This article provides a 6-step procedure for measuring and evaluating the trust that constituencies hold in an organization. (You’ll find Katie Paine’s Trust Measurement Checklist a convenient way to organize your trust measurement project.) First, let’s examine some theories of trust, and how it fits into relationships in general.

We need to look no further than Chipotle’s plummeting sales to know that trust, or lack thereof, has a measurable effect on the financial health of any organization. Thanks to the economic collapse of 2008, people trust corporations less than at almost any other time in our history. Thus, when trust helps an organization build relationships with key constituencies, it saves that organization money by reducing the costs of litigation, regulation, legislation, pressure campaigns, boycotts, or lost revenue that result from bad relationships.

A high level of trust helps cultivate relationships with donors, consumers, investors, and legislators who are needed to support organizational goals. When employees trust their employer they are more likely to support the mission of the organization and be satisfied with their jobs. Lower employee turnover has a direct impact on the bottom line. Trust from the financial community is critical to an organization’s access to capital and therefore its ability to grow. Good relationships with the media can often avert a crisis.

The essential transparency of social media has also helped redefine the importance and relevance of trust in today’s marketplace. If you are doing something wrong, bad, or hurtful (or simply perceived to be), chances are that someone will report it somewhere in social media. If you’re lucky, it won’t be photographed or end up on YouTube. If your stakeholders have a high degree of trust in your organization, chances are good they’ll come to your defense and what could have been a devastating scandal may be forgiven in a day or two.

Even though examples such as these make it clear that trust is important, few organizations actually measure the trust that their constituencies have in them because they either don’t know how, or think they can’t afford it. With this article, those excuses go out the window.

What is Trust?

First, a bit of clarification. Research on trust has shown that it is not a one metric-fits-all concept, but rather is multi-dimensional. Jim Grunig has identified three dimensions of trust that are measurable by the Grunig Relationship Survey:

1. Competence: The belief that an organization has the ability to do what it says it will do. Including the extent to which an organization is seen as being effective, and that it can compete and survive in the marketplace.

2. Integrity: The belief that an organization is fair and just.

3. Dependability/reliability: The belief that an organization will do what it says it will do, that it acts consistently and dependably.

But just measuring levels of trust won’t help you restore it. That requires a bit more data gathering. Trust is closely tied to the norms, values, and beliefs of the organizational culture as well as the beliefs of your stakeholders. Therefore it is critical to understand the self-image and self-definitions of your publics if you are going to accurately measure trust.

Additionally, trust is the outcome of communications behaviors, such as providing accurate information, giving explanations for decisions, and demonstrating sincere and appropriate openness. Which is why communications metrics are critical in trust measurement.

And there’s the time factor. Andrew Tucker, in a paper delivered at the 2006 International Public Relations Research Conference (IPRRC), postulated that trust has a time dimension, which we’ve simplified into:

1. Short-term trust, which is based on financial performance and product quality metrics like Fortune’s Most Admired list.

2. Medium-term trust, in which either an organization or individual is not sufficiently known or understood to be completely trusted, but is necessary to get a job done. For instance: “I can’t totally trust you because I don’t know you, but I need to trust you somewhat to do my job or fill my need.”

In this category is what I call reflexive mistrust, in which an organization loses credibility because of frequent obfuscation or spin, and as a result the competition or opposition becomes more trustworthy. You frequently see this in politics: One party loses public trust when it is perceived to have lied or been corrupt. An opposing party automatically becomes more trusted, even though they have done nothing specific to earn it.

Today’s politically polarized media consumption patterns provide another example. More and more often, people are choosing between rival media outlets based on their own political beliefs. They give so much credence to their own point of view and chosen media outlet that, if one side says one thing, they will believe the opposite side of the story, no matter the actual evidence.

3. Long-term trust, which is demonstrated by customer loyalty.

Trust Measurement

Trust measurement and evaluation is a way of giving a result a precise specification, generally by comparison to some standard or baseline, and usually is done in a quantifiable or numerical manner. It seeks to answer questions such as:

• Have the behaviors, programs, and activities we implemented changed what people know, think, and feel about our organization, and how they actually act (as exhibited by protests, votes, and purchases)?

