Article: Abbott, G.N. (2006) Trust, Dialogue and Meaning Making, Adapted from a paper prepared for the Meaning Making in Organizations Symposium, Washington DC, September 2006

A central challenge for all participants in international business is to find some clarity and meaning within their complex and changing situations. A major strength of coaching in this process is to engage executives in dialogue that is deep and rich in meaning. From such dialogue come insight, clarity and purpose which raise the client’s capacity and motivation to design and implement new and effective strategies of personal and organizational development.

The main proposition in this paper is that if people are to engage in dialogue in organizations that will result in shared meanings and opportunities for growth, there needs to be a high degree of trust. For trust to develop there has to be a degree of rich dialogue. In other words, the two are mutually dependent.

We know from our experience as coaches that even in relatively homogeneous and stable organizational cultures the levels of trust are often quite low. Toxic organizational politics can often undermine the best of intentions for harmonious relationships between managers, particularly in environments of scarce resources and strong competition. In corporate cultures that have just emerged from hostile or protracted mergers or acquisitions, the levels of trust can be even lower. (Take for example the bad blood evident in the recent takeover of the French multinational steel giant Arcelor by the steel giant Mittal, a company controlled by Indian family interests.)

Coaching across cultures requires that we evaluate (with our clients) the emotional environment within which we and our clients are operating and look for ways of leveraging cultural differences to improve relationships and raise the level of trust. When there are different cultures interacting in the workplace, our task is often to assist the participants to build on the strengths of the various approaches to come up with a third culture that is appropriate to their unique context.

I will refer to the relationship between two concepts that have been useful for me in developing my work in organizational coaching and coaching research in the international environment. The first is creative dialogue in organizations, a concept developed by Lynda Gratton and Sumantra Ghoshal (2002) from the London Business School. The second is authentic trust, discussed by Robert Solomon from the University of Texis and Fernando Flores (2001). Fernando Flores was a cabinet minister with the government of former Chilean president Salvador Allende and is now a consultant and writer in the USA. At one time he worked closely with Julio Olalla, founder of the US coaching group the Newfield Network and a leading writer and speaker on trust and meaning in coaching.

Creative Dialogue

Gratton and Ghoshal (2002) wrote a particularly powerful article on the nature of conversations in organizations. It was based on research over five years in organizations around the world. They established a 2 x 2 matrix of low and high Analytical Rationality on one axis and low and high Emotional Authenticity on the other. The matrix is on the following page).

They suggest that much of the talk that goes on in organizations lies in the low analytical rationality and low emotional authenticity – what they describe as dehydrated talk. This kind of conversation is a ping-pong exchange of views looking for a win where the parties involved do not really expect to develop any new insights, nor did they expect to collaboratively arrive at any new conclusions (p. 211).

At the other extreme is creative dialogue, which is high in analytical rationality and high in emotional authenticity. It is this kind of conversation where they found inspiration and sense-making and a desire to build creative solutions that were superior to existing understandings. They commented that whenever they heard deep, rich creative dialogue, the topics were exciting and the agenda loose and relatively unformed. Those topics gave people the space and the energy necessary for combining the rational and the emotional in a context of engagement, novelty and surprise. Indifference and cynicism quickly destroyed such conversations (p. 218). The contrast here is between an ‘either/or’ approach of dehydrated talk and the ‘and’ approach of creative dialogue, a distinction made clear in Philippe Rosinski’s (2003) Coaching Across Cultures.

The emotional element is a crucial element of creative dialogue in establishing authenticity and creating the basis for appreciating one another as human beings (Gratton and Ghoshal, 2002, pp.214-215). Bureaucratic depersonalization acts to discourage creative dialogue because it removes emotion. Emotions allow the alignment of the individual with the company yet managers shy away from them for fear of negative emotions. The introduction of emotion into conversations promotes trust. Much of the power of coaching comes from creating spaces where people can have creative dialogue. Emotion and rationality can exist together. High quality coaching can model the types of conversations that executive clients can then have with their professional colleagues and direct reports. One of the challenges in mergers and acquisitions is that the structural elements of the joining of the organizations tend to overwhelm the careful nurturing of productive and sustainable professional relationships. That is, emotions are lost in a maze of structural and financial adjustments and intricacies. Further (and related), there is little room for trust-building.

