Building Trust in Diverse Teams: The Toolkit For Emergency Response

BuildingTrust-CvrOuter-AW.qxd 17.10.
07 3:17 pm Page 1
Building Trust in Diverse Teams The Toolkit for Emergency Response

Building Trust Building Trust
in Diverse Teams
The Toolkit for Emergency Response
in Diverse Teams
What is trust? Why is it important in emergency-response teams?

Humanitarian practitioners identify trust as one of the most
The Toolkit for Emergency Response
important factors in launching timely and effective emergency
responses. Building Trust in Diverse Teams can be used throughout the
cycle of an emergency response and features a Trust Index, to assess
and measure trust within diverse teams, and ten trust-building tools
that can be selected based on the identified team needs. The tools
are user-friendly with clear instructions and handouts to make
preparation effortless. Additional informal trust-building activities are
also included, together with the full text on CD-ROM. The concepts
and tools can also be applied to existing organisational strategies on
leadership development and diversity.
Building Trust in Diverse Teams supports humanitarian practitioners,

human-resource departments, and regional and head-office
emergency professionals as they improve team effectiveness during
an emergency – and ultimately improve their ability to save lives.
‘This is a hugely valuable contribution to both understanding and

knowledge. The toolkit is accessible, and engaging; the style is clear. It
strikes a balance between being academically grounded, yet dynamic
enough to encourage the reader to keep moving through.’
Ben Emmens, Director of HR Services, People In Aid
www.oxfam.org.uk/publications
Building Trust in
Diverse Teams
The Toolkit for
Emergency Response
Acknowledgements
The Emergency Capacity Building Sanjay Awasthi, Oxfam Malawi Country Programme Manager
Project Joan Summers, Oxfam Sri Lanka Country Programme Manager

Paul Mecartney, Save the Children Malawi Country Director
Building Trust in Diverse Teams: the Toolkit for Emergency Response
Mulugeta Abebe, World Vision Malawi Director
was produced as part of the Emergency Capacity Building (ECB)
Project. The ECB Project is a collaborative effort of the seven Marion Chindongo, World Vision Malawi Associate Director
agencies of the Inter-agency Working Group on Emergency Perry Mansfield, World Vision Sri Lanka
Capacity: CARE International, Catholic Relief Services, the
International Rescue Committee, Mercy Corps, Oxfam GB, Save the Consultants
Children, and World Vision International. These agencies and their We want to thank the three consultants for sharing their expertise
partners are jointly addressing issues of staff capacity, accountability in trust and assisting with shaping the research into practical tools
and impact measurement, risk reduction, and the use of for emergency-response teams. We also thank them for going
information and communication technologies (ICTs) in beyond their remit by providing additional support to ensure that
emergencies, with the goal of improving the speed, quality, and the tools were of the highest calibre.
effectiveness of the humanitarian community in saving the lives,
safeguarding the livelihoods, and protecting the rights of people Nigel Ewington, TCO International Diversity Management
affected by emergencies. For further information, please visit Dennis Hamilton, Training Associates Pacific
www.ecbproject.org or email [email protected]. Richard Lowe, Castleton Partners
Funding for the Emergency Capacity Building Project was provided Building Trust in Diverse Teams Project Champions
by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Microsoft
We want to thank the senior managers across the five ECB
Corporation. Without their commitment to improve the capacity of
organisations who served as ‘champions’ of this Project. Without
the humanitarian sector, this book would not have been possible.
their commitment and recognition that trust matters, we would
We thank them for their generous support.
not have been able to embark upon this work.
Key contributors Heather Brooks, CARE International

Collins Dobbs, Consultant (former CARE International)
The production of this book is the culmination of a tremendous
global collaborative effort that would not have been possible Patrick Solomon, CARE International
without the time and commitment of the individuals listed below. Mignon Mazique, Mercy Corps
Susan Romanski, Mercy Corps
Building Trust in Diverse Teams Working Group
Christine Newton, Oxfam GB
A very special thanks to the Building Trust in Diverse Teams
Working Group for providing overall strategic leadership from the Ivan Scott, Oxfam GB
point of conceptualisation of the project to hands-on testing of Cynthia Carr, Save the Children
tools and completion of the toolkit, on top of already demanding
Meredith Richardson, former Save the Children
roles within their respective agencies.
Susan Barber, World Vision International
Lisa Smith, Toolkit Manager, CARE International
ECB Project staff
Stephen Claborne, Mercy Corps
We thank the ECB Project staff for their role in providing overall project
Amy Bess, Building Trust in Diverse Teams Project Manager, Oxfam GB
support, from acting as mentors to practical help with logistics.
Bimla Ojelay-Surtees, Project Leader, Oxfam GB
Aziza Abdurazakova, Project Officer
Jo-Ann Simmons, Save the Children
Matt Bannermann, Project Director and Communications Manager
Gisla Dewey, World Vision International
Greg Brady, Project Director
Country offices Mark Hammersley, Staff Capacity Initiative Manager
We want to thank the Country Directors for providing in-country
Anna Hiltunen, Project Assistant
support to the consultants and Working Group to test and refine
the assessment and trust-building tools. Bruce Russell, Project Assistant
Cecily Bryant, CARE Malawi Country Director We would also like to thank the 44 staff in Sri Lanka and 55 staff in
Malawi who took part in providing critical and substantive
Nick Osborne, CARE Sri Lanka Country Director
feedback on the Trust Index and the trust-building tools.
Josh deWald, Mercy Corps Sri Lanka Country Director
Building Trust in Diverse Teams © Oxfam GB for the ECB Project

Building Trust in
Diverse Teams
The Toolkit for
Emergency Response
Cover image: © iStockPhoto/Gary Woodard
First published by Oxfam GB for the Emergency Capacity Building Project in 2007
© Oxfam GB for the Emergency Capacity Building Project 2007
All sources for the material in this book have been acknowledged where this is possible, and
all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the origins of the material. However, if
anyone recognises their work in the book, and would like acknowledgement in subsequent
reprints, please contact ECB with full details.
ISBN 978-0-85598-615-5
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
All rights reserved. Reproduction, copy, transmission, or translation of any part of this
publication may be made only under the following conditions:
• with the prior written permission of the publisher; or
• with a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd., 90 Tottenham Court Road,
London W1P 9HE, UK, or from another national licensing agency; or
• for quotation in a review of the work; or
• under the terms set out below.
This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for
teaching purposes, but not for resale. Formal permission is required for all such uses, but
normally will be granted immediately. For copying in any other circumstances, or for re-use
in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be
obtained from the publisher, and a fee may be payable.
The information in this publication is correct at the time of going to press.
Available from:
Bournemouth English Book Centre, PO Box 1496, Parkstone, Dorset, BH12 3YD, UK
tel: +44 (0)1202 712933; fax: +44 (0)1202 712930; email: [email protected]
USA: Stylus Publishing LLC, PO Box 605, Herndon, VA 20172-0605, USA

tel: +1 (0)703 661 1581; fax: +1 (0)703 661 1547; email: [email protected]
For details of local agents and representatives in other countries, consult our website:
www.oxfam.org.uk/publications
or contact Oxfam Publishing, Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford, OX4 2JY, UK
tel +44 (0) 1865 472255; fax (0) 1865 472393; email: [email protected]
Our website contains a fully searchable database of all our titles, and facilities for secure on-
line ordering.
Published by Oxfam GB, Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford, OX4 2JY, UK
Printed by Information Press, Eynsham
Inners printed on recycled paper made from 100% post-consumer waste.
Cover printed on FSC accredited 75% recycled paper.
Oxfam GB is a registered charity, no. 202 918, and is a member of Oxfam International.

Contents
Preface 1
How to use this toolkit 3
1. Defining trust 5
Why trust matters 5
The ten criteria for trust 9
2. The Trust Index 13
How to measure factors that impact on trust in teams 13
Guidance notes 14
The Trust Index tool 22
3. How to build trust in teams 35
Integrating trust-building into humanitarian action 36
Linking the trust tools to the four phases of emergency response 38
4. The trust-building tools 41
Guidance notes 42
Tool 1: Appreciative inquiry 44
Tool 2: Trust cards 48
Tool 3: Trust walk 65
Tool 4: Communication charter 70
Tool 5: Aligning working practices 79
Tool 6: Email activity 86
Tool 7: Trust tips for team leaders 95
Tool 8: Elements for team leader 360° reviews 106
Tool 9: Treasure hunting 110
Tool 10: Time lines 114
5. Informal activities 121
Ice-breakers 122
Team socials 129
Global Diversity Board Game for International Relief 131
and Development Organisations
Further resources 133
Glossary 135
© Oxfam GB for the ECB Project Building Trust in Diverse Teams

.
Preface 1
What is trust? Why it is important in team performance? What increases or

decreases the level of trust in a team? How can leaders build high levels of trust and
effectively manage trust in a team?
A plethora of books and articles have been written to address these questions, but
they are primarily for use in business settings. Traditionally, humanitarian
organisations have integrated some of this thinking into their leadership trainings,
diversity curriculum, and preparedness planning. However, until now, there has not
been a concerted effort to create a body of knowledge about trust as it specifically
applies to diverse teams in a humanitarian emergency setting.
The Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB – see Acknowledgements)

commissioned research by McKinsey & Company and found that staff in the field
and at agency headquarters identified a culture of trust between national and
international staff as one of the most important staffing factors in agencies’ ability
to launch timely and effective emergency responses. As a result, the seven large
international development organisations which make up ECB have drawn on their
collective expertise and have endeavored to address the questions in the first
paragraph above, as they relate to the humanitarian context. Five of the seven ECB
agencies formed a Building Trust in Diverse Teams Working Group to design and
implement a project to address this key issue and identify practical approaches and
tools to improve levels of trust in teams.
This toolkit is the culmination of several stages of work of the Building Trust
Project. The first step was to establish how humanitarian aid workers defined trust.
The Building Trust Working Group commissioned Castleton Partners and TCO
International Diversity Management, a partnership of two UK-based consulting
groups specialising in the topic of trust, to research the definition of trust by
reviewing available literature and interviewing staff across the seven ECB agencies.
The research resulted in a definition that outlined ten criteria for trust (described on
pages 9–12). It then led to the development of a tool to measure trust, the Trust
Index (pages 22–34), which maps out factors that influence levels of trust.
Next, action research carried out with staff from five of the ECB agencies in Sri
Lanka and Malawi led to the refinement of the Trust Index and helped to define the
types of tools that could help diverse teams build trust. After careful work on tool
development by Castleton Partners and TCO International Diversity Management
and the Working Group, the tools were then tried out and further refined with the
teams in Sri Lanka and Malawi.
Through each step of the process, the Working Group has been dedicated to
involving field staff in reviewing, revising, and validating each of the tools
presented in this toolkit. Their participation and inclusion in the process has
helped to ensure that the tools will be relevant and will improve emergency-
response efforts. There are considerable differences between Malawi and Sri Lanka
in terms of culture and the nature of the emergency setting, but in fact both the
similarity and diversity of the staff responses from each country have served to
strengthen the tools. The enthusiasm and valuable feedback from staff have not

2 Preface
only validated the decision to focus on building trust in diverse teams, but have
also offered real-time benefits to our staff who have already begun to weave some of
the tools into their operating models and management practices. At field level in Sri
Lanka and Malawi, for example, staff immediately realised that some of the tools
were relevant and versatile enough to use beyond emergency response; they have
included them in their development work both at team level and with
communities and partners.
The trust work has also resonated at several of our head offices where human-
resource personnel, diversity managers, and other key stakeholders have
acknowledged that issues of trust need to be embedded in our organisational fabric
before an emergency strikes. To this end, work has already started to integrate the
trust tools into leadership-development programmes in some of the five ECB
agencies involved in this project.
For us, the ECB agency members (Amy Bess [Project Manager], Stephen Claborne,
Gisla Dewey, Jo-ann Simmons, Bimla Ojelay-Surtees, and Lisa Smith) that comprise
the Building Trust in Diverse Teams Working Group, this collaborative experience
has produced new working partnerships and reinforced the finding that investing
in the issue of trust in a way that strengthens and builds effective teams is priceless,
and massively increases the quality of work.
Our goal has been to create an accessible and versatile set of tools that will be used
across the sector to improve team effectiveness during an emergency and to
improve our ability to save lives – the primary driving force behind this work.
We hope that you will use these tools with this goal in mind.
Sincerely,
Bimla Ojelay-Surtees
Global Diversity Manager, Oxfam GB, and Project Leader, Building Trust Project

How to use this toolkit 3
This toolkit provides a framework and tools to support diverse teams to build a
culture of trust throughout the cycle of an emergency response. The entire contents
of the toolkit are also included on a CD in the back of the book.
The toolkit should be used by humanitarian practitioners, human-resource

departments, country-office management teams, and head-office emergency
professionals who seek comprehensive, accessible, and versatile tools for assessing,
measuring, and building trust in teams.
The core components are located in Sections 2 (The Trust Index) and 4 (The trust-
building tools), with informal activities in Section 5, and further resources and a
glossary at the end.
The Trust Index should be used first, to assess the level of trust among team
members and identify areas where levels of trust can be improved. The team should
then create a trust-building plan, identifying appropriate measures to take, and
tools to build trust in the team. The ten trust-building tools are grouped around
components of the Trust Index and can be selected based on the identified trust
needs as well as the stage of the emergency response. Each tool is divided into six
sections: 1) Learning objective; 2) Overview; 3) Session plan; 4) How it works;
5) Facilitation tips; and 6) Links to the ten criteria for trust (NB Tools 7 and 8 do not
include session plans, facilitation tips, or links to the ten criteria for trust as they are
guidelines for managers rather than team-orientated tools).
The overall toolkit design employs user-friendly language and methodology that
can be adapted to most local contexts. Given the time constraints involved at the
onset of an emergency, these tools have been designed with ‘breaks’ so that if teams
need to end an exercise due to work demands, they can stop and resume the tool
later, safeguarding the purpose and integrity of the process. Teams can also extract
relevant sections based on their needs and feel free to come back to other areas
covered in this toolkit when necessary.
When teams have worked through the parts of the toolkit relevant for them, they
should have a better understanding of how to identify behaviours that influence
trust, and how to apply the necessary tools to build trust to improve team
effectiveness.

4
1 • Defining trust 5
Why trust matters
The evidence
Mercy Corps Staff

Southern Lebanon, June 2006 – distribution of basic supplies to families displaced by the cross-
border fighting.
‘Trust’ is a vital ingredient for effective emergency-response teams. Research carried

out by McKinsey and Company in 2006 on behalf of the Emergency Capacity
Building Project (ECB) concluded that creating a ‘culture of trust’ amongst national
and international staff was the second most important factor in creating effective
emergency-response teams. They reached this conclusion after asking 102
managers from seven different agencies for their views on the most important
staffing factors for emergency-response teams.
These initial findings were confirmed, extended, and elaborated in a second study
carried out by Castleton Partners and TCO International Diversity Management
during December 2006. They conducted in-depth interviews with 29 people from
five different humanitarian agencies involved in the Building Trust Working Group
– all well-experienced in emergency-response situations. The conclusion again was
that trust between team members is essential if the team is to perform effectively in
helping the beneficiaries and the local communities.

6 1 • Defining trust Why trust matters
Much research on trust has also been carried out in other contexts including in the
commercial sector. Although emergency-response teams face particular difficulties
and pressures, many of the findings of this body of research in terms of why trust is
important do also apply to emergency-response teams. There is now clear research
evidence which shows strong links between the level of trust in a team or work
group and:
• fuller and more effective co-operation and collaboration;
• higher levels of organisational commitment and morale;
• improved flexibility and lowering of co-ordination costs;
• quicker and better knowledge transfer between team members;
• increased productivity including in virtual teamwork;
• greater participation in decision-making processes and improved
communication;
• higher levels of innovation and creativity in solving problems;
• easier support for change initiatives;
• enhanced leadership effectiveness;
1
• more effective working relationships.
So what are the mechanisms by which high levels of trust produce these results?
They are most easily identified in situations where mistrust prevails; low levels of
trust affect productivity as people minimise their vulnerability by ‘playing safe’.
Ever more elaborate and costly checking systems are introduced, offers of advice are
ignored, and valuable but sensitive information is withheld. Cultural differences in
values, experience, and working practices become a source of stress, divisiveness,
and mis-communication rather than an opportunity for valuing diversity and more
creative decision-making. These circumstances, in turn, lead to communication
breakdowns, defensiveness, poor team learning, and higher levels of anxiety and
stress. Team energies are diverted away from the external needs of the beneficiaries.
Managing trust
In most teams, and most emergency-response teams, ‘trust’ is not often talked
about explicitly. When it is, most people will agree that it is important but the
conversation does not go much further. Contrast this with another vital resource in
any team – finance. Modern management techniques have developed highly
sophisticated ways of measuring and controlling the flows of money through
organisations – including humanitarian agencies. Just as money facilitates the
physical-task aspects of emergency-response team work, so, too, does trust facilitate
the human relationships. However, no similar techniques exist for measuring trust.
To manage and promote trust within an emergency-response team we need ways of
measuring and enhancing it.
1
See Emergency Capacity Building Project (2007) in Further resources

Why trust matters Defining trust • 1 7
Measuring trust
As part of the ECB project, Castleton and TCO International Diversity Management
identified ten ‘criteria for trust’. These are the behaviours and approaches that can
either build or destroy trust within an emergency-response team, and they provide
the basis for measuring and managing trust within a team.
The ten criteria for trust are described in more detail on pages 9–12. They are:
1. Competence Trust based on a perception that team members are competent, and so
will not let me down
2. Openness with Trust based on the observation that other team members share
information information important to the team proactively and clearly
3. Integrity Trust based on the observation that other team members maintain
promises, are team-orientated, and behave towards me in accordance
with a moral code
4. Reciprocity Trust based on the observation that other team members are trusting and
co-operative towards me
5. Compatibility Trust based on background, values, approaches, interests, and objectives

held in common
6. Goodwill Trust based on the belief that other team members are concerned about
my overall welfare
7. Predictability Trust based on the observation that the behaviour of team members is
consistent over time and in different contexts
8. Well-being Trust arising from the feeling that I have nothing to fear from other
members of the team
9. Inclusion Trust based on the observation that other team members actively include
me in their social and work activities
10. Accessibility Trust based on the observation that other team members share their true
feelings and I can relate to them on a personal level
Our work has confirmed that these ten criteria for trust can be used to provide a
working definition of trust relevant in emergency-response situations. They can
then be divided into two categories: swift trust and deeper trust.
Swift trust Deeper trust
Competence Compatibility
Openness with information Goodwill
Integrity Predictability
Reciprocity Well-being
Inclusion
Accessibility
Swift trust can be more readily achieved Deeper trust takes more time to establish
and is necessary from early stages of and requires focused effort on an ongoing
emergency response. basis throughout the emergency response.

8 1 • Defining trust Why trust matters
On the basis of the research findings, a number of ‘tools’ for measuring and building
trust within emergency-response teams have been developed (see Section 4).
Together they provide a toolkit for teams and their leaders to manage the levels of
trust within the team and promote the benefits that come from high levels of trust
between team members. Just as the financial implications of all actions and
decisions need to be taken into account, so also do the trust implications. Will
certain actions or decisions add to or reduce the stock of trust within the team?
Trust within the team is, of course, only the starting point. Trust between the team
and the local community, between different agencies and with the funding bodies,
are also of crucial importance. But without trust within the team, communication
and delivery will be patchy and un-co-ordinated, and trust between the team and
the rest of the world will be damaged.
The section below gives more detail on the ten criteria that influence levels of trust
in teams. Throughout this toolkit the criteria for trust will be referenced in order to
anchor the tools within an accessible and field-tested framework that aims to build
trust in teams.

The ten criteria for trust Defining trust • 1 9
The ten criteria for trust

Swift trust
Competence
Trust based on a perception that team members are competent, and so will not let
me down.
Every day we have to trust people. When we go to the doctor and take her advice
we trust that she is a competent doctor and understands things that we do not.
When we fly on an aeroplane we trust that the pilot who flies it and the engineers
who have serviced it know what they are doing and will do a good job. We trust
them because we believe they are competent at their jobs. In the same way, in the
emergency-response team we need to trust that other people in the team are
competent at their jobs and will perform to a good standard. If this is not the case
then other team members cannot do their job properly; frustrations will increase
and trust will diminish.
Openness with information

Trust based on the observation that other team members share information
important to the team proactively and clearly.
Information is power. Those who have access to information and do not share it
with others are creating a power differential. On one hand, if we believe that other
people have information that is important for us and they are not sharing it with us
we may become suspicious. We may begin to wonder what the information is, and
why they are not sharing it. This suspicion breeds mistrust. On the other hand,
when someone does share information with us, it sends a positive signal that they
do trust us. We are more likely to feel trusting towards them. Sometimes, it is
necessary to keep information confidential for good reasons. In such cases, the
team must understand the reasons. Sometimes, how we share information can be
conditioned by our cultural background. In certain cultures people learn to be more
direct and task-focused with people they don’t know well. In other cultures people
tend only to be clear and proactive in sharing information with those they have
developed a personal relationship with.
Integrity
Trust based on the observation that other team members maintain promises, are
team-orientated, and behave towards me in accordance with a moral code.
If people keep their word and fulfill their commitments, over time, we come to trust
them more. It is sometimes tempting to promise things that we are not sure we can
deliver, just to please people. This tends to be the case in certain cultural contexts
where saying ‘no’ might be regarded as bad for relationships. In the long run, when
we cannot deliver, this reduces other people’s trust in us. It takes time to build trust.
We need to see that the other person is consistent in keeping their word. On
occasion, we may not be able to keep to our commitments for reasons outside our
control. When this happens, it is important that we explain the circumstances to
the people we have made a commitment to.

10 1 • Defining trust The ten criteria for trust
Another aspect of integrity is behaving in accordance with our professed moral

codes and standards. The quickest way to breed cynicism and destroy trust is to
commend one form of behaviour and then not to live by that standard oneself.
Finally, integrity sometimes requires us to put the interests of the team and other
team members above our own personal interests. When others see this behaviour,
they understand that we are prepared to make sacrifices in the interests of the
common good. This will increase trust.
Reciprocity
Trust based on the observation that other team members are trusting and co-
operative towards me.
It is easier to trust someone else if we feel they are trusting towards us. Equally, if we
feel someone is behaving towards us in a suspicious way, then we can easily project
negative motivations onto them in order to explain their behaviour, and this makes
it more difficult for us to trust them. This reciprocal nature of trust means that we
can quickly get into positive or negative ‘spirals’ of trust. If I behave in a way that
sends out a message of trust to others, then typically they will see this and
reciprocate with some trust-building behaviours themselves. So small behaviours
that show trust can lead to larger, more significant trust behaviours and a positive
‘spiral’ is created. But to start this positive cycle we may have to take some personal
risks and make ourselves vulnerable in some way. Of course, it is also possible to
create a negative cycle and to destroy trust very quickly by a careless word or action.
This negative cycle can be made worse by cultural misunderstandings. Direct, open
feedback can sometimes be seen as aggression and an indirect, face-saving style can
be seen as hiding something.
Deeper trust
Compatibility
Trust based on background, values, approaches, interests, and objectives held in
common.
Most of us feel more comfortable and more ready to trust in the company of people
who are ‘like us’. In reality, we are all different from each other. We are different in
terms of, for example, personalities, experience, gender, and culture. We have to
understand and work through these differences before we cease to notice them and
feel instead that we are all part of something bigger and more important than
ourselves. To build trust in the culturally diverse context of emergency-response
teams, we need to create and articulate common objectives that we can all commit
to; we need to establish ways of working and communicating with each other that
utilise the best resources of the team; and, we need to find, share, and understand
common interests, values, and beliefs. If the things that unite us are emphasised,
the things that make us different will become less noticeable and less of a barrier.
Goodwill
Trust based on the belief that other team members are concerned about my overall
welfare.

The ten criteria for trust Defining trust • 1 11
Working in an emergency-response team is a demanding and stressful experience.

