In yesterday’s post, I made a comment about transparency being the opposite of trust. A good friend asked for me to expand on that. And here we are.
In my experience, trust is about a belief in the reliability of of someone or something. That someone is going to do what they say, or that they will act in a way that is consistent with what you know of them. And generally, this means that you believe this in absence of any evidence at that time. That is, you’ve seen the pattern and you believe the person will adhere to that pattern with you needing to verify, that they are doing so.
Transparency is observing the steps or process or actions of someone or something without obfuscation. It’s first-hand knowledge of a pattern or process.
This is what drives my comment about transparency being the opposite of trust. If you have to personally witness or verify someone’s actions, that’s not trust. That’s the opposite of trust.
I believe you can use transparency to build trust, and I believe that’s how trust begins. You observe someones actions, and once you are convinced they will act that way all the time, you can trust them. But saying, “I trust you” and then checking up on, or in the case of the office micromanaging, someone’s actions is not trust. Demanding total transparency all the time is not trust.
If you “trust but verify” you are not trusting. And so, in the context of my last post about the stress of work, there is often a big tension, when management says “I trust you” and then acts in the opposite manner.