Cohousing-L Mailing List: Building Trust -- Personal and Task Oriented

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

In my eternal quest to find a definition of trust that is more encompassing
Than the autocratic "shut up and do what I say," I found two wonderful
websites that discuss the issue very well. The first is a website on coping
and addresses trust between two people on personal terms, but these do not
transfer well to task related behaviors like teams in cohousing:

http://www.coping.org/growth/trust.htm

The next site contains a report on a study done at University of Texas on
developing trust in virtual team work. The study is very long but well worth
reading if you work long distance in any form, and most of the issues apply
in face-to-face teams as well.

http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html

I pulled out a list of factors found to enhance trust levels in teams, first
a short list and then a longer list, both edited by me so it's my take on
the research. Sorry it is so long but I think it is a very important issue
and one we would benefit from discussing.

1. Social communications establish relationships but do not substitute for
task orientation or progress on tasks.

2. Communications convey enthusiasm or optimism about the tasks at hand.

3. Mechanisms are established for coping with uncertainty or lack of
structure related to tasks.

4. All members participate proactively, initiating tasks.

5. Equitable, regular, predictable communication.

6. Substantive and timely feedback from team members. Careful and complete
analysis of team member's work and proposals.

7. Productive, skilled, positive leadership.

8. Ability to transition from procedural to task focus.

9. Ability to remain calm in reaction to crisis.


A LONGER EXCERPT:

The teams were classified into those who began with high trust and ended
with high trust (HiHi), started high and ended low (HiLo), etc.

Communication Behaviors Facilitating Trust Early On

1. Social Communication.

Social exchanges appeared to facilitate trust early in the team¹s existence
-- discussions of hobbies, weekends, and families -- but was insufficient in
maintaining trust over the longer term. The HiHi teams developed social
rapport early on and continued to exchange social information, but this
information  was always integrated into otherwise task oriented messages.
Social dialog was not used as substitute for progress on the task.

2. Communication Conveying Enthusiasm.

In teams with low initial trust,  the messages revealed markedly little
enthusiasm or optimism. In HiHi teams there was a great deal of excitement
about the project:  the members referred to their teams as their "virtual
family" and as a "virtual party", claimed that "we are beginning to feel
like friends, not just team mates", and encouraged each other with such
statements as "this is getting exciting!", "great work everyone!!!".  The
HiHi teams encouraged each other on the task, with such statements as,
"everyone just keep pulling together and we can do this" and with references
to working together "on producing the best ever".  The teams that moved from
low to high trust were those that expressed enthusiasm and optimism as the
project progressed.

Member Actions Facilitating Trust Early On

3.  Coping with Technical and Task Uncertainty.

The teams that reported low initial trust were unable to develop a system of
coping with uncertainty and unstructured tasks.  Although one leader gave
his telephone numbers for members experiencing problems beyond their
control, this was not a realistic solution because of  time zone differences
and the expense of telephone calls. The low trust teams also blamed their
problems and tardiness on the technology. The excuses given were rarely
challenged.  Members of low trust teams also expressed uncertainty over the
task goals--but failed clarify the task among all the team members.

The HiHi trust teams developed schemes to deal with the technological and
task uncertainty.  One such scheme was the use of  numbering systems so that
all members would be aware if they had missed a message.  Another scheme was
simply informing the other members in advance of the times they would be
working or would be unavailable to work.  The HiHi teams also exchanged many
messages purporting to clarify  and develop  consensus on  the requirements
of the task. 

4. Individual Initiative.

The teams with low initial trust, and those that remained at low trust, had
members who did not take initiative:  several members on each LoLo team
revealed a desire to be told what to do and simply waited for others to make
the important decisions. The teams reporting low trust at the end were
hesitant to commit, "I'll try, can't promise." Furthermore, on teams ending
with low trust, the members simply failed to provide details with their
ideas.

By contrast, the HiHi teams were characterized by initiative:  members would
make topic suggestions instead of asking for suggestions, and would
volunteer instead of asking for volunteers. In HiHi teams, even though a
leader emerged, the majority of the members took initiative at different
times. 

Communication Behaviors Maintaining Trust

5. Predictable Communication. Inequitable, irregular, and unpredictable
communication hindered trust.

Even though they did not necessarily communicate frequently, they had a
regular pattern of communication established which assuaged uncertainties
over team members¹ commitments.  Likewise, the members of all HiHi trust
teams forewarned one another about upcoming absences.

6. Substantive and Timely Response.

A key difference between HiLo and HiHi teams was that in the latter teams,
members received explicit and prompt responses that their messages, and
their contributions to the assignments, were thoroughly read and evaluated.
Even though all three HiHi teams divided the work, each member contributed
to the work of the others.  Even less adept members managed to contribute
positively. Often, the low trust teams received no feedback from team
members.

Member Actions Facilitating Trust

7. Leadership. 

A problem common in HiLo and LoLo teams was ineffective and/or negative
leadership. The leaders of these teams were chosen not based on their
greater level of experience and/or engaged in negative rather than positive
reinforcement--complaining about other members¹ lack of participation,
complaining about too little communication, comparing the team unfavorably
to other teams, or sending messages of complaint to the project coordinator.

By contrast, the leadership role of the high trust teams emerged after an
individual had produced something or exhibited skills, ability, or interest
critical for the role.  Moreover, the leadership role was not static but
rather rotated among members, depending on the task to be accomplished.
Those taking leadership roles maintained a positive tone, "not complaining,
just letting you know" and sending private messages to discuss failed tasks.

8. Transition from Procedural to Task Focus.

HiLo trust teams exchanged many messages on rules, or procedures, which
helped to provide  an illusion of certainty, but were unable to move beyond
setting rules. In contrast, all LoHi teams demonstrated an ability to move
from a procedural orientation to a task orientation.  Once they began
focusing on the task, they were undisturbed by negative comments or by
missing team members. The HiHi teams were also able to make a successful
transition from a social and/or procedural focus to a task orientation.

9. Self-Possessed in Reaction to Crisis.

All three HiHi teams experienced some turbulence which could conceivably
have permanently disrupted the teams.  Yet these teams were marked by an
ability to remain calm during crises. Even in the early stages, the HiHi
trust teams, unlike the LoLo trust teams, were disconcerted over failing to
fully complete early tasks on time.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important
Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/x3lwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe, send a blank message to
takomavillage-unsubscribe [at] yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




------ End of Forwarded Message

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L