No-one is immune from these pressures and everyone needs help and support from
time to time. If I feel that other people in the team are concerned about me and how I
am feeling, I can trust them more easily. At one level there are the simple needs – food,
rest, and shelter, often in difficult circumstances. But at a more fundamental level I
need to know that others in the team are concerned about me as an individual. Do
they notice and comfort me when I am tired or depressed? Do they recognise that I
have a family and friends outside the context of the emergency? Do they take the time
to get to know me and understand the things that are important for me? Do they
openly value the contribution I am trying to make to the overall effort? If I believe that
they do, then I will find it easier to trust them. Of course if I take the initiative to look
out for other team members then they are more likely to do the same for me. I may
need to remember, however, that ‘goodwill’ may be a stronger criterion for trusting
others in cultures where personal relationships are a pre-requisite for trust.
Predictability
Trust based on the observation that the behaviour of team members is consistent
over time and in different contexts.
Trusting others involves taking a risk about their future behaviour. If I trust someone
enough to lend them some money, I am taking the risk that they may not pay me
back. To trust a stranger in this way is usually unwise, because I have no way of
predicting their behaviour from a knowledge of their past actions. On the other hand
if I lend some money to a good friend then I can form a view about the level of risk
involved from her/his behaviour in the past. To reduce the risks associated with
trusting, therefore, I need to be able to see consistent patterns of behaviour. People
who behave in erratic and unpredictable ways are not so trustworthy because I cannot
identify the patterns and so I do not know how they will behave in this particular
instance. On the other hand, I will find it easier to trust people who are disciplined in
their approach to work and abide by the norms and standards of the group in their
everyday lives, as these qualities make their behaviour more predictable. Sometimes I
may lose trust in those from other cultural backgrounds because they may behave in
ways that seem unpredictable, as I don’t fully understand the values that lie behind
their actions, and how they may differ from my own. It is essential therefore to
increase understanding of our own and other people’s different cultural tendencies.
Well-being
Trust arising from the feeling that I have nothing to fear from other members of the
team.
It is difficult to fear and trust people at the same time. Sometimes fear of an outside
threat can lead us to trust the people in our own group more strongly, as often happens
in times of war or heightened security threats. But we are not likely to find it easy to
trust the people who make us afraid. In the working environment the most common
cause of fear is a culture of ‘blame’. When something goes wrong, then first reactions
are to look for the person whose ‘fault’ it was with a view to punishing them. Such a
culture destroys trust and leads people to behave in a defensive way – thinking always
about how they can justify their actions if necessary; this in turn leads to less
communication, less initiative-taking, and less innovation. A sure sign of a ‘blame’
culture and low levels of trust is when people start asking for everything in writing.

12 1 • Defining trust The ten criteria for trust
Inclusion
Trust based on the observation that other team members actively include me in
their social and work activities.
Some people are more sociable than others. They enjoy being with a group. Some
people are more comfortable with one or two other people at a time. Nevertheless,
all of us need to be included in important social and work activities. Excluding
someone, leaving them out of activities that involve everyone else, sends a
powerful message that destroys trust. In the context of an emergency-response
team there is always a danger that factions or sub-groups will form. These may be
based on whether some people are ‘internationals’ and some ‘nationals’. Sub-
groups may also form based on ethnic differences or simply on the basis of
functional or regional separation. To some extent these divisions are inevitable and
even natural. For example, it is important to remember that some people may need
to spend time with others who share their mother tongue, especially when they are
living and working in difficult situations and using another language in their work
with the team. However, if these groupings become too strong, and especially if
members of an ‘in-group’ hold a lot of power within the team, the feelings of those
who are excluded can quickly lower levels of trust. Careful thought must be given
to such things as who should be invited to meetings, who should be included in
communications, and who should be involved in social events. These decisions
send out powerful messages of trust or mistrust.
Accessibility
Trust based on the observation that other team members share their true feelings
and I can relate to them on a personal level.
People who are cool and distant in their personal manner may seem more difficult
to trust. By keeping their thoughts and feelings to themselves they seem to be
indicating that they do not trust others and are not prepared to take the risk of
making themselves vulnerable. Other people, who are open with their emotions
and express their wishes and needs in a sincere way, may seem to be demonstrating
trust in the people around them and so may more readily invoke trusting
behaviours in response (see Reciprocity above). Accessibility may be a stronger
criterion for trusting others in cultures that place more emphasis on open
expression of emotions than others.

2 • The Trust Index 13
How to measure factors that impact on

trust in teams
A key conclusion of the Building Trust Project research into the role of trust in
emergency-response situations was that, although trust was considered essential for
the effective operation of diverse teams, there were at the time no explicit ways of
measuring it. One part of the structured interview used in this research addressed
the question of how a culture of trust could be measured. The most common
response was that the best indicator of trust is the performance and output of the
team. In other words, if the team is achieving its objectives and performing well
then there must be trust present. This response helps to cement the view that there
is a clear link between trust and performance, but does not really help with
measuring trust. If we believe that trust is first in the causal relationship (i.e. good
levels of trust result in good outputs), then we need to find more specific ways of
measuring trust itself. While team leaders and their reports were sensitive to
observable symptoms of high and low levels of trust from their considerable
experience in the field, they had no specific ways of assessing trust factors as a
platform for focused emergency work.
There are two ways of assessing trust in teams – indirect and direct. The indirect
method relies on measuring and assessing the factors that are likely to affect trust
levels within the team. The direct method relies on observing the behaviours of team
members and/or asking for their views through interviews or questionnaires. The tool
that was developed out of the research – the Trust Index – is an example of an indirect
method of describing trust. It has been developed because the original research
revealed some key factors – linked to the composition, leadership, and alignment of
the team and the environmental, organisational, and cultural context in which a
team operates – that clearly inhibited or promoted levels of trust within the team in
an emergency-response situation. These factors consisted of more than simply the
behaviours of team members, but they had an enormous impact on trust behaviours
developed within the team. It was felt that by identifying, understanding, and
responding to specific factors that cause a lower level of trust in a team, the team
would then be in the best position to actively manage trust levels in the team.

14 2 • The Trust Index Guidance notes
Guidance notes
What is the Index used for?

The Trust Index has been developed as a way of assessing the factors that enhance
or destroy trust within emergency-response teams. It provides a framework for the
team leaders and team members to actively manage the levels of trust within the
team. It does not seek to measure trust levels directly, but indirectly, by looking at
the factors that impact on the level of trust within the team. The objective of the
Index is to raise levels of awareness within the emergency-response team about
trust, and to form the basis of discussions and an action plan on how trust within
the team can be enhanced and maintained.
Why use the Index?

Creating a culture of trust in an emergency-response team needs to become a
central objective for the leader and all members of the team. Research and
experience shows that where this can be achieved, the effectiveness of the team in
delivering benefits to the community will be substantially enhanced. Without
identifying and understanding specific factors that are influencing levels of trust in
a team, it is difficult for a leader to build trust.
What does the Index consist of?

The Trust Index (page 22) is divided into six types of factors affecting trust:
• Environmental factors: relating to elements in the community and the
general environment in which the team is operating.
• Organisational factors: relating to the structures, systems, and procedures
needed to ensure that staff are properly supported, and that uncertainty about
working arrangements is reduced to a minimum.
• Leadership factors: relating to the qualities and style of the team leader.
• Team-composition factors: relating to the make-up of the team including
skills, experience, styles, gender, personality etc.
• Alignment factors: relating to arrangements to ensure that personal
relationships and a shared sense of purpose are developed within the team,
including the management of cultural differences.
• Cultural factors: relating to the cultural dimension of team interactions.
Within each of these types there are a number of specific factors, each with a –5 to
+5 scale. At the right-hand end of the scale is a brief description of the situation that
is likely to enhance trust. At the left-hand end of the scale is a description of the
corresponding situation that inhibits the promotion of trust.
Any score above 0 would indicate that this factor is enhancing trust. The positive score
reflects the extent to which team members feel it is, in practice, enhancing trust. A score
of +5 on a given factor means that it is enhancing trust to a high degree, and the team
does not need to focus on further improvement. Any score below 0 would indicate that
this factor is diminishing or destroying trust, and the negative score reflects the extent
to which team members feel it is destroying trust. A score of –5 on a given factor means

Guidance notes The Trust Index • 2 15
that it is a major factor in destroying trust within the team. A score of 0 can be used to
indicate a factor that is neutral. It means that, at the moment, this factor is not
impacting on the level of trust in the team.
Who is the Index for?

Groups working with a shared aim, mutual dependency, and common leadership
can use the Index. Because the Trust Index is designed for diverse teams responding
to emergencies, it will have the highest relevance to those teams. Therefore, it is
important that the Index is used by the entire team, including the team leader,
international agency staff, local agency staff, and new local recruits. The Trust
Index may also be useful in a wide range of team contexts falling under the
umbrella of emergency relief. These may include:
• a water/sanitation team operating in a particular field site;
• a team of programme co-ordinators at that field site who all report to the same
person (i.e. the field co-ordinator or deputy director of programmes);
• a finance team at the main office;
• a senior-management team at the main office who all report to the same
person (i.e. the country director).
When to use the Index

The Trust Index should be used, and each of the scales rated, as soon as possible
after an emergency has been declared, but after the team members have had some
experience of each other and of the style/approach of the team leader. It should
then be used every three months thereafter in order to track team progress. As it is
the first step of an ongoing process, and as issues may be raised regarding
organisational procedures, it should be used when there is commitment from the
country director and senior-management team to address the issues raised during
the process. It will also take a commitment from the team itself to create and follow
a specific work plan to improve levels of trust where gaps have been identified.
How long does the Index take to complete?

Completing the Trust Index process will take approximately three hours, distributed
over the first seven stages described below in ‘How to use the Index’.
Who leads the process?

The person who leads the process of introducing and completing the Trust Index
can be a team leader or an external facilitator (either from inside or outside the
agency). The advantage of the team leader leading the process is that team leaders
can build motivation and trust by modelling a spirit of openness and transparency
in leadership style. From a practical perspective team leaders can more flexibly
mould the process around regular team meetings.
The advantage of an external facilitator leading the process is that the team leader
will be freed up to participate in the discussion without at the same time having to
lead the process. External facilitators with cultural awareness can also help to
encourage participation in those cultural contexts where discussing leadership
issues in the presence of your team leader may be uncommon or uncomfortable.

How to use the Index

The first time that the Index is used, particularly in the initial response phase of an
emergency-response situation, it is recommended to go through the following eight
stages:
1. The team leader/facilitator, working with a senior local stakeholder (a long-

term local staff member and/or someone with an in-depth understanding of
the local operating environment), completes the ‘Environmental factors’
section of the Trust Index before meeting the team.
Approximate time for stage 1: 20 minutes.
2. The team leader/facilitator introduces the Index at a team meeting, putting a

strong focus on the importance of a culture of trust in emergency-response
teams. The challenge of working under pressure in highly diverse groups and
the importance of making higher levels of trust a shared team objective are
emphasised in the introduction. Using this tool is a way of identifying
potential gaps in building a culture of trust, before working to close them. If
the team leader/facilitator needs a common understanding of what is meant by
‘trust’, a simple brainstorming exercise can be run, where the group is asked to
think through their past experiences of how it felt to be in a team with high
trust and a team with low trust. They can then put themselves in the position
of a ‘Trust Doctor’, listing the symptoms of each.
3. The team leader/facilitator begins by introducing the ‘Environmental factors’

and discussing the results with the team. The team leader/facilitator should then
use their best judgement about how to introduce the rest of the Index to the
team. Either give out copies of the entire Index, or break it down into its
constituent parts and give out each of the sections separately (to allow team
members to take it in slowly). The team leader/facilitator explains that each
team member will rate each of the factors in the five other sections in the Index
(organisational, leadership, team composition, alignment, and cultural) in a
similar way, using the scales provided. The team leader/ facilitator provides a
short description of each section and gives an example of how to use the scale
with one item from the Index. To ensure that there is a clearly defined and
shared focus among team members in completing the Index, a clear reminder
must be given as to who exactly they are considering as the ‘team’ and who the
team leader is. They must also be told when completing the Index to consider
where the team is now, and not reflect on past issues. They should also be told
that their responses will be anonymous, and that the process is most valuable
when team members can be as open as possible about their opinions.
Approximate time for stages 2 & 3: 20 minutes.
4. The team leader/facilitator should ensure that everyone completes the Index and
hands it in before they leave this first meeting, if possible (without writing their
names on their copies, in order to keep their ratings anonymous). Alternatively, a
deadline can be given for the completion and return of the Index before the next
team meeting, and each individual team member (including the leader) makes
the time before the deadline to complete their own individual assessments based
on their experience and perceptions. These ratings should be made anonymously
and the completed copies of the Index should be sent to a central location in
sealed envelopes to ensure confidentiality. Note that the team leader should not
complete the section on leadership.

Guidance notes The Trust Index • 2 17
(NB A second option for completing the Index would be to do this in a room
together on the same day, and with time dedicated to complete and review
results section by section. Individuals can complete the Index on their own, or
in order to encourage participation, the Index can be completed in pairs, with
two people sitting together and coming to a consensus about what score to
assign. This option will take longer.)
5. There are two alternatives for scoring the Index. The first option is that the
team leader or a nominated team member/external facilitator could average the
ratings of all team members for each factor. This will provide specific ‘scores’
for each factor. In this way the strongest and weakest areas within a particular
section can be identified. The factors can then also be averaged together for
each section (see the first example in Handout A: Example Scoring Sheets). The
result will be a completed ‘Trust Index’ for each of the factors, which will be
distributed and discussed by the whole team at the next meeting.
While averages are easier to process, and they protect individuals more, the
perspective of the range/spread of answers is lost. It can be illuminating to see
the variety of opinions from within a team regarding a particular factor.
Therefore, a second option is to map out a detailed breakdown of the responses
for each section on a flip-chart, making areas of differing opinion clearly visible
(see the second example in Handout A: Example Scoring Sheets). Factors with a
wider spread of answers can then be discussed. This often leads to more in-
depth and lively examination of a particular factor. This is also a useful
technique for more visual learners.
6. The team leader/facilitator distributes the overall trust scores and facilitates a
team discussion. The final objective of this discussion is to identify things to be
done to build trust. To set the discussion in a positive context, it is worth
discussing which factors in each section are optimising trust within the team
and why, before going on to look at the lower scores. The meeting needs to be
open and participative. It should be managed in such a way that everyone has
an equal opportunity to share their ideas and views. This may involve dividing
into pairs or small groups to discuss the reason for lower scores and then
feeding the results of the discussion back in a joint session all together.
7. The team needs to develop a Trust Index Action Plan (see Handout B: Trust
Index Action Plan) which should:
• identify factors that need to be improved;
• identify activities to ensure that those factors that are reducing and
destroying trust in the team are actively managed.
The team should also discuss what needs to be done to ensure that those factors
that are optimising trust in the team are nurtured and supported throughout
the team life-cycle.
Approximate time for stage 7: 30 minutes
8. The Trust Index should be completed again, if possible, three months later, to
monitor how trust in the team is developing, and the impact of the changes
made.

(NB The important thing for the team to focus on is not the absolute level of the
Index but its movement over time. In some situations there will be factors that
make the creation of high levels of trust within the team difficult. In such cases, the
scores will initially be low, which may mean that focused effort and attention is
required to create good levels of trust. In other situations the starting point will be
higher and it will be easier to create trust. In either case the objective of the process
should be to consider the trust implications of actions and decisions, and to ensure
that over time the levels of trust grow.)
What do I need to remember when deciding to use the Index?

1. Deciding to use the Index conveys an important message that trust is taken
seriously as a key factor in impacting emergency response. The very process of
carrying out this exercise can lead to increasing trust within the team.
2. Carrying out this exercise might also lead to tense discussions and high
expectations that problems will be quickly resolved.
3. Genuine commitment from leadership to follow through is important, as well
as team commitment to work on the issues identified.
4. If tensions within the team do arise over particular factors in the Index, and are
beyond the skills of the leader or facilitator to resolve, the leader or facilitator
should seek advice from appropriate sources such as the local human-resources
manager, the head-office human-resources focal point, or the appropriate
learning and development adviser who can offer targeted and structured
support to the team leader and team members.

Handout A: Example Scoring Sheets for the Trust Index The Trust Index • 2 19
Handout A: Example Scoring Sheets for the Trust Index

Handout A: Example Scoring Sheets for
the Trust Index
Example scoring sheet 1

This scoring sheet is an example of the first scoring method outlined in step 5
of ‘How to use the Index’. The method identifies average team scores for each
section of the Index.
First collect each team Proceed in the same way for Divide the sum by the total Follow the same pattern for
member’s completed Index. each of the Organisational number of factors (13 for each of the other Index
Beginning with the factors. The team may want this section) and insert the sections. If desired, each
Organisational factors, take to discuss why some number in the Average box. column’s total score can be
the first factor, add up each average scores within the added together and the
team member’s score for Organisational factors sum can be divided by five
that factor, and divide the column are higher or lower (total number of columns)
sum by the number of team than others. Now add up all to come up with an Overall
members scoring that of the average scores in the average
factor. This will give you the Organisational column and
average, which should be insert the sum in the Total
written in the table. score box.
Section of the Index

Factor Organisational Leadership Team Alignment Cultural
composition
1 2.3 2.1 2 1.5 1.4
2 2.5 3 3.1 2.4 1.3
3 3.5 4 2.4 3.6 1.9
4 1 2.1 1.7 2 2.2
5 -0.3 3 2.5 -1
6 2.1 2.2 3.2 -2
7 3.1 3.3 2.6 -1.4
8 4 2.3 1.8
9 2 2.1
10 1 2.2
11 1 3.3
12 2 2.6
13 2.2
Total 26.4 22 17.5 17.1 6.8 Overall
score average
Average 2 2.8 2.5 1.4 1.7 2.1
This chart can be used each time the team completes the Index, and the team
can discuss any differences between previous and current scores (for each
section, factor, and the overall score).

20 2 • The Trust Index Handout A: Example Scoring Sheets for the Trust Index
Handout A: Example Scoring Sheets for the Trust Index
Handout A: Example Scoring Sheets for

the Trust Index
Example scoring sheet 2

This scoring sheet provides a visual representation of scores on a flip-chart. It
shows the spread of scores and avoids a specific numeric score. The team
leader/facilitator can use this method of scoring the Index if the team is
comprised of more visual learners, if a numeric score is not desired, or if time
is short.
Simply draw a grid on flip-chart paper with Make one mark in a box for each team
the rows representing each factor in a member’s score. On the flip-chart below that
section (13 rows for the Organisational was prepared for the Alignment section,
section, for example) and the columns three staff marked a ‘4’ for factor 4, and two
representing the score (-5 to +5). staff marked a ‘5’.
Amy Bess/ECB Project, Oxfam GB
In this example, the team leader/facilitator may want to lead a discussion

about why factor 4 was ranked so highly and why there was a wider spread of
scores for factor 6.

Handout B: Trust Index Action Plan The Trust Index • 2 21
Handout B: Trust Index Action Plan

Handout B: Trust Index Action Plan
Date
Location
Team
FACTORS 1 2 3 4 5
Strength of Factor Activities to Expected Responsible
factor elements to support activity team
(Index score) improve improvement completion members
(top two of priority date
priorities) elements
Environmental
Organisational
Leadership
Team compostion
Alignment
Cultural
Team leader
Senior local stakeholder/team member
Date for review of the plan
Instructions
Complete the Trust Index with the team. Average the scores for each factor
and enter into column one. Discuss the score and relative importance of the
elements for each factor. Select the top two factors that are critical to
strengthening, and that the team has the ability to influence. Enter these into
column two. Discuss with the team what kinds of activities or action will be
taken to strengthen these two factors. Enter the activities into column three.
Decide when the activities will be accomplished and enter the dates into
column four. Discuss who in the team needs to take action to ensure that the
activities are accomplished. Enter the names into column five. Set a date for a
review of the action plan.

22 2 • The Trust Index
The Trust Index tool

Trust Index: environmental factors 23
Trust Index: organisational factors 24
Trust Index: leadership factors 26
Trust Index: team-composition factors 27
Trust Index: alignment factors 28
Trust Index: cultural factors 30

Environmental factors The Trust Index • 2 23
Trust Index: environmental factors
Trust Index: environmental factors

These factors which affect trust in emergency-response teams relate to elements in the community and the
general environment in which the team is operating. The team will not be able to change these factors by
their own actions, but may be able to mitigate any negative impact on trust levels within the team.
Makes trust in response teams Makes trust in response teams

more difficult easier
1 The community is complex and -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The community is well-integrated

divided, possibly with hostilities with a legitimate government and
between different ethnic, religious, good governance
or other groups
2 The response to the emergency is -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The response to the emergency is

likely to create or increase divisions likely to unite the community
within the community behind a common effort
3 The government and/or the agency -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The government and/or the agency
has little or no experience of this has extensive experience of dealing
type of emergency in this country with this type of emergency in this
or geographical area country or geographical area
4 Humanitarian agencies are in a -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 There is an organisation (e.g.

competitive relationship with each national or local government,
other and there is no effective co- NGO, or the UN) providing
ordination effective inter-agency co-ordination
5 International and/or external -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 International and/or external

involvement is resented by the local involvement is welcomed by the
government and the local local government and the local
community community
6 The local population from which to -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The local population from which to
recruit is inexperienced and people recruit is highly experienced and
have few relevant technical skills people have good technical skills
7 The geographical spread of the -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The geographical location of the

emergency makes communications emergency allows emergency-team
more difficult within the widespread members to remain together in one
team and between the team and area, with easy communications
regional and/or head office with regional and/or head office

24 2 • The Trust Index Organisational factors
Trust Index: organisational factors

These factors which affect trust in emergency-response teams relate to the structures, systems, and
procedures needed to ensure that staff are properly supported and uncertainty about working arrangements
is reduced to a minimum.

1 This agency did not have a national -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The established national office in
office in this affected country prior the affected country provides
to the emergency systems and process support
2 There is no organigram in place, -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 There is an organigram in place,

and roles and responsibilities are and roles and responsibilities are
not clear clearly defined by job descriptions
3 There are no performance -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Personal and team performance

measures or feedback processes, or measures and feedback processes
those that exist are not in use are in place and in use for all staff
4 There are no systematic -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Staff skills gaps are identified and

arrangements for identifying or are being met with appropriate
meeting staff skills gaps training and development
programmes
5 There are no clear systems of -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 There are clear and efficient

delegated authority and systems in place for delegating
accountability, or those that are in authority and assuring
place are perceived as unfair and accountability, and they are
inefficient perceived as fair and appropriate
6 There are no effective -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 There are effective communication

communication systems or easy systems and easy ways to access
ways to access information within information within the organisation
the organisation
7 No team meetings are held -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 There are regular and documented

team meetings taking place (face-
to-face or virtually)

Organisational factors The Trust Index • 2 25
Trust Index: organisational factors continued

These factors which affect trust in emergency-response teams relate to the structures, systems, and
procedures needed to ensure that staff are properly supported and uncertainty about working arrangements
is reduced to a minimum.

8 Differentials of salaries and benefits -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Differentials of salaries and benefits

between team members are not between team members are
understood or are perceived as understood and perceived as fair
unfair or inappropriate and appropriate
9 Decisions are not taken -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Effective processes are in place so

that decisions are taken,
communicated to team members
with explanations where necessary,
and implemented quickly
10 Team members are unaware of -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team members are clear about

what work they should be doing what work they should be doing
and how their work fits into a wider and how their work fits into a wider
plan plan
11 National/local staff are not involved -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 National/local staff are involved in

in hiring decisions and procedures hiring decisions and procedures
12 The well-being of staff is not -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The well-being of staff is looked after:

considered adequate time off is ensured; stress-
awareness materials are provided
and discussed; psycho-social support
is provided when needed
13 Security procedures are not in place -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Effective security procedures are in

or not enforced place and are enforced

26 2 • The Trust Index Leadership factors
Trust Index: leadership factors

Trust Index: leadership factors
These factors which affect trust in emergency-response teams relate to the qualities and style of the team
leader(s).

1 Team leader(s) have little -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team leader(s) have a high level of

local/regional knowledge or local/regional knowledge and
experience and do not use the experience and/or have identified
services of acknowledged local and use the services of
resource persons acknowledged local resource persons
2 Team leader(s) do not seem -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team leader(s) are well-networked

influential within the organisation and influential within the
and are not able to get approvals organisation and are able to get
from regional or head office approvals from regional or head
office
3 Team leader(s) are not culturally -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team leader(s) are culturally

sensitive and have no previous sensitive and effective in leading
experience of working with multi- diverse teams
cultural or diverse teams
4 Team leader(s) provide little -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team leader(s) create a predictable

structure or guidance and leave and well-organised environment
people to find their own way for the team to work in
5 Team leader(s) behave in a way that -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team leader(s) behave in a way that
does not support organisational supports organisational values and
values and ethics ethics
6 Team leader(s) do not -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team leader(s) communicate freely

communicate well with team with all team members and make
members clear what they expect from the
team
7 Team leader(s) try to do everything -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team leader(s) delegate tasks and

themselves and do not delegate share responsibility and authority
8 Team leader(s) make all decisions -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team leader(s) seek and listen to
without consulting with team the ideas and opinions of team
members members and involve the team in
decision-making

Team-composition factors The Trust Index • 2 27
Trust Index: team-composition factors
Trust Index: team-composition factors

These factors which affect trust in emergency-response teams relate to the make-up of the team.

