Leadership and Trust

So many years ago there was this great blog, Weknowmore.org run by Antoon van het Erve and Johan Lammers. (Hey, both of you are also KM4Dev members. Johan, here is your KM4Dev bio! Remember this post?). The post is now digital dust. I had copied it back in 2009 with the intention of blogging about it. I could not find the particular post on the Wayback Internet Archive, but I was able to find one page for a screen grab.

Screen capture of the weknowmore.org front page from the Internet Wayback Machine showing a crowd of people and links to what the company did and their blog posts.

The post was titled: “Ten ways how leadership can influence and promote interpersonal trust in knowledge management behavior and processes.” 

As I read them, they resonated with the 10 leadership principles that emerged from Liberating Structures. They are not the same, but they are related. Take a look and see if there is something resonant and useful for you. I’ve put a few notes in bold dark red.

From WeKnowMore.org

Trustworthy Behaviors

1. Act with discretion Keeping a secret means not exposing another person’s vulnerability; thus, divulging a confidence makes a person seem malevolent and/or unprofessional.

  • Be clear about what information you are expected to keep confidential.
  • Don’t reveal information you have said you would not . . . and hold others accountable for this.

In the digital era, this becomes a gnarly intersection with both transparency, and organizational policies and practices. Secrets are rare things these days. 

2. Be consistent between word and deed When people do not say one thing and do another, they are perceived as both caring about others (i.e., they do not mislead) and as being competent enough to follow through.

  • Be clear about what you have committed to do, so there is no misunderstanding.
  • Set realistic expectations when committing to do something, and then deliver.

In complex, uncertain times, there is the layer of working with uncertainty and ambiguity when setting expectations!

3. Ensure frequent and rich communication Frequent, close interactions typically lead to positive feelings of caring about each other and better understandings of each other’s expertise.

  • Make interactions meaningful and memorable.
  • Consider having some face-to-face (or at least telephone) contact.
  • Develop close relationships.

In our remote/hybrid/F2F continuum, we have to reexamine these practices. What worked in the “good old days” pre-pandemic may no longer be relevant. This is a place for creative destruction not only for communications practices, but understanding the value of them – not just doing them because we always did them!

4. Engage in collaborative communication People are more willing to trust someone who shows a willingness to listen and share; i.e., to get involved and talk things through. In contrast, people are wary of someone who seems closed and will only answer clear-cut questions or discuss complete solutions.

  • Avoid being overly critical or judgmental of ideas still in their infancy.
  • Don’t always demand complete solutions from people trying to solve a problem.
  • Be willing to work with people to improve jointly on their partially formed ideas.

Ditto to #3!

5. Ensure that decisions are fair and transparent People take their cues from the larger environment. As a result, there is a “trickle down” effect for trust, where the way management treats people leads to a situation where employees treat one another similarly. Thus, fair and transparent decisions on personnel matters translate into a more trusting environment among everyone.

  • Make sure that people know how and why personnel rules are applied and that the rules are applied equally.
  • Make promotion and rewards criteria clear-cut, so people don’t waste time developing a hidden agenda (or trying to decode everyone else’s).

See #1. I also think we have to rethink the value and application of rules, heuristics and practices in complex contexts where rules are not useful!

Organizational Factors

6. Establish and ensure shared vision and language People who have similar goals and who think alike find it easier to form a closer bond and to understand one another’s communications and expertise.

  • Set common goals early on.
  • Look for opportunities to create common terminology and ways of thinking.
  • Be on the lookout for misunderstandings due to differences in jargon or thought processes.

Reframe to purpose, which can be tracked or measured, even if the indicators are less-than-perfect. The rest is still spot on. But “vision” is too vague these days.  It leads to the very misunderstandings noted above.

7. Hold people accountable for trust To make trustworthy behavior become “how we do things here,” managers need to measure and reward it. Even if the measures are subjective, evaluating people’s trustworthiness sends a strong signal to everyone that trust is critical.

  • Explicitly include measures of trustworthiness in performance evaluations.
  • Resist the urge to reward high performers who are not trustworthy.
  • Keep publicizing key values such as trust-highlighting both rewarded good examples and punished violations-in multiple forums.

What is the line or continuum of measuring trust and measuring performance, progress, etc.?  How do we succeed in lower trust environments while trust is forming or absent but we still work together. This gets to the nubbins of trust itself and how essential it is. I think this is super context dependent. But I’ll save that for another day. This is getting LONG!

Relational Factors

8. Create personal connections. When two people share information about their personal lives, especially about similarities, then a stronger bond and greater trust develop. Non-work connections make a person seem more “real” and human, and thus more trustworthy.

