Posted on Nov 23, 2014
Trust, how to make it real, more than a buzz word!
5.06K
37
28
6
6
0
Give me your thoughts. How do we "really" develop trust amongst our unit (in a garrison environment)?
I believe there are a couple levels of trust (please let me know what you think).
Professional trust (gained based on your position to with an expectation that you will make the right decisions for the unit and those assigned to the unit).
Personal trust, which is gained by various ways, one way is through shared hardships. Many times when we deploy together we become very close to one another as we spend a lot of time together and we "really" depend on each other to have each others back. Another example of personal trust is what we have between our siblings/families.
I believe there are a couple levels of trust (please let me know what you think).
Professional trust (gained based on your position to with an expectation that you will make the right decisions for the unit and those assigned to the unit).
Personal trust, which is gained by various ways, one way is through shared hardships. Many times when we deploy together we become very close to one another as we spend a lot of time together and we "really" depend on each other to have each others back. Another example of personal trust is what we have between our siblings/families.
Posted in these groups: 
Trust
Trust
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
5
5
0
CSM Michael J. Uhlig, I think there is a third kind of trust...and this is a dangerous kind.
I will call it Charismatic Trust. This is the kind blind trust people develop for others based largely on that person's ability to charm and use their powerful presence. This can work well with the two you mentioned, to strengthen those and it can lead to blind, unquestioning loyalties. The problem with this kind of trust, and the main difference from the other two is the amount of time required.
Both professional and personal trust take time to develop and by doing so, create stronger bonds of trust.
I will call it Charismatic Trust. This is the kind blind trust people develop for others based largely on that person's ability to charm and use their powerful presence. This can work well with the two you mentioned, to strengthen those and it can lead to blind, unquestioning loyalties. The problem with this kind of trust, and the main difference from the other two is the amount of time required.
Both professional and personal trust take time to develop and by doing so, create stronger bonds of trust.
(5)
(0)
MSgt Jim Wolverton
Leaders that rely primarily on charisma to influence people, aren't leaders, and they are usually exposed before long.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
CSM Michael J. Uhlig,
First of all, I want to thank you for shedding light on this topic. It is sad to see how we can agree that it really has become a “buzz word”; a cliché.
How do we "really" develop trust amongst our unit (in a garrison environment)? I think the best answer is formed in the “why”, and then later delivered in the “how”.
WHY:
We have a shared common set of values and beliefs. Anyone, in any formation can define and even expound on them on the spot. An organization’s mission statement on the other hand is often tailored for the eyes of “the powers that be”. This is perfectly understandable because bureaucratic accountability dictates it. However, it is vital for subordinates to understand their self-worth in garrison (just as in downrange) and where they fit in the grand scheme of things. They need to be empowered by trust that flows down. A smidge of trust from the leader to the subordinate is enough to germinate a culture of trust. General George Patton once said “never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity”. We accomplish missions better when trust is at an all-time high.
HOW:
Trust takes time. I have witnessed professional trust damaged and it is nearly impossible to repair. Just as trust starts small and increases with time through positive interactions, trust also decreases with time through negative experiences.
Trust feeds on action (or inaction). What the leader/higher echelon is doing, what is said, and what is promised are all vital stovepipes in which trust is nourished. Credibility and trust is evident when active engagement with the subordinate/lower echelon shapes values, attitudes, and behaviors towards success. As a leader, I know that credibility and trust develops and evolves. I cannot require them of my Soldiers; I have to earn them through what I say and more imprtanlty through what I do as LTC (Join to see) inferred.
Trust is in people not things. There is a need to move from a management-based emphasis to a leadership-based emphasis on garrison. Leaders cannot gain trust, exercise justice, and have the confidence to be humble when personnel are being treated as a “thing” on a PowerPoint slide. Too much emphasis on management gives out a Machiavellian vibe. The greatest asset is out personnel who will deliver best when led not managed. Leadership is the ability motivate and inspire people; ingredients necessary to cultivate personal trust.
---
Reference:
Winston, Bruce E. and Patterson, Kathleen (2006). “An Integrative Definition of Leadership”. International Journal of Leadership Studies. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University, Volume 1 Issue 2.
First of all, I want to thank you for shedding light on this topic. It is sad to see how we can agree that it really has become a “buzz word”; a cliché.
How do we "really" develop trust amongst our unit (in a garrison environment)? I think the best answer is formed in the “why”, and then later delivered in the “how”.
WHY:
We have a shared common set of values and beliefs. Anyone, in any formation can define and even expound on them on the spot. An organization’s mission statement on the other hand is often tailored for the eyes of “the powers that be”. This is perfectly understandable because bureaucratic accountability dictates it. However, it is vital for subordinates to understand their self-worth in garrison (just as in downrange) and where they fit in the grand scheme of things. They need to be empowered by trust that flows down. A smidge of trust from the leader to the subordinate is enough to germinate a culture of trust. General George Patton once said “never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity”. We accomplish missions better when trust is at an all-time high.
HOW:
Trust takes time. I have witnessed professional trust damaged and it is nearly impossible to repair. Just as trust starts small and increases with time through positive interactions, trust also decreases with time through negative experiences.
Trust feeds on action (or inaction). What the leader/higher echelon is doing, what is said, and what is promised are all vital stovepipes in which trust is nourished. Credibility and trust is evident when active engagement with the subordinate/lower echelon shapes values, attitudes, and behaviors towards success. As a leader, I know that credibility and trust develops and evolves. I cannot require them of my Soldiers; I have to earn them through what I say and more imprtanlty through what I do as LTC (Join to see) inferred.
Trust is in people not things. There is a need to move from a management-based emphasis to a leadership-based emphasis on garrison. Leaders cannot gain trust, exercise justice, and have the confidence to be humble when personnel are being treated as a “thing” on a PowerPoint slide. Too much emphasis on management gives out a Machiavellian vibe. The greatest asset is out personnel who will deliver best when led not managed. Leadership is the ability motivate and inspire people; ingredients necessary to cultivate personal trust.
---
Reference:
Winston, Bruce E. and Patterson, Kathleen (2006). “An Integrative Definition of Leadership”. International Journal of Leadership Studies. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University, Volume 1 Issue 2.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
As I read this thread I can't help but to think how tunnel vision it's going thinking about trust in a military manner. If we look at it in a normal way you will see that trust is all about relationships. In my early career our leaders knew our last 4 of our social and related to our family and friends. Once you are done with the military you will view trust totally different. Know the person you work with as a person and now someone you are responsible for. Lastly, the incidence that occur these days are terrible and we worry about rank and status more than our fellow battle buddies.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
You're absolutely right, SFC (Join to see). Keep in mind, I was confined within the need to address the question of "How do we 'really' develop trust amongst our unit (in a garrison environment)?"
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Do what you say. That is first step. Second is to show genuine interest in your Soldiers and follow up with their issues or happy events such as births.
(4)
(0)
CSM Michael J. Uhlig
do you see personal and professional as the only variants of trust? Are there advantages/disadvantages to being involved in more than the happy events?
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CSM Michael J. Uhlig I believe you can have personal and professional trust. I heard some say I would love to have a beer with so and so but would not work with them based on their performance. There are huge advantages to being involved in your Soldiers' lives. We are a family so share in the highs and lows. They will be able to lean on you when they need it and be able to carry others when they are low as well. They will realize you care about them as a person and not just a number if you are their for the bad events. They only disadvantages are they may think you are friends and not a leader (that is easily corrected if you set parameters to begin with) or they depend too much on you in times of need if you allow them to cling to you.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google