1 Many posts are filled with recruits -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 All posts are filled with people who
who are not qualified have the appropriate skills and
experience (or appropriate
capacity-building and training is
under way)
2 The diversity of team members in -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The diversity of team members in

terms of culture, religion, gender, terms of culture, religion, gender,
age, and ethnic group is not age, and ethnic group is recognised
recognised or valued as an as an advantage, and efforts to
advantage diversify are actively pursued
3 The team is unable to effectively -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The team members identify and

communicate and address address any differences in language
substantial differences in languages and communication styles and are
and culture-based communication able to communicate effectively
styles
4 The team is comprised of people -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The team is comprised of people

with a limited range of skills and with a range of different skills and
work styles work styles
5 Team members are not open with -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team members are open,
each other, and lack awareness and respectful, self-aware, and capable
skills to work with people from of working with people from
different cultures different cultures
6 Aside from the team leader, power -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Aside from the team leader, power
is not balanced amongst team is perceived to be balanced and
members; power is held by a few distributed amongst the team
individuals or ‘in-groups’ (based on members
gender, nationality, etc.)
7 No efforts are made to assure a -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Gender and diversity balance is

gender and diversity balance within actively pursued through
the team recruitment into the team, and
capacity-building is in place to
ensure all staff are able to contribute
effectively to the work of the team

28 2 • The Trust Index Alignment factors
Trust Index: alignment factors

These factors which affect trust in emergency-response teams relate to arrangements to ensure that personal
relationships and a shared sense of purpose are developed within the team

1 Team members lack knowledge of -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 All team members can articulate and
and commitment to organisational demonstrate an understanding and
values acceptance of organisational values
2 Team members are confused about -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The team’s purpose or main

the team’s purpose and objectives are well-understood by all
responsibilities team members, and each team
member’s role and responsibilities
are clearly defined and understood
by every other member of the team
3 Key team processes have not been -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team members are involved in
discussed or agreed, and team discussing and agreeing key team
members do not have a common processes (e.g. how meetings should
understanding of these issues be conducted and how conflicts
should be resolved)
4 There is no common -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Behaviours that are acceptable and

understanding about what unacceptable for team members
behaviours are acceptable or have been identified, discussed, and
unacceptable within the context of agreed within the team
the team
5 No social activities for team -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Social activities involving all team

members take place to help all staff members are organised on a regular
build relationships basis to help all staff build
relationships
6 Team successes are not recognised -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team successes are recognised and
in any way celebrated

Alignment factors The Trust Index • 2 29
Trust Index: alignment factors continued

These factors which affect trust in emergency-response teams relate to arrangements to ensure that personal
relationships and a shared sense of purpose are developed within the team

7 The team does not reflect on its -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team sessions are held where team
performance performance is reviewed and
improvements made as needed
8 Team gatherings/communications -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Team gatherings/communications

only focus on immediate task issues go beyond a focus on immediate
tasks to develop and update a
shared sense of purpose
9 There is no shared understanding -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 An agreed communication charter

about what, where, when, and how or equivalent is in place and there is
communication between team shared understanding about what
members should take place should be communicated, by
when, and by whom
10 There is little understanding within -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 There is good understanding within

the team about the overall purpose the team about the overall purpose
and mission of the organisation; and mission of the organisation
knowledge is limited to immediate
activities
11 There are high levels of staff -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The team is stable, with low levels
turnover in the team (including of staff turnover (including team
team leaders) leaders)
12 There is no orientation for new -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 New team members participate in a

team members comprehensive orientation and are
smoothly integrated into the team

30 2 • The Trust Index Cultural factors
Trust Index: cultural factors

The statements about particular cultural groups in the following four sections on
cultural differences refer to tendencies within cultures; it should be remembered
that each individual person is unique and will undoubtedly bring their own
personal experiences, values, and approaches into any context.
Communication style
How do cultural differences in communication style impact on your team? When
communicating, all of us need to decide whether to focus on text (the explicit and
direct use of words) or context (what is between the lines or non-verbal). Team
members from more ‘low-context’ (high ‘text’) cultures tend to learn from their
national cultural background that effective communication is about ‘saying what
you mean and meaning what you say’. They tend to rely on written
communication (e.g. minutes of meetings, agendas, contracts) to ‘spell out’
meaning. Trust is built quickly by being clear and focusing on the task. North
Americans, Australasians, and Northern Europeans tend to be brought up to have a
low-context approach to communication.
Team members from more ‘high-context’ (low ‘text’) cultures tend to learn from
their national cultural background to value the ability of the sensitive listener who
can ‘read between the lines’, and understand the damage done to relationships by
direct talking. They tend to avoid writing and rely on broad spoken agreements.
Trust is built slowly by ‘saving face’, i.e. protecting oneself from public humiliation
and/or embarrassment and focusing on relationship. South and South-East Asians,
Africans, Middle-Easterners, and South Europeans tend to have a high-context
approach.
Look at the following behaviours and beliefs connected to low- and high-context
work environments, and consider whether you have such cultural differences in
your team.
Low-context High-context
Be direct and task-focused Be indirect and relationship-focused

Be explicit and specific Communicate between the lines or though non-
verbal means
Write things down and ‘spell things out’ Keep things oral
Give feedback as soon as possible, in a direct Give feedback indirectly, and at the right time in
manner order to save face
Believe that trust in your competence leads to Believe that deeper levels of personal trust are
deeper levels of relationships, so begin with the required for tasks to be carried out effectively, so
task begin with relationship-building
Believe that being clear shows respect Believe that sensitivity about saving face shows
respect
A combination of both low-context and high-context cultural preferences can lead

to great synergies in nurturing trust in international teams where trust is fragile.
Combining ‘clarity’ (low-context) with ‘rapport’ (high-context) is critical for
building a productive working atmosphere. However, when these differences are
not recognised and respected, the result can be the opposite. Low-context
directness can be perceived as ‘insensitivity’ and high-context indirectness can be
considered as ‘time-wasting’.

Cultural factors The Trust Index • 2 31
How are these differences handled in your team? Are they ignored and not

respected, leading to misunderstandings and mis-evaluations? Or are they openly
recognised and reconciled so that trust is built? If you are working in a fairly mono-
cultural team and such differences are irrelevant, score ‘0’.

This difference is not recognised, -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 This difference is recognised,

discussed, or respected, leading discussed, and respected, so that
to misunderstandings and trust is built
mis-evaluations
Power and equality

How do cultural differences in attitudes to power and equality impact on your
team? Team members from ‘low power-distance’ cultures tend to learn to expect
and accept that gaps in power and social status between them and their bosses
should be minimised. They tend to expect to be consulted by their bosses, who
empower them in return for initiative. North Americans, Australasians, and
Northern Europeans tend to be brought up to have a low power-distance approach.
Team members from ‘high power-distance’ cultures tend to learn to expect and
accept a large gap in power and social status between them and their bosses. They
tend to have more dependent relationships with strong, decisive, and often
paternalistic bosses who provide security in return for loyalty. South and South-East
Asians, Africans, Middle-Easterners, South Americans, as well as Southern
Europeans tend to have a high power-distance approach.
Look at the following behaviours and beliefs connected to low and high power-
distance work environments and consider whether you have such cultural
differences in your team.
Low power-distance High power-distance
Team members expect to be consulted Team members expect to be told what to do

Special privileges for team leaders are not Special privileges for team leaders are expected
expected
Constructive feedback to/disagreement with Upward feedback from team members to their
team leader is expected leader should be avoided
Team leaders need to involve the team in Team leaders need to impose effective working
reviewing working practices and codes of practices and codes of conduct in the team
conduct
The empowerment of team members is critical The buy-in of senior local stakeholders is critical
for team success for project success
Team leaders look after the professional needs of Team leaders also look after the needs of team
team members members outside work
A combination of both low power-distance and high power-distance cultural

preferences can lead to great synergies in nurturing trust in international teams
where trust is fragile. Combining empowerment with respect for status and power is
critical for getting things done. However, when these differences are not recognised
and respected, the result can be the opposite. Both low power-distance
‘consultation’ and high power-distance ‘respect for authority’ can be perceived as
‘weak and ineffectual’ by the other cultural party.

respected, leading to misunderstandings and mis-evaluations? Or are they



mis-evaluations
The individual and the group

How do cultural differences concerning the role of the individual and the group
impact on your team? Team members from more individualist cultures tend to
learn to expect that the interests of the individual will be emphasised over those of
the group. They come from smaller nuclear families, and classify themselves and
others more by their individual characteristics rather than their group membership.
North Americans, Australasians, and Northern Europeans tend to be brought up to
have a more individualist approach.
Team members from more collectivist cultures (where the interests of the group are
emphasised over those of the individual) tend to learn to expect that the interests
of the group will be emphasised over those of the individual. They tend to come
from extended families, and from birth onwards are integrated into strong,
cohesive groups to which they owe their loyalty. South and South-East Asians,
Africans and Middle-Easterners, as well as South Americans tend to have a more
collectivist approach.
Look at the following behaviours and beliefs connected to individualist and

collectivist work environments and consider whether you have such cultural
differences in your team.
Individualist Collectivist
Team members are accountable only to the team Team members are accountable to their broader
in-groups outside the team
It is necessary to take personal responsibility It is necessary to assume a joint team
responsibility
An individual’s own priorities and opinions are An individual’s own priorities and opinions are
distinguished from those of the group not distinguished from those of the group
Conflict is inevitable, and if it is well-channelled it Conflict should be avoided as it disturbs group
can lead to positive outcomes harmony and therefore motivation
There is not much of a sense of in-group/out- There is a strong sense of in-group/out-group; a
group; individuals form groups based on high sense of personal obligation to in-group
common interests or tasks members; and low or no obligation to out-group
members
There is a basic right to privacy Privacy is less important than close contact with
in-groups
A combination of both individualist and collectivist cultural preferences can lead to

great synergies in nurturing trust in international teams where trust is fragile.
Combining individual accountability with sensitivity to group interests in the wider
community is critical for getting things done. However, when these differences are

Cultural factors The Trust Index • 2 33
not recognised and respected, the result can be the opposite. An individualist ‘I’

orientation can be perceived as ‘arrogant’ and ‘disruptive’, and a collectivist ‘we’
orientation can be considered as ‘uncommitted’ and ‘over-cautious’.


mis-evaluations
Time and planning

How do cultural differences in attitudes to time and planning impact on your
team? Team members from more single-focus cultures tend to learn that there is
one linear path to achieve their objectives. They tend to make a time plan and then
stick to it. They also tend to focus on one thing at a time, completing each stage
before moving on. North Americans, Australasians, and Northern Europeans tend
to be brought up to have a more single-focus approach.
Team members from more multi-focus cultures tend to learn that there are various
paths to help achieve objectives, so they should keep options open for as long as
possible and emphasise various activities in parallel. They tend to become
proficient at multi-tasking, and taking opportunities as they arise. South and South-
East Asians, Africans, Middle-Easterners, South Americans, as well as Southern
Europeans tend to have a more multi-focus approach.
Look at the behaviours and beliefs connected to single-focus and multi-focus work
environments and consider whether you have such cultural differences in your team.
Single-focus Multi-focus
Value commitment to punctuality, and stick to Value commitment to relationships, and expect
schedule flexibility around timings
Have a low tolerance of interruptions in team Have a high tolerance of interruptions in team
meetings (e.g. mobile phones) meetings – normal working style
Plan ahead for the unexpected, but respond Respond quickly and flexibly to changing
more slowly to changing priorities priorities and opportunities
Stick to agendas and other agreed procedures so Do not stick to agendas or other agreed
as to keep clarity and order procedures if they are no longer practical
Plan activities and execute tasks one at a time Plan activities and execute tasks in parallel
A combination of both single-focus and multi-focus cultural preferences can lead to

great synergies in nurturing trust in international teams where trust is fragile.
Combining structured planning with flexibility in response is critical for getting
things done. However, when these differences are not recognised and respected, the
result can be the opposite. A single-focus approach can be perceived as ‘inflexible’
and ‘pedantic’, while a multi-focus approach can be considered as ‘time-wasting’
and ‘disorganised’.




mis-evaluations

3 • How to build trust in teams 35
One of the key conclusions from the Building Trust Project research was that despite
a clear sense of the central importance of trust in the effective operation of
emergency-response teams, there were very few tools currently being used that
explicitly focused on building trust. It was agreed that in order to build a culture of
trust in such team contexts, there needed to be a set of tools (involving a broad range
of methodologies) that were clearly and explicitly linked to the issue of trust itself.
The tools that have been developed out of the research (see Section 4) are designed
to support teams in building trust in order to:
• help build team awareness and alignment around the issue of trust – through
consensus on trust-building preferences, story-telling around shared past
experiences, and creating shared group experiences of trust (the focus here is
on directly embedding trust in the culture of the team);
• help build a common framework for communicating and working together as a
team, with a core focus on cultural and individual differences;
• highlight leadership behaviours explicitly dedicated to the issue of trust-building;
• help fellow team members to get to know each other at a personal level, linked
to building deeper trust.
Josh Estey/CARE
South Asia Floods, August 2004, Bangladesh – CARE staff and the Disaster Management Project
are helping to bring water to those most in need.
Each tool has a different focus but they can be grouped according to the trust-
building needs described above. They are not designed as an integrated package of
activities to be worked through one by one, but as a toolkit of options that can be
used to build trust according to the needs of the team and the trust challenges it is
facing. They are each linked to the ten criteria for trust (see pages 9–12) and may be
particularly useful at different phases in the life-cycle of an emergency-response team.

36 3 • How to build trust in teams Integrating trust-building into humanitarian action
Integrating trust-building into

humanitarian action
The ability to integrate the trust-building tools into the planning of an emergency
response is critical for humanitarian agencies.
This section shows how teams can use the trust-building tools at ‘strategic’
moments in the emergency-planning cycle in order to improve team effectiveness
and programme delivery.
Emergency-response planning, for most agencies, is divided into four phases:

preparedness, response, recovery, and transition. During each of these phases,
agencies strategise, organise, and respond in the communities where they are
working. As some agencies work through local partners, they may not have technical
capacities to assist in the event of an emergency, but these agencies may still offer
financial support and/or advocate on policy issues that arise from emergencies.
Even though agencies may respond in different ways or are structured differently,
the four phases below form the working definition for emergency management.
Jane Beesley/Oxfam GB
El Fasher, North Darfur, 2007 – integrated response.
• Preparedness: can include organisational capacity-building activities related to

disaster risk-reduction (at field and regional level) as well as those pre-
deployment activities that take place immediately before an emergency.
• Response: this is the phase when humanitarian organisations send assessment

teams to the crisis site and begin to assemble resources (human and financial)
to respond to an emergency. Based on the baseline assessment, agencies
evaluate internal as well as local capacities for an emergency response. During
this phase, teams are formed (often comprised of national and international
staff) at the field level, to save lives and protect livelihoods.

Integrating trust-building into humanitarian action How to build trust in teams • 3 37
• Recovery: this is often referred to as the rehabilitation phase, when project

implementation continues with ongoing response activities, and changes in
emergency-response teams occur (e.g. temporary staff begin to disassemble whilst
permanent and international staff continue). In addition during this phase,
longer-term project-planning occurs, after-action reviews are planned, and
agencies in partnership with local communities begin to restore their livelihoods.
• Transition: this is the bridge between rehabilitation and creating longer-term

2
sustainable development strategies.
(NB These commonly accepted four emergency phases offer the basis for planning
within the humanitarian relief sector. As a result of conflict and chronic natural
and/or manmade disasters as well as the complexity of the humanitarian operating
environment, one phase does not necessarily ‘end’ and the next phase
automatically begin. These four phases should be understood as the frame for
organisational alignment during an emergency response.)
The figure below offers emergency managers a practical way of inserting the trust-
building tools into their emergency planning.
The top tier of boxes represents the evolutionary cycle of an emergency response.
The four boxes on the bottom are the corresponding team-development stages
when trust-building tools can be integrated into the working environment.
Preparedness Response Recovery Transition
1. Team formation 2. Action planning 3. Response 4. Monitoring and

Pre-deployment Assessment Programme evaluation
Standing teams Management plan implementation Monitoring
On-site deployment Response/programme Audits

plan After-action review
Co-ordination plan Handover
1. Define trust 2. Trust building plan 3. Building trust 4. Monitoring trust

Trust tips for leaders Appreciative inquiry Email activity Elements for team leader
Trust Index Aligning working Time lines 360° reviews
Ten criteria for trust practices Trust cards Trust Index

Communication charter Trust walk Ten criteria for trust
Treasure hunting Ten criteria for trust
Ten criteria for trust
2
Often at this stage a new team is formed to take over from the emergency-response team.
It is therefore important to begin a new cycle of using the trust-building tools.

38 3 • How to build trust in teams Linking the trust tools to the four phases of emergency response
Linking the trust tools to the four phases of

emergency response
The table below lists the trust tools (in the left-hand column) and describes each
tool’s purpose. The next columns indicate how useful each particular tool is at
different stages of an emergency response.
Tools Purposes Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

(Preparedness) (Response) (Recovery) (Transition)
Trust tips for To remind team leaders of some very useful useful useful useful
leaders key behaviours and activities
that they can use to promote
trust within their teams
Appreciative To create energy and common useful very useful useful useful
inquiry commitment to building trust in
practical ways, which team
members know from experience
have worked in the past
To support the building of
alignment as a factor supporting
trust in the team
Aligning To bring to the surface diverse N/A very useful useful N/A
working assumptions of team members
practices about how they expect to work
together, and agree on ground
rules for moving forward
To build trust by understanding
the logic behind diverse cultural
behaviours, while moving
towards commonality
Communication To achieve alignment within the N/A very useful useful N/A
charter team about what information
and opinions need to be
communicated to whom, how
often, and through what
channels
To build trust by providing an
agreed and structured
framework for communication
within the team
Treasure To help team members N/A very useful useful useful

hunting appreciate the gifts and qualities
that each person brings to the
team, and to see the diversity of
background, culture, and skills
that are available in the team.
Personal trust is fostered by
breaking the ice that can exist in
new multi-cultural teams

Linking the trust tools to the four phases of emergency response How to build trust in teams • 3 39
Tools Purpose(s) Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

(Preparedness) (Response) (Recovery) (Transition)
Email activity To build trust through N/A very useful useful N/A
encouraging a discussion of
different communication styles
that may exist within the team,
and how to reconcile them
Time lines To help team members get to N/A very useful useful useful
know each other at a deeper
level, including values,
motivations, and significant life
events. Trust is built by allowing
people to make themselves
vulnerable, and take this risk
together
Trust cards To gain the commitment of all N/A very useful useful useful
team members to an initial trust
vision involving a statement of
desired behaviours and a
visualisation
To support the building of
alignment as a factor supporting
trust in the team
Trust walk To introduce a common N/A useful very useful useful

experience to enable team
members to explore together
what factors enhance and
destroy trust
Elements for To assist team leaders in N/A N/A useful very useful
team leader assessing their contribution
360° reviews toward the building of trust
within emergency-response
teams

40
4 • The trust-building tools 41
Guidance notes 42
Group One – building a common trust platform
Tool 1: Appreciative inquiry 44

Tool 2: Trust cards 48
Tool 3: Trust walk 65
Group Two – bridging diversity principles with working Practices
Tool 4: Communication charter 70

Tool 5: Aligning working practices 79
Tool 6: Email activity 86
Group Three – putting trust in leadership
Tool 7: Trust tips for team leaders 95

Tool 8: Elements for team leader 360° reviews 106
Group Four – promoting inclusiveness
Tool 9: Treasure hunting 110

Tool 10: Time lines 114

42 4 • The trust-building tools Guidance notes
Guidance notes
The trust-building tools found in this section form the basis for building trust in diverse
teams during an emergency response. These tools consist of practical, field-tested
activities that team leaders/facilitators can use with their teams at different stages.
There are ten tools. Each tool is divided into six sections:
1. Learning objectives: outlines purpose and expected outcomes for the team
2. Overview: provides brief background and outline of the tool
3. Session plan: presents session-planning guidelines and resources required, and
highlights areas addressed in the ten criteria for trust and Trust Index
4. How it works: explains how the tool should be introduced and presented to the
team
5. Facilitation tips: offers useful suggestions on how to get the best out of the tool
6. Links to the ten criteria for trust: highlights links to the criteria so that the
facilitator knows which areas the tool addresses
(NB Tools 7 and 8 do not include session plans, facilitation tips, or links to the ten criteria
for trust as they are guidelines for managers rather than team-orientated tools).
The trust-building tools are grouped thematically as follows:
Group One – building a common trust platform

• Appreciative inquiry (Tool 1: page 44)
• Trust cards: (Tool 2: page 48)
• Trust walk (Tool 3: page 65)
This set of tools helps to build team awareness and alignment around the issue of trust –
through consensus on trust-building preferences, common elements of past experience,
and a shared group experience. These tools focus directly on embedding trust in the
culture of the team. They are particularly useful for working on the Alignment factors in
the Trust Index (see page 28).
Group Two – bridging diversity principles with working

practices
• Communication charter: (Tool 4: page 70)
• Aligning working practices: (Tool 5: page 79)
• Email activity: (Tool 6: page 86)
This set of tools helps to build a common framework for communicating and working
together as a team, with an explicit focus on cultural and individual differences at the
core. They are particularly useful for working on the Organisational, Alignment, and
Cultural factors in the Trust Index (see pages 24, 28, and 30).

Guidance notes The trust-building tools • 4 43
Group Three – putting trust in leadership

Trust tips for team leaders: (Tool 7: page 95)
Elements for team leader 360˚ reviews (Tool 8: page 106)
This set of tools identifies leadership behaviours explicitly dedicated to the issue of trust-
building. The tools are directly linked to the Leadership factors in the Trust Index (see
page 26).
Group Four – promoting inclusiveness

Treasure hunting (Tool 9: page 110)
Time lines: (Tool 10: page 114)
This set of tools encourages fellow team members to get to know each other at a
personal level, linked to building deeper trust. They are particularly useful for working on
the Team-composition factors in the Trust Index (see page 27).
Within the session-plan section of each tool, an indication is given of the level of
facilitation required (high, medium, or low). The table below defines each level.
Facilitation level required

High Medium Low
Variety of methods required Less variety of methods and A simple activity requiring a
within one activity, including complexity of facilitation skills strict adherence to the trainer
building consensus and needed. But still a requirement notes rather than any more
facilitating group discussion in to generate group discussion advanced facilitation skills
diverse group contexts and to link trust issues back to
the team’s development needs

44 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 1: Appreciative inquiry
Tool 1: Appreciative inquiry

Group One • Tool 1: Appreciative inquiry
Learning objectives
The purpose of this tool is to:
• discover how trust can be built in the emergency-response team;
• build commitment among team members to the process of monitoring and
building trust;
• energise and create enthusiasm about what it could be like in the team if levels of
mutual trust and respect were high.
Overview
This investigation into how trust could be built in a specific team uses an approach
called appreciative inquiry. The process focuses on the positive aspects of ‘what works’
and is quite distinct from other problem-solving approaches applied in bringing about
change in organisations. Some key assumptions that lie behind this process are:
1. In every society, organisation, or group, some things work. Let’s focus on what we
do that works instead of what doesn’t work.
2. What we focus on becomes our reality.
3. People have more confidence and are more comfortable to journey into the future
(the unknown) when they carry forward parts of the past (the known).
4. If we carry parts of the past forward, they should be what is best about the past.
5. It is important to value differences.
6. The language we use creates our reality.
The process relies on using the positive experiences of the team members to identify the
common themes present in these situations where team members have experienced
high levels of trust in the past. It relies on story-telling around two central questions:
Describe a time when you were part of a team that had a high level of trust and respect
among the members and from those outside the team. How were trust and respect built
and communicated? What made it possible to establish trust in this group?
This tool can be used at any time to help team members build trust, but can be
particularly useful for a team that has started work and has some experience of working
together. The process itself will create energy and common commitment to building trust
in practical ways which team members know from experience have worked in the past.

Tool 1: Appreciative inquiry The trust-building tools • 4 45
Session plan

Overall time required 2.5 hours (NB This activity can be split into two parts)
Group size 8+
Level of facilitation required High
Relevant trust index items Alignment

(A number of other aspects of the Trust Index may be relevant
depending on the content of the individual stories told)
Resources required Copies of the ten criteria for trust for facilitator reference
Flip-chart paper and marker pens (to pre-write instructions and
record stories)
Notepads, pens, and pencils (for interviewers)
Tape or blu-tack to post the flip-charts around the room
How it works
1. Introduce the objectives of the session and the ideas behind appreciative inquiry:
• focusing on the positive and things that work
• using the experiences of team members
• story-telling
• identifying common themes
• creating ‘provocative propositions’.
2. Show the following statement and questions on the pre-written flip-chart:

Describe a time when you were part of a team that had a high level of trust and respect
among the members and from those outside the team. How were trust and respect built
and communicated? What made it possible to establish trust in this group?
3. Ask everyone to work on their own for 10–15 minutes to recall the details of a time
when they experienced a team with good levels of trust.
4. Split the participants into pairs, making sure that, as far as possible, differences
within the team are bridged within the pairs (e.g. national and international,
younger and older, male and female).
5. Ask each pair to interview each other to get the details of their trust story.
Encourage them to get involved with each others’ story to create mutual energy
and enthusiasm. Make sure that the interviewers are curious and ask open questions
to get as much detail as possible. Usually they should be able to generate their own
questions, but if they need some help you could suggest the following:
A. What was it about the situation that allowed trust to be high?
B. What was it about you at that time that enabled you to share in this experience?
C. What did people do to create trust?
D. What was the role of the leader or leaders in building trust?
E. What was it about the team’s task that helped them to build trust?
F. What did you notice about the effectiveness of the team in performing its task?
Why was this?
G. What were your feelings when you worked in that team?
H. What was the team’s relationship with its environment (e.g. other teams, the
organisation etc.) and how did this contribute to trust within the team?

