In alignment with O² (Quest), Gibb writes about “a quest for being”—which is a search for and creation of one’s identity (Gibb, 1978, p. 23). Given the challenge identify by Ken Gergen (1991/2000) regarding the appearance of multiple identities in our “saturated self,” this potential achievement of a clear sense of identity (being) might be particularly important
Gibb tends to bring these two valued outcomes of Trust together in the form of an intimate interpersonal relationship. He acknowledges that vulnerability comes with intimacy. Trust must be present for any of us to let down our defenses (O: openness) and for us to grow (R: realize our authentic self). It is through our trusting and intimate relationships with other people (I: interdependence) that we find openness and growth. Gibb (1978, p. 24) offers these poignant words about Trust, intimacy and vulnerability:
“Genuine intimacy is a pervasive human want. It is made possible by our seeing each other as we are, without our masks, filters, or facades. In trust and intimacy I am able to show you my vulnerability. I recognize that my concept of vulnerability arises out of my defensive and protective fear. I project into you the capacity to wound me. If I trust you in depth, I know that you will not hurt me and also that I cannot be hurt. Thus, if I am hurt, I hurt myself. I have two sources of inner calm: my trust in myself and my trust in you. Genuine intimacy, achieved only in a state of high trust, is a calming state because risk of hurt is minimized. If risks are present, they loom small relative to the rewards of intimacy.”
Barry Johnson might put it this way. The engagement of both S² (Home) and O² (Quest) come with the risk of vulnerability. Mistrust is waiting at the door. I am vulnerable to assuming the existence of safety or creating a condition of security—only to find that Ss doesn’t exist or comes at great cost. I am also vulnerable to finding that my dreams of success (opportunity) can’t be fulfilled or that my openness is not reciprocated. With the establishment of Trust, the risk of either form of vulnerability is reduced. I believe that Johnson would respectfully suggest that caution needs to be introduced at this point. He would probably suggest that we still need to visit both conditions of vulnerability and risk (to ensure that we are not deluding ourselves). However, when there is genuine trust (and intimacy) the time spent with the two positive conditions is likely to be longer and there will be a greater potential for the integration of S² (Home) and O² (Quest). With this integration comes a cycle of Trust (“trust begets trust”) (Gibb, 1978, p. 16).
It should also be noted that there are several cautionary notes to be addressed regarding Gibb’s TORI model. First, it should be noted that while Trust might bring about more Trust (a positive feedback loop), it takes only one person in a group with a low level of trust to “break up the party” (breaking up the positive loop by providing negative feedback). Mistrust is likely to emerge if members of a group try to “push” trust beyond that which is acceptable (safe) for hesitant members of the group. I have always honored the dictum that the level of trust in a group is no greater than the lowest level of trust held by any one member of the group.
Download Article 1K Club
