yours to share. I need to know that my confidences are kept, and that you’re not sharing with me any information about other people that should be confidential.
Integrity: Choosing courage over comfort; choosing what’s right over what’s fun, fast, or easy; and practicing your values, not just professing them.
Nonjudgment: I can ask for what I need, and you can ask for what you need. We can talk about how we feel without judgment.
Generosity: Extending the most generous interpretation to the intentions, words, and actions of others.
For the value of using the BRAVING framework, imagine a scenario. A teammate has just missed another deadline for getting something back to you, and you’re frustrated. You just can’t understand why they can’t deliver as promised – or at least give you a heads up when they’re going to miss a deadline. You give them a call and say something like, “this is the third time you’ve missed a deadline. I’m really struggling to trust you.”
Whoa. If I receive those words, I’m immediately flustered. I feel like you’re questioning my character. And I’m most likely going to respond in a defensive manner. Getting to the productive conversation about how we achieve on-time deliverables may be doomed.
Let’s go back to the top, this time with BRAVING in our toolkit. The teammate still hasn’t delivered as promised. You’re still frustrated. But you glance through your mental list of BRAVING: which elements of trust do I feel like have been undermined? Reliability comes to mind first.
You give your teammate a call and say something like, “this is the third time you’ve missed a deadline. On our team, we’ve agreed that it’s important to do what we say we will [Reliability]. Can you help me understand why you’ve missed this deadline?”
That focuses the conversation on observable actions, not character flaws. And it gives space for your teammate to bring up other elements of BRAVING in their response: “Thanks for calling and asking about this. I’ve actually been working through a family emergency that’s taking a lot of time, both in dealing with it directly and in working through the emotions. I’m sorry I didn’t reach out [Accountability] and let you know that I needed more time or support [Nonjudgment].”
That’s a completely different conversation. You can still talk about why it’s the third time a deadline was missed, and the path to on-time deliverables may have multiple components in it, but at least you’re talking about things that can be changed, rather than defending your character, priorities, or life choices.
Four Distinctions of Trust
Charles Feltman offers another (complementary) way to think about the components of trust: “The choice to trust consists of four distinct assessments about how someone is likely to act. These assessments are care, sincerity, reliability, and competence” (The Thin Book of Trust, p11).
Putting these in plain language, the four distinctions of trust are (from The Thin Book of Trust insert):
Care: We’re in this together.
Sincerity: I mean what I say, say what I mean, and act accordingly.
Reliability: You can count on me to deliver what I promise!
Competence: I know I can do this. I need to learn to do that.
You’ve likely noticed overlap with BRAVING, both in the category names and in descriptions. Each framework pulls out an interesting element for me. I particularly like the Care element in Feltman’s list, as “we’re in this together” really reflects the way I want to show up with and for my teams. And the Generosity element in Brown’s list is convicting; I do not naturally extend the most generous interpretation of others’ words, actions, and intentions.
Let’s take a different scenario to illustrate this framework. You’re on a team that’s been working together for several months, and you have a teammate that you have never – will never! – work on a project with. You can’t put your finger on precisely why you feel this way, but you feel it in your bones.
You can run through the four distinctions of trust to understand your intuition more specifically:
Competence: I’ve seen them present good work on multiple occasions, so I believe that they’re competent.
Reliability: I don’t have evidence to suggest they’re unreliable. This doesn’t feel like the rub.
Sincerity: ah, I don’t believe they mean what they say! I’ve heard that they take credit for others’ work, and I don’t like that.
Care: if they cared about teammates, they wouldn’t take credit for their work, right?!
We’ve uncovered the relevant distinctions of trust that aren’t met. And please note that perception may not be reality: the other person who said their work was used without credit could have misinterpreted a situation or you could have misunderstood them. But we’ve uncovered what you think makes this person untrustworthy – and now you can address your perception and/or response.
Turning back to BRAVING, you could choose to extend a Generous interpretation that the teammate was contributing in the best way they can. You could practice Accountability, Vault, and Integrity and connect with the other person that said their work was used improperly, noting that they would do well to connect directly with the teammate rather than spilling to you, a bystander. You could make a Boundaries discussion part of your project kickoff with any teammate, and trust that future challenges can be worked through together.
Putting it all Together
I find that the four distinctions of trust framework is particularly helpful for diagnosing where I’m failing to trust others, and the BRAVING framework is awesome for charting a productive path forward.
Can you think of a situation that you can use either of the frameworks to build or repair trust this week? Or perhaps there are ideas here that you can incorporate in your team’s agreed-upon processes for acting out your values. I’d encourage you to identify one next step in building trust within your team.
If you’re willing to share what you’re learning along the way, we’d love to hear about it! Please reach out to us at info@flexpointconsulting.com or join the conversation on LinkedIn.