46 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 1: Appreciative inquiry
6. Make sure that the interviewer keeps notes of the elements of the story that are
interesting/exciting/useful/memorable. Suggest they copy down some actual

quotes if possible.
7. When the ‘interviews’ are complete, gather the whole team into groups of about
seven or eight people. Where possible, put members of each original pair in
different groups.
8. After the groups have formed, ask each person in each group to recount the story
they have been told by their partner. Each group should appoint a recorder whose
job it is to make notes of the key features of each story, preferably on a flip-chart
that everyone can see. In this way the group can compile a set of words, quotes,
and ideas about the common elements of the stories.
A possible break in the activity can be taken here.
9. [An alternative to the process described in step 8 above is to ask each person, working
on their own, to prepare a summary of the story they have heard on no more than two
sides of A4 paper. Once this has been done, collect all the written stories. If necessary,
the session can be ended here and resumed at a later date. If there is a break between
sessions, prepare copies of the stories and circulate copies to all members of the team so
that everyone has a copy of everyone else’s story. When the session resumes, split the
whole team into groups of seven or eight people and give them the task of identifying
the common themes and elements from all the stories that have been circulated.]
10. Place the results of each group’s discussions on flip-chart paper around the room for
all to see. Give people a chance to wander around and read all the different ideas.
11. Ask each group to use the key themes that have been identified to prepare
‘proposition’ statements. Proposition statements are statements about how the
team proposes to work together. They can convey the underlying sentiments that
emerged from the flip-chart exercise, or they can be based on how the team
currently perceives they work together. They should:
• use the evidence from all the stories that have been told by the members of the
whole team;
• encapsulate the key truths from those stories in short, provocative statements
(one theme per set of statements). Short statements of one sentence are often
the most valuable, because they can be easily remembered and repeated;
• express each truth as if it is true for their team already (affirmative and in the
present tense) e.g. ‘We build trust by expressing our concerns directly to the
people that they are aimed at’.
12. As facilitator you may have to help the teams craft the propositions. The objective is
to help them take what they know and talk about what could be. Use the following
criteria to judge whether each proposition is valid:
• Is it provocative? Does it stretch us? Does it challenge us? Is it innovative?
• Is it grounded in the stories that have been told and the examples that have
been given?
• Is it what we want? Will people defend it or get passionate about it?
• Is it stated in affirmative, bold terms and in the present tense – as if it were
already happening?
13. When all the propositions are complete, hang the flip-chart paper around the room
and ask different people to read out all the statements – with passion.

Tool 1: Appreciative inquiry The trust-building tools • 4 47
14. The process of working together to prepare these statements is as important as the

final output. Encourage the team to take these propositions and publicise them in
some way so that the team can refer to them and be reminded of what they decided.
Facilitation tips
• The facilitator’s objective throughout this process is to build energy and passion
around the theme of trust and how to create it. This should begin to build
when team members begin to see the common themes from all the stories.
• You may need to help the groups in framing their propositions, especially if
there is limited fluency in the working language for some participants within
the group. Creating text that is challenging and engaging for the team requires
some skill in writing. Be sure not to impose your own ideas.
• If there is time, you can use the trust propositions as a platform for discussing
where the team’s strengths/gaps might be in relation to trust.
• Make sure that the trust propositions produced by the team are behavioural.
Try to avoid abstract statements such as: ‘We build trust in our team by
respecting each other…’. Get to the behaviour by asking questions such as:
‘How would we show this ‘respect’…’?
• Connect the propositions with the ten criteria for trust where relevant. This
builds confidence that the truths about trust come from within the experience
of the team rather than from outside.
• If you are working with smaller groups of around six people you can have just
one group at stages 7–8.
• If you are working with larger teams (of more than 14 people) you can start the
process with the leadership group, and then cascade it down. As a final stage
you can share the trust propositions from each group, and synthesise them
down to one set.
Links to the ten criteria for trust

Any or all of the ten criteria for trust may become relevant in this exercise, depending on
the content of the individual stories told.

48 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 2: Trust cards
Tool 2: Trust cards

Group One • Tool 2: Trust cards
Learning objectives
• identify a range of behaviours that can be used to build trust within the emergency-
response team;
• identify the key elements of trust that the team members feel are most important
for them;
• gain the commitment of all team members to adopting five high-priority
behaviours when working in the team.
Overview
The activity uses some pre-formatted trust cards and some blank cards. It enables the
team members to generate ideas about what would build trust within their emergency-
response team, and then to prioritise these ideas. The participants work first in pairs, then
in groups of four, and finally as a whole group to select the number of cards the team as a
whole judges to be most important. Having agreed on the most important five items, the
team then works to consider how they apply in practice to the work of the team.
Individuals also consider what they need to do differently to better comply with these key
trust behaviours, and then they publicly commit to adopting those behaviours.
The activity requires the use of 50 cards which need to be printed in advance and which are
provided in Handout 2a on page 51. In addition, one blank card will need to be provided
for each participant. The blank cards are also pre-formatted (in Handout 2b on page 64).
The activity will normally be run in two sessions, with some time between each meeting. (It
can be carried out in one long session if time permits.) Timings will depend to some extent
on the size of the group, which can be any number up to 25. Typically the first session
usually lasts for about one hour and the second session lasts for about one and a half hours.
Session plan
Overall time required 2.5 hours in total. (NB This activity is split into two parts with
individuals working on their own between the two sessions)
Group size 10–25
Level of facilitation required Medium
Relevant Trust Index items Team composition

Alignment
Leadership
A set of 50 trust cards (Handout 2a)
A set of blank trust cards (Handout 2b)
Flip-chart paper, coloured marker pens, pens and pencils, old
newspapers and magazines (to create a visual image and
written trust statement)

Tool 2: Trust cards The trust-building tools • 4 49
How it works – first session

1. Introduce the activity and the learning objectives.
2. Go over the ten criteria for trust with descriptions and give examples of each.
3. Give one blank trust card to each participant and ask them to complete it with ‘one
thing that is essential for me personally to trust others in this team’.
4. Team members should be asked not to talk among themselves at this stage.
5. Collect all of the cards, place them face down on the floor or table and invite each
person to take one. It does not make any difference if a person picks their own card,
the exercise proceeds.
6. Shuffle the 50 trust cards and give two to each person, so that everyone has three
cards in total.
7. Form the group into pairs. It is preferrable if each person is paired with someone
who they will be seeing and/or working with before the next session.
How it works – between sessions

1. Before the next meeting each person is asked to rank the three cards they hold in
order of their importance to that person.
2. Each person then gets together with their partner and they share their ranking of
the trust cards. Together they must reduce their six trust cards to just the two which
reflect what is most important for both of them.
How it works – second session

1. Arrange for each pair to meet with another pair. This new group of four must now
reduce their four cards to two. If it is a particularly large group then three pairs can
come together and reduce their six cards to two.
2. Now re-assemble the whole group and ask them to negotiate together to reduce
the final number of cards on which they can all agree to five in total. If necessary
help them with a process to achieve this (see Facilitation tips overleaf).
3. When the list of five items has been agreed, split the group into two equal halves.
Ask one group to create a picture for each of the five cards which visualises how the
items are connected and relevant to the work of the team. Invite the other group to
prepare a short written statement of what behaviours the team expects from every
member in order for there to be a very high level of trust.
4. Ask each group to present the results of their work to the other, and press each to
explain how the five factors will look in practice in the context of their team.
5. Ask everyone to work on their own for five minutes to identify two or three things
about their own behaviour that they will seek to change in order to comply with
these trust priorities. Ask each person in turn to explain and commit to making
some personal changes.

50 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 2: Trust cards
Facilitation tips
• Make sure that you prepare the cards in advance. If the group is small you may
want to reduce the number of cards that you will shuffle to ensure that each of
the ten criteria for trust are reasonably represented in the cards distributed. The
number in brackets after each behaviour on each card represents the criteria to
which it relates (numbers 1–10). If for example you need to reduce the number
of cards to 20, then choose two questions from criterion 1, two from criterion 2
and so on.
• It is best to have people working in pairs at the initial stages; depending on the
number of participants, groups of three may be more convenient.
• You may want to pair national and international team members together either
in the first or second stage to make sure that any cultural differences are
brought to the surface as part of the prioritisation process.
• For the session where the final five items are selected, allow the team to work
out their own process to arrive at this conclusion, if possible. Suggest that it
must be a consensus decision and that the voices of the quieter members of the
group need to be taken into account on an equal basis with those of the more
outspoken members. If they find this difficult you could suggest a process. (E.g.
list the items on a flip-chart and allow each person five votes which they can use
to indicate the items they support. When everyone has voted, the items with
the least number of votes are eliminated, and the process repeated until there
are only five items left.)
• Don’t worry too much about getting the ‘correct’ top five items. The process of
thinking and discussing is more important than the particular five chosen.
• Have some old newspapers and magazines available in case the group who will
prepare the visualisation requires them.
• When the group splits into two halves in the final session, let people choose
which group they wish to join, but insist that the numbers in each group be
roughly equal.
Links to the ten criteria for trust

The trust behaviours chosen by the team will be aligned with the ten criteria for trust.
This tool is reproduced with permission from WorldWork Limited

It is important for me that colleagues in my team… It is important for me that colleagues in my team…
© WorldWork Limited
…are good at what they do. (1) …hold values which are consistent with my own. (2)
© Oxfam GB for the ECB Project

Trust 1 Trust 2
Handout 2a: Trust Cards
…are genuinely concerned with my welfare. (3) …keep their promises and commitments. (4)
Trust 3 Trust 4
Handout 2a • Tool 2: Trust cards The trust-building tools • 4
Building Trust in Diverse Teams

51
Group One • Tool 2: Trust cards • Handout 2a

52
…behave in a rational and dependable way. (5) …encourage me to speak my mind. (6)

Trust 5 Trust 6
4 • The trust-building tools Tool 2: Trust cards • Handout 2a
…make sure that I feel included in work and social …exchange information in a transparent and
events. (7) unambiguous way. (8)
Trust 7 Trust 8

…show me their sincerity and commitment by …behave in a fair and balanced way towards me. (10)
expressing their emotions openly. (9)

Trust 9 Trust 10
…have the necessary skills and experience to cover …share my ways of thinking and approaches to
their role in the group. (1) work. (2)
Trust 11 Trust 12

53

54
…are helpful towards me. (3) …are honest and truthful. (4)

Trust 13 Trust 14
…behave in a consistent and predictable way. (5) …are tolerant when divergent or unpopular views
are expressed. (6)
Trust 15 Trust 16

…take decisions in a participative and democratic …are open about their needs and motives. (8)
way. (7)

Trust 17 Trust 18
…are emotionally an ‘open book’ – their feelings are …are mutually supportive of efforts to achieve our common
easy to read. (9) goals. (10)
Trust 19 Trust 20

55

56
…are well qualified and experienced within their …are similar to myself in terms of education and
respective fields. (1) background. (2)

Trust 21 Trust 22
…make every effort to understand my priorities and …do not focus on their own success at the expense
interests. (3) of the team. (4)
Trust 23 Trust 24

…behave within the established norms and rules of the …do not judge me negatively for making genuine
team. (5) mistakes. (6)

Trust 25 Trust 26
…are ready to share their successes with me. (7) …do not hide useful information from other
members of the team. (8)
Trust 27 Trust 28

57

58
…are personal and very human in their dealings with …are prepared to take some risks in trusting me. (10)
me. (9)

Trust 29 Trust 30
…can be relied on to do their work to a high …work towards common goals rather than private
standard. (1) agendas. (2)
Trust 31 Trust 32

…provide me with support when I need it. (3) …behave in a way which is consistent with their
expressed values. (4)

Trust 33 Trust 34
…are reliable. (5) …never betray me or take advantage of my

vulnerability. (6)
Trust 35 Trust 36

59

60
…listen and positively respond to my ideas and …make themselves available and are approachable
opinions. (7) and responsive. (8)

Trust 37 Trust 38
…are ready to reveal personal information about …frequently co-operate with me when working to
themselves. (9) achieve our respective goals. (10)
Trust 39 Trust 40

…have a reputation for performing successfully in …use a shared ‘language’ or code of communication
their respective fields. (1) with which I am familiar. (2)

Trust 41 Trust 42
…do not take advantage of me even when I am …consistently support the team even when under
vulnerable. (3) pressure not to. (4)
Trust 43 Trust 44

61

62
…are disciplined in their approach to their work. (5) …are not dominating or controlling towards me. (6)

Trust 45 Trust 46
…treat me and other members of the group as …readily share relevant information with me. (8)
equals. (7)
Trust 47 Trust 48

…do not hide their feelings from me. (9) …seem prepared to rely on me in important ways. (10)

Trust 49 Trust 50

63

Group One • Tool 2: Trust cards • Handout 2b
64
© WorldWork Limited
…are disciplined in their approach to their work. (5) …are not dominating or controlling towards me. (6)

Trust 45 Trust 46
4 • The trust-building tools Tool 2: Trust cards • Handout 2b
…treat me and other members of the group as …readily share relevant information with me. (8)
Handout 2b: Blank Trust Cards
equals. (7)
Trust 47 Trust 48

Tool 3: Trust walk The trust-building tools • 4 65
Tool 3: Trust walk
Group One • Tool 3: Trust walk

Learning objectives
• provide a safe and fun activity in which team members have to start relying on and
trusting each other;
• create a context in which team members can experiment with trust and reflect on
the experience and the nature of trust;
• introduce a common experience to enable team members to explore together
what factors enhance and destroy trust.
Overview
The activity consists of the team walking together along a pre-determined route while
blindfolded. Team members form a line, one in front of the other, and each person
either places one hand on the shoulder of the person in front or holds onto a rope which
connects team members together. Whilst walking the trust walk route, the team is
guided by one or more guides using a limited set of communication signals.
After the walk is completed, team members are encouraged to think about the
experience and what they have learned from it that will help them work together in the
emergency-response team. It is an excellent way to analyse and build the emotional
component of trust, and thus is a good team-building tool.
Session plan
Overall time required 1–2 hours
Group size 8–15

Alignment
Resources required Copies of the ten critieria for trust for facilitator reference
Copies of Handout 3a: Links to the ten criteria for trust
Clean blindfolds for each person
One or two long ropes
Stakes and ribbons to mark the course
Flip-chart paper, stand, and markers
Access to a space (preferably outside) where the walk can take
place

66 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 3: Trust walk
How it works
1. Before the session, set out a challenging and varied route that will take the blindfolded
participants about 20 minutes to complete. It can be inside or outside, although outside
is preferable. If the exercise is conducted outside, arrange for the group to navigate
around trees and over a log or two; go through some bushes; crawl over and under an
obstacle; walk next to water (which you can splash so it is heard or felt without causing a
hazard!). To increase the challenge, include crossing a bridge or going down a drop. If
the exercise is conducted inside, place chairs, desks, and other objects around the room.
Put balls of paper or other ‘crunchy’ material underfoot so that it creates a difference in
texture and/or sound effect. Whether inside or outside, make sure that the route allows
all team members to participate (see Facilitation tips on page 68 for more on this).
2. Introduce the exercise to the whole team and set it in context. Explain the learning
objectives (e.g. research has identified that a culture of trust amongst staff is one of
the most important factors in an agency’s ability to launch and implement a timely
and effective emergency response).
3. This particular exercise is designed to:

• build trust between team members;
• explore what trust means;
• help team members get to know each other better.
4. Explain that the participants will not only experience the exercise but they will also need
to recall how they felt during the experience, so that they can discuss it afterwards.
5. Emphasise the importance of taking the exercise slowly. If anyone should feel
unsafe, the activity can be stopped temporarily to address the issue. Have a signal
for this (e.g. both hands raised, or a key word).
6. This element of the exercise is optional and can be left out if time is short. Divide
into groups of three or four and ask each group:
• to list what trust means to them; and
• from this, to identify what is required to develop trust.
Reconvene the whole group and share results briefly. Use this opportunity to
introduce the links to the ten criteria for trust. Distribute Handout 3a. Explain that
you will revisit their lists and discuss the links to the criteria after the exercise.
(NB This step could be done while the facilitator is briefing the guides in step 11.)
7. Explain that the objective is to get the whole team to navigate through an obstacle
course. The challenge is that they will all be blindfolded except for two guides. You
might wish to invent a story to make it more interesting or real. For example: ‘You
are a tour party about to cross a sacred area and you are not allowed to look at it.
Therefore you must be blindfolded and guided by two elders…’.
(NB In cultures with taboos about members of the opposite sex touching, or if you
wish to raise gender issues, you can divide the group into men and women for the
exercise. In this case the ‘sacred area’ is sacred for men/women.)
8. Check that the group is OK about being blindfolded. Emphasise that you will be
present to ensure their safety. Remind them about the ‘safety’ gesture or word.
9. The facilitator or the group should choose two team members to serve as guides.
Explain that you are going to take the guides to see the route and that while away
the group(s) should spend some time planning how they will approach the activity.
If applicable, point out they can use the rope.

Tool 3: Trust walk The trust-building tools • 4 67
10. Explain to everyone that the guides will not be allowed to say anything or

communicate with the blindfolded group in normal language. They can make
whatever sounds they like, e.g. whistles, clucking, clapping etc. in order to guide the
team. Also, they are not allowed to touch any members of the group so, obviously, a
means of communication must be established in a minimum amount of time.
11. Take the guides and show them the route. Only they can see the markers. Give them
a few minutes away from the group to establish and agree their communication
signals. Return to the group with the guides and remind everyone of the rules:
• No speaking, only sounds as a means of communication
• The guides cannot touch them
12. Ask everyone to put on their blindfolds. Go round and check that everyone is OK
and that they cannot see anything. When ready, give a signal to start the walk.
13. The duration of the walk will depend on the degree of difficulty of the obstacle
course and the skill of the group.
14. Join the trust walkers on the walk. Watch for potential danger and make sure you
are in a good position at all times. Point out the route to the guides if they lose their
way. Watch and listen for situations that will be valuable to relate during the post-
trip discussion. Make notes if necessary.
15. Try to end up in an area that allows the group to be physically close together.
Announce that they have arrived at the destination and the blindfolds can be
removed.
16. When the team has completed the course, ask the guides to walk the group back
through the route to satisfy their curiosity and allow spontaneous sharing of
reactions and sensations.
17. Debrief the session. Review the ten criteria for trust with the group. During this
discussion, revisit the original trust list from step 6 and revise it if necessary. Document
the main points on flip-charts. Some of the following questions can be useful:
A. How did it feel to be led?
B. How did it feel to be a guide?
C. How and why were the two guides chosen? (If by the group)
D. Did you rely only on the guides or did you also help each other out?
E. What did the guides do that helped to get you through the course?
F. What did you do to help each other through the course?
G. What kind of communication did you need, to make this work well?
H. Did you feel that you could trust your guides and the people around you? Why or
why not?
I. What is the relationship between risk and trust?
J. Did you recognise any gender dynamics?
K. What lessons can we apply to our work together as an emergency-response team?
L. What more have we learned about trust? (Refer to their discussion before the
exercise if this was included.)
The facilitator should prepare a summary of the ‘lessons learned’, using the ideas
and thoughts arising from the exercise. This can be typed up and circulated to all
participants later.

68 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 3: Trust walk
Facilitation tips
• Safety is of paramount importance. It is your role to ensure that nobody comes

to any harm, so you will need to stay close to the group throughout the walk. If
there are two groups going at the same time you will need to nominate
someone to look after the other group.
• Choose a route that is long enough to enable time for the team to learn and
improve as they go. Make it sufficiently difficult to be challenging but not
dangerous (e.g. obstacles to navigate round or climb over, hills to climb up,
gates to go through etc.). Take into account different physical abilities of the
team members and make specific adjustments in the route to ensure that the
course is accessible to members of the team with a disability. It should take
about 20 minutes to complete the course.
• Emphasise in the briefing that anybody can withdraw from the activity at any
time if they are not comfortable. Devise a special word or signal that anyone
can use to temporarily halt the process if they need to. Reassure them that you
will be watching out for their safety at all times and will stop them if they seem
likely to get into trouble.
• Make sure that you do not say anything, and do not allow the guides to say
anything that will make anybody appear foolish. Recognise that the team
members are all making themselves somewhat vulnerable and as such you
must not betray that trust.
• Make sure that there is enough time at the end of this exercise to do a proper
debrief of the experience and generate lessons learned linked to trust. Use the
ten criteria for trust to help make those links.
• There are a number of options in the way this activity can be run. In particular:
– The pre-discussion about trust can be omitted.
– The whole group may work as one team doing the Trust Walk altogether.
Alternatively the group can be split into two with one group going round the
course one way and the other group going round in the opposite direction.
– If operating with two groups, the groups can be mixed or split on the basis
of gender to allow for taboos about touching members of the opposite sex.
– Where possible, team members can be connected together by all holding
onto a rope with one hand or they can be joined by having each person
put one hand on the shoulder of the person in front, or holding hands.
Make necessary adjustments if there is a team member with a disability.
– The guides can be chosen by the group themselves or you can choose them.
– Participants can be paired at the start of the walk – one is blindfolded and
the other is the partner. Partners may hold hands or not as they walk
through the course. The pairs go through a similar course – the blindfolded
person assisted by their partner through the course on the way out and
changing roles and the way back. The same set of questions can be asked
at the conclusion.
• Run the debrief at the point where the course ends and run it immediately after
the team(s) complete the course whilst the experience is fresh in their minds.

Handout 3a • Tool 3: Trust walk The trust-building tools • 4 69
Group One • Tool 3: Trust walk • Handout 3a

Handout 3a: Links to the ten criteria for
trust
Criteria Definition Impact of trust walk
Competence Trust based on a perception that team During the Trust Walk, team members rely on each
members are competent, so will not let me others’ sense of judgement. Often, we question the
down abilities of our colleagues based on assumptions and
do not trust their decisions.
Openness with Trust based on the observation that other Accurate and timely information is essential during
information team members share information an emergency response. The Trust Walk is about
important to the team proactively and trusting that our guide will communicate what we
clearly need to know and when we need to know it, so as to
secure our journey along the route.
Goodwill Trust based on the belief that other team People do not want to be led astray. They want to
members are concerned about my overall trust that those around them have their best interests
welfare in mind.
Well-being Trust arising from the feeling that I have The Trust Walk enables the team to let their guard
nothing to fear from other members of the down and trust that the path they are taking is safe
team and will lead them in the right direction.

70 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 4: Communication charter
Tool 4: Communication charter

Group Two • Tool 4: Communication charter
Learning objectives
• ensure that all team members understand the role that effective communication
can play in building trust within an emergency-response team;
• achieve alignment within the team about what information and opinions need to
be communicated to whom, how often, and through which channels;
• provide a structured way for members of the emergency-response team to reach
such alignment and to focus on the process of communication as well as on the
content.
Overview
This tool provides a systematic way for teams to work together to arrive at a plan and
agree how communications within the team will work. The team, under the guidance of
a facilitator, designs the best strategy for communication amongst team members and
then reaches agreement about acceptable behaviours in this respect. Any such plan
needs to be reviewed from time to time in the light of changing circumstances.
The creation of a communication charter should be undertaken as early as possible in

the life of an emergency-response team. In the early days of a rapid-onset emergency,
things will be changing and developing very fast. This will make it difficult to find the
time for this activity. However, communication becomes even more crucial in times of
change and uncertainty. It is recommended that this tool be used as soon as possible
after a team is formed. Regular reviews should be conducted from time to time as the
work being undertaken by the emergency-response team changes or as new people
become involved in the work.
The creation of a communication charter is best achieved in a team meeting with all
team members present. If the team is large, and it is not practical to involve the whole
team, then as many of the senior team members as possible should be included. The
process could then be repeated in functional or geographical teams later. In practice the
total activity could be split into two sessions with team members doing some
‘homework’ in between the sessions.
The charter itself should take the form of a written document. A simple example is given
in Handout 4b. The statements in the charter should be expressed in simple terms in the
common working language used by all team members. If language is an issue, the
charter could be translated into the local language when complete.

Tool 4: Communication charter The trust-building tools • 4 71
Session plan

Overall time required 3 hours (NB Total time can be reduced to 2 hours 15 minutes
by excluding items 4–6 as noted below)
Group size Whole management team
Relevant Trust Index items Organisational

Alignment
Resources required Informal working environment

Copies of Handout 4b: Communication Charter Example
Copies of Handout 4c: Communication Media (optional)
Post-it notes in two colours
Flip-chart paper, marker pens, and tape/blu-tack
How it works
1. Introduce the session, underlining the importance of good communication to the
success of emergency-response teams. Distribute Handout 4a outlining the links
between the ten criteria for trust and good communication. Explain that, in this
session, the emphasis is on communication among team members and with the
team leader, not with any outside bodies.
2. Outline the learning objectives and intended output of the session, and start some
discussion in the group about the objectives and the charter. Encourage team
members to share any initial thoughts about principles that could be adopted.
These principles might serve as a guide to decisions about how communications
should be structured.
3. Show the group a sample communication charter (Handout 4b) so that they can
see what they are aiming at.
4. In a session altogether, discuss and identify the different means of communication

that are or will be available to the team. For example these might include:
• team meetings
• one-to-one meetings
• regular weekly telephone debriefs
• ad hoc telephone contact
• written reports
• emails
• voicemail
• fax
• bulletin boards – physical or online
• intranet
• SMS (text) messages
5. Split the group up into pairs or groups of three and give each group one or more of
the above methods to work on. Ask them to identify the advantages and
disadvantages of each method and the types of communication for which each is
best suited. Ask them to note their answers on flip-charts.

