(2) How do we determine if the actions being taken by the person with whom we are relating or by other members of our group or organization align with what they say and what they espouse as their values and vision? How, in other words, do we assess and openly discuss matters of honesty and integrity? The term “authenticity” is often relevant in this regard. Once again, a Cycle of Trust might exist with Trust and Authenticity reinforcing one another.
(3) What is the appropriate balance between conversations that are task-based and those that concern personal and interpersonal issues—especially if these issues might impact on interpersonal, group or organizational functioning? The conversation itself should focus on both the Task and Relationships—as well as the Method of operating that best brings together effective task=related and relationship-related behavior (the TMR Model) (Bergquist and Mura, 2014). It is not enough to share feelings about the way in which we are working together. We also must share feelings and thoughts about the best ways in which to structure the task, make use of available resources, or even adjust spans of control, authority, support and influence that are associated with the task (Simons, 2005; Bergquist, Sandstrom and Mura, 2023).
(4) How do we appreciate, learn from and preserve those moments when relationship, our group or our organization seems to be functioning at its most effective level—with full participation by each of in the relationship, and by all members of the group or organization. There is a sense of joy in doing the work together, and a spirit of accomplishment that is energizing and renewing? This appreciative perspective can be offered in the narratives being shared, in the celebrations being conducted and in the statements of gratitude being offered. Once again, a Cycle of Trust can be created with Appreciation and Trust dancing together.
In order to address these four concerns, we must be candid with ourselves and those with whom we are relating. There are two specific questions which we must ask one another in establishing a trusting relationship, and we must ask one another in establishing a trusting group or organization: (1) How open do I want to be in sharing my ideas, experiences, concerns, hopes, and fears” (2) How open do I want other people to be in sharing their own ideas, experiences, concerns, hopes and fears? As in the case of both Inclusion and Control, there are proactive and reactive perspectives on Openness that lie behind the two questions being broached.
Proactive and Reactive Openness: The need for Openness parallels the need for inclusion and need for control, in that some people are quite willing – even eager—to share their feelings, hopes, fears and observations with other people, while other people are reticent to do so. They wait for other members of the group or organization to take the initiative. At the extreme are proactively open people who share their entire life history sitting next to an unfortunate stranger. Indiscriminate openness must be born on this aircraft. Many hours are yet to pass before the plane touches down on foreign soil. Regret is keenly felt about not purchasing a set of noise-cancelling headphones at the airport. At the other extreme is the reactively open person who can’t easily be prodded into a conversation—even at the start of a team-building workshop. We carry the “interpersonal load” during a warmup exercise with this person. They smile and wait for us to produce something of mutual interest. The journey seems almost as long as that flight with the non-stop discloser.
In a relationship, proactive openness can be of great value—when engaged in moderation. It is important for each of us to gain a clear sense of another person’s perspectives, values and past history if we are going to be working with them. Similarly, in a group or organizational setting, appropriate proactive openness can be quite valuable. We are not trapped on an airplane with a total stranger. There are contributing members who begin to share their own observations about group or organizational functioning. They may also share their own hopes for and fears about the group or organization’s productivity with other members—no life histories, just task and group or organization related feedback.
Download Article 1K Club
