Trust and Integrity – can we have one without the other?
In the APS, trust really does need to go beyond consistency and predictability. (Semi Satch/Adobe)
There are two types of trust (that I can readily think of). The trust that you will do what you say you’ll do, and be what you say you’ll be. You’re consistent and you communicate it well.
This type of trust allows us to get on with the job, or the relationship, on the basis that we’re operating in a relatively stable, predictable environment. We know what to expect and we usually get it.
This type is also easy to deal with. You can gather evidence of why it’s there, how it’s gained and how it’s lost.
For public sector delivery agencies, so many things can be counted or measured to show you that commitments made are being met. We can count call time waiting, payments made, accuracy and timeliness of payments, levels of satisfaction, and measure of performance against a multitude of metrics within a service charter – the promises made to the people.
But if that’s the full story, it can be easy to hide behind this first type of trust. Evidence of consistency that is well communicated, such as good scores against a service xharter should in theory make an agency trustworthy, as the basis for a positive relationship or outcome.
As an example: many years ago, with implicated parties definitely retired by now, one of the largest agencies reported an 83% customer-satisfaction rate, yet they were frequently in the news for poor customer service. I was asked to look into this. It turned out that while the 83% figure was true, it applied across a diluted range of issues. Satisfaction with call waiting times, payment accuracy and timeliness were counter-balanced with questions about shop front cleanliness, appeal of décor and fit-outs, and comfort in the waiting areas.
Focusing on this first type of trust
For public sector policymakers, things should be pretty straightforward, and what’s not to trust in this process? Identifying and prioritising issues for attention, drawing on data, and information and consulting with stakeholders to inform decisions is all straightforward – if you can dodge the confirmation, availability, selection, cultural, implicit and any other bias bullets heading your way. Of course, there are strategies to dodge these, and if time, recruitment processes, expediency and independence allow, I’m sure they are dodged.
For public sector buyers, there’s a huge responsibility and privilege to spend public funds most efficiently and effectively, with a lot of trust to be earned or lost along the way, from government, the public and industry. Buyers who understand their business need and the outcome they are seeking to achieve, who know how to translate those needs into products or services they wish to buy, and who follow the rules (Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines) when approaching, evaluating and buying the market offerings they requested, in the proposed timeframes, should be enough to generate the required trust for a healthy competitive marketplace. However, for multiple reasons, not all of these steps are taken as a matter of course, offering a clean example of how this type of ‘I’ll do what I say I’ll do’ trust can be lost. In the absence of things to measure, and possibly without the collective buyers’ awareness, this lost trust drives a less competitive marketplace.
From my quick reflection on what trust means, with some reference to a public sector context, I’m concluding here that trust really does need to go beyond consistency, predictability and effective communication (because we have all known those people we could trust to be late or absent each Monday, to miss a deadline, or to take the path of least resistance every time – all who would meet the consistent, reliable criteria of trust).
The second type of trust – which is actually integrity
Trust asks: can we rely on predictable, repeat performance, every time?
Integrity asks: will you do the right thing, by the right people, every time?
Too often we let ourselves off the hook as trustworthy, or trusted, for doing or saying what we said we’d say or do — whether in the saying or doing, we were good enough or not.
Integrity requires us to be good enough every time. Even when no one is watching, when there’s an easier way, when we have nothing to gain by doing something and something to gain by doing nothing. It’s being honest, with others and most importantly with ourselves, and having the courage to hold our ground when honesty isn’t ‘on message’ and easily buried.
It’s also about being fair, knowing what’s right and then doing it, even when what’s wrong is so much more convenient and no one (with any power or influence) will care.
Doing the wrong thing — cutting invisible corners, taking credit where it’s not due, using ideas not paid for, measuring things that don’t matter but scoring well — might even get us the promotion.
Doing the right thing, having the moral courage to stand alone on something that matters, or for someone who should matter — might even prevent the promotion.
But that’s integrity. It seems so much more complex than trust. Maybe because it goes beyond what we say, to who we really are and what we really do.
In a public sector context, it’s also about fully understanding and caring about the impact of action or inaction, taking shortcuts, indecision, procrastination, and equivocation. When there’s a backlog of complaints, applications or payments, it’s about taking personal responsibility to get things back on track. When there’s a rush from above to get something delivered, where this will compromise quality or have unintended or not-yet-understood consequences, it’s about holding your ground. From a public sector perspective, it’s also about respecting the power you hold and the impact you have on people’s lives, and businesses, and feeling personally responsible for how things play out.
Katy Gallagher, Minister for the Public Service, said that “… just 52% of Australians trust government and its institutions to do the right thing — a steep nine-point decline from 2021” and that “winning back people’s trust is a key challenge facing our government and its institutions.”
From a cultural perspective, I bet that if we focus on building integrity, trust will follow.
It doesn’t work in reverse.
