Andrew Jackson SSC: Trust Me

[Mark Rippetoe]

Trust Me | Andrew Jackson

[Andrew Jackson]

Adding a couple things that I didn't get to in the article. To keep it from sprawling, there were two ideas I didn't include that I thought I'd add briefly here:

1) Reactions to perceived risk can often trigger your limbic system to respond - the "fight or flight" instincts kick in.

One of the most useful aspects of the model for me is that it has helped me think through situations in which I have a big emotional reaction - anger, fear, frustration - and deconstruct that reaction into one of the factors of trustworthiness. By thinking through my reaction and breaking it down into one the the three factors, I have been often been able to target a more specific need in order to diffuse my emotional reaction. By understanding which factor is at the root of my perceived lack of trust, I'm able to work on addressing the perception with the person I'm choosing to be vulnerable with - choosing to trust. The model helps me keep a more rational perspective on relationships. Rather than saying "I'm angry at so and so" or "I don't trust so and so" I'm able to understand that those feelings have a specific need and I am simply making a choice to be vulnerable or not. This is important because it takes me out of the victim loop reacting to someone else and puts me back in control. It forces me to take responsibility for what happens and how I choose to act.

2) Trust is like a bank account

I didn't include it in the article because it was an entirely separate can of worms, but there is research that has been done on the ratio of positive to negative interactions to maintain trust. The research was done more specifically on married couples, but I think that it's applicable to the concept of trust. In short, Dr. John Gottman found that for every negative interaction, stable marriages have five positive interactions. I found this research interesting relative to trust building in that I see that as applicable to the trust model loop. I keep this in mind when I notice that one of my actions has a negative effect on trust and consciously work on shoring up the factor, or factors, of perceived trustworthiness needed to replenish the "withdrawal."

What do you think? I would enjoy hearing thoughts on the article. In particular, does the definition of trust and model resonate with you? Do you have any experiences in training or coaching that this model helps you think through?

[Jennifer Williams]

I think that coaching must be a tough job. This seems like it would be especially true if you're working with older clients. You're dealing with people who have a lifetime of experience with their own bodies. It's "very" personal to them. If the client has any background in the area that's being coached, then they have developed a reservoir of ideas as to what works and what doesn't. They may be right or they may be wrong about it, but these ideas existed before this new relationship. Candidly, what I see from most coaches these days is a lot of what you said in the beginning of your article, "Just trust me," "Just do it my way," etc. People who are dedicating time to these endeavors are doing so at the expense of all of the other responsibilities and stresses they have in their lives. This is precious time. I think there has to be a moment permitted for some sort of discussion, an understanding of the "whys." A coach can't take this sort of questioning personally. It's not about them, their skills, their successes. By the way, just because a coach trained "super strong Sally" over there, doesn't mean that he/she can train George, or me. We're different, we have different skill sets, different strengths. And Sally may not have needed great coaching, she may just be a fortunate specimen. So, as far as vulnerability is concerned, this is the demarcation line as I see it. Giving a client a moment to envision the course, and understand that there's a backup plan, that's the stuff that builds trust. That's leadership. I agree with your viewpoint that trust is dynamic and experience based. It certainly can ebb and flow, but it is individually based upon the person, their performance and capabilities. Does the coach appear to be considering his/her unique client? I understand that a lot of what works for one person will also work for another, but one size does not fit all.


With regard to your three part model for perceived trustworthiness, I'm not convinced that credentials add all that much to a person's perceived ability. At best, it may get them a seat at the table. Everyone is extremely specialized these days, so finding a niche and building a broad base of experience is key. Being able to communicate effectively and with confidence helps. I believe people can smell insecurity. Having the confidence to say, "I don't know, I'll look into it" is trust building. Unfortunately, this sort of experience can only come with time.


I wasn't following the part about the perceived integrity as it relates to "a strong sense of justice." But certainly a solid reputation within the community is priceless. And I agree with you that being late for appointments is trust eroding. It tells the client that he/she isn't as important as whatever else it is that the coach was doing. Being nice, running the session later, will not repair frequent tardiness. Everyone is busy, yet most get where they need to be on time. Speaking poorly about others would leave the client wondering what is being said about him/her as well. It's unprofessional. However, complimenting others, building up people's confidence by identifying their strengths, this would be a trust builder. This doesn't mean being excessively nice, but people like to get positive feedback once in a while. Most people outside of the gym don't want to hear about this person's new PR, so the coach may be the only person to compliment him/her on it.


