1
Interpersonal Trust:
What is it and how can it be increased?
E. Scott Geller


Behavior-based Safety (BBS) is essentially a brothers-sisters keepers
process whereby line workers work in teams to develop checklists of safe and at-
risk behavior, use these checklists to observe the work behaviors of each other,
and then provide constructive feedback from their observations in both one-on-
one and group situations (e.g., Geller, 2001b, c; 2005; Krause, Hidley, & Hodson,
1996; McSween, 2003). There is substantial evidence that this approach to
injury prevention is dramatically effective (Sulzer-Azaroff & Austin, 2000), often
moving companies beyond their injury-rate plateaus. However, BBS cannot be
effective without interpersonal trust, not only between coworkers who apply an
observation and feedback process on each other but also between line workers
and the managers who must support such a safety process (DePasquale &
Geller, 1999). This paper explores the meaning of interpersonal trust and then
offers some practical strategies for building interpersonal trust in a work culture.
What is Interpersonal Trust?

The first definition of "trust" in my American Heritage Dictionary (1991) is
"confidence in the integrity, ability, character, and truth of a person or thing"
(p.1300). "Interpersonal" merely limits this definition to "person" or situations
between people. This definition refers to behavior (as in "ability") as well as
internal or person-based dimensions (as in "integrity" and "character"). Thus,
one might be confident a person means well, but might doubt his or her ability to
complete the intended task. In this case, the individual’s intentions are trusted

---

2
but his or her ability to reach stated outcomes are not. There is lack of
confidence in the person’s capability to make good on his or her promises. This
viewpoint occurs when well-intentioned managers or safety leaders verbalize
missions, goals, or policies that are perceived as idealistic or unrealistic. For
example, when rewards or penalties are not delivered consistently and fairly,
people's interpersonal trust can be limited to only intentions, not actions.

It is also possible for people to believe in the ability of another person, but
to mistrust this individual’s intentions. This occurs, for example, when workers
are not informed of the events or decisions leading up to a policy change which
affects their work life. After a change in protocol is sprung on workers without
warning or rationale, management's intentions might become suspect. People
might perceive their leaders have the intellect and skills to make things happen,
but be concerned about what will happen. For example, workers might question
whether management has their welfare in mind when they deliberate about
changes in equipment design or production quotas.

Consider a possible disconnection between intention and capability when
management establishes a safety incentive program that offers everyone a prize
or financial bonus if no one gets hurt over a certain period of time. This
contingency actually puts pressure on people to cover up an injury. When a
person reports an injury, everyone loses their reward. Workers might logically
perceive this kind of incentive program as a scheme to keep the injury numbers
down without really caring about their personal welfare. Thus, management’s

---

3
intentions are mistrusted, and the very kind of reports and interpersonal
conversations needed for incident analysis and injury prevention are inhibited.
Interpersonal Trust Among Coworkers

All of the examples used so far to distinguish between trusting "intention"
versus "ability" refer to management. In other words, the focus was on whether a
worker has confidence in the intention and/or ability of a manager or supervisor.
Interpersonal trust in a work culture should also refer to the extent people ascribe
good intentions and abilities to their peers. In other words, a line worker might
have confidence in the ability of a coworker to perform a job safely and
competently, but might be wary of telling him or her certain things because
mistrusting that person's intentions. For example, a coworker might think, "My
partner might use the information against me for personal gain – to get the
promotion before me." Alternatively, a worker might trust the intentions of a team
member ("He would never take advantage of me"), but lack confidence in his
capability on a particular job assignment ("I'm sure he will do his best, but I'm
afraid his lack of experience means his best will not be good enough").

An effective behavior-based observation and feedback process requires a
high degree of interpersonal trust among coworkers. To accept and use
behavioral feedback, a person must believe the feedback is accurate. If this
feedback comes from a coworker, as is the case for behavior-based coaching,
the worker being observed must have confidence in the coach's ability to obtain
the information used for behavioral feedback. This boils down to having

---

4
confidence in both the tool used to record behavioral information and the
observer's ability to use this tool correctly.

