How we change what others think, feel, believe and do
Trust: what it is, and how to initiate it
Guest articles > Trust: what it is, and how to initiate it
by: Sharon Drew Morgen
Trust. The big kahuna. The sales industry seeks it; doctors assume it; couples demand it; change canâ€™t occur without it. But what is it? Why isnâ€™t it easier to achieve? And how can we engender it?
I define trust as the awareness of another (or situation) as safe, similar, and sane enough to connect with, and occurs when they
Unless these criteria are satisfied, trust canâ€™t occur no matter how kind, professional, necessary, or well-intended another person or message is. Itâ€™s a Belief issue.
BELIEFS DEFINE US
We gravitate to, and trust, folks with similar foundational Beliefs and world-views that match well-enough with our own to proclaim â€˜safetyâ€™. The problem is that when trying to connect with another, weâ€™re at the effect of their unconscious filters that immediately signal â€˜riskâ€™ when there is a perceived misalignment between our Beliefs.
Largely unconscious, illogical to others and hard to change, our Beliefs have been created during the course of our lives; they regulate us, define who we are and are the glue that enables us to show up congruently in the world. They sit at the core of the normalized habits and assumptions that maintain our behaviors, choices, and actions daily, restricting our life choices such as our occupations, politics, values, mates â€“ even our child rearing practices. And our Beliefs are the initiators of our behaviors â€“ behaviors being Beliefs in action.
For me, the most damaging restriction caused by Beliefs is to our listening: we hear only what our Beliefs sanction, regardless of what our Communication Partner (CP) intends. When researching my book What? Did you really say what I think I heard? I was surprised at the extent our Beliefs cause us to bias, misunderstand, assume, and filter in/out what others say. And since our brains do their filtering unconsciously and instinctively, without telling us what they added or subtracted, we canâ€™t even know for sure the meaning that our CP intended. We actually might hear ABL when our CP said ABC â€“ and our brains donâ€™t inform us they omitted D, E, F, G, etc. There is no way to know if what we think was meant is accurate unless we recognize a discrepancy. But by then, the damage has largely been done since we respond based on what we think had been said/meant (and indeed often getting it wrong).
DRIVERS FOR TRUST
Sadly, because everyoneâ€™s Beliefs systems are idiosyncratic, we (and often they, themselves) can't understand how anyoneâ€™s internal system of rules, values, history, habits, experiences etc. is structured or what drives it. This becomes problematic when we need a trusting relationship to accomplish our goals and weâ€™re not clear how to achieve it. Bad news for sellers, coaches, managers, etc. who attempt to promote change or buy-in by pushing ideas and content, unwittingly causing resistance and distrust, especially when the ideas promote our own Beliefs (even in the name of 'helping' others) potentially at the expense of triggering our CPs. Here are some of the ways we fail when trying to engage trust.
Relationship Building: Weâ€™ve been led to believe that having a relationship encourages buy-in to new ideas. But itâ€™s a conundrum: polite as an interaction appears or how necessary our message, we can't build a relationship with folks with divergent Beliefs, or fight their automatic filters that react to us immediately, regardless of the efficacy of the information. In other words, â€˜pushing inâ€™ doesnâ€™t work, even if our data and intent are accurate. We might have a superficial connection, but not a relationship; â€˜making niceâ€™ does not constitute a relationship, or engender change or trust.
Information: Our chosen vehicle to â€˜get inâ€™ is often with information that we believe to be rational and appropriate, without accounting for how it will be perceived by the filters our CPs hear it through. Sometimes, with the best will in the world, our brilliant attempt to share the â€˜rightâ€™ data inadvertently tells our CP that theyâ€™re wrong (and weâ€™re right). When we try to motivate, push, share, persuade, etc. we fail to realize that our CPs only understand our intent to the degree it matches their Beliefs, as well as how their listening filters translate it for them, regardless of its efficacy. So with the best will in the world, with folks who might really need what weâ€™ve got to share, we arenâ€™t heeded.
In fact, information is the last thing needed to facilitate change or buy-in, as everyone is pretty protective of their status quo and fears the new information carries the risk of disruption. So save the information sharing for when thereâ€™s a clear path to mutual Beliefs and trust has been developed, and then offer the information in a format that matches Beliefs. Think about it: if youâ€™re an environmentalist, offering â€˜rational/scientificâ€™ data that â€˜proveâ€™ climate change wonâ€™t persuade those who disagree; if youâ€™re a proponent of doctors, you wonâ€™t use alternate therapies to manage an illness no matter how strong the data for changing your nutrition.
Clear Communication: We all think we communicate clearly, yet weâ€™re not as effective as we think given our CPs filters that end up preventing our â€˜riskyâ€™ data from being heard accurately. Certainly we believe weâ€™re choosing the â€˜rightâ€™ words and approach to convey our intent. Yet our message is accepted only by those with similar Beliefs and resisted by the very people who need our information the most.
Since our great ideas and eager strategies donâ€™t engender trust in folks with different Beliefs, and without trust we canâ€™t change minds, what should we do? We can help our CPs redefine and reconfigure their Hierarchy of Beliefs and open up new possibility in ways that donâ€™t feel invasive but actually create trust. But they have to do it themselves.
OUTSIDE IN VS INSIDE OUT
Every one of us has a Hierarchy of Beliefs thatâ€™s unique to us, and comprises our status quo. So â€˜Donâ€™t kill othersâ€™ may be higher on the scale than â€˜Be politeâ€™; need for consistency/honesty/authenticity in a relationship may be a Belief thatâ€™s a precursor for trust in all relationships.