Coaching aims for creative dialogue, though of course the coaching conversations move through different phases where other kinds of conversations are quite appropriate. However, if the conversations with a client regularly and quickly move away from creative dialogue it is a signal that the conversations the client is having at work are likely to have some characteristics of dehydrated talk. Clients will often comment that the conversations they have in coaching are quite different than the kinds of conversations they have in their organizations. Coaching goals often include changing the nature of dialogue that the client has in the work environment.

In complex cross-cultural situations (such as in mergers and acquisitions), dialogue with key people that is concentrated on making sense of situations is highly valuable. Beyond the coaching conversation, there can be a flow on through a deepening of the client’s other conversations and relationships. Executives coaching clients generally find creative dialogue engaging and fulfilling and will seek more of it with their colleagues. The coaching conversation can therefore act as valuable model.

Authentic Trust

Most people would like to have conversations that result in meaning-making, learning and growth. The cliché is that if it was easy we would all do it. There are obviously some barriers in organizations to creating such conversations. One barrier is lack of trust. My observation, supported by persuasive theory and solid research, is that creative dialogue is not possible without trust.

Solomon and Flores (2001) have developed a model of trust that I have found very useful in the organizational context and in coaching generally. They argue that true trust is what they term ‘authentic’ trust. Authentic trust is, ‘an ongoing, delicate dance of trust and distrust, the tests and trials of commitment, the careful scrutiny and reassessment of the relationship’ (p.102). It is built up through routine, experiment and experience. It contrasts with ‘simple trust’ that a child has for a parent and ‘blind trust’ that people may place in a charismatic religious figure or politician (or CEO or coach!) They contrast authentic trust with ‘cordial hypocrisy’ which they describe as the ‘strong tendency of people in organisations, because of loyalty or fear, to pretend that there is trust where there is none, being polite in the name of harmony when cynicism and distrust are active poisons, eating away at the very existence of the organization’ (p. 4).

In the cross-cultural environment, the development of trust is particularly challenging, partly because the two parties begin from a position of difference. I found evidence of this in my recent research in El Salvador on how coaching could facilitate expatriate manager adjustment. The development of trust between the American expatriates and the local Salvadorians was often impeded by different understandings of the symbols, gestures, and behaviours that combine together to facilitate trust. For example, the American way of building trust was through open and direct conversation about the issue at hand. The Salvadorian way was more diffuse. The preferred approach was to establish a relationship first and then move towards the task or issue at hand. Thus, when both pursued their culturally appropriate ways of building trust, the effect on the other was the opposite of what they were trying to achieve. The result was an undermining of rather than a building of trust. However, when the same executives explored this issue in coaching conversations (though creative dialogue) they became aware of this paradox and were able to devise strategies to build trust in more culturally appropriate ways.

Osland, Franco, and Osland (1999) found that Latin American cultures generally had a fairly low level of trust in people who were not family or close friends (p. 224). My research confirmed this finding. However a low level of initial trust is not necessarily the end of the story. Johnson and Cullen (2002) concluded that efforts at trust making, regardless of the cultural appropriateness, can in the long run themselves contribute to the building of trust and be part of a trust-building cycle. Coaching dialogue assisted the managers to gain awareness of the differences and acted to diffuse tension and provide new possibilities for trust building. Coaching therefore played a part in starting and reinforcing the cross-cultural trust cycle.

Creating Creative Dialogue and Authentic Trust

Success stories in business are generally associated with high levels of trust. The level of trust between senior executives is often quite low. You can get a senior team of people together over several days to have deep conversations about the state and future of an organization, only to find that the conversations remain at the superficial level because there is a lack of authentic trust. Dehydrated talk and cordial hypocrisy are more prevalent than creative dialogue and authentic trust. Add a cross-cultural dimension where there are different perspectives and sometimes different languages, and the potential for low levels of trust are enhanced – unless action is taken through coaching to shift ways of thinking and interacting.

What do we do about it? Complaining about the nature of dialogue and trust in organizations is probably – and paradoxically - a good way of increasing it. Consultants are brought in to do outdoor exercises, bonding games and retreats to raise the level of trust. There is little evidence that such one-off programs do very much to encourage authentic trust, particularly when the base level is low. A long term multi-faceted approach, such as a professionally conducted coaching intervention, is required. The retreats and bonding games then make sense in a broader context of trust-building and sustainable organizational change.