6. Get each sub-group to report back in a session altogether, and encourage

questions, discussion, and further suggestions for each method.
A break in the activity can be taken here.
(NB Items 4–6 above could be replaced by a version of the advantages and
disadvantages that have been prepared in advance by the facilitator/leader. An example
is attached as Handout 4c – but be aware that this will need to be reviewed and adapted
in the light of local circumstances. Leaving these steps out will mean that team members
are less likely to analyse for themselves the advantages and disadvantages of each
communication method).
7. The next step in the process is to identify all the different types of communication
that make up the regular exchange of information, views, news, and requests
within the team. To achieve this, the facilitator gives each team member two stacks
of differently coloured post-it notes. Each team member is then asked:
• to write on one colour of post-its all the key information, views, feedback etc.
that they need to receive from other team members in order to do their job
effectively – one idea on each post-it.
• to write on the other colour post-its all the key information, opinion, and
feedback that they feel they could usefully provide for other team members –
again one idea on each post-it.
Allow plenty of time for everyone to complete this process. It’s a useful way for
quieter and more reserved team members to be able to contribute on an equal
basis with their more vociferous colleagues.
(NB Team members could be asked to go away and do this on their own, and come
back to another session at a later date when the process will be completed.)
8. Once completed, arrange for all the post-its to be stuck up on a wall. Get all the
team to gather together round the wall and work together to cluster the post-its
which express the same idea together, and then group all of them under
meaningful headings. The team leader should play an important role in this
discussion, prompting people for things not included, and suggesting appropriate
groupings. The leader needs to be happy with the final result.
9. Split the team into pairs or groups of three and assign each group one or more of
the headings identified in 8 above. Their task is to take all the items identified and
list them on a flip-chart in a format similar to that shown in Handout 4b. In other
words, for each one they need to discuss and agree:
• Who should initiate communications of this type?
• Who should receive them and who does not need them?
• What is the typical content of this type of communication?
• What would be the best method of communicating this? (NB Refer back to the
output from the initial discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of
different methods of communication.)
• What priority should communications of this type have?
• When should this information be communicated?
Another break in the activity can be taken here.

Tool 4: Communication charter The trust-building tools • 4 73
10. Display the resulting flip-charts around the room and get everyone to walk around

and read the results of the other sub-groups. (NB If the option to take a break after
step 9 is taken, begin the next session with a brief review of everything that has been
done up to then.) In a session altogether, provide an opportunity for questions and
challenges to the results. Ask the group to look for any inconsistencies between the
outputs of the different groups. Resolve these through discussion.
11. Ask each team member to write down in one or two bullet points the commitments
that they make to the team. They should:
• identify the people in the team that they particularly need to improve their
communications with;
• consider which elements of the communication charter grid they need to focus
on;
• state specifically what they undertake to do or to do differently as a result of
being involved in the process of preparing the charter.
12. Ask for a volunteer to type up the results into a unified charter and distribute it to all
those present.
Facilitation tips
• This should be a participative process in which all team members play a part. It
works best and is most useful where there is a degree of inter-dependence in
the work of the different group members, as would normally be the case in a
management team.
• Choose a setting which is not formal and is preferably away from where normal
business meetings take place. It is important to create the impression that this is
something important and different from normal day-to-day work. Existing
habits, and assumptions about hierarchical relationships, power differences,
cliques within the team etc. are weakened during the process. The process is
strengthened when it takes place on a ‘level playing field’.
• It is important to keep the items to be included in the charter at a workable

level. If too many individual items are included, the exercise will become too
long and complicated. The overall purpose may be lost. On the other hand, if
the items are too general, the charter will not be as dynamic a document. So
the best thing is to look for clusters of communication of similar types (e.g.
monthly budget reports).
• The process should normally be facilitated by an external facilitator. This will

allow the team leader to take part and express personal views more freely.
• In advance of the communication charter session, the team leader should send
out some communication to all the team setting out the reasons for the whole
process. Extracts from the text of this tool can be used for this purpose.
• If it is more convenient, team members could be briefed and asked to work on

their own between meetings to identify their different types of communication
(step 7 in the ‘How it works’ section above). They can then bring the results
back to a second session at a later date.
continued overleaf

Facilitation tips continued

• The main emphasis in the communication charter exercise is on internal

communications within the team. Make sure the focus stays on this and does
not get diverted into other aspects of communication. Consideration could be
given to running another similar session to consider communications with
other stakeholders at a later date.
• One further step to this exercise could be the preparation of a team

communication mission statement, e.g. ‘The emergency-response team
maintains open and transparent communication among team members on all
issues that affect the whole team.’ This kind of mission statement could be posted
in a position where it is a reminder to everyone who passes through the office.
• Either at the point when the charter is completed, or at the point when the
team agrees on a mission statement for communication, the individual
members of the team could each make a personal statement expressing their
commitment to the team’s charter or to the mission statement.

Handout 4a • Tool 4: Communication charter The trust-building tools • 4 75
Group Two • Tool 4: Communication charter • Handout 4a

trust
Criteria Definition Impact of communication charter
Openness with Trust based on the observation that other The creation of a communication charter builds trust
information team members share information by providing an agreed and structured framework
important to the team proactively and for communication within the team, thus enhancing
clearly the relevance and effectiveness of all forms of
communication.
Integrity Trust based on the observation that other A lack of appropriate communication often means
team members maintain promises, are that people do not know whether their colleagues
team-orientated, and behave towards me in have fulfilled their commitments or not. In the
accordance with a moral code absence of information it is easy to assume the worst.
The communication charter should help to ensure
that people are properly informed and that these
suspicions do not arise unnecessarily.
Reciprocity Trust based on the observation that other Failure to share information appropriately sends out
group members are trusting and co- a signal of mistrust. This may not be intentional. It
operative towards me may be due to other factors such as the pressure of
work, but it still gives that signal. Once this kind of
signal is given, trust levels may be reduced. If this
happens, other members of the team may respond
accordingly and a downward spiral of trust becomes
inevitable.
Inclusion Trust based on the observation that other The communication charter should establish ground
team members actively include me in their rules for sharing information and ideas so that
social and work activities people don’t feel left out. This can be particularly
important where there are perceived differences of
power and the danger of cliques forming, for
example among national team members or
international team members.

76 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 4: Communication charter • Handout 4b
Group Two • Tool 4: Communication charter • Handout 4b
Handout 4b: Communication Charter

Example
From whom? To whom? Topic/issue? Method? Priority? When?
Team leader All direct reports Key decision taken Telephone call High When decision is
and implications followed up by email reached
All field staff Team leader Situation report Scheduled Medium Weekly
telephone call
All field staff Team leader Situation report Written report High By the 3rd of each
attached to email month
Human All team members List of new recruits Online or physical Low Before they start
resources and details of roles bulletin board
and deployment Email to those who
will be working
with them
Head of finance All budget holders Monthly report of Fax and email Medium End of first week
expenditure against of following
budget month
Functional Direct reports Personal support and One-to-one High At least monthly
heads check on well-being meetings or phone
calls
Ann Smith Marwa Hussein Details of supplies Email Low When ready
ordered from local
supplier
All managers Their direct reports Feedback and One-to-one High Monthly
objective-setting meetings
Team leader All team members Progress and setbacks Leader’s blog online Low Weekly update
Team leader Team members Seeking feedback Personal phone Medium When required
with most contact about help requested calls
with local people by local community
Team leader Senior managers Plans for next stage of Meeting of senior High Monthly
response managers
Functional head IT staff member Request for additional Phone call followed Low As and when
or geographical IT facilities up by email identified
team leader
Local manager All team members Invitation to picnic in Intranet Low A week in
the desert advance
Team leader All team members Update on funding Team meeting Medium Monthly
provisions Cascade through
team briefings
Security officer All team members Update on security Email High As and when
situation required
Logistics All drivers Revised arrangements Email with read High Prior to
manager for fuelling vehicles receipt or individual implementation
letters
Anyone All team members Request for a lift into Intranet Low When required
the capital

Handout 4c • Tool 4: Communication charter The trust-building tools • 4 77
Group Two • Tool 4: Communication charter • Handout 4c

Handout 4c: Communication Media
Item Advantages Disadvantages Suitable content
Team Face-to-face so body language Time-consuming Co-ordinating conversations

meetings and high-context Low confidentiality Communicating decisions
communication can be more
Difficult for people who are Planning activities
easily interpreted
geographically separated Collecting different views and
Opportunities for questions and
Reluctance of some to speak up opinions
discussions so that items can be
in meetings Information updates
clarified
Open conflicts can arise which
Everyone hears the same
are difficult to settle
information at the same time
Major decisions can be recorded
People feel involved
Scheduled Face-to-face so body language Exclusive rather than inclusive – Feedback

one-to-one and high-context may breed suspicion Performance appraisal
meetings communication can be more Reluctance of people to disagree Personal problems
easily interpreted openly with seniors
Disciplinary issues
Opportunities for questions and Difficult for people who are
discussions so that items can be Obtaining specific/specialist
geographically separated
clarified views and opinions
Confidentiality Co-ordinating conversations
Potential for immediate Planning activities
resolution of differences Specific issue discussions
Gaining agreement
Developing personal
relationships
Less chance of loss of face than in
public meetings
Telephone Opportunities for discussion and No record of conversation or Quick progress-reporting

conversations exchange of views details given Quick positive feedback
Voice enables some Cannot observe body language Keeping up-to-date
interpretation of mood and high- Other person may not be Resolution of day-to-day issues
context communication available
Making arrangements and plans
Immediate resolution of
differences Providing personal contact and
support
Gaining agreement
Maintaining relationships at a
Sense of being valued
distance
Items can be ‘saved up’ for the
conversation
Fast
Fax Fast delivery Lack of confidentiality Draft reports for comment

Can use where hard copy only is Easily lost after delivery Copies of important documents
available Slow for large documents Annotated documents
Delivery receipts available Cannot print double-sided Pictures/photographs/maps etc.
Can ‘broadcast’ to lots of people Recipient out of paper Printed materials
at the same time
Cost of printing and paper
Recipient can receive later if not
Separate line, or blocks phone
present
line
Can go straight into recipient’s
computer without printing out

78 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 4: Communication charter • Handout 4c
Group Two • Tool 4: Communication charter • Handout 4c
Item Advantages Disadvantages Suitable content
Letters Strongest form of record for Slow delivery Contracts etc. which require
keeping May get lost signatures
Confidential Postage costs Official documents
Everyone can receive letters – no
need for special equipment etc.
Emails Quick to prepare Lack of confidentiality Rapid distribution of information

Immediate delivery Easy to include wrong addressees to a group of people
Will wait until recipient is by mistake Making arrangements where the

available to read Important emails may get phone is not available
Audit trail of who said what swamped out by irrelevant ones Leaving messages for people
Can ‘broadcast’ to lots of people Takes time to work through each Asking simple questions and
at the same time day seeking responses
Easy reply and forward facilities Too easy to include ‘everyone’ –

lack of thought about who really
Read receipts may be available
needs the information
Email boxes get clogged up with
irrelevant emails
No body language – messages
are easily misinterpreted
especially across cultural
boundaries
Notice boards Frequent visual reminder of People at a distance may not Displaying relevant extracts of
important notices have access to the notice board documents/newspapers etc. for
Can be eye-catching Quickly gets out of date – needs all to see
regular maintenance Notices regarding social or
Familiarity may mean people do learning events
not bother to read the notices Exchange requests e.g. seeking
lift into town
Posters and pictures
SMS (text) Very quick to prepare and send Often involves ‘shorthand’ that Rapid distribution of information
messages Immediate delivery can be misinterpreted directly to one person and
No record of transmissions possibly to a group
Will wait until the recipient wants
to read
Easy reply

Tool 5: Aligning working practices The trust-building tools • 4 79
Tool 5: Aligning working practices
Group Two • Tool 5: Aligning working practices

Learning objectives
• bring to the surface the underlying assumptions of team members about how they
expect to work together;
• identify differences in assumptions between team members, including the team
leaders, especially taking into account differences arising from the diverse
backgrounds and experiences of team members (e.g. cultural and gender
differences);
• negotiate early agreement on the way team members will work together, and build
commitment for this common approach.
Overview
This tool helps team leaders work with their team to agree on some of the ground rules
about how team members will work together. Extensive interviews with staff from
different agencies have indicated that a participative approach to these issues is most
effective. Teams are expected to abide by ground rules, and imposed solutions are less
likely to be accepted and more likely to be resisted.
Research shows that successful teams, especially successful multi-cultural teams, take
time in the early days to establish ground rules about how they will work together.
People from different cultural backgrounds bring different assumptions about how
teams operate. If these differences remain unresolved, they lead to intractable problems
later in the life of the team. Trust quickly evaporates. The tendency of all new teams,
especially those dominated by people from Western cultures, is to start work quickly and
focus on the immediate task issues. However, time devoted to agreeing these ground
rules represents a very good investment for the team. It will substantially enhance the
team’s ability to deliver results for the beneficiaries in an effective and efficient manner.
Some examples of the sorts of issues about which assumptions or perceptions differ are:
• How will we design and conduct our meetings?
• How will we make decisions together?
• How will we maximise learning opportunities for team members?
• How will we give feedback to each other?
• What responsibility do the team leader and other team members have for the well-
being of team colleagues?
• How will we evaluate our performance together?
• How will conflicts be resolved?
• How will work be co-ordinated – through a command-and-control approach with
instructions being issued from above, or through bi-lateral liaison between team
members? Will this change with different phases of the work?
The team leader may have to clarify and explain any constraints imposed from outside
the team. However, the more freedom the team members can be given to arrive at the
best solution for themselves, the better.

80 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 5: Aligning working practices
The ECB Trust index identifies the need to align working practices within emergency-
response teams (in the Alignment and Cultural factors sections). Alignment of working
practices, for example, appears as factor 3 in the Alignment section (page 28). It reads:
‘Team members are involved in discussing and agreeing key team processes (e.g. how
meetings should be conducted and how conflicts should be resolved)’. If the emergency-
response team has used the Trust Index and achieved a negative score for this factor,
using this tool is an appropriate way of addressing the problem. It is suggested below
that any agreements reached about working practices should be reviewed from time to
time. Regular review could also help scores on factor 7 in the Alignment section on page
29 (‘Team sessions are held where team performance is reviewed and improvements
made as needed’).
This tool should be used as soon as possible after the onset of an emergency and in the
early stages of a team’s life cycle. In the very early chaotic days of a rapid-onset emergency
it may be impossible to find the time for the team to work on these issues, so it may be
necessary for the leader to adopt a very strong and directive leadership style. Once the
immediate life-saving phase is over, this tool should be used to align team members
behind a common set of assumptions about the way the team will work together.
Session plan
Overall time required 1 hour and 30 minutes
(NB Add 15 minutes if using a warm-up exercise as well)
Group size 6–8 people who work closely together or whose roles make
them inter-dependent
Relevant Trust Index items Alignment

Cultural
Resources required Copies of the ten criteria for trust

Copies of Handout 5b: Working Together: Cultural Values
Checklist
Multiple flip-charts (ten if possible) with questions and scales
from the Cultural Values Checklist (Handout 5b) written on
them (see point 2 in ‘How it works’)
Different colour pens (one for each nationality)
How it works
This tool is best used in small groups where the team members are inter-dependent in
terms of the work they do. If necessary the process could usefully be repeated in
functional or geographical teams. The Cultural Values Checklist (in Handout 5b) could
be completed by email or other means of communication before a team meeting, but it
will be necessary for the team to meet together face-to-face to understand the results
and negotiate agreements.
1. Where time allows, you should ideally use an ice-breaker as a warm-up exercise in
order to minimise barriers to sharing opinions and perspectives.

Tool 5: Aligning working practices The trust-building tools • 4 81
2. Introduce the objectives of the session. Distribute Handout 5b and ask everyone to

complete the Cultural Values Checklist (NB the checklist, with instructions for
completing it, is part of Handout 5b and takes about five minutes). Before or while
this is taking place, stick the pre-written pieces of flip-chart paper with questions
and scales from the Culural Values Checklist around the room. Place the scale
roughly in the middle of each piece of paper.
3. Then ask each person to plot their scores on each piece of flip-chart paper. Each
person marks twice on each scale. One score (an ‘X’) is for what they would like the
situation to be. It goes above the line. The second (a small circle) is what they believe
the actual situation to be currently. This goes below the line. Get each nationality
represented in the team to use a different colour pen to mark their responses.
4. Once all the team members have plotted their responses on the flip-charts, ask
team members to visit each of the ten flip-charts and discuss the differences they
see and why they have put their crosses and circles in similar or different places.
Encourage them to tell stories about things that have worked well in their
experience and things that have not worked. Distibute Handout 5a and refer to the
trust criteria to reinforce or draw out any issues in the stories or points made in the
discussion about the impact of different assumptions.
5. Now help the group negotiate and agree ways of working. Ask the group to discuss
in turn each of the questions in Handout 5b (or any other relevant questions about
team working practices), bearing in mind the different approaches revealed by the
questionnaire.
6. For each item ask them to negotiate an agreement about how they will work
together in the future in a way that all can live with and respect. Get them to record
their agreement in any way which seems simple and practical. An example may be:
‘We agree that for important decisions we will conduct a round-table to get
everybody’s opinion before making a decision’.
Facilitation tips
• If there are constraints from outside that may limit the freedom of the group to
choose their own ways of working together, these should be made clear in
advance.
• For the process to be effective, it is important that the team leader allows the
group some freedom to work out their own ways of working together. If the
group is instructed as to how these things should be done, the value of this
session will be greatly reduced.
• In steps 4 and 5 of ‘How it works’, if there seems to be a high degree of

agreement reflected in the scoring, the facilitator can ask the group for practical
suggestions (including processes and behaviours) as to how to achieve their
preferred ways of working.
continued overleaf

82 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 5: Aligning working practices
Facilitation tips continued

• Where there are very different responses on a particular question, it may be

necessary for the facilitator to explore the thinking or rationale behind each
diverse working preference, including the advantages that it may bring to the
group. This will provide opportunities for the group to find creative and co-
operative responses to the differences revealed. Whether the final decision is
made by the team leader or by team consensus may depend on the cultural or
organisational context in which the team is operating. However, enabling
clarity of different preferences and opinions (particularly if reflected and
referred to in the final decision) is likely to be good for building trust within the
team.
• Remember that there will be some contexts where making a simple ground rule
for behaving may not be possible due to the very different needs of group
members. Here it is still useful to make a more general agreement such as ‘We
agree to respect the different preferences of individual group members about
how to give feedback’.
• Choose a setting that is not formal and is preferably away from where normal
business meetings take place. It is important to create the impression that this
session is something important and different from normal day-to-day work.
• The process should normally be facilitated by the team leader, but the team
leader may choose to ask another team member or even an outsider to help.
This will allow the team leader to take part and express personal views more
freely.
• In advance of the session where the team will work on aligning working
practices, the team leader should send out some communication to all the
team, setting out the reasons for the whole process. Extracts from the text of
this tool would be useful in preparing this communication.

Handout 5a • Tool 5: Aligning working practices The trust-building tools • 4 83
Group Two • Tool 5: Aligning working practices • Handout 5a

trust
Criteria Definition Impact of aligning working practices
Competence Trust based on a perception that team Perceptions about other people’s competence will be
members are competent, and so will not let partly determined by the way they work. People
me down from different cultures may have different priorities
even within their own managerial or technical area.
For example, managers who use a participative style
may be seen as highly competent by some people,
but as indecisive and weak by others.
Compatibility Trust based on background, values, Sometimes team members work towards different
approaches, interests, and objectives held agendas. Sometimes people have different
in common assumptions about the right way of working within
the team. They may behave differently from how
other team members do. If these things begin to
happen, it is likely that the team will fragment into
‘cliques’ of like-minded people and distrust will grow
between the cliques.
Predictability Trust based on the observation that the Each individual’s assumptions about the appropriate
behaviour of team members is consistent way to work within a team will determine the way
over time and in different contexts they actually behave in the team context.
Assumptions which are not recognised or
understood by other team members will make the
related behaviours difficult to understand. Trust
becomes more difficult if these differences are not
brought to the surface and resolved.

84 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 5: Aligning working practices • Handout 5b
Group Two • Tool 5: Aligning working practices • Handout 5b
Handout 5b: Working Together –

Cultural Values Checklist
Purpose
The purpose of this exercise is to encourage you to think about how you work
together so that you can be effective as a team. Different people, especially if they
are from different national cultures, often have divergent expectations about how
things should be handled in a team situation. This is an opportunity to discuss these
potential differences and agree in advance how you are going to work together.
Task
Your task during this session is to discuss and agree with each other the answers to
the following questions for your team:
• How will we design and conduct our meetings?
• How will we make decisions together?
• How will we maximise learning opportunities for team members?
• How will we give feedback to each other?
• What responsibility do the team leader and other team members have for the
well-being of team colleagues?
• How will we evaluate our performance together?
• How will conflicts be resolved?
• How will work be co-ordinated – through a command-and-control approach
with instructions being issued from above, or through bi-lateral liaison
between team members? Will this change with different phases of the work?
BEFORE discussing these questions, however, each person should individually

complete the Cultural Values Checklist overleaf, the results of which will inform
your discussion.
Instructions
1. Take five minutes to work on your own to fill in the Cultural Values Checklist
overleaf, in the manner described below.
2. Working as a group, chart the six individual results for each of the ten
questions in the checklist on a flip-chart to see where there are important
similarities and differences.
3. Now discuss each of the above questions in turn. Keep in mind the different
approaches revealed by the checklist. Try to reach agreement about how you
will operate together for future activities.
The Cultural Values Checklist overleaf consists of ten issues, each with descriptions
of two opposite approaches at either end of a scale. Please mark the scale with a
cross where you personally would like the approach to be, and with a circle where
you think it actually is in the team at the moment. For example:

Handout 5b • Tool 5: Aligning working practices The trust-building tools • 4 85
Group Two • Tool 5: Aligning working practices • Handout 5b

For effective interaction the team should first Effective ground rules will develop through
create a set of ground rules and stick to them. relationships in the team.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
If your personal belief and preference is that effective ground rules will develop
through relationships, mark the cross towards the right-hand end of the scale. If you
perceive that actually, within the team in general, and perhaps among the leadership
in particular, there is an understanding that creating a set of ground rules from the
start will be more effective, mark the circle near the left-hand end of the scale.
Cultural Values Checklist

1 For effective interaction the team should first Effective ground rules will develop through
create a set of ground rules and stick to them. relationships in the team.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 Roles within the team should be clearly identified Team members should adopt the roles they feel
at the start of each session. comfortable with as things emerge in each session.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 The team leader should resolve differences of The whole team must reach consensus before
opinion. moving on.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 Expressing strong emotions is inappropriate in Expressing all feelings openly and honestly is the
the workplace and on this programme. only basis for a working relationship.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 It takes a long time to get to know someone You don’t need to know people well in order to
before you are able to work well together. work effectively with them.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 High performance is reached by finishing one High performance is reached by working on many
thing at a time. aspects of the broad picture at the same time.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 Effective teamwork comes from highlighting and Effective teamwork comes from highlighting and
working with differences. working with similarities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 One should only say things that are relevant and Talking about things that simply come to mind
that are carefully thought through. can lead to interesting ideas and greater creativity.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 Each team member is responsible for making There is a shared responsibility to ensure that all
their own contribution to the efforts of the team. team members have an opportunity to make
their contributions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 Both appreciation of and dissatisfaction with Appreciation of and discomfort with other
other peoples’ behaviour should be pointed out peoples’ behaviour is best expressed in subtle and
directly to them. indirect ways.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

86 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 6: Email activity
Tool 6: Email activity

Group Two • Tool 6: Email activity
Learning objectives
• build trust through encouraging a discussion about different communication styles
that may exist within the team, and how to reconcile them;
• accelerate awareness of differences in communication styles relating to cultural
diversity within the team;
• show how a mis-match in focus (too much or too little relationship/task focus) can
lead to a breakdown in trust between different members of the team;
• show how differences in communication styles relating to cultural diversity can
affect levels of trust when communicating at a distance.
Overview
The email activity is an apparently simple process in which team members write an
email to a colleague they have been communicating with at a distance but have not yet
met. The email can be written from two different perspectives – from a national to an
international member of staff or vice-versa. Both perspectives share a context in which
the colleague is perceived to have failed to respond appropriately, and initiating a
feedback process is required. When writing the email, participants are forced to deal
with a dilemma. Do they focus on the task and give the person straight feedback (but
risk damaging a new and potentially important relationship) or focus on maintaining
good relations (but risk not getting through to the person that a change in behaviour is
expected)? People in the group explore how they each deal with this dilemma. The
activity raises awareness of the logic behind different styles of response to this dilemma.
It helps the team find best practices and builds trust by reconciling approaches to
communication in pressure situations.
The activity takes the team through one example of a negotiated set of best practices.
In this case it is how to set the right tone in managing the process of feedback.
In emergency-response efforts this aspect requires immediate shared understanding of
how team members prefer to handle this delicate issue, since the international staff are
likely to come from lower-context cultures than the local/national staff.
The email activity helps a team in the early stages of forming to address differences in
communication style.
Since openness with information is a key criteria in low-context cultures, low-context

writers see high-context communication as too fuzzy and too lacking in transparency to
trust. In contrast, high-context writers see the low-context writers as overly direct and
insensitive to relationships. They give feedback in a more subtle way that ‘saves face’.
(Goodwill and inclusion are more important criteria in high-context cultures.)