  • Create a “human connection” with someone based on non-work things you have in common.
  • Maintain a quality connection when you do occasionally run into acquaintances, including discussing non-work topics.
  • Don’t divulge personal information shared in confidence.

Still resonates with my “if we get to know each other, even a little bit, we are less likely to shoot each other…

9. Give away something of value Giving trust and good faith to someone makes that person want to be trusting, loyal, and generous in return.

  • When appropriate, take risks in sharing your expertise with people.
  • Be willing to offer others your personal network of contacts when appropriate.

Love this one. The most.

Individual Factors

10. Disclose your expertise and limitations Being candid about your limitations gives people confidence that they can trust what you say are your strengths. If you claim to know everything, then no one is sure when to believe you.

  • Make clear both what you do and don’t know.
  • Admit it when you don’t know something rather than posture to avoid embarrassment.
  • Defer to people who know more than you do about a topic.

Well, maybe I love THIS one the most. 🙂

Liberating Structures Principles

As I revisited the principles and cross checked them to the things above, my sense was the principles support the practices noted above. Your thoughts? The comments are OPEN!

  1. Include and Unleash Everyone
  2. Practice Deep Respect for People and Local Solutions
  3. Build Trust As You Go
  4. Learn by Failing Forward
  5. Practice Self-Discovery Within a Group
  6. Amplify Freedom AND Responsibility
  7. Emphasize Possibilities: Believe Before You See
  8. Invite Creative Destruction To Enable Innovation
  9. Engage In Seriously-Playful Curiosity
  10. Never Start Without Clear Purpose

Allegiance as an online community indicator

On Christmas eve, 2009, Josie Fraser (now at http://www.josiefraser.com/) Did a Twitter poll of 100 of her followers to see if, by following her, they had connected to her enough to have some sort of allegiance. I found this humorous AND fascinating, but clearly never got around to blogging about it. I kept the draft because it fit with the tag that I still love, Community Indicators. Community indicators are things that provide evidence of our connection and continuity through community interaction and engagement. What comes of these connections? Just compost, or growth?

Image of two mushrooms amongst compost with an additional mushroom piece fallen over.
The mushrooms and the compost

SocialTech: Twitter allegiance
I invited 100 of my 1,276 current Twitter followers to fill in a quick survey cunningly designed to provide a fairly wonky measure of community allegiance.

Josie’s folks clearly liked her then, back in the good old, kinder, smaller Twitter days. I wonder what would happen if you repeated your poll, Josie? (I’ll have to Tweet a link out with this!)

I often fondly think of the 7-10 people who still regularly read my blog. I would do many of the things Josie asked for you!!!

Happy Holidays

Happy Holiday Fudge

In my childhood, my mother, Dolores Wright, got a fudge recipe from her friend Nadine Seedall, who said it was the recipe from See’s Candy – then a small local chocolate company in California. It has been made year over year as a family tradition. Some years, multiple batches were made so packages and tins of fudge were given to EVERYONE. Now we make one batch – some to give, some to eat together. Today my grandpeople and I will make this year’s batch, passing the tradition down. The fourth generation in my lifetime so far…

Image of a dirty old recipe card of the fudge recipe. Link in article for the full recipe.
My copied over version of the famous fudge recipe

I’ve blogged the recipe multiple times (see here) and offer it as a sweet bit of gratitude to all of you. Happy Holidays!

Community is not a one shot deal

Trees, standing togetherI found another almost intact unpublished post from 2008. It still resonates for me. For you?

Will Richardson sent out a tweet today noting the admissions page of the College of the Atlantic. This line caught my eye. (Alas, dead link… this is what happens when you resurrect a 13 year old blog draft. I can’t find the text on their site  now..)

Community isn’t a one-shot deal; it’s at the heart of daily life here.

Amen! Community is fabric, not container. It is, to use a word I love, quotidian. Peter Block (see this blog post) talks about successful communities being “slow, small and underfunded.” So then what does this mean in terms of networks? Are they a one shot deal? Fast? Certainly large is a property of many of the successful networks I’m a part of. (I’ll leave the funding issue alone today!)

I keep thinking every day about what makes community different from network.  Just when I think I have it figured out, my logic falls apart, even when I try to squirrel out of it and say “this is all a continuum and of course, context matters.” Argggg.

This weekend I was introduced to Blip.fm – a network of people sharing links to music they love, Twitter style. (Update – it is now more of a way to be an internet based DJ, so it evolved a bit.) I have also been playing Amy Jo Kim and Shufflebrain’sPhotograb” puzzles in Facebook. (I don’t think these exist anymore either!)  There is something about both of these networks that strike a “community chord” in me. Part of it is that both are well designed with game dynamics in mind, something Amy Jo has written about. Awards, “props” and various forms that reify participation and support reciprocity. I liken it to addiction to chocolate. 🙂 There is something you want more of.  That is the gaming property that draws us back.  But that addiction is not the “community-like” property of either of these sites that I’m sensing.