• Have the actions or behaviors of our organization had an effect on the trust that our constituencies feel toward our organization?

• Have the public relations and communications efforts that were initiated to build trust had an effect? If so, how can we support and document that with research?

As with any measurement program, trust measurement involves the six basic steps of measurement:

Step 1. Set SMART objectives that define the outcomes you are trying to achieve.

Trust is a wonderful thing to have, and it can increase loyalty, sales, and get you forgiveness in a crisis. But unless you define what specific outcome you want, you can’t start to measure it. The communications practitioner, counselor, and/or research supplier ought to ask: What financial or organizational results improve with greater trust? What is at risk if trust diminishes? There is no doubt that trust produces tangible positive business value, but to start the measurement process you need to have an in-depth discussion on the specific outcomes you want.

There is almost always a direct and measurable benefit to an organization when it measures and understands its relationships with its constituencies. For instance:

• A high level of trust helps cultivate relationships with donors, consumers, shareholders, and legislators who are needed to support organizational goals.
• Higher employee trust means lower turnover, which has a direct impact on the bottom line.
• Higher employee trust also increases the likelihood that they will be satisfied with the organization and their jobs. As a result they are more productive, more likely to support the organization, and less likely to interfere with its mission.
• Trust from the financial community is critical to an organization’s access to capital and therefore its ability to grow.
• Trust from the media can often avert or reduce a crisis.

Typical objectives might be to:

• Save time
• Reduce barriers
• Gain efficiency
• Reduce legal costs
• Eliminate barriers to expansion
• Reduce lost revenue
• Support the stock price
• Neutralize opposition
• Shorten sales cycle
• Better communicate our messages

Begin your program by establishing SMART objectives, that is, objectives that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and have a Time Factor. Your SMART objectives will define success of your program, and therefore will determine your metrics. Typical SMART objectives for a trust-building or trust-restoration program might be:

1. Increase out Trust score (based on average responses in a trust survey – See Step 5 below) by 10% by the end of Q4 2016.
2. Reduce our share of undesirable (i.e. leaves a reader more likely to oppose our expansion)  coverage by 30% by the end of Q4 2016.

Step 2. Define your stakeholders and other parameters.

Next, you need to identify those groups or individuals with whom your organization has or needs to improve trust. And don’t just say “everyone.” A stakeholder is a group of people who can make or break your organization, whose trust will have a direct impact on your success or failure. It is not “anyone with a pulse.” Chances are stakeholders will include employees, your local community and whomever you depend on for revenue. There is no single list, because it will vary from organization to organization.

Once these publics have been identified, you also need to flesh out the other parameters of the program, like:

• Over what time frame do you expect to move the trust needle?
• Are there specific tactics that need to be correlated with your trust efforts?
• What is the budget?

Step 3. Define the specific metrics you will track.

The value of using the trust elements of the Grunig Relationship Survey is that you can develop a trust index to track over time. But shifts in opinion aren’t the only possible metric. You might want to look at “share of conversations” around trust or a particularly trust-damaging issue in social media. If you’re taking steps to restore trust, and posting information about that issue, one metric might “Percent increase in engagement with trust content.” Sit down with leadership and get consensus on what specific metrics you’re going to track and how often.

Metrics typically fall into three categories:

1. Activity or output metrics: For example, number of times your brand is mentioned as trustworthy by the media.
2. Attitude or perception metrics, also known as outtake metrics: For example, change in perception of your organization as a trustworthy organization.
3. Outcome metrics: For example, percent change in the number of people that reinvest in your company and/or that become repeat purchasers.

Metrics are typically articulated with percentages, as in:

• Percent increase in trust score (or decrease in mistrust)
• Percent reduction in sales cycle
• Percent reduction in legal fees
• Percent decrease in lawsuits or complaints filed
• Percent increase in repeat customers
• Percent reduction in employee turnover rate
• Percent increase in employee satisfaction and trust score
• Percent communication of key messages

Step 4. Establish a benchmark: What do you want to compare results to?