Tool 6: Email activity The trust-building tools • 4 87
Session plan

Overall time required 1 hour and 15 minutes
(NB The activity can be split between two meetings if appropriate)
Group size 10 +
Relevant Trust Index items Cultural factors: high-/low-context communication styles

Alignment
Copies of Handout 6b: The Email Message (National
Perspective)
Copies of Handout 6c: The Email Message (International
Perspective)
Copies of Handout 6d: Email Analysis
Copies of Handout 6e: Cultural Differences in Communication
Style
Paper-clips or one stapler per group
One calculator per group (for working out average scores)
How it works
1. Introduce the objectives of the session and the ten criteria for trust. Distribute
Handouts 6b and 6c (The Email Message). Give the National Perspective version
(Handout 6b) to the national members of the team and the International
Perspective version (Handout 6c) to team members from other countries.
2. Ask each person to write what, in their personal opinion, is an appropriate email
response. Explain that they should bring their response to the next meeting.
Suggest that the responses will be used to assist the team in understanding different
approaches to communication. Note that trust can be built through a better
understanding of how different members handle the issue of giving feedback.
A break in the activity can be taken here.
If there is to be a break, request team members not to discuss the exercise between
now and the next meeting.
3. Now, or at the next session, mention that communication is irreversible – that what
is said remains said, and what is written in an email not only remains written but
also remains on record.
4. Distribute Handout 6e. It introduces some basic differences between low-context

and high-context styles of communication. Ask individuals about their own national
cultures and the degree to which they are low- or high-context, and how this may
reveal itself in behaviours. Draw on the personal experiences of the team members
with high-/low-context breakdowns.
5. Now split the participants into groups of 5–7 people. If possible put the national
staff and staff from other countries in separate groups.

88 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 6: Email activity
6. Assign each group a letter (A, B, or C ) or ask them to think of a name for their
group. Then, ask participants to mark their completed email sheet with an A, B, or
C , or to put their group name in the top left corner.
7. Give the group A emails to group B, group B emails to group C, and group C emails
to group A.
8. Distribute Handout 6d: Email Analysis to each group. Ask them to do the following:
• attach an Email Analysis sheet to each email (back to back) with the stapler or
paper-clips provided;
• read each email individually in silence;
• complete the analysis by doing the following three things:
– write their name (first name plus initial of surname, e.g. Mario R.) in the
column marked ‘Assessor’s Name’
– give their personal reaction rating to the attached email by circling one of
the faces in the emotional reaction column – i.e. if they would react
positively (happy face), negatively (unhappy face), or neutrally (neutral
face).
– give their low-/high-context rating for that email using the Email Feedback
Criteria at the bottom of the page.
Mention again that low scores, e.g. 2, 3, 4 would mean that, in their opinion, the
email is low-context. Higher scores, e.g. 7, 8, 9 would mean that, in their opinion,
the email is high-context. Explain that, when a group member has completed these
three things, they should pass the email to the person on their left. Continue until
each group member has read and scored each email. Invite the group to discuss the
emails and attempt to reach a consensus on one email which best combines the
need for clarity with the need to preserve relationships in handling this task. Put an
asterisk (*) in the top left corner of that email.
9. Now ask each person in the group to take one email and calculate the average
scores for the emotional reaction (faces) and for the average low-/high-context
rating and enter the results in the appropriate spaces in the row marked ‘Results’.
10. Arrange for all emails to be handed back to the original writers together with the
attached scoring sheet. Give people a few seconds to look at their scores. They will
see how 5–7 other people have interpreted their message.
Another break in the activity can be taken here.
11. Now (or at the next session) ask everyone to stand up with their emails and scores
in their hand and ask them to form a semi-circle with the very low-context average
scores at one end and the very high-context average scores at the other.
12. Ask people at the low-context end if they would share what their intention was in
writing the email in this way and ask them if they would mind if you (the facilitator)
read it for everyone to hear. Facilitate a discussion of the advantages and
disadvantages of communicating in this style. Then choose an email from the high-
context end of the semi-circle. Repeat.
13. Now call out numbers representing the emotional reaction range, asking people to
sit down when they hear theirs called out. Start with the highest (+2 smiley faces or
above) and go down the range to –2 and below. As facilitator, note which people sit
down first (often very high-context ones). The low-context ones often sit down last.

Tool 6: Email activity The trust-building tools • 4 89
14. Then, when they are all seated, identify people who have an email with the asterisks

(*) to read out their email. Find out how they have succeeded in reconciling a
‘clarity’ with a ‘relationship’ focus. Note that the asterisked emails are often just on
the higher-context side of 5 (i.e. with an average low-/high-context score of
between 5 and 7). This becomes the group benchmark for handling this situation.
15. Conclude the exercise by saying something like: ‘We have explored in the team
which communication styles we find too direct and those which are too indirect.
The asterisks give us an indication of which styles work for most of us.’ Distribute
Handout 6a outlining the criteria for trust which are reinforced by the email activity.
Facilitation tips
• Arrange to have a stapler and a calculator on each table.
• If you wish to split the activity between two meetings, you can complete items
1 and 2 from the list under ‘How it works’, and have them prepare their draft
emails before they come back for the next meeting.
• Make sure you understand and can summarise the differences between high-
context and low-context cultures. Use these terms during the session to get
people used to them and to create a common language to talk about these
issues.
• Until you are familiar with the whole process, take the activity step by step and
have the ‘How it works’ section handy to refer to as you work your way through
the process.
• Do not assume that staff from other countries (international staff) will respond
to the activity in a low-context style and national staff in a high-context style.
There will be a mix based on personal style, experience, and professional
background. Some people will consciously adapt their style to their perception
of the needs and preferences of others.
• If you do not have a mix of national and international staff in your group, divide
the group into two and distribute Handout 6b to one half and Handout 6c to
the other half.
• With smaller groups a mix of email scenarios can be given out, and the email
analysis can take place in one group only. Note that the writer of the email is
not required to analyse his or her own email.
• This exercise is designed to support awareness and an interest in change. It can

create the commitment to change which is necessary for the team leader to
develop ground rules for communicating in the team.

90 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 6: Email activity • Handout 6a
Group Two • Tool 6: Email activity • Handout 6a

trust
Criteria Definition Impact of email activity
Openness with Trust based on the observation that other This activity highlights how misunderstandings can
information team members share information arise due to different communication styles. People
important to the team proactively and with low-context styles may feel that high-context
clearly communication is not clear, and so may suspect the
motives of the writer.
Reciprocity Trust based on the observation that other Misunderstandings due to different communication
team members are trusting and co- styles can lead to questions or doubts about the
operative towards me motives and intentions of other people. This is
especially true where the communication is only
through emails. Mistrust can escalate as each person
begins to believe that the other does not trust them.
Goodwill Trust based on the belief that other team People from high-context cultures will look for signals
members are concerned about my overall that other people are concerned about their welfare.
welfare People from low-context cultures provide few such
signals, especially in emails. This may lead those from
high-context cultures to believe that those from low-
context cultures are not interested in them or in their
welfare. This can contribute to mistrust.
Inclusion Trust based on the observation that other People from high-context cultures look for signals
team members actively include me in their that they are being included in discussions and/or
social and work activities exchanges of written communication. The lack of
response to previous communications portrayed in
the scenarios used for this activity suggests that the
parties may feel excluded – leading again to mistrust.

Handout 6b • Tool 6: Email activity The trust-building tools • 4 91
Group Two • Tool 6: Email activity • Handout 6b

Handout 6b: The Email Message
(National Perspective)
You are working in an emergency-team project in your own country with colleagues
from a mixture of national cultural backgrounds. Some of the staff from other
countries are preparing to enter the emergency zone next week. Others are national
staff who have been working on the ground in the emergency zone for the past five
days. At the moment, these two groups are limited to email communciation The
language for communicating with fellow team-members is English.
You are very dissatisfied with the way one colleague from another country is
managing this project. This person does not seem to understand that some initial
arrangements and practices to handle the emergency are already in place and
working. This particular colleague has ignored the fact that you have already
reported setting up these workable local arrangements. The person insists that
everything needs to be organised from scratch. It is clear that you need to signal
your dissatisfaction and attempt to change their attitude. It is also clear that you
need to do something about this situation now. If nothing changes, the unity of
purpose and co-ordination of activities required to respond effectively to the
emergency will be compromised. For example, there may be an unnecessary
duplication of structures and procedures.
Note that the relationship with this person is of strategic importance to you and
the project. Although you have had email and telephone calls with this person,
you have not met the person face-to-face. Both of you are at the same level of
responsibility in the team.
Write a short email in English to initiate the feedback process. Write your email in
the box below.
PLEASE WRITE CLEARLY
To
From
CC
BCC
Subject
Message

92 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 6: Email activity • Handout 6c
Group Two • Tool 6: Email activity • Handout 6c
Handout 6c: The Email Message

(International Perspective)
You are working as one of the international members in an emergency-response
team with colleagues from a mixture of national cultural backgrounds. You and
some of the staff are preparing to enter the emergency zone for an assessment
next week. There is a group of national staff who have been working in the zone
for the past five days. At the moment, you are limited to email communication.
The language for communication with fellow team-members is English.
You are very dissatisfied with the approach being used by your key national
counterpart to manage this project. This person has not responded to your requests
to provide initial input for an on-the-ground assessment necessary to create a plan
for staffing levels. All you get back are reports on what has already been done. You
feel cut out and are concerned that crucial issues are not being carefully considered.
Taking initiative is fine but co-ordination of activities is essential.
It is clear that you need to signal your dissatisfaction and achieve a change in this
person’s attitude. It is also clear that you need to do something about this situation
now. If nothing changes, the unity of purpose and co-ordination of activities
required to respond effectively to the emergency will be compromised.
Note that the relationship with this person is of strategic importance to you and
the project. Although you have had email and telephone calls with this person,
you haven’t met the person face-to-face. You are at the same level of responsibility
in the team.
Write a short email in English to initiate the feedback process. Write your email in
the box below.
PLEASE WRITE CLEARLY
To
From
CC
BCC
Subject
Message

Handout 6d • Tool 6: Email activity The trust-building tools • 4 93
Group Two • Tool 6: Email activity • Handout 6d

Handout 6d: Email Analysis
In your sub-group, each of you should assess the emails from another group. Put
your name under ‘Assessor’s Name’. Read one email and fill in the scorecard
below. Then pass the email to the next person in the group until each member of
the group has scored all of the emails.
There are two separate scores:

• Your emotional reaction if you had personally received this email – happy,
neutral, or sad (☺ K L)
• Your personal rating from 1–10 of the low-/high-context orientation of the
email (1= very low context; 10 = very high context). The criteria for your
assessment are at the bottom of the page.
Email scorecard
Assessor’s Name Emotional Reaction Low-Context High-Context
☺ K L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
☺ K L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
☺ K L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
☺ K L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
☺ K L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
☺ K L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
☺ K L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Now Work out the emotional reaction scores. Add up the total high-/low-context rating scores above
(if you are the For each ☺ give one point (+1) and divide by the number of people who analysed the
For each L deduct one point (-1)

final assessor) email. This gives the average high-/low-context rating.
Ignore all K (0)
RESULTS Emotional Reaction score? Average Low/High score?
Email Feedback Criteria

Low context High context
I/you focus We/us focus
Starts with task Starts with relationship
Feedback in message Feedback deferred to face-to-face or phone
Direct and explicit – spells it out Indirect and implicit – must read between the lines
Clarity is primary Saving face is primary

94 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 6: Email activity • Handout 6e
Group Two • Tool 6: Email activity • Handout 6e
Handout 6e: Cultural Differences in

Communication Style
How do cultural differences in communication style impact on your team? ‘Low-
context’ team members learn from their national cultural background that
effective communication is about ‘saying what you mean and meaning what you
say’. They tend to rely on written communication (such as minutes of meetings,
agendas, contracts) to ‘spell out’ meaning. Trust is built quickly by being clear and
focusing on the task. North Americans, Australasians, and Northern Europeans
tend to be brought up to have a low-context approach to communication.
‘High-context’ team members value the ability of the sensitive listener who can
‘read between the lines’, and understand the damage done to relationships by
straight talking. They tend to avoid writing and rely on broad spoken agreements.
Trust is built slowly by protecting face and focusing on relationship. South and
South-East Asians, Africans, Middle-Easterners, South Americans, as well as
Southern Europeans tend to have a higher-context approach.
Look at the following behaviours and beliefs connected to low- and high-context
work environments, and consider whether you have such cultural differences in
your team.
Low-context High-context
Be direct and task-focused Be indirect and relationship-focused

Be explicit and specific Communicate between the lines or through
Write things down and ‘spell things out’ non-verbal means
Give feedback as soon as possible, in a direct Keep things oral

manner Give feedback indirectly, and at the right
Believe that trust in your competence leads time in order to save face
to deeper levels of relationships, so begin Believe that deeper levels of personal trust are
with the task required for tasks to be carried out effectively,
Believe that being clear shows respect so begin with relationship-building
Believe that sensitivity about saving face
shows respect
A combination of both low-context and high-context cultural preferences can lead

to great synergies in nurturing trust in international teams where trust is fragile.
Combining ‘clarity’ (low-context) with ‘rapport’ (high-context) is critical for
building a productive working atmosphere. However, when these differences are
not recognised and respected, the result can be the opposite. Low-context
directness can be perceived as ‘insensitivity’ and a high-context indirectness can
be considered as ‘time-wasting’.

Tool 7: Trust tips for team leaders The trust-building tools • 4 95
Tool 7: Trust tips for team leaders
Group Three • Tool 7: Trust tips for team leaders

Learning objectives
• highlight some key behaviours and activities that team leaders can use to promote
trust within their teams.
Overview
This tool presents a series of tips that individual leaders can use as a checklist of ideas for
promoting trust within the team. The tips are categorised under the ten criteria for trust.
The ideas are drawn from a number of sources relevant to the emergency-response
team situation; many of the ideas come from interviews that were carried out as part of
the ‘Culture of Trust’ project with experienced field staff in a number of agencies.
This tool could be incorporated into agencies’ existing leadership-development activities

that take place outside the context of any particular emergency. It can also be used by
the team leaders at any stage during the life of a team to help plan trust-building
behaviours and activities. It can be used either as the leader reflects on their own
leadership behaviours, or as a basis for a coaching process for the leader. Many people
believe that the style of leadership required during the very early days of a rapid-onset
emergency will, of necessity, be very directive in order to give a clear lead to make
things happen in a confused situation. As soon as this initial phase is over, however, a
more participative style will be more appropriate, and this list of trust tips will be
particularly relevant at that time in helping leaders to ‘change gear’ and settle into a
more sustainable approach to the leadership role.
The Trust Index helps teams to assess the factors that will make trust easier or more
difficult in the emergency-response team in their particular situations. This tool will help
to address low scores for any of the dimensions contained in the Leadership section of
that Index (page 26).
This tool can be used by any emergency-response team member who has line
responsibility for managing other people.
How it works
A number of trust tips for leaders are set out in Handout 7a, grouped according to the
ten criteria for trust. The first four categories are designed to build ‘swift’ trust, whilst the
remaining six categories will help to build ‘deeper’ trust. The ‘swift’ trust criteria include
aspects of trust required by, for example, virtual teams with a complex task to achieve.
The ‘deeper’ criteria are relevant when the level of trust needs to increase and to be
based around personal relationships.
For each of the ten criteria a definition is given at the start of the relevant section. This is
expressed in terms of the needs of individual team members for specific behaviours from
other team members. The leader needs to think about all the items at two levels, namely:
1. How can I behave in ways which will build the trust of others in myself as the team
leader?
2. How can I model behaviours that build trust between all members of the team?

96 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 7: Trust tips for team leaders • Handout 7a
Group Three • Tool 7: Trust tips for team leaders • Handout 7a
Handout 7a: Trust Tips for Leaders
Swift Trust – Competence
Definition
Trust based on a perception that team members are competent, and so will
not let me down.
1. Take the time to understand the particular skills, knowledge, and capabilities
of each team member. Study CVs and background experiences to estimate
the particular work each person can do and the contribution they can make.
2. Give due weight to the knowledge and skills of local members of the team,
even if they are not so well-defined through formal qualifications. Under-
estimating the value that local people can bring to the team will make it
difficult to establish trust between the local and non-local members of the
team. Knowledge of local circumstances (e.g. geography and geology) and of
the local community will often be essential to the whole team’s success.
3. Where possible, allow all team members to demonstrate openly their areas of
competence to fellow team members through the work they do. Remember
that team members from more collectivist cultures (where the interests of the
group are emphasised over those of the individual) are less likely to advertise
their skills to the rest of the team, for fear of standing out too much from the
group, and appearing competitive. So find ways to catalogue and
communicate each individual’s particular strengths to other team members
(e.g. use Tool 10: Time lines on page 114 to enable team members to
understand each other’s history and experiences).
4. Sometimes it may be necessary to include people in the team whose

capabilities are not fully matched to the job they are given to do. In this case
make sure that they receive support and have access to the knowledge and
skills of others who can help them. Consider establishing a ‘buddy’ system so
that, where necessary, local people can draw on the expertise of international
colleagues and vice versa.
5. Implement existing performance-management systems as soon as possible,

so that deficiencies in skills and knowledge are identified. Make sure that plans
are in place to overcome these deficiencies through coaching, training, or
other developmental activities.
6. People recruited in the early days of an emergency may not be well-equipped

to contribute in the later phases of the work. In this situation, use your local
human-resources function to move people out of the team and replace them
with more competent people. Trust will not be built if the leader turns a blind
eye to poor performance due to inadequate capabilities.
7. Through your human-resources function, develop a detailed understanding of

the local labour market and the skills that are available locally. This will enable
you to judge the right balance between local and international employees.
Ensure that you employ local staff wherever possible.

Handout 7a • Tool 7: Trust tips for team leaders The trust-building tools • 4 97

Swift Trust – Openness with Information
Definition
Trust based on the observation that other team members share information
important to the team proactively and clearly.
1. Arrange a session to establish a communication charter for the senior

management team. Encourage other functional and/or geographical teams to
do the same.
2. Make sure that everyone is aware of any agency communication protocols.
3. Spend as much time as you can in face-to-face meetings and discussions with
team members. Ask open questions and listen carefully to the answers.
Encourage the same behaviour from other people.
4. Make sure that all team members are very clear about what outputs you
expect from them and when. Use simple, well-structured language to
communicate this, particularly to people who do not share your own mother
tongue. Remember that people from different cultures may have different
ways of understanding time and deadlines.
5. Provide people with feedback on a regular basis and in a culturally sensitive way
(e.g. avoid people losing ‘face’). It does not help trust within the team if the
poor performance or bad behaviours of some individuals is allowed to persist.
6. Develop with your team a simple set of confidentiality criteria that ensures
that everyone understands what kinds of things are confidential.
7. If you need to keep important information confidential, explain the reasons to
the team members and, if possible, say when you will be able to release the
information.
8. Arrange office layouts and communication hardware to ensure that ‘silos’ or
‘cliques’ do not develop (in other words, try to stop people getting into cosy
and comfortable groups based on work functions or friendships).
9. Remember that different people have different preferences, expectations, and
habits concerning how to communicate (for example: written or oral; through
the literal meaning of the words used, or through reading between the lines
and observing body language). Allow for these differences when
communicating important messages.
10. Communicate key messages repeatedly and in different ways. Tell stories and
recount experiences to illustrate points that you want to get across.
11. Communicate more frequently when things are changing quickly.
12. Take account of cultural sensitivities about communication. Quieter team
members still need to communicate but may lack the confidence or feel that it
is inappropriate to join in team discussions. Make sure that you allow them
the opportunity in team discussions and encourage them to give their views.
13. Use group and pair work to secure greater participation rather than assuming
that brainstorming will work.
14. Make sure that you share information equally between all team members. Do
not favour some team members over others. Ensure that the method you
choose to communicate a message does not discriminate through making it
easier for some people to access than others (e.g. using emails when some
people do not have access).

Swift Trust – Integrity
Definition
Trust based on the observation that other team members maintain promises,
are team-orientated, and behave towards me in accordance with a moral code.
1. Do not promise things that you are not sure you or others can deliver.
2. Remember that people interpret language differently when it comes to

commitment (e.g. if you make the statement: ‘I will try to speak to
headquarters about this before the end of the week’, this could be interpreted
as an intention or as a promise).
3. Remember that in many cultural contexts an apparent agreement to take on a

task may reflect a desire to please the team leader rather than a verbal
contract.
4. Keep in mind that your body language may say something different from
your spoken words. Some people may read this difference and others may
not. You will often be working in cultural contexts where sensitivity to
‘between the line’ and contextual communication is critical. So ensure that
your verbal and body language are compatible.
5. Record all important decisions in writing as soon as possible. Check with those
involved to make sure that there is no confusion later on.
6. If you are unable to meet a commitment, or if you have to reverse a decision,

make sure that you tell those involved as soon as possible and explain the
reasons why.
7. Hold other team members to account for their behaviour and for the
commitments they make. Be clear that you have high expectations that they
can, and will, meet targets; but do not blame team members for
circumstances outside their control (e.g. well-being or lack of it).
8. Treat all team members with dignity and respect at all times.
9. Be clear about the behaviour that you expect from others, and model these
behaviours yourself. Criticising others for things you do yourself will be seen
as hypocritical.
10. Allow people to see and understand the standards and moral codes that you
live by. Openly admit your weaknesses and mistakes. Do not hide them but
show that you are ready to learn from them.


Swift Trust – Reciprocity
Definition
Trust based on the observation that other team members are trusting and co-
operative towards me.
1. Find areas where you can trust team members and give clear signals that you
are prepared to trust them. At first, choose areas where little damage will be
done if they break or betray your trust. But remember if there is no risk to you,
you are not demonstrating trust! In more relationship-orientated cultures,
make clear your own personal vulnerability if the work is not done well.
2. Where your trust is honoured and returned, gradually take greater risks in
extending trust to new areas. In this way you should be able to establish a
positive spiral of mutual trust.
3. Use specific delegated tasks and responsibilities to extend and build trust
gradually. Always balance the need for control with the need to build trust
(e.g. delegated authority to spend money).
4. Make it clear through your words as well as your actions that you are ready to
trust others, and that you have high expectations that your trust will not be
betrayed.
5. Take time to establish rapport and good personal relationships with other
members of the team; trust is less likely to be broken where there are personal
loyalties involved.
6. If your trust is broken, establish why this happened and what motives were
involved. If the breach was not deliberate (e.g. it was through lack of
appropriate skills to deal with a situation), show that you forgive the breach
and are prepared to continue to trust. Support the individual with coaching or
training to reduce the chances of it happening again.
7. Where a breach of trust is deliberate, reduce the trust that you extend to the
individual. However, limit the extent of this withdrawal of trust to avoid a
negative spiral being established. If possible, find new areas in which to show
trust and gradually rebuild mutual trust.
8. Monitor levels of trust within the team, both through your own observation
and also using the available tools to measure trust levels. Set up trust-building
team activities from time to time.
9. Earn the trust of colleagues in your agency, and particularly the person to
whom you report. If you are trusted by them you will be able to influence
upwards more easily and obtain the support and resources that your team
needs. In turn, this will help your team members to respect and trust you.
10. Ensure that difficult issues that may cause conflict are resolved quickly.
Indecision about difficult issues will result in trust seeping away.
11. When differences and conflicts arise, use conflict-resolution techniques to
repair damage and re-establish a positive spiral.
12. Remember that in relationship-orientated cultures you can inspire trust when
giving feedback by avoiding the singling out of individuals in group meetings,
where possible. Be ready to deliver the hardest messages to individuals on a
one-to-one basis.

Deeper Trust – Compatibility
Definition
Trust based on background, values, approaches, interests, and objectives held
in common.
1. Emergency-response teams will usually contain people who are very different
in terms of culture, life experiences, economic status, age etc. As a team
leader, your task is to:
• find and emphasise areas of commonality between them;
• build respect for the differences and find ways to use these for the benefit
of the overall effort.
These things are best achieved by using a process such as that described in
Tool 5: Aligning working practices (page 79).
2. Differences can best be harnessed for the good of the whole team if a sense of
common direction and purpose is established. Ensure that all team members
understand the values and objectives of the agency they are working for, and
then work with the team to establish a common vision and common goals
that all the team members can support.
3. Through the recruitment and selection processes, ensure that all team
members are open to working with people who are different from them.
People who are not open and flexible in this way may need to be removed
from the team.


