Trust is not coming back. Scepticism reigns, as it should. – Gerry McGovern
Since the industrial revolution, a trusting relationship between individuals and organisations has been the norm.
This has shaped the way we communicate – both internally and externally. It has resulted in the issuing of corporate annual reports, press releases , customer satisfaction scores and benchmarking results. All designed to tell a positive, on-message story.
Those days have gone.
As Gerry McGovern writes – the game has profoundly changed. “Many organisations are still deluding themselves into thinking that if they can just get their marketing and PR right, they can control the message, control the future.”
I’m not a smoker, but I’m told that if you really want to get a view of what’s happening in an organisation you don’t look at the intranet. You go to the smoking shelter. There hierarchy has no place. You get the real story behind the corporate version, and you get the stories that the corporate machine hasn’t yet realised are happening.
In 2017 we all have our version of the smoking shelter. Our news and gossip travels through the likes of Twitter and the backchannels of its direct messaging system. It thrives through end-to-end encrypted chats on WhatsApp and in peer-to-peer customer exchanges on our Facebook pages.
Institutional trust isn’t designed for the digital age. No government , never mind a single organisation, can control it. The official source is now secondary.
Over the past 17 years the Edelman Trust Barometer has surveyed tens of thousands of people about their level of trust in the sectors of business, media, government, and non-profits. This year was the first time the study found a decline in trust across all four.
It comes at a time of staggering lack of confidence in leadership: 71% of respondents said government officials are not at all or somewhat credible. 63% said the same about CEOs.
In a world where 76% of people trust leaked information over a press release, we have to rethink what trust means in a digital age.
As part of design work we are doing at Bromford – we’re beginning to redefine what we mean by organisational trust in both a colleague and customer context.
It’s easiest to think about trust in a personal relationship like marriage or a partnership. It’s built through four things:
- A shared agreement on values, goals or ambitions
- The behaviour that supports that agreement
- An understanding of the implications and consequences of breaking it
- Continued openness and honesty
Applying this to our relationship with organisations is subtly different.
We need to feel that organisations are competent and have the ability to fulfill their commitments. We need to believe they have the right motives, are benevolent, act fairly and honestly. We need to see they are transparent, that they are learning from mistakes and failure.
However, the digital age is disrupting the accepted rules of trust. No longer is a relationship solely between citizen and institution. What was once a fairly simple one to one relationship – with information limited to them directly – is now placed within a much wider context.
The network effect of technology has created a way for people to share experiences more quickly, and to more people with more detailed information than ever before.
The challenge for organisations is not for them to try to rebuild trust but to leverage the power of these new networks to do it for them.
It means reducing the gap between organisational rhetoric and the reality.
That means it’s time to do less talking and more listening:
It means stopping saying how great your organisation is.
It means engaging rather than broadcasting.
It means defaulting to transparency.
It means people as your ambassadors rather than just the CEO.
Trust now lies in the hands of individuals, not in our organisations.
2 thoughts on “Redefining Trust In A Digital Age”
A good article Paul, with lots of good insights. However, there are many other dimensions of this issue.- the battle between privacy and security surveillance is an example of “listening” which is actually eroding trust between government & citizen. The lack of a mutually beneficial contract between parties (employer & emplyee, government & citizen) is also an issue; I happily give Apple & Google constant access to my whereabouts (Location services truned on) because I get lots of benefits in return. Why would I want to give my employer or the government access to that information? What would I get in return? So as I say, lots of other dimensions to this (I would be banging on too long if I included the experiences in China & Russia
Thanks Doug – I wonder though whether security fears are used as a cover for what might be unearthed if a company operated in a truly transparent way?!