Trust can be a big, floofy term- like “ethics” or “justice.” I find myself invoking Trust-with-a-capital-T without always thinking about what I really mean. I was forty-something years old and in graduate school before I really started to think about this word that I’ve used my whole life. Yikes.  

I tend to like Brene Brown’s idea about trust: When I say that I trust you, it is because I believe that you are likely to act in my best interest. 

While I like that idea, it doesn’t really get at some of the tricky issues around trust, like how I decide about trustworthiness / why I choose to trust, and what happens when trust is broken.  But in graduate school, I learned a few concepts that have helped me a lot: 

One type of trust is Relationship-based trust. 

This is “quick and easy” trust. I believe that you are likely to act in my best interest. I believe this based on my perceived relationship to you (are you like-me or not-like-me). 

  • Example: I need to take my toddler to the bathroom while my elementary-aged kid is on the playground. I look around and see another parent that also has kids on the playground. I think, “that person seems like me; I am guessing they won’t snatch my second grader and run away while I deal with this urgent poop situation.”
What just happened in my brain? I needed a fast solution. My priorities were safety + poop management. Rather than spend energy analyzing risk, my brain did this:”Who do I trust the most? Me! Who seems like me? That stranger! They must be awesome.”
In that split second, I made a really important decision based not on any actual facts, but on my imagined relationship to that person– based on the ways I “automatically” thought that person was “like” me.  

Another type of trust is Calculus-based trust. (not math)

This type of trust develops gradually over a long period of time.  I believe that you are likely to act in my best interest. I believe this based on how I calculate the impact of  your knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors. 
  • Example: I have been working for six months to perfect my cake-icing skills at work and to improve the reputation of our in-store bakery. I have the opportunity to take a rare vacation, but this means that my co-worker Robin will take care of the cake orders. The reputation I have carefully built will be in Robin’s hands. Robin is not like me in any outwardly perceivable way. However, I have worked with Robin and trained them for two months. They have indicated to me time and time again that they are a hard worker, are dedicated to customers, and I have never seen them lick icing off their fingers. 
So what happened in my brain this time? How did I make this decision? How did I evaluate the trustworthiness of Robin? Even though Robin and I don’t have a lot in common on a personal level, I have developed a belief that they will act in my best interest. Why? Because gradually and over time, Robin showed up and demonstrated the ways in which I could count on them.  

What about distrust?

First of all, distrust is distinct from trust. It’s not a continuum where more trust means less distrust. They are completely different things. What’s the opposite of love? Is it hate? Nah. It’s apathy. So what is the opposite of trust? Nothing (I mean, I’m sure there’s a word for it, but let’s just say nothing for now.) I have no information nor have I developed any ideas about whether or not you will act in my best interest. That’s the opposite of trust. But is that distrust? Again, nah. 
When I distrust you, I believe that you are NOT LIKELY to act in my best interest.  

Even though trust and distrust are distinct, we can still think about relational-distrust and calculus-based-distrust. 
  • Relational distrust: I look at you and make a quick decision. You are nothing like me and therefore are not likely to act in my best interest. 
  • Calculus-based distrust: Based on your actions over time, I calculate that you are not likely to act in my best interest. 

Trust violations 

In case you haven’t heard this before, let me tell you: being human is about screwing up. We all make mistakes. We are big oozy messes making bigger messes in a bigger, messy world and doing our best to love one another. (Takeaway: it’s okay to mess up.) 
Somebody does something that demonstrates that I can’t rely on them to act in my best interest in the future. Or I do something that demonstrates you can’t rely on me to act in your best interest in the future. (Ouch, my ego.) 
  • If you’ve been operating on relational-based trust, this will likely hurt. a lot. You may even have a teency or not-so-teency identity crisis (“OMG. If they did that, does it mean I COULD DO THAT? Who am I anymore?”)
  • If you’ve been operating on calculus-based trust, you’re likely to get angry. You may even question your own judgement. 
Trust violations happen. Broken trust happens. It stinks and it hurts, but it is normal. So let’s just accept that we’re going to hurt people and people will hurt us. Once we normalize that expectation, we can do something about healing.  

Trust repair

The main point: regardless of the type of trust you had before the trust violation, trust repair ALWAYS HAPPENS in the realm of calculus-based trust. 

What the hell does that mean, Beth? 
It means this: if you want to repair a relationship after a trust violation, you can expect that the healing will be gradual and happen over a long period of time. 
  • To expect immediate trust is a type of gaslighting. It’s like asking a person to ignore their own reality. It would be quite silly to ask someone to ignore a trust violation and immediately believe that the other person will now act in their best interest. Apologies matter. But apologies (and simply saying “I’m sorry” is not an apology) are completely distinct from trust repair and healing.  
In order to repair trust, we must invest in the realm of calculus-based trust. BOOM. There it is. Carefully, gradually, over a span of time, a relationship can heal from a trust violation. It’s not pretty or easy, but it can be worth it. 

Consent

It takes two to tango. It takes two to heal a trust violation. Person A has to be willing to invest a lot of time and energy into demonstrating — gradually and over time– that they are likely to act in the best interest of Person B.  And Person B? Person B has to be willing to do the math. Given time and space, Person B has to be willing to calculate the impact of Person A’s trust repair behavior. 
And if either party isn’t willing to do the work or receive the work, the other party doesn’t have the right to “insist.”

So what about organizational trust?

All of the above examples occur in the realm of interpersonal relationships. We’ve been talking about the relationship between two people (or even two groups of people). But what about organizations? What about institutions? How do I trust a school or the electric company or the union or the government? What happens when trust violations are systemic and not the result of one person’s actions? Is it possible to repair a violation of organizational trust? More on that next time. 
Love you. Mean it. 
Beth