Trust is the invisible currency of our relationships. We often notice the value of trust when trust is broken or when ordinary actions become exhausting and just not quite right: a request needs repeated follow-up, a decision needs defending, or a promise no longer brings relief.
At work and at home, we depend on one another to take care of things that matter to us. When someone says, “I’ll handle it,” we believe them and organise our next steps around those words. We entrust them with our time, our reputation or something we cannot manage alone.
What we often don’t realise is that trust is not “just” trust. It has several (often unrecognised) dimensions. Ontological coach and author Alan Sieler identifies four dimensions through which we assess whether we trust someone or not: sincerity, reliability, competence and involvement. Sincerity is when we assess whether someone is genuine. Reliability is when we assess someone follows through on commitments (keep their word). Competence is when we assess someone has the ability to deliver. Lastly, involvement is whether we assess someone is taking our concerns to heart - they care about what we care about. Sieler describes trust as an experience built from these four dimensions and that we strongly experience the presence or absence of trust in our emotions and body.
Charles Feltman offers a closely related framework of trust, using care (instead of involvement) alongside sincerity, reliability and competence. His work also has immense value and similarly makes trust more specific enough to discuss: where, exactly, has our confidence in one another become uncertain?
These distinctions help us understand why good intentions do not always create dependable relationships. Someone may care deeply yet repeatedly overpromise. Another person may deliver excellent work while overlooking what matters to those affected.
Sieler’s dimension of involvement is particularly relevant here: does the other person understand and attend to what matters to us? He connects trustworthiness directly with how we make arrangements and honour commitments. I have noticed that many clients and friends tell me they do not trust someone. In reality, they actually meant they do not trust that another person will take care of what is important to them.
Consider a colleague who asks for a report by Friday. You agree, wanting to be helpful. Only later do you realise that completing it would mean breaking another promise. You work harder, hope to catch up and avoid mentioning the difficulty. Friday arrives, and your colleague is left without something they were relying on.
The trust problem began before the missed deadline. It began when the commitment exceeded what you could realistically offer.
In ontological coaching, making and managing commitments is a central conversational practice and a keystone in building trust and integrity. Before agreeing, we need to understand what is being requested, why it matters, when it is needed and what satisfactory completion would look like. We also need to assess our capacity, competence and existing obligations. “I can deliver this by Tuesday. To complete it by Friday, we would need to move another priority” gives both people a clearer basis for action.
After agreeing, we remain responsible for the promise: tracking progress, communicating difficulties early, seeking a new agreement when circumstances change, and checking whether the completed work meets the agreed need. Quietly changing our plans leaves someone else relying on an agreement we have already abandoned.
maintaining trust asks something of our emotional maturity.
Can I acknowledge my limits without making excuses? Can I admit that I have fallen short and hear the impact without immediately defending myself? Can I receive a counter-offer without assuming that you do not care?
There is also mutual legitimacy that in my estimation is also very relevant when it comes to building and maintaining trust. Mutual legitimacy means that both people’s concerns, dignity and limits deserve consideration. We can be clear about standards and consequences while remaining willing to listen. An honest conversation becomes possible when neither person has to surrender their voice to preserve the relationship.
When a commitment is broken, trust can also be broken. That is why repair done with emotional maturity is needed. Real repair that restores trust requires acknowledging the impact of our actions and the emotional consequence of it. It also requires agreeing on what can be done differently and then to truly follow through. Others need experience of changed behaviour on which to rebuild their confidence and trust in us.
Which commitment needs your attention today: one that needs clarifying, renegotiating, fulfilling or repairing? Or have you found your trust eroded somewhere in your work environment or personal life. Below you will find four questions that help you reflect on exactly what the trust issue is really about.
Sincerity: Does someone mean what they say? Reliability: Do they follow through on commitments? Competence: Do they can deliver on their promises? And lastly involvement or care: Do they genuinely care about what matters to me and have our interests at heart.
So far the blog has focused on trust and how to assess where others have, through their actions and attitudes, become less trustworthy in our eyes. Let's finish this conversation by completely flipping the focus. How trustworthy ARE YOU in the eyes of your colleagues or significant others? Which dimension (sincerity, reliability, competence or involvement/care) do you need to take responsibility for and change?
Until next time,
Carine
