Interpersonal and Procedural Trust

Interpersonal and Procedural Trust

“The Trust model identifies two broad types of trust that parties are always relying on: interpersonal trust and procedural trust” (Furlong, 2005, p. 142). 

First, interpersonal trust is based on an individual’s judgement of another’s character, honesty, morality, and beliefs.  This set of feelings “defines how comfortable we are taking a given level of risk with a specific person.  It answers the question, ‘How much do I trust this individual?’” (Furlong, 2005, p. 142).  This form of trust is difficult to achieve and is created over time, experiences, interactions, and perhaps most importantly, willingness.  It is significant due to the fact that it is the strongest form of trust, therefore parties tend to assume the other person’s motives are genuine and parties anticipate success throughout the relationship which is often times based on perceived commonalities.  Interpersonal trust may benefit conflict resolution due to the fact that it encourages parties to focus on common interests and solutions, while nullifying hostility and discrimination.  More than likely the parties admire one another and / or have mutual respect, as well as open communication.  Since the parties already possess a positive rapport with one another they may be able to negotiate the ordeal without a mediator of third party involvement.  Typically this will result in the parties seeking a favorable outcome in a timely manner, at the least expense to either side.  Even if litigation is sought, settlement may be desired rather than an ongoing process.  However, from a negative aspect, interpersonal trust is easy to lose.  Therefore, a dispute may be the cause of the interpersonal trust lost within a relationship.

Second, procedural trust is defined as “the trust we place in a structure or process we are involved in, as opposed to the individual” (Furlong, 2005, p. 143).  This form of trust allows the individual to place their trust in the process, with little to no regard of the individuals involved.  “Procedural trust processes can be collaboratively built and agreed by the parties themselves…it is a set of steps or structures that are tangible and defined” (Furlong, 2005, p. 144), and thus not a matter of will.  This encourages practitioners to focus on procedural trust within dispute resolution procedures.  Due to the conflict, both parties may distrust each other, however if they believe in the process (i.e. mediation), they may achieve a favorable resolve (Furlong, 2005).  Employing this method in systems such as government, justice, and education afford opposing parties with a lack of interpersonal trust to utilize procedural trust to resolve their differences with the assistance of alternative dispute resolution processes.    

References:

Furlong, G.T. (2005). The Conflict Resolution Toolbox. Ontario, Canada: John Wiley &

            Sons Canada, Ltd.

Autonomous / Interdependent Leadership

Autonomous / Interdependent Leadership

and the Process of Organizational Intervention

            According to Kofodimos, research has proven that a balanced approach between

autonomous and interdependent leaderships are most effective in nurturing and managing employees.  A study assessing these contrasting styles “found that managers evaluated as high-performing by senior management and seen as effective leaders by their co-workers demonstrated a higher level of both autonomous leadership practices and interdependent leadership practices than did managers in a control group” (Kofodimos, 1993, p. 124). These findings mirror the mastery and intimacy oriented approaches.  The nurturing and encouragement methods help increase productivity, creativeness, confidence, and commitment.  Also, managers achieving success in their personal work / life balance are more prone “to feel that it is incumbent on them to support the development of others whose lives they affect” (Kofodimos, 1993, p. 124 & 126).  This awareness may very well be the beginnings of the organizational intervention.

            In other words, organizational intervention sprouts as progressive leaders intervene within their staff to enhance awareness and establish practices and policies which foster balance (Kofodimos, 1993).  Kofodimos explains the process of organizational intervention toward balance in nine phases as illustrated by the following.

Phase 1:  Organization as Part of Network of Balanced Commitments

     1.   Management & employees must assess their values & level of commitment.

     2.   Discovery of the organization’s focus & emphasis begins.

     3.   Management ponders how to encourage & reward their employees.

Phase 2:  Leadership Profile, Balancing Mastery & Intimacy:

1. Managers utilize these approaches to determine the difference between how ‘typical’ & the ‘best’ leaders function.
2. Gain an understanding of these patterns in leadership qualities & reflect on the benefits & costs.

Phase 3:  Integrating Organizational Aspirations & Human Development

1.      Integrating the company’s interests & individual needs.

2.      Defining the employee’s input & judgment into performance criteria.

3.      Assessing how career systems & personal development may co-exist.

4.      Incorporating employees into the company’s vision by building a network of those who believe in the balance.

5.      Establishing a clear conviction / statement in favor of said balance & integrating it into the mission & practices.

6.      Combining individual self-realization with the improvement of the organization’s desires of success.

Phase 4:  Vision of the Integration b/t Organizational Aspirations & Human Development

1.      Effectively communicating in order to find common ground between productive

individuals & organizational functioning via self-realization.

Phase 5:  Vision of the Desired Leadership Culture

1.      Discussions concerning employee desires from leadership & a realization of the

type of leaders they themselves aspire to be by assessing skills & quality. 

2.      Tying the ‘ideal leader’ profile directly to bettering the organization overall.

Phase 6:  Organization’s Place in the Individual’s Life Structure of Balanced Commitments

1.      The vision comes of age as the organization encourages & enhances leadership qualities among the employees.

2.      Dialogue leads to action & a support team is forged in effort to support & pursue balance.

3.      Continued involvement builds the network of balance advocates.

Phase 7:   Encouraging Managers to Balance Work & Other Priority Commitments

1.      An organizational atmosphere is sought that allows managers / executives to create a work / life balance (focus on time, energy, & commitment).

2.      Strategies are reviewed & / or developed in order to achieve balance.

Phase 8:   Encouraging a Balance of Mastery & Intimacy Oriented Leadership Qualities

1.      Create a support system that encourages mastery & intimacy behaviors tailored to the individual leader’s skill, talent, and preferences.

2.      Establish leadership training programs, etc. that explain the new leadership model.

3.      Develop goals & plans.

Phase 9:  Strategies for Supporting the Pursuit of Personal Values & Missions

       1.   Form an organizational atmosphere that encourages self-realization.

       2.   Take charge of personal development.

       3.   Support the system through compliance to change, participation, & career planning.

       4.   Increase team involvement & collectively define present performance & future career
             success.

       5.   Build a strong organization that values & supports balance. (Kofodimos, 1993).

References:

Kofodimos, J. (1993). Balancing Act. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.