Any public relations professional or firm will tell you how important trust is to a brand or corporation. When trust becomes a scarce resource, you will almost certainly face some sort of crisis. But what is trust? The world’s biggest PR firm conducts annual research on this topic, and for over a decade has published its ‘Trust Barometer’, which identifies 16 different trust drivers. While this is a very worthwhile study, many of us apply a far simpler test on whether we trust someone: we let our instincts take over and we form a view. Yes, no, or maybe. The latter of these is of course a deferral of the decision. Deep down, however, we probably have a view, but equally, we feel that it is probably premature to share it, even with our inner consciousness.
So is trust instinctive, and does it drive one of the few binary decision humans make, along with fight or flight? In our digital world, with real time access to more data, opinion and the ability to interact with our trusted networks of influencers, shouldn’t we find it easier to make these judgement calls?
At this point, I’m aware that forming a strong view on a subject, without some degree of supporting evidence is potentially ill-informed, or even risqué. However, it links back to one of the most critical, yet often overlooked facts. Human beings are emotional. We are trained to be rational, analytical and considered, but what we feel often dominates our decision making. Of course, this is nothing new, and politicians and polemicists all over the world over know how to channel our collective emotion to advance agendas. However, the question of whether the digital world is altering the dynamics of trust remains.
I think it is, and here’s why.
Firstly, it allows individuals who may never actually meet, or even pass in the street, to share their concerns on a wide range of issues. They can exchange views, join the dots between data, express what they think and feel, to produce quickly something I call the ‘emotive hypothesis.’ This hypothesis may not have an evidence base, but it is often credible, believable, or at the very least possible. Furthermore, once a critical mass is established, other stakeholders will start looking for evidence, and a speculative vacuum can be created. We also have other amplifiers in the digital world, such as the hashtag in Twitter.
Secondly, when an issue occurs, we can all quickly connect and share our reactions. We may post, “OMG check this out!” while we sit at our desk in an oasis of calm. The digital world is a sponge to our emotive responses, and removed from the anger we demonstrate in the physical world – for instance to fellow motorists. Basically, we can say what we think, without having to think too much what we say.
Finally, I think the digital world has created a new hierarchy of trust. Often the traditional sources of influence are now being supplemented, or subjugated by new influences. Our friends on Facebook, the trending topic, the blogs and feeds we subscribe to, or the individual knowledge guru, described as the “maven” by Malcolm Gladwell in ‘The Tipping Point.’
Not all is new, however. Aristotle told us, in 350 B.C., “if communication is to change behaviour, it must be grounded in the desires and interests of the receivers.” And that’s why we’re allowing the digital world to change the trust dynamic. It talks to us individually, and responds to our interests and emotions.
Businesses are right to apply the rational test to every issue or crisis, but unfortunately the old adage ‘keep clam and carry on’ doesn’t appear to work so well. Corporations need to sharpen their instincts and become more emotionally intelligent. Above all, the executives need to remember that stakeholders own their licence to operate and if they don’t trust you, they won’t hesitate to revoke it.
Comments