In 2008, I had the unusual opportunity to participate in an international commission at the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre in Accra, Ghana. USNORTHCOM, NORAD, and Homeland Security had nominated me, and the US Department of Defense (DOD) had specially selected me for this unique privilege. The official invitation read, “Your selection is reflective of your dedication to global humanitarian programs and your specific expertise, as recognized by your peers internationally.”
I was to represent the United States, in conjunction with other international organizations, on a select, five-member international panel commissioned to meet for two weeks at the training center in Ghana. The purpose of the meeting was for the panel to begin establishing protocol and structures to assist world nations and African partners in achieving a more stable environment through security cooperation, information sharing, and information management.
Our venue at the center was set up with two moderators at the front, and the five panel members seated at individual desks forming a semicircle facing the moderators. At desks behind the panel members were about twenty advisors who served as subject-matter experts from around Africa and the world at large. Behind the advisors were many observers who had been invited to attend the meetings.
Over the next two weeks, our five-member panel was tasked with developing a comprehensive model that would encompass multiple stages of crisis—precrisis; event; crisis declaration; initial response; and immediate, mid-term, and long-term response. The seven forms of capital were to be addressed for each stage—human, social, natural, built, political, cultural, and financial—including their influences on the crisis situation.
Having worked with various groups before, I was fully expecting the normal process that takes place with every group as it comes together and works toward some kind of productivity:
Groping—“Why are we here . . . really?”
Griping—“Where’s my coffee? The computer on my desk isn’t working.”
Grasping—“I’m beginning to understand the expectations . . . This is going to be good!”
Grouping—“I’m sensing a melding, bonding, and solidifying among the group.”
Group action—“This is what we’re going to do.”
But this situation took me a little by surprise. Before we had much of a chance to move forward and accomplish anything, we hit a road bump—trust.
It was established that the model we were to develop would place significant importance on information sharing (IS) and information management (IM) regarding cultural conflicts as well as pandemic disease outbreaks, epidemics, and health crises. An expectation was expressed that it was more important to share information than it was to protect it. That’s when the gloves came off. A number of the advisors, and even the observers, from the African nations weighed in on the discussion, citing example after example where they had been deprived of the power of information in the past. A few even harkened back to colonial history, where “the colonial institutions had no interest or desire in fostering trust among the native populations, and misinformation was a frequent weapon used to keep the population in check.”
Another huge problem regarding trust dealt with the issue of corruption in certain areas throughout Africa. The participants felt that high levels of corruption reduced the types and amounts of information that could be shared, and those conflicts often created crises themselves between the private and public sectors.
The moderators did a fine job recognizing and discussing the lack of trust and getting us back on track. But throughout the two weeks, this issue kept sneaking its way back into the panel’s discussions. In the months following the commission meetings, I mulled over the concept of trust. Allow me to share with you some of my musings on the subject . . .
Steven Covey said that “trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships . . . together.” And even Abraham Lincoln said, “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.”
According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, trust refers to “an assured reliance on the character, [integrity], ability, strength, or truth of someone or something.” It’s characterized by a confidence in the credence of a person or situation and an assurance that such confidence is well placed. There also seems to be an element of risk or vulnerability that goes with trusting, because the result is out of our control. Whenever we risk trusting, it’s possible we could be wrong. In a sense, we pay the highest tribute to a person when we trust him or her to do what is right. In fact, it may be an even higher compliment to be trusted than loved.
Trusting is difficult enough, but knowing whom to trust seems even harder. The sad thing is that trust takes years to build and seconds to shatter. Ernest Hemingway tried to keep it pretty simple by concluding, “The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.”
I can’t imagine that love could even exist at all without the element of trust. I agree that we run the risk of being deceived if we trust too much. But I believe we’ll probably live in torment if we don’t trust enough.
Rick Warren, in his book The Purpose-Driven Life, holds out hope that a break in trust can be repaired: “Forgiveness must be immediate, whether or not a person asks for it. Trust must be rebuilt over time. Trust requires a track record.”
It sounds to me like trusting in the restoration and healing of a broken trust would take another occurrence of trust itself! Maybe it just works that way.
The commission panel, advisors, and observers finished the assignment in Accra, Ghana, and the results were presented to the United Nations, the US Pentagon, the World Health Organization (WHO), and other involved groups. During those two weeks, I learned a lot about crisis management, possible pandemic outbreaks and epidemics, and global information management. But I also discovered a treasure trove of insights regarding trust.
Perhaps we should have just spent our time on the subject of trust management (TM)!