The Thrust of Trust

Posted By Austin Cho, Nov 25, 2013

Trust is the hallmark of every healthy relationship. It can create the strongest of bonds, but can also be extremely fragile. The word “trust” has many definitions, but in a general sense, it is a willingness to be vulnerable based on the positive expectations of another person’s behavior. The need for trust stems from a very primal interdependence humans have with each other and it is the foundation to how people navigate and perceive the world. Trust reduces the feeling of uncertainty in future outcomes, it simplifies decision-making, and gives us piece of mind. It should come as no surprise that trust is a significant factor in every negotiation.

Whether it concerns a long-term relationship or a quick arms-length deal, the level of trust between parties during negotiation is extremely important. How we, as negotiators, perceive and evaluate the opposing counsel’s trustworthiness can determine whether or not a negotiation is even possible. For this reason, it is important to understand how trust affects us and how we can cultivate trust through our words and behavior. In his chapter Trust and Distrust, published in The Negotiator’s Fieldbook: The Desk Reference for the Experienced Negotiator, Roy J. Lewicki analyzes how negotiators can use a clear understanding of trust to achieve more effective negotiations by building up trust and properly managing distrust.

Trust vs. Distrust

It is important to clarify that trust and distrust are not simply two extreme ends of one continuous spectrum. Rather, it is more accurate to think of them as continuums, simultaneously existing along separate dimensions. This altered model aligns much more closely to what we already know to be true: relationships are complex and it is possible to both trust and distrust someone at the same time

            We assign different levels of trust and distrust to different facets of our relationships, depending on their degree of complexity and other contextual circumstances. In light of this simultaneous existence, it is clear that both trust and distrust serve valid functions. Contrary to the traditional view that trust is good and distrust is bad, distrust has a proven value in protecting against exploitation. A negotiator’s success can therefore depend substantially on her ability to establish and build trust, while making sure to maintaining an appropriate degree of distrust and skepticism.

The Types of Trust and Distrust

            Depending on the depth of the parties’ relationship, there are typically two distinct forms of trust. Calculus-based Trust (CBT) is a positive expectation of another’s conduct. CBT is common in new relationships and arms-length deals, focusing on consistent behavior and predictability. The threat of punishment, like the revoking of trust, often serves as a stronger motivator than the promise of a reward in order to sustain CBT.

            Identification-based trust (IBT), on the other hand, exists only after the parties have learned to understand and appreciate each other’s capabilities, interests, and values. With IBT, there is depth of commonality and a mutual understanding that the parties can rely on each other. This type of trust is often manifested in close relationships and collective identities. 

            Just like with trust, there are two types of distrust. Calculus-based distrust (CBD) is the negative expectation of another’s conduct. This type of distrust arises when the perceived costs or risks of trusting outweigh any potential benefits. Negotiators experiencing CBD may choose to either avoid dealing with the potential trustee, or construct boundaries that limit their dependence and vulnerability.

            Identification-based distrust (IBD), the other form, grounds its negative expectations in a perceived incompatibility of tightly-held values, competing or opposing goals, and negative emotional attachments. IBD may exist due to actual observations or preconceived biases. When confronted by IBD, a negotiator should attempt to find shared commonalities by talking with the opposing party, or in the alternative, by minimizing their interactions and interdependence as much as possible.

Building Trust and Managing Distrust

            There are three main contributing factors that shape one’s ability to trust. While an individual’s propensity to trust remains fairly constant, that propensity can differ wildly from person to person, depending on their unique experiences. Current situational factors and the particular history of the relationship between two parties may also influence the ability to develop trust. A person’s trustworthiness is evaluated based on how well they demonstrate ability, integrity, and benevolence. Each of these three dimensions contribute separately to establish trust.

            Building CBT requires a showing of competency, establishing consistency, stressing the benefits of mutual trust, demonstrating credibility, showing concern for others, developing a good reputation, and sharing control and power. IBT is fostered by developing similar interests and identifying similar goals, acting similarly to the other party, identifying common values, and actively discussing those commonalities.

            Distrust may arise from any number of causes such as differences within group memberships, past personal experiences, negative reputations, and stereotypes. Taken to the extreme, distrust can give rise to paranoid and exaggerated perceptions that impair situational diagnosis and judgment. Distrust is generally harmful for negotiations because it stifles the ability to reach amicable agreements. In small amounts, however, distrust can protect against exploitation by untrustworthy people. Distrust in moderation can help in setting boundaries, assessing trustworthiness, and preventing poor judgments caused by excessive group cohesion.

            Distrust is necessary to avoid being exploited, but it must be kept in check to prevent the escalation of negative perceptions and potential retaliation. Preparing formal agreements, monitoring the other party’s actions, including neutral third parties, and relying on formal legal mechanisms, such as contracts, are all constructive ways one can temper their distrust to an appropriate and manageable level. A proper balance of trust and distrust will allow negotiators to achieve stronger, lasting solutions, while remaining protected from abuse.

Rebuilding Trust

            Many negotiators will eventually encounter a situation where trust has been broken. Attempting to rebuild the broken trust of a party can be more difficult than establishing it in the first place. Lewicki suggests acting as quickly as possible to rectify any unintentional breaches of trust by sincerely apologizing, providing a thorough account of what happened, and offering restitution or penance. Permitting trust to remain broken can have dire ramifications for one’s reputation and future negotiations. With any luck, the other party may be willing to trust again.

For further reading on trust in negotiations, see Roy J. Lewicki, Trust and Distrust, in The Negotiator’s Fieldbook: The Desk Reference For The Experienced Negotiator, 191 (Andrea Kupfer Schneider & Christopher Honeyman eds., 2007).