One of my former students (and favorite bar-maidens) Ms. A is completing her second year as an inner city science teacher. Her close colleague this year from TFA is leaving so A contacted me about a viable replacement. I instantly thought of Miss B who just graduated last weekend from the same program through which I met A. Added to this is that Principal C is A’s boss and I am a huge fan of his leadership. After B called me to tell me that C was moving ahead to hire her, I stopped by the school and spoke with A about the arrangements.
Me: So you think you can work with Miss B?
A: I’m sure. Both B and I said that even though we just met, we trust you.
This is a major amount of confidence for such an incredibly important decision. As you might expect, I was honored and moved to know that my perspective was so valuable. This exchange also elevated “trust” to an entirely new level for me. Knowing how deeply A cares about her students, how idealistic yet determined B is to become an exceptional teacher, and how committed C is to making his school an exemplar I realized trust is an amazing thing to behold. It is difficult to earn, can be readily dispensed, and has a huge influence upon how we proceed through life.
The research project that is about to get underway posits that the leadership in the school (from the principal as well as teacher-leaders) has a powerful influence upon reductions in science achievement gaps. At first blush, the role of the principal may seem very far removed from the performance of children on a standardized test. However, other researchers have identified tangible and significant influences across this large divide. Our short-term goal is to identify those practices in certain schools that distinguish them from schools where achievement gaps are large. In the long run, my ambition is to help schools with sizable science achievement gaps to turnaround by changing leadership practices and the school organization.
Plenty of researchers have studied trust and I was prepared to follow their lead. But given the comment by A (and B) it seems foolish to reduce trust to something that can be measured with a handful of survey items. Furthermore, I am now uncertain how trust differs from "dependable" or "credible." Others rely upon "psychological safety" or "interpersonal ties." Yes, of course all of these feel as if descriptors of healthy work environments. But does it all come down to something we could label as trust?
I trust those who I go backpacking with that if I have troubles, they’ll help me out — with encouragement, first aid or other assistance. I also expect that they will let me know if I can do anything to lighten their load. When canoeing, I trust the person in the bow to paddle in a way that simultaneously moves us forward but also so I can also anticipate what to do in order to keep us going in the desired direction. I trust I will be charged a fair price and receive the appropriate quality and quantity inside the bottle of the beverage I buy at the corner store. Ultimately, such trust frees me from spending energy to monitor all these exchanges.
I also take solace in those relationships for which I can rely upon not being able to rely on trust. But is dependability all that trust involves? Is trust inherently positive or simply consistent? Also, if trust is at one extreme and distrust is at the other, what resides at the midpoint? Finally (for now) are faith and trust essentially the same. From a research perspective, it is important to stake out clear territory which fully encompassed trust and exclude non-trust. And yet from a human relationship perspective, is the trust identified by A, B and C a truer and better measure that I ought to take into account? It is a tremendous comfort to be going forward on this with collaborators. Not sure I fully trust myself.
I trust those who I go backpacking with that if I have troubles, they’ll help me out — with encouragement, first aid or other assistance. I also expect that they will let me know if I can do anything to lighten their load. When canoeing, I trust the person in the bow to paddle in a way that simultaneously moves us forward but also so I can also anticipate what to do in order to keep us going in the desired direction. I trust I will be charged a fair price and receive the appropriate quality and quantity inside the bottle of the beverage I buy at the corner store. Ultimately, such trust frees me from spending energy to monitor all these exchanges.
I also take solace in those relationships for which I can rely upon not being able to rely on trust. But is dependability all that trust involves? Is trust inherently positive or simply consistent? Also, if trust is at one extreme and distrust is at the other, what resides at the midpoint? Finally (for now) are faith and trust essentially the same. From a research perspective, it is important to stake out clear territory which fully encompassed trust and exclude non-trust. And yet from a human relationship perspective, is the trust identified by A, B and C a truer and better measure that I ought to take into account? It is a tremendous comfort to be going forward on this with collaborators. Not sure I fully trust myself.