Measurement is essentially a comparative tool, and you always need something to compare results to. Whether it is your own trust over time or a comparison of your results to a peer company, you must provide a benchmark and a context for the results.

So, for example, suppose you are investing in a corporate social responsibility (CSR) program to build or rebuild trust in your organization. Before beginning the program, you would conduct a trust measurement survey to establish a benchmark. Then, after the program has run for a year, you would repeat the survey. By comparing the two results you can determine the impact of the program.

Step 5. Select a measurement tool.

Before you even begin to define the appropriate tool(s) to collect new data, it is always smart to dig around within your organization to find out what data already exists. Are there customer surveys, employee morale studies, or other research data that can be analyzed for trust components? If you are starting from scratch, bear in mind that there is no one, simple, all-encompassing research tool, technique, or methodology that can be relied on to measure and evaluate trust in all organizations. The choice of a tool depends on your objectives and the type of metrics you choose.

Love at First Sight Doesn’t Happen Very Often.

Relationships and trust are based on actions, not clicks. If we were talking about romantic relationships as opposed to social ones, liking or following would be the equivalent of winking on Match.com. When you click on that picture, you are not saying, “I want to have a relationship with this person.” You are simply expressing interest in that person’s picture. Until you have some level of real interaction – like having coffee together or an email exchange – chances are that a wink will be just be a wink. There is no one, simple, all-encompassing research tool, technique or methodology you can rely on to measure and evaluate trust.

Best practice dictates that you will usually need to devise a combination of different measurement techniques appropriate for your company or client. Some of the tools and techniques to measure trust include:

• Surveys
• Focus groups
• Before-and-after polls
• Experimental and quasi-experimental designs
• Multivariate analysis projects

Over the long term, the value of increasing the level of trust in your organization can be measured in money saved from lower costs of expansion, lower litigation fees, and lower costs of recruitment and, ultimately, lower cost of operations.

Traditionally, all valid trust measurement has been conducted via some form of survey research. However, with the advent of social media, a number of other techniques have been suggested, including content analysis of social networks (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, etc.) and web analytics. Let’s look at the pros and cons of these alternative methods.

Using Survey Research to Measure Trust

For years trust measurement has been conducted mostly by large organizations and major research firms. They would field a questionnaire that included a series of agree/disagree statements pertaining to the relationship, such as those of the Grunig Relationship Survey. Respondents are asked to use a 1-to-7 scale to indicate, on a scale of 1 to 7 the extent to which they agree or disagree that each item listed describes their relationship with that particular organization. Typical statements might be:

1. This organization treats people like me fairly and justly.
2. Whenever this organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about people like me.
3. This organization can be relied on to keep its promises.
4. I believe that this organization takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions.
5. I feel very confident about this organization’s skills.
6. This organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.
7. Sound principles seem to guide this organization’s behavior.
8. This organization does not mislead people like me.
9. I am very willing to let this organization make decisions for people like me.
10. I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage of people like me.
11. This organization is known to be successful at the things it tries to do.

New technology platforms have reduced the cost and complexity of trust surveys considerably. Survata, for example, charges by the completed survey. So you can survey 500 people using 5 or 6 of the above statements for $500.

Using Content Analysis to Measure Trust

The proliferation of content, and specifically personal opinion as voiced in blogs and on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, has led many to mine this data for personal opinions and sentiment. Typically this mining has been done using some form of Natural Language Processing. And, while it appears to have some validity in measuring basic sentiment in entertainment (for instance, books, movies, and television programs), it has not proven effective in measuring trust.

Manual content analysis, however, is a more realistic possibility. In an experiment conducted with three top research universities, KDPaine & Partners found that it was possible to create a set of coding instructions based on the Grunig Relationship Survey that a human coder could use to detect and record elements of trust in social media conversations. However, the experiment also showed that there were several caveats for using content analysis to determine trust levels.

Most importantly, some level of emotion must be present to analyze it. If you are analyzing a topic that does not evoke emotions, sentiment, or opinion, it will be impossible to identify any element of trust. For part of this investigation we removed discussion of football from the analysis, since one of the universities did not have a football team. Once we did that, most of the emotion and passion went with it. Of 2,000 total items analyzed, only 265 (13%) actually contained any of the relationship concepts we were trying to study.

