Trust of Each Other is Declining According to a General Social Survey

Made with Electronic Drum Set

What is trust worth? A poll by the General Social Survey indicates that about 1/3 of Americans trust each other. This is a big step downward from a 1972 survey that indicated that about ½ of Americans trust each other. Around 2/3rds say that “you can’t be too careful” dealing with others.  Trust is trending downward and this should concern a number of people.  

Trust can bring some wonderful things in society. The entire economic system and social structure depends on trust. Trust that if you work hard you will receive a reward, trust that people will treat you fairly, and trust that you can walk down the street without injury. Trust is the glue that binds all of society into one neat socio-economic package.

It is hard for people to determine what leads to more or less trust. We can say that its base is a whole host of reasons that may include opportunity, systematic justice, culture, interpersonal relationships, family life or even world events. It is a culmination of these factors that helps create a perspective of life and others.

For businesses the concept that 67% of people put little faith in those who swipe their cards should be concerning. Thinking about how trust is necessary in commerce it should become apparent that those businesses that do not maintain a high level of integrity can be easily punished in the market.  Let a card theft go viral and see what happens.

For politicians it is even worse.  A total of 81% say they put trust in their national political leaders some of the time and 15% most of the time. If you are a leader, this should concern you a little. Just like trust is the foundation of an economy, it is also the foundation of governance. Policies must meet the needs of the people and the betterment of America’s future without any outside or political considerations.

When I think of trust, I like to look at those societal projects that took generations to build. The people who worked on them had generational trust and cross-tribal trust. Stonehenge started in 2,700 BC and seemed to have developed over a thousand years. Even though its background is hazy and in dispute, historians do believe that many different tribes of people were involved in the whole process as a potential peace and unity initiative. If nothing else, each generation should trust that the generation before them has interest in their betterment.

Other Readings:

ABC

USA Today

CS Monitor

Thomas Reid’s and Thomas Pain’s Common Sense

Thomas Reid was a philosopher (1710-1796) who moved from being a pastor to professorship at King’s College in Aberdeen in 1752.  After completing his dissertation he founded the Scottish School of Common Sense with his 1764 book entitled An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense. He eventually replaced Adam Smith at the University of Glasgow.

His philosophies didn’t die in the university but continued to spread around the world causing new structures to develop. Modern day America owes as much to Thomas Reid as it does to Thomas Pain. One European concept of Common Sense led to the American Revolution and the shot heard around the world. 

The School of Common Sense was particularly important in Scotland as an almost national philosophy. It is a philosophy which believes that most understanding is within the grasp of the common human mind.  The average human being, with some capacity to make judgments, can determine the general truths and falsehoods of arguments. Only when the information is complex and difficult to grasp does common sense fail. 

The philosophy basically states that most people have daily experiences to provide them information for survival. They have little need to dig into the finite details of arguments. These arguments are the existence of the self, the existence of real objects, and general basic religious/moral principles. We know them to be true because we experience them on a common level. 

The details of how we know we exist, why basic values work, and the nature of world objects don’t really enter the conscious nature of the average man. They take such assumptions on a basic level and rarely question the nature of existence. Spending energy on such concepts is counterproductive for those trying to eat and squeak out an existence. 

Each person exists within a societal order based within their cultural perspective. They have a difficult time questioning their personal position within that social order or the social order itself. Yet without questioning the perceived right of Kings to rule men Thomas Reid’s common sense philosophy would not have made it into Thomas Pain’s Common Sense pamphlet designed to change that social structure (1776).    

"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

The Social Context and Social Cognition of Projected Strategy Formation

Strategy is not only the logical components of actions that lead to goal achievement. True strategy has significant social aspects based within the cognitive understanding of workers, stakeholders, and even customers. A paper by Vallaster and Muehlbacher (2012) outlines the social representations inherent within strategy formation and its social context of development. 

Strategic success must take into account actions, interactions, and negotiations of multiple actors. Each person realizes the strategy through his or her own vantage points and previous practices. Strategy must fit within others mental framework in order to be successful and fully implemented throughout an organization.

Strategizing takes includes 1.) narratives, 2.) actors personal interests, 3.) organizational design, culture and past practices, and 4.) market factors. Strategic development should take into account the multiple factors and their potential weight in order to be successful and navigate the social environment.

Individual context-dependent interpretations influence the way in which people make decisions. As new information is presented it changes past schemata to that which is in transition and finally to new schemata. Thus, each strategy is situation dependent on the understandings of those involved in its formation and those who are going to carry it out. It naturally changes they way they think about such strategies.

Strategy is also dependent on the internal workings and actors of an organization. Through the process of strategic development a company’s practices and cultural perceptions will affect a strategies fulfillment.  In other words, the way in which people think will influence how they see the strategy and its potential benefits for themselves. It is this self-interest that eventually produces "buy in".

