Trust and leadership: philosophical reflections on building strong business relationships

There are two key elements that characterise trust: the environment in which one has grown up and one’s cultural background – that is, one’s beliefs. This principle also applies in the workplace. If both ‘work’ well, one could well say that ‘trust precedes trust’ for the simple reason that positive past experiences are so reassuring that they leave no room for doubt, making trust the norm of existence (as Augustine would say).

There is an inherent risk in the notion that ‘trust comes before trust’: disappointment.

Disappointment undermines trust and significantly fuels doubt. The combination of the two leads to a demand for safeguards, so that the act of trusting shifts from a spontaneous – and sometimes naïve – act to a carefully considered choice. This is where another element of interpersonal relationships comes into play: reliability, which, in its most basic sense, refers to a person who honours the commitments they have made.

Let’s explore the topic of doubt in more detail.

Philosophically speaking, doubts are beneficial for confirming beliefs: indeed, because questioning beliefs means engaging critical thinking, which replaces ‘naive’ consciousness. Doubt transcends ‘naive’ belief and fosters an awareness of it.

But let’s take it a step further. A prerequisite for inspiring trust is having self-confidence. To quote Wilhelm Schmid, “self-confidence arises from self-assurance”: how true this statement is in the world of management!! How many examples are there of people who do not place their trust in others because they lack self-confidence?

On self-confidence, Cicero expressed himself as follows: “the virtue by which, in great and honourable circumstances, the mind places great confidence in itself with the hope of success”. Albertus Magnus adds that confidence in tackling arduous tasks “considers above all the proposed aim and, for the sake of this aim, gives the strong-minded the assurance to dare to face what is difficult”. But perhaps the most important insight into self-confidence comes from Aristotle, who links fortitude to the ability to endure pain: translated into business terms, this refers to the ability to cope with the failure of a project or the frustration of not achieving a goal.

Natoli identifies some typical characteristics of people who have self-confidence, which can be applied to the world of management:

• Calmness, understood as the ability to control and temper anxiety in order to tackle situations with a clear head, weighing up the various options before making a decision;

• Courage and Temperance, or rather the right balance between the two that brings stability to a person;

• Authority. This is possessed by those who command respect because they are persuasive. An authoritative person is someone who has the ability to put forward ideas and plans and, as a result, provides direction and guidance on how to achieve them, giving the impression that this is a better world to strive for.

This raises a question: Is trust a personal matter or a social/corporate one? 

It is a social/corporate reality because it determines the quality of relationships. It is a social/corporate reality because, by offering reassurance, it brings stability to relationships and acts as a binding force in civil and corporate life. Without trust, there is no community, only a fragile coexistence.

For trust to endure, it must be mutual.

Hobbes had commented on the importance of reciprocity, guaranteed by a ‘third party’ – homo homini lupus – in *Leviathan*. With one caveat: Hobbes states that trust is not natural. In the absence of a common authority, it is rational to be distrustful. Trust arises only through rules, contracts and sanctions. It is a disenchanted view, but one that is useful for understanding highly competitive contexts or organisations dominated by control.

Is there an antidote to Hobbes’s philosophy?

Yes, the concept of cooperation that refers to the social nature of humankind discussed by Aristotle discusses, and from which derives the view of the other as a partner with whom to walk together towards the achievement of a common goal. An independent partner who has self-confidence – a fundamental prerequisite for the next step: that of interdependence.

As an antidote to the philosopher’s thinking, we can also turn to the two authors I. Kishimi and F. Koga: generally speaking, problems relating to interpersonal relationships stem from the fact that we interfere with other people’s responsibilities or allow others to interfere with ours. The division of tasks is enough to bring about a radical change in interpersonal relationships, and there is a simple way to determine whose task it is: ask yourself who the intended recipient is of the outcome produced by the choice. And if that is not enough, bear in mind that interfering with other people’s tasks and taking them on yourself makes life difficult and exhausting. A simple but highly effective way of thinking in the workplace.

Let us conclude by moving from philosophy to the business world.

Trust in a company does not stem from blind faith in corporate values. People trust because they have seen consistency over time. Every promise kept reinforces the habit of trust; every exception erodes it. A leader builds trust through consistency.

Aristotle: ‘We are what we repeatedly do; therefore, excellence is not an act but a habit.’ Trust-based leadership is not a one-off act, but an ever-evolving process.

Trust is not something you earn once and for all: it is either renewed or eroded.

*Director of Bcc Centropadana