Agree on the benevolence part, if the coach is perceived as not caring, then why bother? As an aside, I have one extreme example of poor coaching. I joined a gymnastics program when I was a kid, the day that I learned how to do back tucks, the coach wanted me to try it out on the 4 inch balance beam. No joke, the guy was a moron. I recall looking around the gym and seeing two different girls with casts on their limbs. I told the guy that I wasn't ready. He insisted that I was, and got angry because I wouldn't listen to him. I wound up waiting for my mother out in the parking lot. Never went back. This is an extreme example, but a bit of self-awareness may be helpful too.


Great article. These are good ideas to be thinking about. The biggest deal killer, as I see it, was what you wrote in the very beginning. "Trust me!" Demonstrate why. If someone is approaching a coach for advice, they selected this person, the prospective client "wants" to instill trust in him/her. But it isn't a given. Be a coach.

[Jennifer Williams]

I am terribly sorry about my writing on this forum. I write on here using either an iPad or an iPhone. The apostrophes always show up strangely when it posts. And half the time it is (to avoid the apostrophe) nearly impossible to scroll up and down to review the post I have written. Anyhow, I would edit it if I could. .

[Andrew Jackson]

I think that coaching must be a tough job. This seems like it would be especially true if you're working with older clients. You're dealing with people who have a lifetime of experience with their own bodies. It's "very" personal to them. If the client has any background in the area that's being coached, then they have developed a reservoir of ideas as to what works and what doesn't. They may be right or they may be wrong about it, but these ideas existed before this new relationship.

This is a really good point. Every coach that works with a client has their own background, history, and perceptions. This is one of the key aspects of the research done by Mayer, et al. The model explicitly uses perceived factors of trustworthiness and perceived risk. So the crux of building trust with anyone is recognizing that one must empathize with the other. They must try to put themselves in the trustor's shoes and attempt to understand their perceptions. When a coach actively "monitors trust" they're effectively trying to observe how their actions are perceived by the client and whether they've bought into what is being asked of them to do.

Candidly, what I see from most coaches these days is a lot of what you said in the beginning of your article, "Just trust me," "Just do it my way," etc. People who are dedicating time to these endeavors are doing so at the expense of all of the other responsibilities and stresses they have in their lives. This is precious time. I think there has to be a moment permitted for some sort of discussion, an understanding of the "whys." A coach can’t take this sort of questioning personally. It's not about them, their skills, their successes.

Another great point, Jennifer. To me, this is why the Starting Strength model can be so powerful. When the time is right, we can explain why we ask our clients to move a certain way. And to your earlier point, the model is adaptable to each individual. The model is based in foundations of physics, anatomy, and bio-mechanics. Each person's squat will depend on their individual body segment lengths and, as an SSC, we're required to know why as part of the credential process.

So, as far as vulnerability is concerned, this is the demarcation line as I see it. Giving a client a moment to envision the course, and understand that there’s a backup plan, that’s the stuff that builds trust. That’s leadership. I agree with your viewpoint that trust is dynamic and experience based. It certainly can ebb and flow, but it is individually based upon the person, their performance and capabilities. Does the coach appear to be considering his/her unique client? I understand that a lot of what works for one person will also work for another, but one size does not fit all.

Totally agree - recognizing trust as someone choosing to be vulnerable is a game changer to me. It explains why it is so upsetting when someone feels that their trust broken. People get really upset and it can feel threatening. Interestingly, I think there is a cascade effect in that when someone chooses to be vulnerable and the outcome isn't what they expect there is a subconscious consequence that the trustor loses a bit of trust in their ability to choose people to trust. This can exacerbate the feelings and cause a great deal of hurt because vulnerability is, to your point, personal. If you think back to times when someone close to you breaks your trust, you may recognize that they are some of the most painful and disorienting times of your life. In my experience, they are a period of chaos - times that I start to feel that I may not understand how the world around me works.

