THE TRUST EQUATION

A MODIFIED VERSION OF THE TRUST EQUATION

Mike Cameron has previously discussed the Trust Equation, and how it plays a significant role in building an organisational culture of belief and confidence. He applies his own variation of the equation to Australian working conditions.

In my article on trust 1 , I highlighted the Trust Equation, a scientifically-based, deconstructive model offering an analytical, actionable framework for evaluating trustworthiness which was first described in The Trusted Advisor, co-written by Charles H Green and David Maister (2000). They also introduced the term “Trust Quotient” 2 (TQ).

As a coach and trainer, I’ve used the Green/ Maister model, together with a simple story to gain my clients’ understanding of how important and useful this model can be when used appropriately and in a timely fashion.

However, after feedback, I’ve modified the model to reflect the most common Australian meaning of words associated with trustworthiness, trust and Green/ Maister’s own selection of words for their Trust Equation (without, I believe, losing the intention, research and science of their original work).

The modified Trust Equation uses four objective variables which I’ve described as: • Believability. • Dependability. • Relatability. • Self-interest.

These are combined to create the following equation – the TQ (see Figure 1) – which evaluates an individual’s trustworthiness with four variables: 1. Believability (Credibility*), ie your having confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something (although without absolute proof that you are right in so doing). 2. Dependability (Reliability*), ie on the other person’s actions and their displaying honesty, economy, faithfulness and a capacity for finishing what has been started. 3. Relatability (Intimacy*), ie your feeling connected to the other person, appreciating their ease of communication, identifying with their ability to understand and be understood, and recognising/appreciating when they display empathy towards you and others. 4. Self-interest (Self-orientation*), ie the other person’s focus. Are they focused

TQ = B + D + R S-I

Figure 1. The Trust Quotient evaluates an individual’s trustworthiness with four variables.

on themselves, or on you when making decisions and advising on what is best for you? * Note: The asterisked words are the formal terms used by Green and Maister.

What is important to remember is that the meaning of the words I’ve selected are almost entirely personal, not organisational. People rarely give over their trust to a company or business but they tend to assess the situation when, right or wrong, they decide to either trust or not trust other people.

While people within a company make it what it is, a company (or its marketing image) may be described as “Believable” and “Dependable” (the first two components of my revised model). However, “Relatability” and “Self-Interest” are solely people-based. Many of us make a quick judgement, based on our “gut feeling”, whereas the assessment of trustworthiness requires an objective, nonemotive rating for each of the four variables, since you are seeking high believability, dependability and relatability, and low selfinterest scores to establish a credible TQ.

THE RATING PROCESS Self-interest, which sits alone, is the most important variable in the Trust Equation because by increasing the number that you apply (one to five, with five being for a person most focused on themselves) it will decrease the value of trust. In other words, the more you trust that person, the lower the rating you will give self-interest (with one being for a person most focused on you).

However, increasing the rating to any of the three variables in the top line of the equation (one to five, with five representing your highest level of confidence) increases the value of trust. In other words, the more comfortable you feel about these variables the higher the score you will give to each of them.

For example, in a recent TV advert about a couple looking for a home mortgage, the financial advisor initially would have been rated 5 (excellent) + 4 (good) + 3 (fair) = 12 (out of a maximum of 15) on the top line, divided by 2, from the bottom line (showing low self-interest and a keen focus on the couple), giving an overall TQ of six. This means the customers felt reasonably comfortable with this individual, given that it was a commercial transaction.

However, when suddenly he is shown counting a fist full of dollars (his commission), how would they rate his self-interest now?

Let’s assume the couple assessed the financial advisor as a five (showing little or no concern/interest for his clients’ well-being), a revised TQ of 2.4 would be the result (12 divided by 5 = 2.4).** **Note: With the highest TQ rating being 15, any score at five or less means questionable to low trustworthiness. The TV couple certainly didn’t want to take up his offer to provide them with additional services having lost their previous feeling of trust for this man!

In conclusion, this model is an important tool that, when used correctly, will assist you to evaluate the “trustworthiness” of individuals rather than relying on your “gut instinct” or less reliable methodologies. •

Mike Cameron is an IQA member and the principal of Strategically Yours. Visit strategically.com.au

ENDNOTES 1 Cameron M. Building and sustaining the environment of trust in business. In: Quarry 28(3); March 2020: 39-41. 2 Green CH, Founder, Trusted Advisor, Associates LLC. The trust quotient and the science behind it. https://trustedadvisor.com/why-trust-matters/ understanding-trust/the-trust-quotient-and-thescience-behind-it

GEOLOGY TALK

VICTORIA’S MOUNTAINS GROWING TALLER

View of the Bogong plains, taken from Mt Feathertop, in the Victorian Alps. According to a recent Victorian Government survey, the Alps are rising by 0.1mm per year.

Everlastings on Mt Hotham looking towards Mt Feathertop.

A survey has discovered Victoria’s mountain ranges are increasing in height each year due to a tectonic plate boundary collision in New Zealand. Nickolas Zakharia reports.

The Victorian Alps are rising each year according to a 18-month survey conducted by the Eastern Victoria Geoscience Initiative.

The 629km stretch of mountains from Benalla, Victoria to Eden, New South Wales is being pushed up by 0.1mm a year, the survey revealed. This is believed to be a side effect of New Zealand’s ongoing tectonic plate boundary collision, which moves its mountain regions up by 12mm every year. The 18-month survey went from the surface to 60km deep into the Earth’s crust.

While Victoria’s growth spurt may seem small, it has provided geoscientists with a number of practical insights. Ross Cayley, of the Geological Survey of Victoria (GSV), told connection.vic.gov.au it will now be easier for earthquake threats to be detected in Victoria due to the survey’s findings. It is also expected to help with infrastructure planning and management plans.

“The research can work out which regions of Eastern Victoria lie above and below major tilted faults, and so better estimate potential earthquake risk from these structures should they reactivate,” Cayley said.

Earthquakes reaching near magnitude 6.0 on the Richter scale have hit Victoria in the past, with regions in the state’s east lying above and below major tilted faults.

Mineral exploration will also receive a potential boost, with the survey expected to help locate geological deposits connected between NSW and Victoria. Despite the data being unable to pinpoint the specific location of a mineral deposit, it will be able to help geologists locate the correct district for mineral exploration.

Farming productivity and environmental management is also expected to be improved with the survey’s geological information.

The Eastern Victoria Geoscience Initiative began mapping the Victorian component of the Southeast Lachlan Crustal Transect in 2018. The project aims to improve understanding of southeast Australia’s underlying geological “architecture” from the surface to 60km deep within the Earth’s crust and includes the acquisition of fundamental geoscience datasets and applied geoscientific research. The findings will assist government to make better informed land management decisions to benefit the community, identify natural geological hazards, protect state infrastructure and manage earth resources.

The scientific results of the Initiative will be married up with results from a similar project in southeast New South Wales, providing a key geological reference for southeast Australia in terms of its geology and evolution over the past 500 million years. •

ENGINEERED FOR RESULTS

Our expert engineers design customised solutions that transforms natural sand and crushed rock reserves into high-value products for an exceptional return on investment. An integrated water management system recycles up to 90% of process water for immediate re-use in the system, significantly reducing footprint and maintenance of settling ponds.

ENGINEERED FOR YOU. Visit cdeglobal.com