John Settle

The following article is an example of a research translation performed by a practitioner, and was first published in Pike & Fischer's ADR Report, July 1998.

Roy Lewicki is one of the researchers whose work is discussed in Settle's article. His view of the result

Trainers of mediators teach that "trust" in the mediator and the mediation process is key, and stress that the vital early stage of mediation is a "trust building" stage. Mediators promote trust both in themselves and the mediation process, and build trust with devices such as confirming impartiality, listening actively, keeping confidences, and not pushing the parties into options development and problem-solving. As mediation proceeds, we seek to facilitate the parties’ increasing trust in each other as well.

If asked to define trust, at least as an attribute of the mediator, students generally will respond in terms of integrity, reliability and competency. Most trainers do not get much deeper than that, and usually get away without more, probably because of the profound and unexamined value we humans place on what we call "trust." But there is more to trust than we may realize. A recent academic paper, discussed below, provides an interesting perspective, and suggests that while the fundamentals of trust generally are adequately reflected in much of what mediators do, there are nuances that mediators can use for better trust building. Most important is the opportunity to reflect on the nature of this vital, often unexamined, engine that drives our process.

What is "trust"? Webster's defines "trust" as "belief for confidence in the honesty, integrity, reliability, justice, etc., of another person or thing; faith...." The words "belief" and "faith", when used in a religious context, suggest an unquestioning belief that does not require evidence. Faith may involve a confident engagement of risk exemplified in walking on the coals.

As mediators, we are about encouraging the parties belief in us, our process, and, as much as possible, each other. The parties must be willing to engage us openly, rely on our representations, and eventually extend some or all of this trust to each other. But we do not expect unquestioning belief. Parties’ trust must be earned through evidence of our trustworthiness, and we have to continuously reinforce trust throughout the process -- particularly if the parties are to trust enough to take risks (short of coal-walking). The proffer of evidence of our own trustworthiness ranges from the explicit (e.g., our independent status) to the very subtle (e.g., the cues we want the parties to take from our body language).

The Lewicki/Stevenson analysis. Professors Roy J. Lewicki and Maura A. Stevenson of the Ohio State University recently wrote a paper entitled "Trust Development in Negotiation," which at this writing is pending publication in the Journal of Business and Professional Ethics. Since mediation is essentially a facilitated negotiation, the paper is relevant to mediators. Their effort reflects a summary of prior studies synthesized with their own thought. They define trust as "an individual’s belief in and willingness to act on the basis of the words, actions and decisions of another."

Lewicki/Stevenson discuss three levels of trust, which typically develop successively. First is what they call "calculus based trust," a fragile state in which a person determines that he or she simply has more to gain than lose for the moment by trying negotiation and acting in good faith. The second level is "knowledge-based trust," which is grounded substantially in the predictability of the other person -- getting to know him/her well enough to be able to anticipate behavior and avoid surprises. The third level is "identification based trust," where the parties come to understand, appreciate, and even share each other's wants and needs.

The first or second level of trust may be sufficient for many transactions. The highest level of trust usually will evolve and grow out of the earlier stages, accompanied by a "frame change" in which the individuals increasingly focus less on their differences and more on their similarities.

Among the most important factors that Lewicki/Stevenson find relevant in developing trust, particularly early on but also throughout the negotiation relationship, are predictability, reliability, and promise fulfillment -- consistently behaving as expected, keeping promises and commitments, and following through. This kind of consistency reduce his anxiety and enhances credibility.

Interplay among trust levels. Consistency is also tied into becoming familiar with the other person, a fundamental part of knowledge-based trust building. An aspect of building familiarity is "peer affiliative social behavior," psychological jargon that describes the relationship glue produced by taking a personal interest in the other person. Such interest is shown by listening and the willingness to be helpful, interacting frequently, and displaying that you are open to exchange of ideas.

The ultimate level, identification based trust, occurs when the parties come to internalize or closely identify with each other's interests. While this advanced level of trust thrives in the soil of knowledge-based trust, it is enhanced through affirming similar motives, interests, needs, and goals; displaying empathy, compatibility, and similar reactions to common situations; and sharing some situationally relevant values and principles. Lewicki/Stevenson likened this kind of trust to the harmony of musicians who create a joint product greater than the sum of the parts.