Raising the level of awareness about the current situation in the organization is one element of the required approach. The careful introduction of an independent outsider in the form of a skilled professional coach can assist in this process because it can promote self and situational awareness. In the cross cultural environment, coaches can engage clients in informed conversations and encourage them to view cultural differences as opportunities rather than barriers or obstacles. This is a major element of the coaching across cultures strategy.

Even in organizations where the atmosphere is slightly poisonous and dehydrated talk is the dominant form of discussion, people will quite quickly move into different kinds of discussions with someone who:

• isn’t part of the culture(s), and
• doesn’t want to add fuel to the fire by engaging with negative internal politics and game playing (see the Appendix of Coaching Across Cultures on Transactional Analysis for more about game playing).

Trust, Risk and Failure

To trust someone involves a degree of vulnerability. In many corporate cultures, vulnerability is not something one necessarily seeks! Choosing to be vulnerable means taking a risk. Risks don’t always come off – or they are not really risks. To take a risk involves a degree of discomfort and acceptance of failure. I am always curious when taking on a new organizational coaching assignment about how failure is viewed in the organizational culture. Often, there is the espoused view – that experimentation and failure are encouraged. Then there is the reality – that failure is negatively viewed and there is a culture of blame. Solution-focused coaching, appreciative inquiry, positive psychology and so on are designed to move organizations towards more positive cultural environments where calculated risk-taking is genuinely encouraged.

There are cultural implications. In eastern cultures where face-saving is often highly-valued, there are cultural issues around taking risks. Public failure is avoided at all costs. Imagine the difficulties in a cross-national merger where the two organizational cultures have marked differences on how they view risk and failure. Coaching can assist managers to make sense of and operate in environments where different concepts of trust, risk and failure are at play.

The word failure conjures up all sorts of images – some of which are very scary – to the extent that some leaders, managers and coaches have discarded the concept altogether. The alternative is to talk of ‘learning experiences’ rather than failures. I think we do ourselves a disservice if we abandon failure as a concept – because then we may also be abandoning risk. If we abandon risk we then cut off opportunities to build trust and dialogue. Accepting some (not necessarily all!) responsibility for failure seems to me a very healthy part of learning and growth. In an environment of high authentic trust, the consequences of such acceptance can be very positive. In a low trust environment, the consequences could be terminal.

There is a set of connections, one that is tied up in knots and is difficult to unravel:

1. Meaning making requires creative dialogue
2. Creative dialogue requires authentic trust
3. Authentic trust requires creative dialogue
4. Authentic trust and creative dialogue require risk
5. Risks (even calculated ones) mean occasional failures
6. No failure is an indication of little or no risk.

Conclusion

International coaching and business are both processes that require high levels of creative dialogue and authentic trust to be effective. The interaction of these two elements sets the stage for organizational players to make sense of their circumstances and to develop strategies to unleash individual and organizational potential.

Increasing dialogue and building trust – particularly in cross cultural environments - require multiple strategies. They also require time. Professional coaching can provide a process that encourages clients to engage in creative dialogue and to build more trusting relationships with their colleagues. Coaching can assist managers to make and keep commitments on a day-to-day basis that will foster higher levels of trust in the organizational culture. Coaching can encourage risk taking in the interests of building trust and promoting personal and organizational growth. Coaching across cultures requires sensitivity to the levels of risk taking that are appropriate in the prevailing culture. It can also foster creative dialogue about these issues and thus raise awareness and position clients for productive change.

Geoffrey N Abbott

References

Gratton, L., & Ghoshal, S. (2002). Improving the quality of conversations. Organizational Dynamics, 31(3), 209-223.

Johnson, J. L., & Cullen, J. B. (2002). Trust in cross-cultural relationships. In M. J. Gannon & K. L. Newman (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management (pp. 335-360). Maiden, USA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Osland, J. S., Franco, S. D., & Osland, A. (1999). Organizational implications of Latin American culture: Lessons for the expatriate manager. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(2), 219-234.

Rosinski, P. (2003). Coaching Across Cultures: New Tools for Leveraging National, Corporate and Professional Differences. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Solomon, R. C., & Flores, F. (2001). Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weisinger, J. Y., & Salipante, P. F. (2000). Cultural knowing as practicing: Extending our conceptions of culture. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(4), 376-390.