This is why I found the model so powerful, it gave me a framework to understand my reactions. Rather than being upset at the person that I felt had broken my trust, I was able to re-frame the experience in a concrete way, learn from the experience, and grow. Using the model enables me to be conscious not only about how I build trust with others, but just as importantly, who I choose to trust.

With regard to your three part model for perceived trustworthiness, I’m not convinced that credentials add all that much to a person’s perceived ability. At best, it may get them a seat at the table. Everyone is extremely specialized these days, so finding a niche and building a broad base of experience is key. Being able to communicate effectively and with confidence helps.

I agree with you. As I wrote in the article, the research indicates that credentials is just what gets you the first interaction. The research paper explicitly states one of the key propositions is that benevolence becomes more important than ability over the course of a relationship. To your point, communicating effectively is part of that.

I believe people can smell insecurity. Having the confidence to say, "I don’t know, I’ll look into it" is trust building. Unfortunately, this sort of experience can only come with time.

This is a fantastic point. This is why I suggest in the article to start by trusting yourself. That was EXACTLY the revelation I had one night while thinking about this subject. I realized that a BIG part of building trust in others is trusting yourself first. I came to recognize my "insecurities" as something that I could work on. Instead of "insecurities" being a nebulous thing, I found that the trust model gave me actionable things to consciously work on so that I felt more confident. And, in turn, to your point, the client recognizes that confidence.

I wasn't following the part about the perceived integrity as it relates to "a strong sense of justice."

The note about justice was a direct quote from the research paper. It speaks to the perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles, including justice. Here is more from the Mayer article:

"The relationship between integrity and trust involves the trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable. McFall (1987) illustrated why both the adherence to and acceptability of the principles are important. She suggested that following some set of principles defines personal integrity. However, if that set of principles is not deemed acceptable by the trustor, the trustee would not be considered to have integrity for our purposes (McFall called this moral integrity). The issue of acceptability precludes the argument that a party who is committed solely to the principle of profit seeking at all costs would be judged high in integrity (unless this principle is acceptable to the trustor). Such issues as the consistency of the party's past actions, credible communications about the trustee from other parties, belief that the trustee has a strong sense of justice, and the extent to which the party's actions are congruent with his or her words all affect the degree to which the party is judged to have integrity. Even though a case could be made that there are differentiable reasons why the integrity of a trustee could be perceived as higher or lower (e.g., lack of consistency is different from acceptability of principles), in the evaluation of trustworthiness it is the perceived level of integrity that is important rather than the reasons why the perception is formed."

Agree on the benevolence part, if the coach is perceived as not caring, then why bother? As an aside, I have one extreme example of poor coaching. I joined a gymnastics program when I was a kid, the day that I learned how to do back tucks, the coach wanted me to try it out on the 4 inch balance beam. No joke, the guy was a moron. I recall looking around the gym and seeing two different girls with casts on their limbs. I told the guy that I wasn't ready. He insisted that I was, and got angry because I wouldn't listen to him. I wound up waiting for my mother out in the parking lot. Never went back. This is an extreme example, but a bit of self-awareness may be helpful too.

Such a good example! Imagine if that coach was able to consider that there was a lack of trust instead of pinning the problem on you! The same is true with every day personal interactions including coach-client relationships. When you come up against resistance or emotional reaction, taking a beat to think through where trust is right now can make make a big difference in how effective you can be with the situation.

Great article. These are good ideas to be thinking about. The biggest deal killer, as I see it, was what you wrote in the very beginning. "Trust me!" Demonstrate why. If someone is approaching a coach for advice, they selected this person, the prospective client "wants" to instill trust in him/her. But it isn't a given. Be a coach.

This is what I hope people take away from the article most. The intent of this article is to give coaches concrete tools for action that enable them to actively build trust. Thanks for the feedback!

[Jennifer Williams]

Andrew-I went through and prepared a decent sized reply to your post, and I lost it all. Forgive me if I pass on retyping things for now.

Thanks to Stef, who I believe must have taken the time to edit my prior post. Such a nice thing to do. Truly appreciated!