Hereâ€™s the problem: as outsiders we canâ€™t use our data to cause our CPs to change because anything outside their norm causes resistance; yet itâ€™s quite difficult for our CPs to reprioritize their Hierarchy on their own as it has become incorporated into their status quo, and their reactions follow habitual neural pathways. Right or wrong, everyoneâ€™s Beliefs are normalized.
We can facilitate them from outside, but without bias or intent, i.e. no information, opinions, scientific data, etc. Everyoneâ€™s Hierarchy is unique, certainly unknowable to an outsider; so we must carefully initiate new thinking by facilitating them through to their own brand of congruent change.
Letâ€™s say I have a very strong Belief that no one should ever be allowed to kill anyone else. But I learn that someone will be coming to my home to kill all my family members. Will I be willing to kill the intruder and save my family? Maybe, or maybe not. But I certainly will make sure â€˜Keep Family Safeâ€™ is ranked higher than â€˜Never Kill Anotherâ€™ and make my decision from there.
In order for our CPs to shift their Hierarchy of Beliefs to expand congruent choice and engender trust we must enable our CP to fit anything new into their current structure so the â€˜newâ€™ matches the values, traditions, rules, and system of the status quo.
In other words, information â€˜inâ€™ before the person has figured out theyâ€™re willing or able to change will shut your CP down.
FACILITATING TRUST THROUGH QUESTIONS
Iâ€™ve developed a new form of question (Facilitative Questions) that teaches others to scan their internal state to consider if itâ€™s important to potentially reprioritize their hierarchy. These questions are unbiased, systemic, formulated with specific wording, in a specific order, down the steps of change. They also take our CPs from defending their status quo into a Witness state to take a neutral, unbiased look at the status quo to notice if itâ€™s still operating excellently, and consider change if there might be a more congruent path.
Hereâ€™s a story. During a training program, a student showed everyone pictures of his 2-year-old twin daughters (adorable) and his beautiful wife. Once outside during the first break, he lit up a cigarette. It was hard to believe that he hadnâ€™t heard that smoking wasnâ€™t a healthy choice, but there was some Belief that kept him smoking and information hadnâ€™t enabled him to quit. My job became helping him reprioritize his Hierarchy.
I went over and posed a Facilitative Question: â€˜What would you need to know or believe differently to be willing to be alive and healthy by the time your daughters graduate university?â€™ He threw his cigarette, and the entire pack, away; he called me 6 years later to tell me he still wasnâ€™t smoking. That one Facilitative Question brought him to his Witness place and enabled him to use his own criteria for discovery and change. I helped him shift his hierarchy to and move â€˜Be healthy for kidsâ€™ up on the scale. By enabling him to find his own unconscious drivers, I helped him make his own change. If I told him cigarettes were unhealthy, Iâ€™d be challenging his Identity about his choices and trying to shove information into an unknown Hierarchy, certainly to meet with resistance. Note: this process is obviously far more substantial in a client/team/implementation process.
Sometimes ineffective behaviors become normalized to match a different criteria, and new criteria is necessary for change to occur. [Again, as outsiders, we can never understand how anotherâ€™s Hierarchy maintains itself.] Once people discover their own incongruence, and can incorporate the change to maintain Systems Congruence, theyâ€™re happy to change. But offering data doesnâ€™t get to this. Take a look at a conventional question vs a Facilitative Question:
Conventional: Do you think itâ€™s time for a haircut? or Why do you wear your hair that way?
Telling someone they need a haircut, or asking them if they noticed they need a haircut, or giving them an article on new types of hair styles - all based on your own need to convice your CP to change - will cause defensiveness and distrust.
A Facilitative Question might be
How would you know if it were time to reconsider your hairstyle?
This brings your CP to
By using this type of question down the steps of internal change, we offer a route for the CP to discover their own best answer that aligns with their Beliefs and engenders trust. No push, no need for a specific response. Serving another to discover their own Excellence.
I designed these questions as part of my Buying FacilitationÂ® model, a generic change facilitation model (often used in sales) that enables others to reconfigure their Hierarchy of Beliefs, and enable congruent change. Sounds a bit wonky, I know, and itâ€™s certainly not conventional. When we facilitate our CPs down their path to conscious choice, we
Until your audience is able to accomplish this, they will hear you through biased ears, maintain their barriers, and engender trust only with those who they feel aligned with â€“ omitting a large audience of those who may need you. Stop using your own biases to engender trust: facilitate your CPs in changing themselves. Then the choice of the best solution becomes a consequence of a system that is ready, willing, and able to adopt Excellence. And theyâ€™ll trust you because you helped them help themselves.
Sharon Drew Morgen is the visionary behind Buying FacilitationÂ® - a change management model that includes learning how to Listen for Systems, formulating Facilitative Questions, and understanding the steps of systemic change. For those of you wishing to learn more, take a look at the program syllabus. Please visit www.dirtylittlesecrets.com and read the two free chapters. Consider reading it with the companion ebook Buying FacilitationÂ®
Sharon Drew is the author of the NYTimes Business Bestseller Selling With Integrity, as well as 6 other books on helping buyers buy. She is also the author of the Amazon bestseller What? Did you really say what I think I heard? Sharon Drew keynotes, trains and coaches sales teams to help them unlock situations that are stalled, and teaches teams how to present and prospect by facilitating the complete buying decision process. She delivers keynotes at annual sales conferences globally. Sharon Drew can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org 512 771 1117
Contributor: Sharon Drew Morgen
Published here on: 03-Sep-17
And the big