Trust Part 4: The Math of Trust

Trust is foundational for building a company where all of your team members can focus on Work, align on what matters, and thrive. But as founders, how can we know if we’re building high-trust companies (HTCs)? I’m a huge believer that great value can be found in identifying and understanding the math associated with any system. So, I’ve created a simple tool (in fact, a single equation) to help us easily assess, rate, and get really open and honest about the relationships within our companies.

As I’ve talked about throughout this Trust Series, trust is integral to healthy relationships. Building a high-trust company involves cultivating high-trust relationships with all of our Ideal Stakeholders, including ourselves. But first, we need to understand how the three dimensions of trust — character, competency, and connection — relate to each other.

Dependency of the Dimensions of Trust

One of the first things we need to do when developing the math associated with any system is to determine whether each of our variables — in this case, dimensions — is dependent, interdependent, or independent of the others.

Let’s consider dependency first because if one dimension is dependent on another, then my argument that we need to view character, competency, and connection separately doesn’t stand. More specifically, if one (or more) of them is dependent, then it’s simply a subset of the other, and therefore, there are only one or two dimensions of trust instead of three.

Competency vs. Character

Let’s start with competency versus character. It’s difficult to make a case that character-based trust is a subset of competency-based trust given we are born incompetent but social. Likewise, there are lots of people who are extraordinarily competent who we know we can’t trust character-wise.

Character vs. Connection and/or Competency

While one could try to argue that character-based trust is a subset of connection-based trust, we can all think of examples of people who possess both good character and high degrees of competency but have very different values from each other — so different, in fact, that it appears almost impossible for them to trust one another.

Think, for example, of people who deeply value unalienable individual rights versus those who deny the existence of one or more of those rights.

Competency vs. Connection and/or Character

I understand how one could be open to the idea that competency-based trust is a subset of connection-based trust, given competency is almost always directly or indirectly acquired with the help of others. However, this exercise is specifically about trust, and every one of us is incompetent across a whole host of skills and areas of expertise. But that doesn’t mean we’re all untrustworthy in terms of character-based or connection-based trust.

Consequently, I believe one can be totally trustworthy when viewed through the lenses of character and connection yet incompetent, even when that competency (for example, in your Work) is essential for scaling Maslow’s Hierarchy (as an individual or part of a tribe). Otherwise, why not just have a lottery for all areas of work? This is why we should understand and assess trust through all three lenses.

Interdependency of the Dimensions of Trust

Now that we’ve established that the three dimensions are not dependent on one another, it’s important to consider whether or not they are independent or interdependent. I’ve created a simple three-column chart where I not only lay out the typical factors or traits associated with each form of trust but also label traits that I think are fairly interdependent. The purpose of this diagram is not to lay out all the interdependencies but simply to show that the three dimensions are interdependent. Let’s take a look at the chart, and then we’ll walk through one of the interdependent examples together.

As you can see, intent, agreements, and reputation are all interdependent on each other. If you’re known for your integrity (character), that means people around you feel more comfortable to lead with trust (connection) and enter agreements (connection) — and from that, you can build reputation (competency) on the basis of the other two. Your ability to maintain that reputation comes from living up to the agreements you set, which builds integrity. This is just one example of the interdependence of character, connection, and competency — the table above outlines many more.

Why are agreements in the connection column? While one could argue that agreements are simply a subset of integrity, I believe there are a lot of people we would deem of high integrity but who don’t live up to their agreements. One of my favorite coaching lessons is based upon Steve Chandler’s “Expectations versus Agreements,” where I riff on how things like roles, accountabilities, and responsibilities (RARs); key performance indicators (KPIs); To-Dos; Rocks (aka 90-day goals); Core Values; and more are all agreements that people tend to see as genuine. We live up to these agreements and respect them as such.

I would submit most people don’t live up to all their agreements (even though I think most people would think of themselves as having high integrity). The truth is, most of us don’t take all our agreements as seriously as we should, in part because we don’t give them as much thought as we should or because our culture values agreements less than relationships. We also work in tribes where our reputation is not going to suffer much, if at all, if we don’t live up to all of our agreements. With that said, some tribes take their agreements very seriously, and as a consequence, I think agreements are related to integrity and competence but not quite a subset of either.

