### Formula of Trust

## Details

# Formula of Trust

## Background

We are unfamiliar with the background of this model. We believe Jack Richiutto is the person who came up with the basis of this model.

Related Models: Drama Triangle; Typology of Communication; Principles of Effective Leadership; Team Building; Pillars of Commitment; Typology of Knowledge Workers; Coaching; Herzberg Factors; Coaching Arts; Face-to-Face Communication; Trust Equation; Formula of Trust

## The model

This model describes a formula for measuring trust. In essence, trust is based on multiplying the weighted expectations and meeting these expectations. The total is divided by clarity of the expectations multiplied by the usefulness of the feedback. The following elements are part of the formula:

- Assessing the significance per aspect (by executive)

- Assessing delivery per aspect (by executive)

- Assessing clear communication per aspect (by the subordinate)

- Assessing the usefulness of feedback per aspect (by the subordinate).

The strength of this model lies in the fact that expectations are mutual. The executive’s expectations are not the only expectations that matter. The subordinate’s expectations are also involved. The ratio between both makes the formula of trust.

### Assessing the significance per aspect

The executive states the significance of the five aspects for which an expectation exists. This significance is valued on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 is low, 5 is high). This provides a list of weighted significances.

### Assessing delivery per aspect

The executive assesses how he feels the other personal usually meets expectations on a scale from 1 to 5. The total score communicates the expectation in terms of delivery.

Both outcomes are multiplied (significance * delivery) providing the outcome of the upper part of the formula. Executive’s expectation.

### Assessing clear communication per aspect

The subordinate determines the values for the lower part of the formula. He/she indicates, on a scale from 1 to 5, how clearly the executive communicates about these aspects. This provides a weighted average in terms of clarity.

### Assessing the usefulness of feedback per aspect

The subordinate also values the usefulness of the feedback given for all five aspects. This provides a weighted average in terms of feedback.

Both outcomes are multiplied (clear communication * useful feedback) providing the outcome for the lower part of the formula. The subordinate’s expectation.

### The outcome

Both outcomes together provide the trust ratio. You could say a high ratio (upper part is higher than the lower part) indicates that the executive is trusting the subordinate more and vice versa.

## How to use it

With this model you may ask many questions such as:

- Is there an ideal score?

- Should the formula include other variables?

- Can we bring the individual assessment per aspect up for discussion?

- The final outcome based on 1-nes is equal to the outcome based on 5-es.

- …

The strength of this model is the fact that expectations are mutual and that they can be expressed by both parties. The executive not being the only person to judge the person who is performing the task is a healthy principle. Discussing mutual expectations may help start a dialogue. Outcomes may help improve certain aspects to push up the weighted average. The final outcome of the formula need not change: a 1 ratio, determined by assessing 1-nes ensures a balanced expectation. Both parties expect nothing from the other person! A 1 ratio however, determined by 5-es, is also an expression of balanced expectations. Both parties expect a lot from each other.

The strength of this dialogue lies in naming how the low scores can be lifted up. Both parties strive for successful results. Together you can decide on the measures required to lift up the weighted averages. It is also worth mentioning why certain aspects are highly valued. Emphasising the strong side of this will motivate people and help protect these strengths.

The formula also lends itself to evaluations and assessments. Again, the opportunity should be given to hear both sides. In this example the ´hard´ aspects were mentioned. Tangible aspects. Mind you, aspects such as ‘proactive behaviour’, ‘organisational sensitivity’ or ‘clearer justification’ can perfectly be defined as being aspects. The moment the executive expects something from a subordinate, the latter should immediately be given the opportunity to state whatever he or she needs to meet expectations better. Therefore, it is worth using this formula at the start of the assignment or the beginning of a period. During evaluation parties may discuss the extent to which assessments were true and where both parties were able to exceed expectations. Because that´s what this is about, personal growth and shared success!

We wish you lots of trust!

Related Models:

- Principles of Effective Leadership;

- Typology of Knowledge Workers;

- Coaching;

Source:

- http://www.networkweaving.com/blog/2006/09/trust-equation-10.html

- Jack Richiutto

The product:

- - Cartoon, full colour, 8000-6000 pixels
- - Description, full colour, pdf