Practical relevance to mediation practice. Basic needs for developing trust identified by Lewicki/Stevenson, like listening and displaying empathy, are obvious for mediators. So, too, is the idea of affirming similar interests; all good mediators are constantly looking for opportunities to confirm and help the parties see their common ground. Perhaps less obvious is the cluster of elements that Lewicki/Stevenson find to be very important: predictability, consistency, and making and keeping promises. However, when you think about it, subjective factors commonly thought of as key to trustworthiness, like credibility and integrity, depending good part on the patterns of behavior we display showing that we are truthful, competent, reliable, good communicators, and confidence-keepers.

Mediators contribute much to the early and rapid development of calculus based trust, the economic determination of a party that they have more to gain than lose by initially participating in the process. In the first minutes with the parties, mediators display their independence and impartiality, discuss voluntariness and confidentiality, and explain that no rights to further process are lost. Aside from the basic information the mediators provide, they make it easy for the parties to quickly achieve the first level of trust.

In fact, mediators may be building on trust building started earlier by someone performing an "intake" or educational function -- for example, a referral agency or a court-required viewing of a videotape. Mediators should watch for opportunities to influence what is being set about mediation publicly and by "intake" offices.

Lewicki/Stevenson say that calculus based trust is enhanced considerably if you propose safeguards anticipating possible distrust. Thus, mediators have a theoretical underpinning, beyond practical utility, for "ground rules" for behavior, assuring the parties that they are not bound to stay, and introducing the concept of caucuses (even if not used).

Knowledge-based trust, grounded in familiarity, predictability, consistency, and reliability, is something that we mediators can enhance by a few simple and subtle actions, beginning with the very first telephone contact and throughout the mediation. We should be conscious of being consistent and reliable in almost all things -- how we describe what is going to happen, setting meeting times and places, time spent in caucuses, etc. We should be conscious of following up on what we said we would do. We should look for occasional and subtle ways to see to it that the parties recognize our consistency and reliability -- for example, by consciously making and keeping small promises, and telling the parties we did so. Stated otherwise: mediators are well advised to look for opportunities to say what they are going to do, make sure they do it, and then watch for ways to confirm that it is being done or has been done. Look for occasional opportunities to add at the front of a statement phrases like, "as I promised" or "as we said we were going to do." It is about as useful to do this with trivia as with bigger things -- the promise is as important as the subject of the promise.

Lewicki/Stevenson also stressed the importance at this stage of familiarity and accessibility (the latter meaning that you show you are open and receptive to giving and receiving ideas). Good active listening skills coincide nicely with accessibility, but developing familiarity is a little more difficult for mediators. As a negotiator, you can be fairly forward in trying to understand your counterparts likes, wishes, business, hobbies, etc., and sharing your own. As a mediator, you may need to be more circumspect and balanced, but the lesson here is that you nevertheless should look for subtle opportunities to show interest in the person across the table -- for example, by casual inquiry, perhaps in caucus, about his or her job or other interests. One of the tricks of the family mediator’s trade is to ask to see pictures of the kids, which usually produces a "Kodak moment" of warmth, familiarity, and tension reduction.

Identification based trust is the Nirvana that mediators like to help parties reach. The Lewicki/Stevenson analysis confirms the validity of techniques we mediators already use -- for example, pointing out as often is possible the parties’ shared interests, values, and reactions to jointly-experienced stimuli. But there is an additional nuance. While we, in our mediator roles, cannot be as assertive as the negotiator in consciously affirming our own shared interests, values, and reactions, we can do so to a certain extent. We can look for opportunities, a bit beyond mere ambiguous empathy, to carefully and consciously show that we, just like the party or parties in front of us, value a fair outcome, would feel similarly threatened in a given situation, or share some other situationally-relevant emotion or value. Without tipping the table, we can do some identification based trust building in ourselves, in addition to reflecting and fostering its growth in the parties.

It is useful to test general practitioners’ lore against the theoretical analysis of negotiation by academics who are not mediators. It is exciting to see so much confirmed, and equally as wonderful to learn new things of practical use.

John Settle serves as a mediator and trainer with the public administration forum in Alexandria, VA, which provides training in ADR and a wide range of workplace-related subjects.

This article is reprinted with permission from ADR Report, vol. 2, No. 14, pp. 5-7. Copyright 1998 by Pike and Fischer, Inc.