Now as we get into the math of trust, it’s important to keep in mind that:

• Trust is complicated.
• Character-based trust is best initially assumed/given and then lost. (Ronald Reagan famously said: “Trust first, then verify.”)
• Competency-based trust is either earned or authenticated.
• Connection-based trust is typically developed over time or assumed based on the tribe’s “brand.”
• Whether given, earned, or developed, all three forms of trust are easily lost and very hard to rebuild.

Evaluating Trust (with Math)

We’ve established that the three dimensions of trust are interdependent but not dependent — they’re related to each other but still separate and distinct dimensions. Now it’s time to unpack the math associated with trust based on the simple system I’ve built.

To build a high-trust company (HTC), we need to assess the dynamics within our companies to ensure we have high-trust relationships (even with ourselves!) at the foundation. This tool makes it easy to assess these relationships:

For every relationship, we want to begin by providing a score for each dimension of trust. By assigning a score to each dimension and multiplying each rating to achieve a “Trust Score,” we can turn trust into data with a simple equation, helping us see where our organizations currently stand when it comes to trust and how far we need to come to build a truly great company that excels in all three dimensions.

While it would be simple to assign a 0–10 score to each dimension, I don’t think that is appropriate because each dimension is so different. So, here is how I suggest assessing each dimension (and note that order matters here):

1. Character: Yes (1) or No (0). (This is the first score because if you’re rating someone a 0 here, why even think about the other scores?)
2. Connection: 0–100%. (Use this as a guide: 50% means no real connection, 100% is a great connection, and 0% is a horrible connection.) Since this is a percentage, express it as a decimal in the equation.
3. Competency: 0–100. (Note that this is a number, not a percentage.)

I’ve ordered these intentionally.

• Character comes first because if we don’t trust someone’s character, their competency and connection scores don’t really matter. But what do we do if the answer is “I don’t know”? I submit, based upon the theory of “trust first” for character, we should assume “yes” until proven otherwise.
• Once you’ve answered “yes” for character, it’s time to move on to connection. We all want to Work with people we genuinely want to be around and who make us better, and that’s why connections matter. Not every connection needs to be 100%, but there needs to be some connection to build a high-trust relationship.
• Competency comes last because, ultimately, I believe it’s easier to find and/or develop competency than it is to develop character or find people who genuinely help us become better and better versions of the best versions of ourselves.

The maximum rating of your total trust score is 100, your best-case scenario. In the worst case, the score is 0.

Let’s walk through how to use this equation with an example. Imagine you’ve just built a new leadership team and filled it with experts you’re confident have the skills needed to build, run, and scale your company. You’re starting your relationship with these new team members assuming their good character, so that’s a “yes” or a 1 for character in the equation. You assessed their competency during the hiring process and know you have a rock-solid, highly competent team of experts, so that’s a 100 on competency. However, you’ve only been working together for a short time and haven’t built strong connections outside of Core Values yet, so you answer 80% for connection. In this scenario, your trust score equation would look like this:

Trust score = 1 x .80 x 100 = 80

Which makes your new team’s total trust score 80 out of 100. Simple, right?

You will decide what the minimum acceptable bar should be. For me, I need at least 80% for the connection and competency scores (and there may be some categories inside of the connection category, such as Core Values, where you have zero tolerance for a low score).

The following chart illustrates three more examples of multiplying character, connection, and competency to generate a simple trust score.

As you can see, B falls in line with where an Ideal Team Member fits for me, but A and C do not. A “no” in the character category and below 80% in connection fall out of range with what I’m comfortable with. You may have a different set of parameters, or nonnegotiables, but that’s for you to decide.

It all comes down to this: healthy, long-term relationships thrive when there is mutual trust along with complementary needs, goals, values, interests, resources, and competencies. Once you establish an ideal (or simply acceptable) score range that works for your company, you can use trust score data to solve problems, make decisions, and ensure you have the right people in the right seats, keeping you on the path toward accomplishing truly great things as a high-trust company.