Trusting People You Don’t Know

I have more faith in a friendly clean-cut doctor in a white coat, than one in a jeans with anti-social behavior. Although. For anyone remembering Dougie Howser, MD, the 1990 television series that starred a teen aged child as clean-cut white coat doctor, I would not want him to be my physician. I would prefer House, the grumpy but brilliant doctor, who “doesn’t do white coats”.

Why do you think a certain person is more “trustworthiness” over another person? This is a relevant question. Not only when dealing with television doctors but also when operating on the Internet, or working with people you have never met.

Image by Sister72.

Let me illustrate this situation with a game called The Prisoners Dilemma. In this mental exercise two inmates are planning two escape from prison. They are unable to communicate to each other as they are located in different cell blocks. Both prisoners have two options: if they work together they have a chance of escaping together. If one of them tells the guards that the other prisoner is going to escape, he will have a very high probability of escaping while to other one is almost certain to be caught. If they both decide to defect and tell the guards, they are both caught.

Facing a certain situation, a person has to select a strategy to interact with another individual. They have two options: they are going to cooperate, or they are going to be egoistic (defect). In The Prisoners Dilemma the outcome depends on the strategies chosen by both parties.

In essence it is a situation where

• if people cooperate, both have success,
• if one person is taking advantage of the other (defect) this person has an even larger benefit, but the other suffers a loss,
• if both persons defect they loose both.

If you play this game over and over again with the same opponent, you can let your selection be determined by all previous games. If a person always plays defect, you can base your strategy on your mutual history. If you know someone for a longer time, history can provide you with enough experiences to draw some conclusions.

But what if you haven’t done multiple iterations? What if you meet a person for the first time and you are confronted with a Prisoners Dilemma? Researchers call this the “one-shot prisoners dilemma”. Michael Macy and John Skvoretz, two professors of sociology, model this game by introducing the notion of “telltale signs”. In a situation like this, people are trying to determine the “trustworthiness” of others. They are trying to read “telltale signs”, look for behavior or other marks that they identify with trustworthiness. This might be as simple as being friendly and saying “hello” every time you see someone down the hall. Perhaps you have automatically more trust in someone wearing a suit, or a person with PhD behind his name. The idea is that you are trying to detect signs of trustworthiness, whatever that may be for you.

Next to this detection, the projection of your own intentions plays a role in the decision of the strategy; if you want to cooperate you are more likely to be biased into “seeing” the other as trustworthy. So, we use projection and detection as a mechanism to compensate for the lack of history one has in one-shot Prisoner Dilemma’s.

How people detect the tell-tale signs of trustworthiness is not only based upon behavioral markers that society associates with it; it has also to do with the similarity of the other with you. Persons that are more viewed as being equal or “the same” or more likely to be considered honest and sincere towards you. Translated to terms of social networks: people closer in social networks are more likely to consider each other trustworthy than people further apart.

This is not a one dimensional thing, people are associated with multiple social networks and groups. And every social group has its own rituals and signs that communicate its uniqueness towards the world outside the group. If you have a lot of aspects associated with a certain social group, you will more likely be considered trustworthy by members of the same group.

In short, “trustworthiness” is in this view determined by association and similarity.

Association: is what I expect the other to be like.
Similarity: is to be like me.

Telltale Signs Of A Project Manager

This makes me wonder if Project Managers, as a professional group, have tell tale signs of “trustworthiness”. If you have never had any experience with a certain person, what are the labels, the social markers you associate with a professional Project Manager?

There is no way to avoid talking about and in stereotypes when discussing this topic. And not all stereotyping is the same. Signs determined by professionals, colleagues are different from the general public.

In 2007 I asked visitors of The Project Shrink blog, project professionals, this question: “If you have 10 minutes, how do you judge a Project Manager?” Although this was by no means a scientific experiment, it provided some interesting clues.

A summary of the responses is given by this statement: “If they just use jargon from a handbook, I put them on the lower end of the scale. If they talk about the importance of stakeholders and people in general I put them on the high end of the scale. If they talk about stakeholders, they must have been in the trenches.” Note the importance of language.

If one has only ten minutes appearances do matter. The respondents hesitate to admit this, because it sounds very superficial, but it is true; people are looking for visual clues of competence, confidence and calmness. Clothes have some importance in the first impression; dress with taste, clean cut and similar to what your client is wearing are the advices in this area.

It is a cliché that a Project Manager should be a good communicator. So this is the area that gets to most attention. In the interaction the new PM should good listener, a good conversationalist that doesn’t dive immediately into “shop talk” but can converse with confidence and respect about life, the universe and everything. He should under no circumstances have a loud-mouth, heated discussion about a topic. Knowledge and opinion is one thing, in control and respectful are considered far more important.

About the messages that are exchanged in the first ten minutes people are short: people are looking for words like “you”, “we”, “our”, “team” and “support”, and are absolutely allergic to buzzwords. “Plain English Please!” as one of the respondents wrote.

Artifacts can also function as telltale signs. We all have seen people spending days behind MS Project to create a proper Gantt Chart. I have witnessed adults getting all excited when they could inform me that their project “had a risk profile of 18%”. I smelled the sweat of humans trying to fill every box in a project plan template, relevant or not, just because it is in the template. People have seen me polishing up a nice, shiny Chart. I spent 3 days creating this Monster Gantt Chart that I had to plot on A2 to get it printed. I rolled up the paper and went to my client. This client was an senior sales person just before his retirement. He was old school, but one heck of a salesman. I rolled out my wallpaper-size plan, and guided the customer through the steps. All the time he was silent, he didn’t say one word. After a while he took the plan and threw it in the garbage bin. While taking his pen and paper he looked up and asked me: “What is it that you want me to do?” Point taken, Gantt is a Project Management icon, and not every one seems to be a PM.

Different people have different associations with tags. Because it’s all about perception, there is no “truth”.

How does this work online?

Online, the situation is not very different. Our LinkedIn profile has a picture, keywords describing what we do, associations with companies and professional organizations and badges of the LinkedIn groups you are a member of.

• Do you wear a suit on your picture? Or do you have an image of you going through the jungle?
• Is your name followed by a enormous string of credentials (MSc, PMP, LIVR)?
• Do you have a normal function description, like “Accountant”, or do you have one that sounds more deviant, like “Master Of My Universe”?

It would be fun if you would do this short experiment. Go through your LinkedIn or Facebook connections. Skip through the profiles and write down what determines a “good vibe” with that person for you purely based upon the information provided.