Charles H Green in his article “Does Your Customer Trust You? The Acid Test of Selling” describes four components of trust as an equation of trustworthiness:

T = C + R + I where:
S
T = trustworthiness of the seller (as perceived by the buyer),
C = credibility,
R = reliability,
I = intimacy, and
S = self-orientation

This notion of trust, while it is useful, mixes different types of trust and does not tell us much about how to initiate trust, how to sustain it, and what destroys it.  Fortunately, it can be readily extended by relating it to several well-developed conceptions of trust. The first step is to recognize that it is our behaviors, as observed by buyers, which matter.  Our true motivations or inner-most thoughts cannot be ‘read’.  What the buyer responds to is our actions.

Research into how trust develops¹  has identified two types of trust that are particularly relevant to buyer / seller relationships. : Knowledge-based trust (KBT) and Goodwill-based trust (GBT).  Early in a relationship, Knowledge-based trust dominates.  Over time and given a successful (and trusting) set of exchanges – Goodwill-based trust (GBT) starts to take over.

Taking Green’s equation we can think of : KBT = C/S and GBT = I /S.  Of course these (and Green’s) aren’t real formula – they are simply a representation of the relationships between components of trustworthiness.   Green uses reliability to remind us that we gain trust through repeated, positive interactions but reliability is not in itself a behavior.   A person can be reliably untrustworthy, reliably inconsistent, or reliably trustworthy.  Interpersonal trust (or distrust) results from the aggregate of experience between two people some of which will be positive and some negative.

At the very start of a relationship, you may inherit trust based on the reputation of your organization or your own reputation.  However, very quickly, the buyer will begin to judge you mostly by your competence.  If you demonstrate that you know your product, the buyers r industry or are able to bring in the right experts – you will be judged as competent and therefore credible (medium to large C).  Over several interactions, the customer will trust you provided you are also seen to be acting in their interest (small to medium S).

There is a balance in KBT since the buyer expects that you have your job to do and they have theirs.  So early on in a relationship, salespeople need to focus on demonstrating their competence and avoiding behaviors that could be interpreted as opportunistic.  You do not have to go overboard in acting in the customer’s best interests – but you at least need to be fair.  If you are opportunistic, you may get the sale but there will not be any repeat sales!

In many sales exchanges, particularly where price is critical and where there is little to differentiate between competing products (other than price), KBT is as far as trust gets - or needs to get.  If you can weather the storm and are successful in making repeated sales, KBT may develop into GBT and a completely different set of dynamics come into effect.

With GBT, the buyer trusts you ‘just because’.  There is a level of true friendship and affection – Green calls this ‘intimacy’. Intimacy isn’t really something you can work on, despite what your significant other may say (that’s romance and an entirely different thing).  Intimacy just is.  Not all buyer / seller relationships ever progress to a high level of intimacy but those that do need special care.

A relationship where GBT dominates it is pretty simple to maintain - just keep doing the things that got you there in the first place.  Although your competence and credibility will more often be taken as given, you still need to keep abreast of new products and what’s happening in the customers industry. Don’t rest on your laurels.

Destroying GBT is also easy – all it takes is one opportunistic act.  Unlike KBT where credibility and self-orientation can balance each other – in GBT there is no room for self-interest.  It is a violation of the relationship at a deeply personal and emotional level.  It’s cheating and the consequences are severe.  If you are lucky, the relationship may slip back to KBT but often it will simply end the relationship.

Keeping these things in mind and recognizing the type of trust that exists between you and each of your buyers will help you navigate the sometimes stormy waters of interpersonal relationships.

¹McAllister, D. J., Lewicki, R., & Chaturvedi, S. 2006. Trust in Developing Relationships: From Theory to Measurement. Proceedings of the Academy of Management Meetings, Atlanta, GA.

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Director of Marketing & Sales
written by Catherine, March 11, 2009

I like this perspective; perhaps as you say, reliability is more of a multiplier effect. This would be an interesting theory to test in the sales force. Do you have any data supporting your continuum approach and/or ways that you can measure each construct objectively? Thanks.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Gary Studdenhoffer, March 18, 2009

Interesting perspectives on different forms of trust- I do agree with insightful comments of Catherine on how you consider the effect of reliability addressed in Green's perspective. You may also want to clarify how early in a relationship, KBT dominates especially-- when you also mention that salespeople may inherit trust based on the reputation of your organization or your own reputation (Goodwill?).

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Stuart Strolin, March 18, 2009

Catherine -
I would hesitate to describe reliability as a multiplier. In fact, I would prefer not to use reliability and instead talk about repetition. At it's core, a buyers trust is about their willingness to take a risk. The greater the trust in the salesperson the more risk they will be wiling to take on.

Repeated positive interactions will increase the levels of trust and hence the degree of risk a buyer is prepared to take. In 'low risk' transactions, trust in the salesperson is not as important as in 'high risk' transactions. Salespeople needing to demonstrate high levels of trust do so through repetition. If they do a better job than their competitors they will (other things being equal) likely win the sale.

One way to assess the type of trust is to consider these two statements made by the buyer about you1) This salesperson is a well trained professional who is extremely competent. (2) I would feel a sense of personal loss if I could no longer work with this salesperson.

The first statement is indicative of KBT based on your competence. The second is indicative of GBT that stems from an emotional tie - intimacy. Using and evaluating statements like this, researchers have demonstrated this type of continuum but stress that not all relationships develop fully or need to develop fully.

Sometimes all that the buyer and seller want is to execute the deal and move on.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Stuart Strolin, March 18, 2009

Gary --

You raise an excellent point - in fact many sales people will achieve their first meeting with the buyer because of some level of goodwill either because of the positive reputation of the company they represent or perhaps some form of referral.

Initial meetings do not involve much if any risk to the buyer. The level of trust does not need to be much - just enough for a conversation.

The real question here is "Would you buy from a salesperson you didn't trust even if their company had a good reputation?". I think this immediately gets us back to the question of risk. If you are relying on the salesperson to provide you with information and assistance in making a decision then trust in that salesperson clearly does matter.

Referring to the second question I offered to Catherine. Do you think it likely that a buyer would describe a salesperson that way based on reputation? I don't. So given an important decision with some risk - 'inherited' goodwill may get you started but it will be the salesperson that needs to establish personal trust with the buyer.

Interpersonal trust first needs to be developed through repeated demonstrations of competence and not being self-oriented i.e. Knowledge-based trust.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Write a comment

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment Preview