[Andrew Jackson]

Andrew-I went through and prepared a decent sized reply to your post, and I lost it all. Forgive me if I pass on retyping things for now.

I know that feeling - no worries. I would like to hear the highlights or short version if you ever feel so inclined to share again in the future. Thanks, again.

[Andrew Jackson]

Another aspect of trust that I left out of the article, but found as an interesting application of the model was from Peter Block and his trust/agreeableness matrix. The Trust-Agreement matrix is a quadrant created by the four categories created from matchine Hi/Lo Trust and Hi/Lo Agreement. To locate your relationship, ask the following questions:

1) How much do I trust them?
2) How much do I agree with them?

block.jpg

What I found interesting about this model is that it adds more depth to the understanding of trust as a continuum rather than binary attribute. One is not just trustworthy or not. Rather, your trustworthiness sits on some sort of relative scale with each person based on their perceptions as defined in the trust model.

Block provides descriptions for each quadrant and suggestions for how you may want to think about those relationships:

• Allies (High Trust / High Agreement): They share our vision or goals and want to achieve outcomes by behaving in a manner that is consistent with ours.
• Opponents (High Trust / Low Agreement): These are folks you trust but will often disagree. The name Opponent is an accurate but unfortunate one since our society teaches us to vanquish our opponents. But these are the people whose relationship you need to carefully cultivate because, since you trust them, they will beat up your idea and not you. That will usually mean that you end up with a better idea!
  
• Bedfellows (High Agreement / Low Trust): They profess agreement with you on many topics, but you do not feel that you have a trusting relationship. There seems to be a lot of caution about their connection with us or with them voicing their candid opinion about our vision.
  
• Fence-Sitters (Low Trust / Unknown Agreement): These are often the ultimate bureaucrats and operate out of pessimism and helplessness. They are often glib and seemingly effective communicators, but they consistently prevaricate about their positions. You have to try and flush them out to establish their position, but are often not worth too much effort.
  
• Adversaries (Low Trust / Low Agreement): People only fall into this quadrant because we have failed to negotiate agreement or build trust with them. This does not mean we haven’t tried hard to do this, but only that they won’t cooperate or have a radically different vision. If you confirm your Boss is an adversary, be prepared to move on. If a subordinate is an adversary, the nicest thing you can do is help them to move on.

In the context of coaching, I find the Trust-Agreement model useful for understanding where the relationship with a client stands and what I may need to do to shift the relationship to be more productive. Sometimes a relationship devolves into adversarial territory and it's usually best to work on moving on from that relationship. I also like the idea of framing opponents in a positive light. We want to see out opponents and work with them to be better. In some ways, I like to think of the barbell as an opponent. Bedfellows and Fence-Sitters are also useful categories as I find the awareness of those relationships is important to understanding why I may not be comfortable with an individual and categorizing them as one or the other helps clue me into how I might go about building the relationship in a productive way.

As with the topics in the article, these concepts seem useful for coaching and also for relationships in broader contexts as well.

Thoughts?

[Ryan3000]

Thanks for this Andrew. The three part model is a very helpful framework.

I've observed all three parts working together in a way that has built my trust in the SS model and coaches - the many stories of Rip (and Sully and other coaches) helping older people train. There is one story in particular (I can't locate it right now) I read early in my exposure to SS of a woman getting her car keys back because she had regained the strength she needed. I'm not impressed with coaches who are able to get young, gifted trainees to lift big weights and then leverage them into lots of YouTube views. But training a person who has trouble getting off the couch shows real coaching ability and benevolence. Most of the strength and fitness industry is just generating content to sell t-shirts. No one could accuse SS of trying to do that, I mean, have you seen these? Shirts | The Aasgaard Company

Seriously though, the ability, integrity, and benevolence shown by training people with development issues at Iron City Athletic Club is off the charts. Iron City Athletic Club: A Model of a Barbell Gym

I'm sure many SS coaches have stories like these and they go a long way to building trust. I'm looking forward to learning more about your trustworthiness at the squat camp in Bellevue next month!

[Andrew Jackson]

I'm looking forward to learning more about your trustworthiness at the squat camp in Bellevue next month!

I look forward to meeting you at the camp, Ryan.