>Do you think a single instance of resolution of conflict engenders trust
>or is recurrence of resolution necessary?
Depends on the initial relationship. I think of the "emotional
bankaccount" (Peck?) where through a relationship we "deposit" trust
through agreements made and kept throughout the relationship. When we
don't keep an agreement, or don't meet expectations, we "withdraw" from
this account, and typically in large amounts, sometimes emptying the
account in one full swoop. The trust account can be build back up, but to
achieve previous levels requires larger deposits and time.
>Do you view this "sense of interdependence" as alignment of individual
>objectives? In other words does trust require congruence between the
>individual's and the leader's (or organization's) objecives?
My view is interdependence is a situational factor to be considered in
managing alignment. Often interdependence is not something easily or
readily changed. Also, I believe I can trust a leader, and not have
congruence between levels. This, however, is dependent upon both having
awareness and acknowledgement of the degree of congruence itself.
Personally, I tend to trust fully, and reduce my trust of others through
unmet agreements/expectations. So if I see congruence, but there aren't
actions to support and facilitate (ease the passage of) accomplishment of
this shared mission, then I lose trust. I certainly must cooperate with
the other levels of the org. to achieve organizational objectives, but the
necessary degree of interdepence is situationally based on structure
factors (such as technology and social linkages).
--SCypher@perform.vt.edu (Scott R. Cypher)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>