What exactly is trust? What theoretical structures do you need to sharply evaluate and improve individual or institutional trustworthiness? Charles H. Green, an international executive educator on the role of trust in professional services, declares: “Trust is a two-way street — we give trust, and trust is given back to us. The two are interconnected but they’re not the same thing.” We must bring credibility, reliability, intimacy and a better sense of self-orientation.
Creating trust, according to Green, is a five-step course: engaging the public or constituent in an open discussion about issues that are confronting them; listening to what is important and real to them, which allows them to earn the right to offer solutions; framing the true root issue minus the language of blame; envisioning an alternate reality, including win-win results; and committing to actionable next steps that imply significant commitment and movement on the part of each party.
Creating trust is anchored on great communication. Its most powerful component is listening. If we have listening inadequacy or if we have the tendency to jump too quickly to conclusions without securing all the facts, we are committing serious mistakes. He likewise underscores, “Our actions are driven by our beliefs, and our beliefs are driven by our values or principles. Trustworthy behavior is way too complex to fake without the beliefs and values behind them.” Green outlines four specific principles governing trustworthy behavior: a focus on the other for the other’s sake; collaboration or the willingness to work together; a perspective centered on medium to long-term goals; and transparency in our dealings. Putting these principles to work will truly develop the fullest possible kind of trusting relationship.
Building unassailable trust relationships is critical in institutions. It is indispensable if we want to engage in professional transactions — whether external like sales or service-based deals, or internal like employment contracts or benefits administration. It is indeed a greater determinant of success than any other considerations when we enter a bond.
Philippine Trust Index
The results of the 2015 Philippine Trust Index (PTI), a nationwide survey that examined the levels and drivers of trusts of Filipinos in six key Philippine institutions, was publicly shared by Eon The Stakeholder Relations Group led by its chairman and CEO Junie del Mundo in a forum held recently at the Makati Shangri-La. The study identified the factors that affect respondents’ perception of stakeholders’ trustworthiness, the drivers of trust, performance measurement of select institutions, the most trusted person to speak on behalf of an institution, and which media platforms impact on the public’s trust rating of organizations.
In the 2015 edition, the PTI aimed to make the conversation even more robust by including the Filipinos’ perceptions of an engaging leader in both the public and private sectors to understand the leadership qualities they value most. EON collected responses from 1,620 Filipinos from July to August 2015, a cross-section of adult population across ABCD households in the urban and rural areas split in five major geo-political areas of the country — NCR, North Luzon, South Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The research was done quantitatively, with data collected through face-to-face interviews aided by a structured questionnaire using multi-stage area probability with systematic random sampling. Following are the topline data culled from the presentation of Malyn Rita Molina, managing director of Engage, the public affairs company of Eon:
The Church is deemed as the most trusted institution. In the study, “the Church” is referred to as an institution in general and not as a particular religious belief or denomination. The academe remains a far second in terms of trust, while the media maintains its rank as the third most trusted institution. Note that the government, business sector and NGOs are the least trusted institutions. The low trust in these institutions becomes more glaring when compared to the trust ratings given to the highest-rated institution. The most significant loss in trust was experienced by the business sector followed by the government and the NGOs, while the most significant leap was experienced by the academe followed by the Church. Trust in the media has plateaued over the years.
Local government units (LGUs) enjoy the highest trust ratings among the different government sub-institutions. The House of Representatives is the least trusted, while the Office of the President suffered the largest and most glaring loss of trust. Trust ratings in the judiciary branch of government, among the general public particularly the Supreme Court and Regional Trial Courts, have barely moved since the last study. The most trusted government agency is the Department of Education. The Department of Social Welfare and Development, the Social Security Services and the LGUs follow it.
The top drivers of trust in the government are its ability to ensure national peace and security. This is followed closely by the government’s ability to help the poor address their basic needs — housing, food and education. Other important trust drivers include the government’s ability to improve the Philippine economy and to put corrupt politicians in jail, provide better job opportunities, and preparedness in times of calamities and disasters (a driver that is increasingly at the forefront of people’s minds).
In the business sector, the healthcare, telecommunications, banks and water services industries lead as the most trusted. The least trusted institutions are the legal services, advertising and PR, the alcohol and tobacco and mining industries. Interestingly, almost a third of the list of trusted companies are malls or manufacturers. The sector received the highest performance ratings with regard to its ability to treat customers well followed closely by their ability to do business well enough to gain profit.
Internet usage continues to grow. While TV remains the “most usual” source of information of Filipinos, there is a significant leap in Internet usage, especially among the youth. This Internet incline is in contrast with the decline experienced by publications — both broadsheets and tabloids. Radio remains the second most usual source of information, while magazines are the least usual source of information.
The most credible persons to give information about government, church, business and academe are their respective heads. On the other hand, people are more likely to trust information about NGOs that come from volunteers — those who are neither fully external nor fully internal to the organizations. For the media, individuals that are often seen or heard in public like reporters and broadcasters are the most trusted. All else considered, people need to hear information about the various institutions twice or thrice to believe it. This is in contrast to the fact that almost half of the survey respondents claim to only need to hear information about the Church once to believe it.
The most important quality of a government leader is the willingness to listen to what the people have to say. This is followed closely by the quality of having a strong political will and having a genuine concern for the people. Other important qualities are holding true to campaign promises, the ability to communicate clearly even to ordinary people, integrity and other personal characteristics like fairness, makamasa, honesty, trustworthiness, approachability, administrative excellence, dedication, self-confidence and humility.
The most important quality of a business leader or CEO is how he treats his employees. This covers his willingness to listen to what his employees have to say, showing genuine concern for employees, displaying the ability to solve difficult problems within the company, being understandable and knowing the business well.
Geographically, the lowest trust and performance rating of both institutions and leaders came from Mindanao. This focus on Mindanao may also bring forth insights that can help contextualize the developments in the region today. Apart from trust ratings, Filipinos in Mindanao are also the least satisfied with the government’s performance among all other regions in the country. There is a glaring difference between the performance ratings given by Mindanao vis-à-vis the national average across all drivers. The region rated the government’s performance lowest among all regions for all drivers of trust except ensuring national peace and security, improving the Philippine economy, protecting Philippine territories and preserving Filipino cultural heritage.
Mindanao is also the least trusting of the business sector. It comes as no surprise that its ratings are also far lower than the average ratings of the rest of the country. While the differences are stark for all trust drivers, the largest gap is seen in rating its success in complying with business regulations, as well as in improving the quality of its products and services for consumers. It rated the business sector’s performance lowest among all regions for all drivers of trust, with the sole exception of doing business with local suppliers.
Trust is fragile. Like a piece of china, once cracked it is never quite the same. Futurist and philosopher Charles Handy said that companies and their leaders could avert the erosion of trust if institutions live up to its literal meaning — “the sharing of bread” — and regard themselves as “communities.” As such, institutions turn into villages whose constituents give trust and earn trust in return.
* * *
Email bongosorio@yahoo.com for comments, questions or suggestions. Thank you for communicating.