I'm not so sure; At first sight, I thought that Bob Sutton's 'No Asshole Rule' was simplistic since it didn't really change the system that created and nurtured assholes. Now, I am coming round to it, and maybe a good bash at that with support from the top would be a useful precursor to almost any intervention that depends on honest input from those lower down the pyramid.

Not sure of the point Brian. Support from the top never does any harm, but its one input to the evolution of a complex system. You still can't manufacture trust, it evolves

Dave:

Good comments on an important topic...part of the problem I've had when discussing trust is having a clear working definition of the word.

When discussing decision making, I've found it helpful to emphasize two aspects:

(a) Within the target context, the degree to which the other person/group makes sense of the context the "same" way you do, and

(b) Within the target context, the degree to which the other person/group has the will to act consistently with the sense that is made of the context.

[Note: "same" = roughly similar in regard to key decision making factors]

The first item goes back to shared narratives, values, goals, etc. Both items point to "sources of trust", which as you point out, accrete with time/experience.

I'd be interested in other aspects of trust you or your readers would emphasize. BTW, I'm mostly focused on trust in a collaborative context....not an adversarial context...not that the two are necessarily disjoint.

No, manufacturing trust is like faking sincerity. However, there are specific things one can do to reduce untrustworthy behaviour. Bob Sutton quote from someone at Google "I am really not a very nice person, but I have to act nice here, or I can't get anything done."
So, yes, one input to evolution, but a specific one, and it is my impression that Sutton has quite a bit of evidence that it works. It was my speculation that doing something on that early on might help other activities.

I must admit that the Google quote disturbs me, and reinforces the issue of linguistic conformance I mentioned. I think Bob Sutton over emphasises individual over system change, and like all the popular authors it is easy to assemble evidence with the benefit of hindsight: it is rarely a statistical sample of the available data! Always a good read however.

Walter - I agree that shared narrative context is key, but I think ritualised conflict is as (if not more) important than collaborative discussion which carries the danger of said linguistic conformance.

Is defining trust much like defining pornagraphy? As a US Judge once said, "I can't give you a definition, but I know it when I see it".

Is defining trust much like defining pornagraphy? As a US Judge once said, "I can't give you a definition, but I know it when I see it".

Interesting comment but didn't Deming cover this ground some 20 odd yaers ago, ie common and special cause. Surely we should be drawing upon the work of Deming and not trying to reinvent something. Not also the work on TRIZ 99.9999% of ideas are not new just a restatement of something elase - so what is innovation?

Thoughts

Geoff Elliott

TRIZ is interesting but makes assumptions about semantic analysis and some of its applications (white space patenting) seem to me to be anti-innovation if anything. Overall I think the field has moved on form this (and certainty from Derning) although there is still learning