Deeper Trust – Goodwill
Definition
Trust based on the belief that other team members are concerned about my
overall welfare.
1. Explicitly indicate that you have considered the impact of the decisions you
take on all team members.
2. Put a high priority on the ‘hygiene factors’ for team members and make sure
these are as good as they can be in the circumstances (e.g. food, water,
accommodation, facilities for relaxation etc.). Where possible, indicate plans
and timings for their improvement over time, as circumstances allow.
3. Similarly, place a high priority on working conditions, and make sure they are
as good as they can be under the circumstances (e.g. avoid over-crowded
workstations, promote an awareness of stress factors, and work with the team
to reduce these). Make sure team members take time off for relaxation. Lead
by example!
4. Treat all team members equally and fairly. Do not give preferential treatment
to anybody.
5. Get to know team members as individuals, as far as time and circumstances

allow. Acknowledge and respond to their personal needs and circumstances
(e.g. important family events, the impact of the disaster on them personally,
etc.).
6. Put in place arrangements (perhaps through the human-resources

department) that ensure that all team members are watched for signs of
undue stress, and that those who need it receive individual help and support.
7. Encourage a sense of mutual support and responsibility for each other across
the whole team. Communicate this message and demonstrate this behaviour.
8. As far as possible, make sure that people take the time off to which they are
entitled. Do not permit a ‘hero’ culture to develop where there is a spirit of
competition to see who can work the longest hours or put up with the worst
conditions.
9. Find opportunities to openly value the contributions that individual team

members make to the overall effort. Remember, however, that in collectivist
cultures, work delegated to an individual may have been completed in a
group. Occasionally select trust-building behaviours for special attention and
reward.
10. Remember that in more relationship-orientated cultures the amount of one-

to-one time you spend with local staff is a sign of your goodwill.

Deeper Trust – Predictability
Definition
Trust based on the observation that the behaviour of team members is
consistent over time and in different contexts.
1. Establish clear expectations and guidelines for the team, and for yourself,
about those behaviours that are acceptable and those that are not. Then
make sure you live within these rules and try to ensure that others do so too.
(NB Agencies may already have a code of conduct that can act as a starting
point for this.)
2. Do not behave erratically or in an uncontrolled way. It is difficult for others to

trust someone whose behaviour they cannot anticipate. This does not mean
that your behaviour should always be the same, but rather that it should vary
in predictable ways depending on the circumstances.
3. Get to know and begin to understand the personalities and motivations of the
key members of your team so you can better predict their behaviour and
reactions. As you come to understand them, you will find it easier to
understand how you can trust them.
4. Study the cultural differences within the team, and between yourself and
other team members. This will help you avoid misunderstandings and mis-
communication. It may also help to explain apparent breaches of trust (e.g. in
cultures where all property is considered to be held by the community and
not by individuals, ‘theft’ can take on a different significance).
5. Establish a culture of ‘no surprises’.
6. Build systems and procedures and make these clear so that people understand
how they are meant to be working. Confusion and ambiguity leads to
insecurity and conflicts which destroy trust.


Deeper Trust – Well-being
Definition
Trust arising from the feeling that I have nothing to fear from other members
of the team.
1. Establish a culture of mutual respect within the team. Demonstrate behaviour

that shows respect, and take a strong line against any example of physical or
verbal intimidation or bullying of team members.
2. Encourage assertiveness but not aggression.
3. Pay particular attention to the way that women are treated. Do not allow it to
become acceptable for male members of the team to ‘put down,’ belittle, or
ignore the contributions of female team members in any way. This can
sometimes be done in a subtle, even apparently friendly, way, but should still
not be tolerated. From time to time check on how the women members of
the team feel about their position within the team.
4. At all costs avoid a ‘blame’ culture. When things go wrong, put the emphasis
on learning and changing things for the future. Ask the team to identify the
circumstances that contributed to things going wrong and work on the things
they suggest.
5. If you need to reprimand a team member or give them difficult feedback, do

so in a one-to-one meeting to avoid loss of face for them. This is particularly
important in high-context work environments.
6. If teasing and banter between team members becomes frequent, be careful to

ensure that all team members are comfortable with it and feel that they can
give as good as they get. If not, then stop the associated behaviour. Make sure
that humour is not generated at the expense of individuals or a particular
national group.

Deeper Trust – Inclusion
Definition
Trust based on the observation that other group members actively include
me in their social and work activities.
1. Demonstrate through your own behaviour that you treat all team members
equally and fairly. Expect all senior team members to do the same.
2. Watch out for the formation of ‘cliques’ or ‘silos’ within the overall team,
especially by the local or the international team members (in other words, try to
stop people getting into cosy and comfortable groups based on work functions
or friendships). Take action to break down any such barriers (e.g. arrange
meetings/social events which cut across silos; change office layouts, etc.).
3. All work and organised social activities should be explicitly inclusive of all team
members. However, it is often a relief for individuals to socialise with people
from their own culture or with those who share a common mother tongue.
4. Involve people in the decision-making process wherever possible. This does

not mean that decisions should normally be taken on a consensus basis, but it
does mean that when you take major decisions you have listened to and
understood the ideas, opinions, and information that others have to offer.
5. Involve the team in a process that results in agreement on what kinds of

information must be communicated to the whole team (see Tool 4:
Communication charter on page 70).
6. Consider carefully whom to include in communication. Excluding people can

send a negative signal about trust. However, including people who do not
need to know can waste their time. Overcome this by being explicit about
whom you are including in major communications and why, and give
everyone an opportunity to opt in if they wish (see Tool 4: Communication
charter on page 70).
7. As soon as work pressures allow, encourage social activities that include all
team members. Try to get local team members to take the lead in organising
these events, as they will know about the fun things to do locally (e.g. a picnic
in the desert or a night under the stars).
8. Ensure that any privileges or perks are kept to a minimum and based on the
legitimate needs of the job (e.g. access to vehicles). Try to minimise the ‘power
distance’ between the leaders and the rest of the team. Be aware that separate
and superior offices, greater access to vehicles, provision of pre-paid mobile
phones, higher quality accommodation, etc. for senior managers, sends a
powerful and negative message about inclusion. Go to visit team members
where they work; do not always expect them to come to you. Where team
members are sharing accommodation provided by the agency, visit team
members where they live to demonstrate your interest in their well-being.
9. Consciously seek to make use of the local knowledge and community ties of
team members from the local area. Openly recognise this as a major
contribution that they can make to the overall effort.


Deeper Trust – Accessibility
Definition
Trust based on the observation that other team members share their true
feelings and I can relate to them on a personal level.
1. Be ready to show your feelings and emotions to other team members so that
they can know you better. There is no harm in them knowing that you are
frustrated on occasions, provided you do not take your frustrations out on
them.
2. Remember that there are gender and cultural elements involved in expressing
emotions.
3. Followers can draw enthusiasm and motivation from their leader if they are
exposed to the leader’s energies and emotions. They cannot do this if the
leader is distant, cool, or hard to know as a human being.
4. As far as is possible, be accessible to team members both physically and

emotionally. Let them see you around whenever possible, and talk with them.
It is easier to trust a person that you know.
5. Share your personal hopes and fears freely within the team. Do not feel it is a
sign of weakness to let others see that you occasionally need help and
support.
6. Involve the team in the creation of a ‘vision’ that expresses how they can
make a real difference to the people affected by the disaster. Refer to it
frequently in ways that appeal to people’s imagination and values.

106 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 8: Elements for team leader 360° reviews
Tool 8: Elements for team leader 360°

Group Three • Tool 8: Elements for team leader 360° reviews
reviews
Learning objective
• provide a bank of statements that can easily be inserted into existing 360° review
processes to assist team leaders in assessing their contribution toward the building
of trust within emergency-response teams.
Overview
The team leader has a central role in creating a culture of trust in their emergency-
response team. Understanding and raising awareness of this role, and identifying both
strengths and development needs, will be key to team leaders’ success and ongoing
development.
This tool provides a bank of statements that are specifically anchored to the ten criteria
for trust. Agencies will be able to incorporate some or all of these statements into their
own 360° review process in order to evaluate the trust dimension of their team leaders
and managers.
The items contained in this tool can be used in two distinct ways. First, they can be
incorporated into an agency’s existing 360° review process. Second, the ECB Trust Index
identifies leadership as one of the key factors that enhances or destroys trust within
emergency-response teams. So if the emergency-response team has used the Trust
Index and achieved a low score for this factor, then the items in this tool can be used to
create a 360° questionnaire specifically focused on the leader’s trust behaviours. Using
these items in a suitable 360° questionnaire and feedback process will enable the team
leader to change their own behaviour to promote trust more effectively. It should help
to move the score on this dimension in the Trust Index in a positive direction.
Completion of 360° review questionnaires requires respondents to have some

knowledge of and experience of working with the team leader. Thus the items in the
handout could be used outside the context of a specific emergency, to give a leader
feedback as part of their own overall development. This would require people who have
worked with the leader in the recent past (line manager, peers, and those directly
reporting to the leader) to provide feedback. For example, this could be done
appropriately as part of a project review process. Alternatively, the items could be used
as part of a 360° process during the life of an emergency-response team, although it
would be impractical to do this during the immediate aftermath of a rapid-onset
emergency, or too early in the life of the team, as team members might not have
sufficient knowledge of the leader’s behaviours.

Tool 8: Elements for team leader 360° reviews The trust-building tools • 4 107
How it works
Group Three • Tool 8: Elements for team leader 360° reviews

The statements are listed in Handout 8a. There are five statements for each of the ten
criteria for trust, resulting in a total of 50 statements. It should be stressed that it is not
intended that all of these statements necessarily be incorporated into an existing 360°
questionnaire. Rather, the agency should identify which of the criteria for trust they wish
to measure and then select the items they wish to include to assess these criteria. They
are listed as statements rather than questions in the expectation that the existing 360°
framework includes scales such as strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree. If
necessary the statements can be turned into questions.

108 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 8: Elements for team leader 360° reviews • Handout 8a
Group Three • Tool 8: Elements for team leader 360° reviews • Handout 8a
Handout 8a: Items for Inclusion in 360°

Leadership Reviews
Criteria Definition Items
Competence Trust based on a perception that team Is an experienced and effective leader for an
members are competent, and so will not let emergency-response team
me down Understands the bigger picture and is able to
interpret it so that others can make sense of it
Is able to deliver high-level results through the
work of the team
Is knowledgeable about emergency-response
work
Is someone I would go to for advice and
information about our area of work
Openness with Trust based on the observation that other Exchanges information in a transparent and
Information team members share information important unambiguous way
to the team proactively and clearly Readily shares relevant information with all
team members
Keeps team members informed about
important decisions that affect their work
Shares important organisational messages
with the team
Clearly communicates shared goals and
objectives to the team
Integrity Trust based on the observation that other Keeps promises and commitments
team members maintain promises, are team- Is honest and truthful
orientated, and behave towards me in
Does not focus on own success at the
accordance with a moral code
expense of the team
Behaves ethically
Admits mistakes and apologises when
appropriate
Reciprocity Trust based on the observation that other Is ready to accept help and support from
team members are trusting and co-operative team members
towards me Trusts team members to get on with the job
Depends on team members for own success
Ready to learn and encourages feedback from
team members
Is prepared to take some risks in trusting
others
Compatibility Trust based on background, values, Holds values that I can understand and
approaches, interests, and objectives held in respect
common Establishes common approaches to work that
we can all follow
Emphasises common objectives to co-
ordinate the work of team members
Works towards common goals rather than
own private agenda
Achieves buy-in from team members

Handout 8a • Tool 8: Elements for team leader 360° reviews The trust-building tools • 4 109
Group Three • Tool 8: Elements for team leader 360° reviews • Handout 8a
Criteria Definition Items
Goodwill Trust based on the belief that other team Is genuinely concerned about my welfare
members are concerned about my overall Is helpful towards me
welfare
Makes every effort to understand my priorities
and interests
Provides me with support when I need it
Recognises when I have achieved something,
and rewards my performance
Predictability Trust based on the observation that the Behaves in a rational and dependable way
behaviour of team members is consistent over Is reliable
time and in different contexts
Is steady and dependable under pressure
Clearly defines roles and responsibilities for
the team
Provides clear and consistent direction for the
team
Well-being Trust arising from the feeling that I have Encourages me to speak my mind
nothing to fear from other members of the Is tolerant when divergent or unpopular views
team are expressed
Is not dominating or controlling towards
team members
Allows for individual initiative and innovation
within the team
Does not judge me negatively for making
genuine mistakes
Inclusion Trust based on the observation that other Listens and responds positively to my ideas
team members actively include me in their and opinions
social and work activities Treats me and other members of the team as
equals
Creates a strong sense of team spirit
Invites team members to contribute to key
decisions
Shares successes with all team members
Accessibility Trust based on the observation that other Deals with others in a personal and human
team members share their true feelings and I fashion
can relate to them on a personal level Is open about own needs and motives
Does not hide own feelings from team
members
Gets to know team members on a personal
basis
Creates personal loyalty amongst team
members

110 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 9: Treasure hunting
Tool 9: Treasure hunting

Group Four • Tool 9: Treasure hunting
Learning objectives
• enable people to meet and get to know each other;
• begin a process which lets all team members appreciate the gifts and qualities that
each person brings to the team, and to see the diversity of background, culture,
and skills that are available in the team.
Overview
For team members to trust each other, they need to know each other. This tool consists
of a fun activity which creates energy and can be used anytime – but is particularly good
in the first week as an ice-breaker. For this activity, team members move around the
room and talk to fellow team members to find the answers to some questions from
anyone they feel might have the answers.
Session plan
Overall time required 50 minutes
Group size 10 +
Level of facilitation required Low

Alignment
Resources required Copies of Handout 9a: Links to the ten criteria for trust
Copies of Handout 9b: List of Questions for Treasure Hunting
How it works
1. Introduce the exercise with team members standing in a circle. Hand out a list of
questions to each participant. (A sample is provided in Handout 9b and the
questions can be adapted depending on the composition and needs of the group.)
2. Allow 20 minutes for participants to go around the room and find answers to the
questions from anyone they feel may have the answers.
3. Inform them that they must not take more than one piece of information from the
same person, and they are not allowed to form groups of more than three people at
any one time. This encourages more interaction from different members of the
group. Also inform them that they are not allowed to pass on the answer they have
received from one person on a specific question to another person (if they are asked
the same question).
4. After 20–30 minutes, ask the participants to return to the circle. Go through all the
questions and ask participants to raise their hand if they got an answer. Then
debrief the activity as follows:

Tool 9: Treasure hunting The trust-building tools • 4 111
• Who feels that they got a unique or surprising answer?
Group Four • Tool 9: Treasure hunting

• Which questions made you feel uncomfortable when you were asking them?
Why?
• What did you notice about the process you used to find the answers?
• How many of you were asked the same question constantly? Why do you think
this was so?
• Who was asked a question they do not normally get asked? What did that feel
like?
5. Finish the process by reviewing the links to the ten criteria for trust (Handout 9a)
and then asking the group to reflect on what they have learned from the exercise
and discuss it together during the rest of the day.
Facilitation tips
• This exercise is a great way to begin a session, as it encourages participants to

go around the room and introduce themselves to each other, and it
immediately gets them interested in important diversity questions.
• The exercise is most effective for groups which are diverse in terms of national
culture, gender, age, and experience.
• Experience of running this activity suggests that although there is a limited time
frame, most questions get answered. Solutions to any challenge exist in the room.
• Some participants note that they get asked the same questions – and this
stimulates a conversation around why this is so. For example, participants go to
the only African in the room to find out what it was like growing up poor. This
stimulates a dialogue about the assumptions we have about how we define
poverty and who experiences it.
• Others note that it felt good to be asked a question they don’t normally get
asked, but to have a good idea on how to handle the situation. This stimulates a
conversation about what we miss when we go to the same people for answers
and overlook others.
• This exercise highlights how the diversity in the room contributes to a variety of
solutions and ideas for change.
• This exercise highlights the different approaches people use to get responses to
their questions.
• Note that the questions can be customised to the team that you are working
with.
This tool has been reproduced and adapted with the permission of CARE International. It is from Promoting
Gender Equality and Diversity: A CARE Training Curriculum for Facilitators, Module Three, Managing Diversity,
pp.129–30; 157–8 (2005).

112 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 9: Treasure hunting • Handout 9a
Group Four • Tool 9: Treasure hunting • Handout 9a

trust
Criteria Definition Impact of treasure hunting
Competence Trust based on a perception that team Treasure hunting uncovers hidden assumptions
members are competent, and so will not let about who is competent in which areas.
me down
Reciprocity Trust based on the observation that other Through taking part in these activities team
team members are trusting and co- members are to some extent making themselves
operative towards me vulnerable, and they all take this risk together.
Accessibility Trust based on the observation that other The questions are designed to enable people to find
team members share their true feelings and out something about the values and attitudes of
I can relate to them on a personal level other people in the room. This helps other team
members to get to know them better on a personal
level.

Handout 9b • Tool 9: Treasure hunting The trust-building tools • 4 113
Group Four • Tool 9: Treasure hunting • Handout 9b

Handout 9b: List of Questions for
Treasure Hunting
Find as many of these treasures as you can in 20 minutes, using the people in this
room as a resource. You are not allowed to get more than one answer from the
same person, nor form groups of more than three at any one time. So keep
moving around!
1. One person who was born the same month as you.
2. Two different ideas about how to help balance work and family life.
3. An excellent suggestion for how to build trust in a team.
4. An approach to managing the situation described below:

Scenario: You notice that Fatma, a Somali refugee who has recently started
working in the emergency-response team, is very quiet in staff meetings and
never offers her own thoughts or opinions. You are concerned she will never
advance if she cannot speak up. What would you do?
5. One thing about one of the following belief systems (or the experience of
being part of that system) that will help you to be more sensitive to
practitioners of those beliefs: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity,
Islam, Humanism, Atheism.
6. One thing learned by someone who has spent significant time overseas that
has changed their life profoundly and has had a positive influence on their
work.
7. A metaphor for working for the agency from someone who has been in the
organisation for less than two years.
8. A metaphor for working for the agency from someone who has been in the
organisation for more than five years.
9. A gem of wisdom about how to address poverty from someone who has
experienced poverty directly.
10. One important perception about the beliefs, values, or behaviours that make
the national culture you are currently working in different from other cultures.

114 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 10: Time lines
Tool 10: Time lines

Group Four • Tool 10: Time lines
Learning objectives
• enable people to get to know each other and the significant events that have
shaped their lives;
• encourage all team members to appreciate the gifts and qualities that each person
brings to the team and to see the diversity of background, culture, and skills that are
available in the team;
• help team members understand the values and motivations of their colleagues in
the team.
Overview
For team members to trust each other, they need to know each other and understand
each others’ values and motivations. This tool helps to speed up the process of getting
to know fellow team members, and can be done in the first or second week of the team
life-cycle. For the time lines activity each team member plots events which have been
significant in their lives on three different ‘time lines’ which are displayed around the
room. The three time lines represent: 1) their personal lives (including family); 2) their
working lives; and 3) their perception of key events in the outside world. Each of the
three time lines stretches from the date of the birth of the oldest team member to ten
years into the future, so that hopes and wishes for the future can also be included. At the
conclusion of the exercise, each team member spends a few minutes explaining to the
group why these events are significant for them.
Session plan
Overall time required 40 minutes plus 8 minutes per group member
Group size 10 –

Alignment
Cultural
Resources required Flip-chart paper and assorted coloured marker pens

Masking tape or scotch tape
Copies of Handout 10b: Brief for Time Lines Activity
(NB Preparation for this exercise can be done in advance to save time on the day.
Participants can either receive a verbal briefing or be given a written brief in advance so
they can prepare before they come to the meeting. Also, the sheets of paper with the
time lines on can be prepared before the participants assemble. To do this, the facilitator
must know the approximate age of the oldest team member.)

Tool 10: Time lines The trust-building tools • 4 115
How it works

1. Brief the whole group about the exercise.
2. Get the group to prepare three ‘time lines’ each on a separate large sheet of paper
(or have them ready in advance). Each time line should be drawn to the same scale,
using a ruler to measure off and mark ten-year intervals on a long line. The start
date should be around the birth date of the oldest participant and the finish date
should be ten years into the future.
3. Each of the time line sheets should be headed with one of the following headings:
• Key Events in My Life
• My Working Life
• The Wider World
4. Place the three sheets with the time lines around the room, either on the floor in
separate parts of the room, or on separate walls.
5. Hand out a brief for the time lines activity – one for each participant (a sample brief
is given in Handout 10b). Emphasise that people need not reveal anything about
themselves that they do not wish to share.
6. Ask participants to work on their own for 15 minutes to prepare their thoughts in
accordance with Stage 1 in the brief.
7. When they are ready, ask the participants to visit each of the three time lines around
the room and enter symbols that represent their thoughts, memories, and ideas.
Suggest that they use the time scale to place the events at roughly the appropriate
dates. Encourage them to use drawings or cartoons to illustrate each entry rather
than relying on written words.
8. When everyone has made all their entries on the three separate sheets, bring the
time line sheets together in one place, so that the dates on each sheet line up with
each other.
9. Get the whole group to gather around the three sheets. Ask for a volunteer to go
first. Then ask each participant in turn to tell their life story using the entries they
have made on the time line sheets to explain why those things are of particular
significance to them. Allow no more than ten minutes for each participant’s story.
10. When everyone has had their turn, ask the group to reflect on and discuss the
following questions:
• What key themes and points of similarity emerge from the stories that have
been told?
• What differences in life experiences are noticeable?
• What did you learn about differences in cultural background?
• What have you learned about shared values within the team?
• Identify one key quality/competence that the group most values about each
person.
11. As a final step, ask the group to review the links to the ten criteria for trust (Handout
10a) while reflecting on the responses that other team members shared.

116 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 10: Time lines
Facilitation tips
• Be sure to emphasise that nobody is being forced to reveal anything that they
do not wish to share. However, explain that building trust requires taking some
personal risks and so encourage people to be as open as they feel they can.
• Plain wallpaper or lining paper is ideal for this purpose and each sheet can be
between 6–10 feet long depending on the space available. Alternatively, for
each time line, three sheets of flip-chart paper on their sides and taped end to
end with masking or scotch tape will work well. You could also use a large
whiteboard/blackboard if available.
• As people tell their stories, model behaviour which values and appreciates both
the content of what people say and also the fact that they are being open.
Intervene with questions that show interest when appropriate and let other
team members do the same. Be sure not to allow any behaviour that derides or
belittles the story-teller.
• Make sure that everyone includes their thoughts about the next ten years for
each of the three time lines. This can reveal a lot about their values, as well as
their hopes and motivations.

Handout 10a • Tool 10: Time lines The trust-building tools • 4 117
Group Four • Tool 10: Time lines • Handout 10a

trust
Criteria Definition Impact of time lines
Competence Trust based on a perception that team The time lines activity enables team members to
members are competent, and so will not let understand the skills and qualities that other team
me down members bring to the team.
Reciprocity Trust based on the observation that other In taking part in this activity team members are, to
team members are trusting and co- some extent, allowing themselves to be vulnerable,
operative towards me and they all take this risk together.
Accessibility Trust based on the fact that other team The time lines activity enables each individual to
members share their true feelings and I can reveal personal things about themselves in a safe and
relate to them on a personal level protected environment. This helps team members
get to know them better on a personal level.
Predictability Trust based on the observation that the By seeing the key events that have shaped peoples’
behaviour of team members is consistent lives over time, it is easier to understand the attitudes
over time and in different contexts and values that underlie their behaviour.

118 4 • The trust-building tools Tool 10: Time lines • Handout 10b
Group Four • Tool 10: Time lines • Handout 10b
Handout 10b: Brief for Time Lines Activity

Introduction
This activity is designed to enable team members to learn about each other by
sharing the significant events that have shaped their lives. You can decide what
you share with the group. If some events are private and you do not wish to share
them then do not feel you have to. Share only what you want to share.
Stage 1 – Reflection Time (15 minutes)

1. Please think back over your life and identify the people, places, and events
which have:
• had an important impact on you;
• changed your views on life;
• resulted in an important change in the direction of your life;
• brought you great happiness or sadness.
Make a note of the four or five most significant of these events and why they
were important to you.
Then project your thinking forward a few years and consider what you would
like to happen to you (realistically!).
Think about simple drawings or symbols that can represent important events
or turning points in your life.
2. Now think about your working life and any organisations you have worked for.
What have been the most important roles you have undertaken?
• What did you learn in each of the jobs or roles you have undertaken?
• What did you learn from your colleagues?
• Who was the best boss you ever worked for and why? How did they
influence you?
Identify the key decisions you have taken about your working life and the
changes you have made along the way – especially any that constituted a
change of direction for you.
Again project your vision forward, and think about what you would like to
happen in your working life in the next ten years.
Think about simple drawings or symbols that can represent important events
or turning points in your working life.

