The phrase ‘radical trust‘ used to be banded around to encourage corporations to virtually close their eyes and throw open their communications to the public, trusting that they should take the good with the bad when engaging in blogging, collaboration through wikis, and similar social computing activities.

An investigation of trust, though, Mark E. Warren’s book on Democracy and Trust [1] suggests that, simply, institutions do not generate interpersonal trust. This is reminiscent of an Australian government paper on Citizen Centred Governance [2]:

“Trust and confidence in politicians and Governments at all levels and in all countries has been on the decline for some time. This phenomena is not limited to politicians but also encompasses professions, businesses and brands.” (p 6)

The report highlights a ritualised negativity amongst the general public toward corporations and government institutions. It suggests that the level of trust is directly related to a number of factors:

1. Degree of Relevance: There is a direct connection between trust and personal interaction. Importantly, people trust people, not institutions. This notion is supported by the recent Edelman Trust Barometer report [3] noting that people trust people ‘like themselves’ and that trust in both corporate and government entities has decreased significantly over the last few years.

Source: Edelman, 2009.

2. Expectations & Performance: A gap between the level and quality of service and the expected level will mean a drop in trust in the service provider. The development and maintenance of trust and confidence is a personal value proposition between each individual and the organisation concerned and is often expressed as basic expectations such as quality, consistency, timeliness, and responsiveness.

This is supported by research by the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) [4] who report that 41% of Australians preferred to use the internet to communicate but are dissatisfied with the time it takes for government to respond and less satisfied with the amount of time it takes to receive a reply to an inquiry (84%).

3. Transparency: The power-distance between organisations and their clients results in a feeling of remoteness from decision-making processes. The degree of openness around reporting of results, availability of information impact on trust and confidence.

4. Scope and privacy: Powerful institutions are often perceived to be too intrusive into people’s lives.

5. Ritualised negativity: Skepticism of organisations is applauded and reinforced via jokes, advertising and even political slogans.

The path to trust

Web 2.0 technologies, though, can improve trust relationships because they focus on building interpersonal relationships. Specifically, if the distance between people and elements of corporations and government are brought closer through person-to-person communication through Web 2.0 technologies a direct and proportional increase in trust will be displayed.

Identity through establishing personal profiles, Laurel Papworth suggests, is the first step to engender trust. As one of the core components of Web 2.0 technologies, profiles enables individuals to identify with the writer. Drawing on elements of social psychology, Papworth illustrates that interpersonal interaction and consistency of responsive communication with that individual builds rapport and reputation through which trust is achieved.

Ultimately, this indicates a need to move away from large, faceless, anonymous information distribution websites toward more personal, targeted communications. Web strategist, Jeremiah Owyang, reinforces this approach by reminding us that “the corporate website is an unbelievable collection of hyperbole, artificial branding, and pro-corporate content. As a result, trusted decisions are being made on other locations on the internet”.

On trust and the path to embracing Web 2.0 as the core facilitator, Owynag points us to the following actions:

“…do you [know how to] build the most trust? By being open, authentic, and transparent. We know from research that the highest degree of trust comes from those ‘like me’, a savvy marketer will allow content to appear from peers, customers, and the market. These will not always be a product rave, in fact it may be downright criticism, the goal? To take that feedback, and demonstrate in public how you will improve your offerings in plain view.

From these actions trust will grow.

M

- – - -

1. By Mark E. Warren, M. E. 1999. Democracy and trust. Published by Cambridge University Press, 1999

2. Chief Minister’s Department, 2008. Citizen Centred Governance. ACT Government, July.

3. Edelman, 2009. Trust Barometer

4. Australian Government Information Management Office, 2008. Interacting with Government. Australians’ use and satisfaction with e-government services