Is there a community property to Blip.fm and Photograb? I think so. But let me step back a bit. And, true to form, ramble. Yes, I’m thinking out loud, so don’t sink the following in concrete. Make it better by commenting!

My personal experience and definition of community is a group of people who care about something in common, and who interact with and have some sort of relationship with each other over time. Community has some boundary, however fuzzy and ineffable. It has interactions that are in some degree or other shared amongst all or most of the members. Things overlap. The boundary is a core part of the identity of a community and members are willing to have some degree of collective, not just individual, identity.

Networks are, by contrasts, collections of relationships (represented by nodes) that are not equal nor reciprocal over the network and where interests are overlapping, not necessarily congruent. Individual identity has primacy over network identity (if, in fact, any network identity is explicitly expressed.) Network relationships are defined by the nodes, not the boundaries of the network –if there are even boundaries. For example, membership in Blip.fm is a boundary, but not one that an individual can really fathom in terms of relationships because, come on, we don’t have “relationships” with thousands of people. Which begs the definition of relationship, eh?

In my experience, we form relationships in communities based on the person first, then their role and participation in the community. In networks we often form connections based on the content another person adds to the network. A puzzle on Photograb. A great tune on Blip.fm. We then nurture that connection and, if we like what we see, we may choose to activate that connection into a relationship. So trust, if I may use that word, is based on artifacts not personal relationships, at least at the start.

Given enough overlapping relationship, a community may form within that network. That’s why I think networks are so powerful as community incubators. This is a far more sustainable and scalable community formation path than someone saying “we need a community on X topic and I’m going to build it.”

Building implies a space. Community, remember, is fabric. Or ecosystem. It needs place, but it is not place itself. It needs time. It needs more than a container. But I’m getting off track, yet again. Sigh.

So are networks one shot deals? Often, yes. If we don’t get sufficient value out of a connection, we move on. If the content provided by the network doesn’t add value, we move on. The cost of sampling is not too high and the risk of disappointing or souring a relationship with another network member is low.

But networks are not by default one shot deals. If so, then what causes us to persevere in our networks? To stay connected? To create the possibility of community emergence?

Back to my thought about the possibility of “community-likeness” of Blip.fm and Photograb. Two things were in mind before I started playing with Photograb and Blip. That was value and relationship. Value is what we get out of something we participate in. You learn something. Have fun. Get work done. Relationship is the ongoing interaction we have with other individuals. Networks give us connections so we can create/find/nurture sets of connections that have short or long term value.

But it dawned on me today that, for me, a third reason cropped up today. Beauty. Or maybe pleasure is the word. In the case of Blip.FM and Photograb, both bring me non-text experiences that give me visual and aural pleasure. I’m smiling and grooving now to the music on Blip.fm and am truly appreciative of the individuals who took the time to share what they love and fill my little office with music. I’m madly giving them “electronic props” on the system to express my appreciation. (Nice design, Blip.fm!)

I’m taken back to the same feeling when I share a communal meal or a walk in a beautiful place with members of my communities.

The shared experience of beauty. In both communities and networks.

I’m gobsmacked I had not noticed this before.

But then again, community is not a one shot deal. Networks don’t have to be either. Through perseverance, I keep learning something. Ah, now there is another property or value provided by both networks and communities — learning.

Patrick Lambe on Against Bestness

Photograph of yellow warning signsthat says "water over roadway" and "dead end" surrounded by flood waters. Clouds and trees reflected on the water.


In 2008 Patrick Lambe wrote this fabulous blog post challenging our notion of, or perhaps obsession with, bestness. Green Chameleon » Against Bestness

First, I encourage you to read the whole post. It is still spot on resonant. Patrick highlights many of the missteps of trying to focus on all things best: best practices, simplistic taxonomies, etc.

Why do we fall for bestness? For me, it is our own entrained thinking and simply not paying attention to the signals where a focus on best is, at best (haha) is a wrong turn.

Second, I’d love you to share the signals you notice when you (if you ever do) start focusing on bestness instead of the right thing to do right now. (Or some variation.)

In taking a step back from constant work, I’m reflecting on some of my choices with groups and clients and see moments where I have consciously or unconsciously not heard what others offer because I thought I had what was best.  Signals? Defensiveness. Interrupting others. Prioritizing the voices that agreed with me.

My antidote? Stick with structures that prevent behavior that I succumbed to now and again. This is probably why I use Liberating Structures, or at the least, consider my process choices based on how much the bring all voices to the work.