Handout 10b • Tool 10: Time lines The trust-building tools • 4 119
Group Four • Tool 10: Time lines • Handout 10b

3. Next, turn your attention to what has been happening in the wider world
during your lifetime. This may be in your community, your country, or the
world – whatever has struck you as important. Identify the events which have
caught your imagination, and which you regard as significant, whether or not
they have affected you personally.
• What do you remember about the events?
• Why do you think they were important?
• What did you think and feel about them at the time? How do you feel
about them now?
• In this context choose one event that you would like to see happen
within the next ten years and consider where you would place it on the
time line.
Stage 2 – Sharing
When you are ready, enter the key events you have identified on the three time
lines around the room. Use pictures, symbols, or key words to portray the events.
Be ready to tell the other members of the team about your time lines and explain
briefly why these things are important to you.

120
5 • Informal activities 121
Action research conducted in Sri Lanka and Malawi indicated that field managers and staff
wanted ideas for less formal activities that would continue to build trust within their teams.
Social activities are vital to help team members build stronger relationships, recognise
achievements, boost morale, and foster a sense of team unity.
The purpose of the activities in this section is to strengthen team cohesiveness, and
nurture trust within the team. This section includes ideas for ice-breakers, team social
activities, and information about the new Global Diversity Board Game for International
Relief and Development Organisations.
Save the Children staff gather with Bana Camp residents affected by the 2005 Pakistan earthquake Save the Children
to discuss a school rebuilding project.

122 5 • Informal activities Ice-breakers
Ice-breakers
Learning objective
The purpose of ice-breakers is to:
• help staff to build relationships and share information in a fun and creative
environment in a short amount of time.
Overview
Every staff meeting, team gathering, or workshop is an opportunity to foster stronger
relationships between team members. Ice-breakers can be used during any team
session. While short, they can go a long way to indirectly building trust in a team.
Session plan
A list of ideas for ice-breaker exercises is provided below. They are all short and should
take anywhere from 10–20 minutes depending on the size of the group (with the
exception of the carousel exercise which may take longer if the small-group activity is
added at the end). Some of the ice-breakers are more physical than others; these can be
good to use to generate some energy after lunch if you are holding a day-long
workshop. As with sports activities, take into consideration different physical abilities of
staff, including anyone with a disability, when selecting activities.
The ice-breakers are categorised by their main objective:

• getting to know each other better
• supporting one another
• working together
• creative thinking
• aligning teams.
How it works
Select from the following ice-breakers depending on the nature of your team session:
Getting to know each other better

In terms of the ten criteria for trust, this group of ice-breakers tends to focus on swift
trust, or trust based on competence, openness with information, integrity, and
reciprocity.
Paper people: Everyone gets a piece of card or scrap of paper and lists three things
about themselves: a) a physical trait, b) a personality trait, and c) an aspiration or thing
they love to do. An alternative is to get everyone to write one thing about themselves
that they think no one in the group knows about. All the scraps are put in a box, mixed
up, and each participant pulls out a paper. Each one is read aloud, and the group must
guess whom the paper is describing.

Ice-breakers Informal activities • 5 123
Two truths and a lie: Participants state three things about themselves, two true and one
false, without revealing which is which. Other participants should try to discern which
statement is the lie. Participants should be encouraged to be as creative as they can.
Supporting one another

In terms of the ten criteria for trust, this exercise promotes trust based on well-being and
inclusion.
Circle of appreciation: This is an opportunity for team members who have worked
together for a while to receive positive feedback from their team mates. Even if there is
tension within the team, the facilitator should remind team members that there are
always positive traits to recognise in everyone. Get everyone to sit in a circle, and
provide each person with a sheet of paper. Ask everyone to write their name on the top
of the paper. Then ask everyone to crumple up the paper into a ball. Tell them each to
throw their balled-up paper into the centre of the circle. Ask each person to retrieve a
paper ball and open it up. If they see their own name, they should trade papers with
their neighbour. Ask each person to write down a positive trait or something they
admire about the person named at the top of the paper. Have everyone ball up the
piece of paper and throw it back into the centre of the circle. Repeat the steps above
5–10 times. On the final round, have someone pick up each piece of paper and hand it
back to the person named on top. Each person should have 5–10 positive things listed
about themselves.
Working together
In terms of the ten criteria for trust, these exercises promote trust based on openness
with information and reciprocity.
Don’t cross the line!: This game emphasises the importance of working together. Create
a long line (with tape, string, draw it in the dirt, etc.) in the meeting area. Split
participants into two groups and ask each group to place themselves on opposite sides of
the line. Tell them that each group is going to get a special set of directions. Meet with
Group 1 and secretly tell them that each of them is going to find a place on their side of
the line and pair up with someone in Group 2 on the other side of the line. Their goal is to
convince the person in Group 2, in whatever way they can, to cross the line and stand on
the same side of the line as Group 1. Then move to Group 2 and provide them with the
same set of secret instructions. Get the participants to place themselves on their side of
the line. Shout ‘Go!’. Give a few minutes for everyone try to reach their goal.
In trying to reach their goal, people will usually use various forms of coercion to
convince their partner to cross to their side of the line. As the two groups’ goals seem to
compete with one another, some may resort to pulling or bribery. After a few minutes,
call an end to the game. Ask people to share solutions that they found. See if anyone
thought to share their instructions with the person opposite them, or if they kept them
secret. Discuss the reasons for secrecy, aspects of trust (such as reciprocity-based trust),
and the benefits of sharing goals up-front and finding ways to work together (for
example, the pair can first stand together on one side of the line, and then on the other,
meeting each other’s goals.)
Write it/do it: Pairs of students sit back-to-back, and one student is chosen as the
communicator and one as the listener. The communicator is given a simple line drawing
(see overleaf for an example). The listener is given a piece of paper and a pen. The
communicator must give clear directions to the listener so that the listener can draw the

identical design from only the verbal directions given (for example, the communicator
can say: ‘Draw a medium-sized box in the middle of the paper…then draw…’). The
listener cannot ask any questions for clarification and must remain silent. Compare the
listener’s drawing with the communicator’s.
Continue with these same pairs and provide the communicator with a second drawing
that is different from the first. Follow the same instructions, but this time the listener is
allowed to ask questions of the communicator. Compare the two drawings.
Then ask these questions:

• How well did the communicator communicate? Did the communicator provide
clear instructions? How could the communicator have improved?
• How did one-way communication compare to two-way communication?
• What did you find difficult about communicating information for the first drawing?
• Did it help to have the listener ask questions during the second drawing? Did you
change your way of communicating as a result of the listener’s feedback and
questions?
Example drawing:
Ring of trust: Participants will have to negotiate and work together, initially with their eyes
closed, in order to get themselves in a circle, joining hands. Some participants will naturally
start to organise, others will not be able to move (due to entanglement) and will have to
delegate and trust others to help. This activity is about realising the need to work together,
trusting one another that each person will work effectively for a common purpose.
1. Ask the participants to stand in a large circle, close their eyes, and put their arms out
in front of them.
2. Ask the participants to start to walk slowly in towards one another, keeping their eyes
firmly closed. Facilitators are there to ensure there are no crashes, or poking of eyes!
3. Tell the participants that when they feel someone’s hand they must hold it, and stop
moving inwards. (Another option would be to allow participants to walk in towards
each other with their eyes closed, and when you say stop, then to get them to hold
onto any hands they feel at that moment.)

4. When each participant has joined a hand, or facilitators can do this for the loose
hands, ask participants to open their eyes.
5. Tell participants that the object is now to move until they form a large circle,
without breaking hands at any time. The circle should have no knots or twists in it.
6. Facilitators can help with suggestions.
7. After 10–15 minutes when the group have run out of ideas or started cheating, the
exercise is complete.
8. De-brief: facilitators can perhaps ask participants how they felt, ask them to identify
any skills they felt they used during the exercise, and whether these skills are
relevant to any situations in which they interact with others.
9. You may need to adapt this activity for use in cultures where touching between
men and women is not the norm. An alternative would be to carry out the activity
in two different gender groups simultaneously.
Creative thinking
In terms of the ten criteria for trust, these exercises promote trust based on competence
and openness with information.
Thinking outside the box: This is a fun physical activity to get participants moving, for
example after a lunch break. It can also be used to help participants to get to know each
other better. It is best used with a group of at least 12 people. Provide each person with
a sheet of paper and ask them what shape it is (rectangle). Tell them that this game has
one rule: that when they hear the whistle, each person must stand on (or get close to) a
rectangle. Tell them that you will be asking a series of questions. They should find
someone nearby to discuss the question with (in pairs, in threes, etc.). Questions can be
related to the purpose of the meeting, but they could also be personal questions (such
as ‘what was your first job?’ or ‘how many people are there in your family?’, etc.). The
facilitator should have about five or six questions prepared.
Give the group about one minute to discuss the first question. While they are talking,
quietly take away sheets of paper from one or two people. At the end of the minute,
whistle to alert everyone to stand on (or get close to) a rectangle. People who do not have
a piece of paper usually try to stand on other people’s pieces of paper with them, or try to
steal others’ papers. Ask the second question, take more papers away, and sound the
whistle again. After each question, as the facilitator removes more and more sheets of
paper, it becomes increasingly challenging for everyone to ‘stand on (or get close to) a
rectangle’ as they typically first think only of their sheet of paper. Participants will
sometimes begin thinking of alternative solutions on their own. If not, prompt the group
to begin thinking about the rules – to stand on a rectangle – does it have to only mean the
piece of paper? The activity is best held in a rectangular room, preferably with floor tiles or
in a rectangular field. Eventually someone will realise that a design in the floor makes a
rectangle, the room is a rectangle, they can stand on or get close to a table, they can use a
piece of flip-chart paper, etc. Remind everyone that even when things seem challenging,
there is always a solution that can be found by thinking creatively and working together.
Carousel: This ice-breaker can be used for sharing ideas or information in pairs among a
large number of people in a fast-paced, high-energy setting. It can prompt team
members to share innovative ideas during strategic-planning sessions or to think
creatively about solutions to a particular problem or issue. It can encourage team
members to value one another’s opinions and build competence-based trust. It is best for
a medium to large group of 12–40 people. You need an even number of people to carry
out this exercise.

1. Discuss with everyone the topic to be addressed during this exercise. It can be
something such as: ‘how do we encourage more community participation in our
water and sanitation programme?’ or ‘what can we do to provide more social
activities to staff to help build relationships and trust?’
2. Get everyone to stand in a big circle. Every other person should move inside the
circle and turn around, facing those in the outer circle. In other words, there should
be two circles with the outer circle people facing inward and the inner circle people
facing outward, and everyone should be face-to-face.
3. Remind the group of the topic to be discussed and tell them to share as many of
their ideas as possible with their partner, giving each person a chance to speak.
4. Each person should take notes and write down as many ideas as they hear.
5. Every 60 seconds, the facilitator should make a loud noise to signal that the outside
person should move clockwise, and stand in front of the person to their left. It is
important to keep the group moving fairly quickly, in order to keep the discussions
brief and lively.
6. After 5–10 rotations, each person will have collected a long list of ideas. Get
everyone to sit in small groups (4–5 people depending on total group size) and
review all of the information they received. Each group should select the top three
best solutions or ideas, write them each on a separate card, and post them on a
board at the front of the room.
7. The group should review all of the cards, consolidate similar answers, and prioritise
the various solutions or ideas presented.
(NB Steps 1–5 of this exercise can also be used to share personal information in order for
team members to get to know one another better, by having each pair discuss a
question regarding a personal topic rather than a programme-related topic. Steps 6 and
7 would be skipped.)
Proverbs: Participants search for the owner of the other half of their proverb, and then
work with their partner to figure out what insight the proverb may offer about trust.
Proverbs are common in many cultures around the world, and often quite amusing. Use
the proverbs below or collect your own. Write half of each proverb on a separate slip of
paper. Distribute the half proverbs to participants. Ask them to find their other half.
Once they meet, ask them to figure out how their proverb might relate to trust. Offering
a sample proverb and your interpretation of it can be useful.
Sample proverbs and suggestions about where to divide them:

A chain is only / as strong as its weakest link
If you neglect the pot / it boils over and extinguishes the fire
Even water can be held in a sieve / if you wait till it gets frozen
Softly, softly / catch the monkey
Don’t climb the palm tree / with something in each hand
There is no better mirror / than a best friend
In confusion are / the seeds of understanding
A single bracelet / does not jingle
You only need to light one match / to spread the bushfire
Sweet and sour / go hand in hand

Aligning teams
These activities are slightly more involved and may take a bit longer than the others
listed above. They help to address issues of team alignment and sharing a common
sense of purpose. In terms of the ten criteria for trust, these activities address reciprocity,
competence, and compatibility.
Visualise it: This exercise can be used when a team wants to set objectives for where it
wants to be at the end of a relief effort. It is a fun activity using pictures and helps to
unite teams around a common purpose.
1. Welcome the team and introduce the exercise. Explain that the purpose of the
session is to generate consensus about where the team would like to be at the
conclusion of a certain initiative.
2. Invite each team member to draw a picture on either an A4 or A3 size sheet of
paper, that represents how they visualise the status of the emergency situation at
the conclusion of the relief effort, at the conclusion of the recovery effort, or at a
point two or three months from now.
3. Give each person about 15 minutes to complete their drawing. Emphasise that this
is not an art contest.
4. When they have completed their picture of the future, invite them to draw a second
picture that represents the current situation – the way it is today.
5. When the drawings are complete, ask each team member to present their pictures
to the others. This can be done with both pictures presented at once or by having
all the future pictures presented first and then the current situation pictures.
6. Encourage the team to ask questions during the presentations.
7. Facilitate a discussion at the conclusion of the presentations. Generate ideas on
cards that capture the key shared elements of the desired future and then the key
shared elements of the current situation.
8. Place the desired future statements on the right-hand side of a wall space and the
current situation statements on the left, with a gap in between.
9. Quickly review the two sets of cards and ask the group (while pointing to the current
situation cards): ‘If this is where we are, and [pointing to the desired future] this is where
we want to be, what are the main things we need to do as a team to bridge this gap?’
10. Note ideas that are shared by the team.
11. Ask what elements of trust are involved in getting the team across this bridge.
12. Again, capture the ideas that are shared.
13. Facilitate a discussion of the trust elements and get agreement on the three most
important team actions that can be taken to ensure we arrive together.
14. Document the outputs and circulate to all team members.
© Dennis Hamilton, Managing Director, Training Associates Pacific.
What’s your function?: This activity improves communication and understanding

between two different teams and helps them to better understand one another’s roles
and responsibilities. The result of this exercise can be an increased sense of belonging to
a larger effort and an understanding and appreciation of the work done by each team.
1. Bring the two teams together and even if they know each other, ask them to
introduce themselves.
2. Get them to meet in their teams and discuss and outline what they understand to
be the ten main functions of the other team. Each function should be written on a
separate card.

3. Ask each team to present what they have written to the other team. No challenges
should be allowed during the presentations, but questions could be asked to clarify
what was being presented.
4. Get each team to take the list of functions that have been prepared by the other
team, and meet to discuss the output. Functions that are accurate should be kept. If
there are functions missing or incorrect, the team should write new functions on
cards of a different colour.
5. Get the teams to come back together and then present their revised set of functions
to the other. They should hold a discussion and elaborate on each of the functions
listed.
6. Ask the members of each team to share what they learned from the sharing, what
they appreciate about the work being done by the other team, and how they think
it contributes to the overall relief and recovery work of the organisation.
Facilitation tip
The ice-breaker concept may not be widely understood across all cultures, so you
may need to provide an explanation before you introduce any of the activities.

Team socials Informal activities • 5 129
Team socials
Learning objectives
The purpose of team socials is to:
• help team members get to know one another better and build stronger
relationships;
• build a sense of common purpose and unity amongst team members;
• boost morale and motivation, and support the psycho-social well-being of staff.
Overview
In an intense emergency setting, a sense of urgency often leads to heavy workloads and
long work hours. Focusing on actively responding to the emergency tends to take
priority over making time to reflect and rejuvenate. But neglecting the latter is
potentially harmful for individual health and successful team functioning. Services will
be more effectively delivered if staff are able to take time out for rest and relaxation,
establish good relationships with co-workers, feel appreciated for their hard work, and
feel like a valued member of the organisation. It may seem self-serving to some to take
time out in the midst of a serious emergency response to focus on themselves and their
team, but even a short amount of time spent on team social activities will result in a
more efficient and motivated team.
Session plan
A list of ideas for social activities is provided below. The most appropriate social activity
for a given team can be selected depending on the stage of team development and the
nature of the emergency setting. For example, day trips to another location to hold a
meeting may only be possible once there is an improvement in the security level.
How it works
Forming a social committee

At least two staff are nominated to run a social committee. If the agency is small, the
committee can be agency-wide. If the agency is large, with several large teams, a
committee can be established within each team. The social committee collects
information on birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, births, and holidays in the different
team members’ cultures. They can create a fun bulletin board highlighting these events,
keeping it updated each month. If the team wants to celebrate these events, they can
ask volunteers to help organise the celebration and to prepare enough food for all staff
to participate. Each birthday can be celebrated, or monthly celebrations can be held for
anyone having a birthday during that month. The social committee can also help
celebrate a team success when a project milestone is reached.

130 5 • Informal activities Team socials
Sharing a meal
In many cultures, eating together is an important aspect of building respectful relationships.
If the agency has money available in the budget, it should host an agency-wide lunch or
dinner. Otherwise teams can organise ‘pot-luck’ meals, where each team member brings a
small amount of food or a drink to share with everyone. Offices should provide coffee and
tea in the mornings and staff should be encouraged to take a few minutes to socialise with
one another at this point. Ensure that food is made available equally among everyone, so
that any perceptions of differences between team members are not exacerbated.
Day trips
Instead of holding a regular team meeting or planning session at the office, hold it off-
site. Sometimes a simple change in location can help to stimulate more creative thinking
and invigorate a team. For example, take the team to an ‘away-day’ at a pleasant
location to hold an event such as a briefing or training session.
Sports teams
Sports encourage team building and promote physical and mental health. Agencies can
set up intra- or inter-agency leagues. Usually volleyball, football (soccer), or kickball
require the least amount of supplies and are easiest to organise. Ideas for sports activities
should promote participation by both women and men, and take into consideration
different physical abilities of staff, including anyone with a disability.
Agency choir or chorus

Just as sports teams bring together different people with common interests and create a
sense of agency unity and pride, so can a singing group. Singing, as with sports, can
also be an inexpensive way to let off steam. The group can hold regular practices and
then perform at agency gatherings.
Team ‘go and see’ visit

Group trips such as visiting other programmes, for example, can be a way to encourage
team learning and at the same time foster relationships and promote creative problem-
solving. Often more than one agency is carrying out the same type of emergency-
response programme, but in another location. Different agencies encounter similar
types of challenges but may address them in different ways. Forming relationships and
collaborating across agencies, although challenging, can provide mutual support and
help to build trust both within a team and between agencies.
Links to the Trust Index

Alignment Fun social activities involving all team members are organised on a regular basis to
help staff build relationships
Team successes are recognised and celebrated
Team gatherings/communications help to develop and update a shared sense of
purpose
Organisational The well-being of staff is looked after. Adequate time off is ensured, stress-awareness
materials are provided and discussed, psycho-social support is provided when needed

Global Diversity Board Game Informal activities • 5 131
Global Diversity Board Game for

International Relief and Development
Organisations
The Global Diversity Board Game is a highly interactive training tool that uses a multiple-
choice quiz format to explore facts about global diversity. It covers, for example,
demographics, jobs, and society as well as how to effectively manage in a multi-cultural
workplace. It is a thought-provoking game, adapted as part of the Building Trust Project
especially for the international development sector, that highlights the importance of
understanding differences and acts as a stepping stone towards building trust.
More information about the board game, and how to obtain copies is available at:
www.ecbproject.org

132
Further resources 133
Covey, M. R. (2006) The Speed of Trust, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Doney, P. (1998) ‘Understanding the influence of national culture on the

development of trust’, Academy of Management Review, July.
Emergency Capacity Building Project (2007) ‘Building Trust in Diverse Teams:

Scoping Study Report’, available at: www.ecbproject.org/publications/ECB1/
ECB_Building_Trust_in_Teams_Scoping_Study.pdf
Hurley, R. F. (2006) ‘The decision to trust’, Harvard Business Review, September.
Kourdi, J. and S. Bibb (2004) Trust Matters: For Organisational and Personal Success,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sprenger, R. K. (2004) Trust: the Best Way to Manage, Cyan Campus.
Stephenson, Jr., M. (2005) ‘Making humanitarian relief networks more effective:

operational coordination, trust and sense making’, Disasters 29 (4): 337–50.

134
Glossary 135
alignment coming together behind a shared sense of purpose and/or common goal
appreciative inquiry an investigative approach which focuses on ‘what works’, in order to bring
about change
collectivist culture a culture where the interests of the group are emphasised over those of the
individual
high-context culture a culture where context (what is between the lines or non-verbal) is more
important than text (the explicit and direct use of words); a culture that is
more interested in the quality of relationships within their context than
in accomplishing tasks
high power-distance a culture where it is accepted that there should be a large gap in terms of
culture power and social status between managers and their staff
in-group a group of people sharing similar characteristics, values, and approaches,

producing feelings of community or solidarity
international staff staff who are not from the country where the emergency is taking place
low-context culture a culture where text (the explicit and direct use of words) is more
important than context (what is between the lines or non-verbal); a
culture where individual accomplishments are more important than the
quality of relationships
low power-distance a culture where it is perceived that gaps of power and social status between
culture managers and their staff should be minimised
national staff staff who are from the country where the emergency is taking place
orientation a process to enable new employees to adjust to new surroundings,

colleagues, and activities
out-group a group of people perceived as other than / different from one’s own
reciprocity the quality of something being felt by both sides; mutual dependence
(i.e. it is easier to trust someone else if we feel they are trusting towards us)

.

Building Trust in Diverse Teams: The Toolkit For Emergency Response

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Trust in Diverse Teams: The Toolkit For Emergency Response

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Trust in Diverse Teams: The Toolkit For Emergency Response

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BuildingTrust-CvrOuter-AW.qxd 17.10.

Building Trust in Diverse Teams The Toolkit for Emergency Response

What is trust? Why is it important in emergency-response teams?

Building Trust in Diverse Teams supports humanitarian practitioners,

‘This is a hugely valuable contribution to both understanding and

Project Joan Summers, Oxfam Sri Lanka Country Programme Manager

Key contributors Heather Brooks, CARE International

Building Trust in Diverse Teams © Oxfam GB for the ECB Project

© Oxfam GB for the Emergency Capacity Building Project 2007

The information in this publication is correct at the time of going to press.

USA: Stylus Publishing LLC, PO Box 605, Herndon, VA 20172-0605, USA

Printed by Information Press, Eynsham

Inners printed on recycled paper made from 100% post-consumer waste.

Cover printed on FSC accredited 75% recycled paper.

Building Trust in Diverse Teams © Oxfam GB for the ECB Project

How to use this toolkit 3

© Oxfam GB for the ECB Project Building Trust in Diverse Teams

What is trust? Why it is important in team performance? What increases or

The Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB – see Acknowledgements)

© Oxfam GB for the ECB Project Building Trust in Diverse Teams

Building Trust in Diverse Teams © Oxfam GB for the ECB Project

The toolkit should be used by humanitarian practitioners, human-resource

© Oxfam GB for the ECB Project Building Trust in Diverse Teams

Why trust matters

Mercy Corps Staff

‘Trust’ is a vital ingredient for effective emergency-response teams. Research carried

© Oxfam GB for the ECB Project Building Trust in Diverse Teams

Building Trust in Diverse Teams © Oxfam GB for the ECB Project

5. Compatibility Trust based on background, values, approaches, interests, and objectives

Swift trust Deeper trust

© Oxfam GB for the ECB Project Building Trust in Diverse Teams

Building Trust in Diverse Teams © Oxfam GB for the ECB Project

The ten criteria for trust

The ten criteria for trust

Openness with information

© Oxfam GB for the ECB Project Building Trust in Diverse Teams

Another aspect of integrity is behaving in accordance with our professed moral

Building Trust in Diverse Teams © Oxfam GB for the ECB Project

Working in an emergency-response team is a demanding and stressful experience.

The ten criteria for trust

© Oxfam GB for the ECB Project Building Trust in Diverse Teams

Building Trust in Diverse Teams © Oxfam GB for the ECB Project

How to measure factors that impact on

© Oxfam GB for the ECB Project Building Trust in Diverse Teams

What is the Index used for?

Why use the Index?

What does the Index consist of?

Building Trust in Diverse Teams © Oxfam GB for the ECB Project

Who is the Index for?

When to use the Index

How long does the Index take to complete?

Who leads the process?

© Oxfam GB for the ECB Project Building Trust in Diverse Teams

How to use the Index

1. The team leader/facilitator, working with a senior local stakeholder (a long-

2. The team leader/facilitator introduces the Index at a team meeting, putting a

3. The team leader/facilitator begins by introducing the ‘Environmental factors’

Building Trust in Diverse Teams © Oxfam GB for the ECB Project

© Oxfam GB for the ECB Project Building Trust in Diverse Teams