It is not enough, however, to believe in the validity of an observation and
feedback process and in the ability of a coworker to carry it out. The intentions of
an observer must be trusted. The person observed must believe the information
will be used only for personal protection against injury and never as grounds for
punishment.
An Interpersonal Trust Scale

This discussion of interpersonal trust distinguishes two dimensions of
trust: a) confidence in the intentions of others, and b) confidence in the ability of
others. From the viewpoint of an employee evaluating the overall interpersonal
trust in a work culture, these dimensions can refer to either other coworkers or
management. This fourfold classification system was used by Cook and Wall
(1980) to derive the 12-item questionnaire given in Figure 1. This scale can be
readily administered to a discussion group or work team in order to stimulate
interesting and instructive group discussion. It is an excellent way to increase
people's understanding and appreciation of interpersonal trust.
<Insert Figure 1 About Here>

The participants can score their own surveys as follows. Except for two
items (2 and 12), the higher the scale value the greater the perception of
interpersonal trust. Since Items 2 and 12 are negatively phrased, these need to
be reverse scored. In other words, for these two items, the number selected is
first subtracted from "8," so a "1" becomes "7," a "2" becomes "6," and so on.

---

5

Totaling the 12 item scores for a particular survey (with Items 2 and 12
reverse scored) yields an estimate of an individual's perception of overall
interpersonal trust in his or her work culture. An overall trust index can be
obtained by calculating the mean survey score of a representative sample of
workers. The four different dimensions of trust introduced here can be estimated
by referring to Figure 2. Specifically, Items 1, 7, and 12 address trust in the
intentions of management, while Items 3, 5, and 8 assess faith in the intentions
of peers (or coworkers). Confidence in the capability of management is
assessed with Items 2, 4, and 6, while trust in the ability or actions of peers is
measured by Items 9, 10, and 11.
<Insert Figure 2 About Here>

There is nothing special about the wording of these items. One should
feel free to re-word a particular item if different language fits better with a
particular work culture. Plus, new items could be added or substituted for
existing items. It is noteworthy that this scale was developed to measure
interpersonal trust from the viewpoint of an hourly worker. With only slight
adjustments in wording, however, the scale can estimate interpersonal trust from
a manager’s perspective.
In Summary

The fourfold classification system for interpersonal trust is an important
contribution of the Cook and Wall survey tool provided here. In industrial
settings, it is critical to distinguish between perceptions of interpersonal trust for

---

6
management versus one's coworkers, as well as between other people's
intentions versus their actions.

Suppose everyone trusted each other's intentions with respect to health
and safety. Then when an at-risk behavior, a "near miss," property damage, or
an injury occurs, the focus would be on the workers capability to act safely under
certain circumstances. This would lead to fact finding (not fault finding) regarding
ways to improve behavior (not correct a "bad attitude"). Then a behavior-based
coaching process would be trusted as a method for obtaining information
relevant to correcting environmental and system factors that facilitate at-risk
behavior or human error.
Building a Trusting Culture

With this operational definition of “interpersonal trust," let’s address the
more important issue. How can interpersonal trust be increased throughout a
work culture? Because answers to this intervention question were not available
in the research literature, a qualitative research approach was applied.
Specifically, I called together a group of my research students and colleagues to
discuss interpersonal trust. After explaining the concept of interpersonal trust, as
defined here, I asked the question “How can we increase interpersonal trust
among the members of our various research teams?” Then I facilitated a
"brainstorming" discussion among these nine individuals. When all suggestions
were listed, we assigned an "intention" or "ability" label to each.

After generating a long list of comments related to the building of
interpersonal trust, the group refined the list with a consensus process. I asked

---

7
for suggestions regarding the elimination or combination of list items. During this
process it was necessary to remind ourselves we were not looking for items that
made us believe another person could be trusted in intention or ability. Instead,
the assignment was to suggest ways to increase perceptions of interpersonal
trust among groups of people.

After almost two hours, we arrived at a seemingly useful list of proposals
for increasing interpersonal trust. Before reporting the findings from our focus
group, I want to share a critical lesson. The brainstorming process was
extremely valuable. We not only arrived at a list of trust-building strategies, we
enhanced feelings of group cohesion and ownership around this important
concept. We faced head-on the concept of interpersonal trust and the need to
increase it. We explored the variety of things each of us can do to build
interpersonal trust in our work culture.