As most strategies seek to find competitive advantages, the market and various outside stakeholders will create pressure on the strategy and influence its perception. As the human mind considers the effectiveness of potential strategies these external factors, will act in judgment and will naturally create pressures. Poor strategy that does not consider the external structure and pressures is likely to fail. 

The way in which society views itself and interacts with itself will influence strategy through social representations. Social representations are 1.) complex formations of knowledge that comes from social discourse, and 2.) socio-cognitive processes that come from that discourse. As something new enters into society’s awareness there is a communication process that comes to define it. In other words, society settles on meaning.

Strategies consist of core and peripheral elements. Core strategies are seen as logical and have shared cognitions based within the common perspectives of the participants (i.e. customer oriented service as a strategy).  According to the authors, the actor must believe in their realities and put those forward to others but should be willing to bend these understandings to create shared realities among a group of people. This produces higher levels of agreement. 

Each person within the strategy will have to make personal meaning from it. Therefore, each participant has sub-strategies related to their place within the strategy based within their memories and understandings (Barsalou, 1999). They use their past experiences to find meaning within the strategy and build personal sub-strategies from it. 

The peripheral aspects of the strategies include those who are not directly related to the strategy formation but may be impacted by it. For example, customers who have needs of quality and experience should have their information considered as this improves upon the strategies effectiveness. Without understanding the impact on the environment or others, it is doubtful such strategies will be fully effective. Ineffective strategies can lead to lower profits and lost marketplace. 

The authors bring forward the concept that the context strategy formation is as much social as it is logical. Logic is the center but its social aspects are the periphery. All strategic decisions must take into account the impact and perceptions of others. When stakeholders cannot make meaning or formulate a social connection to the strategy, it is unlikely to be fruitful. Without some type of personal cognitive agreement people will reject the strategy and the company's offerings.

The authors dance around the concept of social projection. Projection is a concept brought forward by Freud to describe how one unconsciously projects their traits onto another. Social projection in strategy is the idea that strategy is built from the inner and outer understandings of the maker(s) and can be projected forth into and from a group. For example, a company that is losing their financial and competitive position may rally their executives to formulate a strategy. Once that strategy has been created, it can be projected onto others within the organization in the attempt to foster action that fulfills the strategy. Social projection can lead to social behavior based upon varying factors inherent in the environment that lead to agreement or rejection.

Two Related Concepts:

Path-Goal

http://www.academic-capital.net/2013/06/using-path-goal-to-enhance.html

Organizational Alignment

http://www.academic-capital.net/2013/10/aligning-organizational-strategies-to.html

Barsalou, L. W. (1999): Perceptional Symbol Systems. Behavioral and Brain Science, 22 (1999).

Vallaster, C. and Muehlbacher, H. (2012). Strategy formation as social representation: understanding the influence of contexts on strategy formation. Betriebswirtschaft/Business Administration Review, 72 (5).

Book Review: Theory U-Leading from the Future as it Emerges

Dr. Otto Scharmer builds off of previous research in the concept of presencing of self to further help executives and managers find a more creative and genuine place within their management style. His book Theory U Leading from the Future as it Emerges discusses understanding the blind spot, entering the U field, and presencing. Decision-makers who can enter the U field are capable of managing to a higher and more accurate degree than those who don't.

Theory U is a change management process originally developed by Dr.Friedrich  Glasl and Dirk Lemson. They sought to develop a method by which consciousness is used to handle conflict and processes manifested in relationship dynamics and conflicts. The Theory was then picked up by Dr. Otto Scharmer who included the concepts of presencing and capitalism. It is this presencing that releases creative and productive energy.

The original theory analyzed technical/instrumental subsystems, social subsystems and cultural subsystems. It is a process of transforming observations into intuition and then decisions.  In general, one would understand the facts of the workplace, forming a picture of how the organization operates, understand the implicit and overt values within the workplace, envision the future, and aligning the pieces to that future. The process is one of developing conscious awareness of the workplace and putting into action effort to achieve future goals. 

Dr. Otto Scharmer took the theory to the next level by incorporating the concepts of thinking, conversing, structuring, and global ecosystems. As people work in patterns they are often locked into ways of thinking that limit the organizations potential. By empathizing with customer’s needs and fellow employees they can create new understandings and new patterns that better strengthen the market response.  Actions become more purposeful and focused on root truths.

The concept of presencing indicates that at the bottom of the U is the current self and future self that resonate with each other bringing forward a new path to development. As each of our selves interacts with each other we begin to become more effortful in our actions, more creative in our productions, and more clear in our thinking. It is a process of understanding our true selves at a deeper level.  It is about moving beyond surface assumptions.

Most managers and employees work from a false sense of self. This self has come from societal expectations, misinterpretations, and lack of understanding. It is that same power that artists and visionaries use to develop a better impression of the world. It is that place where the best of self exerts itself on the environment. Michelangelo described it as the place where the sculptor, “releases the hand from the marble that holds it prisoner” or Picasso’s concept of where the “mind finds its way to the crystallization of its dream.” 

Scharmer, O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.  ISBN: 978-1-57675-763-5