Circles of Trust have proven effective,
let’s take a look at them.
The Magic Ingredient
Trust has been called the magic ingredient of effective groups. Some leaders have built on that by creating “Circles of Trust.” These circles run counter to our typical hierarchical, corporate decision-making. They are based on respectful group listening.
More fully described in The Pinball Theory of Business & Life, they evolved from the Quaker tradition and have been championed by a renowned educator and author, Parker Palmer. They are composed of individuals trained in the power of listening long and well, asking questions of discernment, and not attempting to fix the problem with which the person or group is grappling.
That doesn’t sound like a business meeting to me!
But Not For Businesses – Right?
The Quaker mindset and process are rare—perhaps incomprehensible—in business. Yet, reflecting on the power of trust, honesty, not rushing decision-making, listening to understand rather than preparing to respond, collaboration, and topics addressed in Pinball Theory, I once wondered if Circles of Trust could sometimes offer us another way to make decisions.
Without attempting a Quaker Meeting of Discernment or training to lead one of Palmer’s Circles, just explaining a Circle of Trust in a business or organizational setting can shift the group’s frame of mind to helping someone (or everyone) work their way through a dilemma. It does require trust. I thought I’d give it a try.
A nonprofit asked me to assist with a situation related to the CEO and the Executive Committee. I came away with a sense that the officers didn’t fully trust each other or the CEO, the CEO didn’t fully trust each of them, and a low-grade virus of distrust was infecting everything. I later met with each officer separately and confidentially.
When we reassembled, I told them that it didn’t appear that any deep personal animosities were simmering among them. Beyond typical turf wars and personality differences, their backgrounds and positions in previous organizations had given each of them a different view on how to function in their roles as part of the executive committee. Collective mistrust seemed to be the underlying cause of the “business issues” they wanted me to address.
To my surprise, they were nodding “Yes” with looks of relief. I had only stated out loud what they all understood. That gave me confidence to offer this:
I’ve been reading about Circles of Trust [explained them]. They’re used mainly by Quakers and educators, not organization or business types, but the concept might serve us well. It’s entirely up to each of you if you’d like us to try a modified approach.
Basically, would you want to share your candid concerns with the team? If you are interested, let me know, and we can try it the next time we meet. This will require more trust in each other.
With no need to wait, an officer jumped in with her take on things. “Here’s what I think is going on…” Before we finished, everyone chimed in. There was no apparent hostility, just explaining how they each saw things. They were relieved. I was shocked. Suffice it to say that the situation got resolved.
—————–
It can be challenging to achieve candid dialogue. Still, when trusting discussions are absent, spin-off issues are created. We may not be ready for Circles of Trust, but that doesn’t limit leaders from creating a workplace where trust can thrive.