I suggest this brainstorming session as an intervention to initiate the
building of interpersonal trust in a work setting. The list of trust-building proposals
will likely be similar to ours, but it will be owned by your group. This increases
the probability people will consider the recommendations for increasing
interpersonal trust. The following summary of our session could be used as a
"kick off" for your meeting. For example, you could ask for reactions to the seven
key words gleaned from our discussion, and make your own additions,
substitutions, or refinements. Owning a set of recommendations for building
interpersonal trust is an ideal first step toward encouraging trustworthy behavior.

---

8
The Seven "C's" of Trust-Building

Near the end of our two-hour brainstorming session on interpersonal trust,
the group encapsulated our various suggestions for facilitating interpersonal trust
with seven words beginning with the letter "C". Consequently, the seven C-words
listed in Figure 3 capture the essence of our focus group. The phrases
associated with these words summarize the key definitions given in both the
American Heritage (1991) and New-Merriam-Webster (1989) dictionaries.

<Insert Figure 3 About Here>
Communication
How we communicate with others is obviously a key determinant of
interpersonal trust. What people say and how they say it influences our trust in
both their capabilities and their intentions. One’s expertise is displayed by the
person's words -- spoken or written, and by the confidence and credibility linked
to those words. It has been said many times that the way something is said,
including intonation, pace, facial expressions, hand gestures, and overall
posture, has greater impact than what was actually said. Indeed, how a person
communicates information can have a greater impact on trust than the
information itself. (Insert stuff from good to great – or brutal facts, etc.)

Consider that most people don’t ask enough questions in their
interpersonal conversations. Yet, asking is the key to learning how to improve the
human dynamics of work and family life. By asking for feedback we establish a
context for interpersonal trust and competence-building. By asking for another

---

9
person’s opinion, we show we care and set the stage for open and frank
communication. By asking for advice we gain information and boost the other
person’s self-esteem. And, by asking for support, we increase the chances of
actually getting it. Let’s consider some strategies for asking.
Nondirective
asking. Nondirective counselors carefully avoid personal
judgment or interpretation while listening patiently and empathically to their
client’s stories. They respect the unique and distinctive views of every individual,
and they do not make comparisons or generalizations between the stories of
different people. In the same way, nondirective asking occurs when someone’s
opinion or personal view is solicited without any expectation, judgment, or
interpretation. With sincere interest and appreciation, you merely ask for another
person’s outlook.

This is the kind of asking that shows you care. It facilitates open
discussion and builds interpersonal cohesion. The key is to be nondirective
(Rogers, 1957; 1977). With no ulterior motive, the one doing the asking shows
genuine regard for the other person’s perspective. The purpose is to learn more
about another person’s perceptions, sometimes to understand or improve a
particular circumstance.

Developing a safety process. Nondirective asking can be quite useful in
obtaining information relevant to developing a safety process, while gaining buy-
in at the same time. An open and frank discussion about certain safety guidelines
can lead to a customized protocol workers willingly follow because they had an

---

10
opportunity to offer input when procedural steps were derived. And this all started
with genuine nondirective asking.

Addressing at-risk behavior. What about an observation of at-risk
behavior? Can nondirective asking be helpful under these circumstances? First,
consider that telling workers they are not following certain safety guidelines can
feel insulting and put people on the defensive. Sure, they might quickly fall in line,
but how will they feel about such reactive compliance? Will they feel responsible
and self-motivated? I doubt it.

On the other hand, a nondirective question can put the focus on personal
choice and self-accountability. For example, an observer could remark that
certain personal protective equipment is not being used, and ask, “In your
opinion, why is that PPE unpopular?” Or, it might be more suitable to ask, “What
can I do to facilitate the use of that PPE?”

The key is to ask with genuine and empathic concern. Assume there are
legitimate barriers to the safe behavior you want to see and there are ways to
remove at least some of these barriers. Who knows better how to address this
problem than the workers themselves? Also, believe that most of the workforce
wants to help prevent personal injury. With these reasonable presumptions,
nondirective asking seems to be a most sensible way to approach the observed
occurrence of at-risk behavior.
Directive
asking. Sometimes more directive asking is called for, meaning
it’s useful to ask for something specific. You might ask for behavioral feedback,
or you might request support through certain resources, personnel assistance, or

---

Document Outline

• ÿ

---