So, if you are a B-to-B company, or one for which most of the conversation about you is about science or academic research, then there may not be enough sentiment expressed to be measurable. Note, however, that in another study of a major tech celebrity we were able to use human coded content analysis to accurately identify what actions the individual took to evoke the most trust expressed in social media.

Using Web Analytics to Measure Trust

A number of social media pundits have suggested that consumer actions, as tracked by quantitative web metrics (for instance, the number of fans, followers, or forwards), are accurate expressions of consumer trust. In theory the concept sounds good: If more people follow you on Twitter, or like your content on Facebook, one might assume that they trust you. However, the reality of the social web gets in the way of any validity to this form of trust measurement. Here is why:

You want to humans – not “bots” – to trust you. But there has been a proliferation of applications that enable you to automatically follow anyone who tweets about a specific topic. So you really have no idea whether followers are actual people or just spam bots that are set to automatically follow any Tweet on a particular topic. You can frequently end up with bots following bots.

Just because someone follows or likes you, it does not mean that they trust you. The majority of followers never engage with the people or brands they follow. In addition, many people follow or like a brand or a person because they disagree with them and want to keep tabs on what they are saying. This is especially true on Facebook, where consumers increasingly go to post complaints. “Liking” a page enables them to listen for other consumers who have similar issues.

Step 6. Analyze results.

The most important part of the measurement process is to analyze the data and learn from it. What are the actionable points, how can you change and improve? What should you react to? What should you ignore? What needs to be done today?

It is important to measure failure first. Identify any skepticism or distrust of management goals and decisions before they develop into a crises. You also need to help management understand that certain decisions might have adverse consequences on a public, so that management might make different decisions and behave in a different ways than it would have otherwise. Frequently, good communications can help your stakeholders accept a decision that management wanted to make before communication took place. For example, the public would be more likely to forgive a social media faux pas, find a change to a product more acceptable, or support a downsizing that takes employee interests into account.

A key to good trust measurement analysis is that it be actionable. So if your trust scores aren’t where they should be, you need to use become more authentic and transparent in order to improve them.

In his seminal research on the link between transparency, authenticity, and trust, Brad Rawlins showed that the more you are transparent and authentic, the more likely people will be to trust you. “You can’t just say what you want to say, or even what you are legally required to say. You have to be willing to say the things that no one wants to hear,” said Rawlins. His final point, which returns to the concept of reflexive trust, is that if everything we say is tainted by falsehoods, no one will believe anything we try to communicate.

Before you worry about communications, you should measure your trust level. If you find it lacking, then you need to make sure that the things that you do, you espouse, and you believe in are the same. Rawlins suggests mistrust originates not with your stakeholders, but with management. The bottom line today is that the integrity of an organization’s leadership is essential to trust. There can be no disconnect between what you believe and what you do. More importantly, if you work for an organization that doesn’t have integrity, then there is no point in worrying about or measuring trust because it simply can’t exist. Put another way, if you want to increase the organization’s trust, you need to do trustworthy things.

There are many times when a change in trust does not lead to immediate changes in behavior or attitude, so it is important to set realistic expectations. Trust and good relationships keep publics from engaging in negative behaviors such as litigation, strikes, protests, or negative publicity. As a result, you may have difficulty measuring a behavior that did not occur because of a good relationship.

This is one area in which listening to the social media conversation can be helpful. Social media makes it very easy to vent. If the amount of venting remains low – less than, say, a dozen tweets in a 24-hour period – it may well blow over. But if you see a sharp increase in tweets, it might be time to retreat to the war room and figure out how you might be able to restore trust.

One way around this is to take periodic (once a quarter or three times a year) pulse checks of your stakeholders to test their perceptions. Another way to approach it is to look at your organization’s share of negatives as compared to that of peer companies or competitors. If your share of negatives is declining while the others’ are holding steady or going up, then you know your strategy is working.

Be aware that there may be a long lead time between the development of a good relationship and a positive outcome. For example, if you make a habit of inviting members of a community to social events and other relationship-building occasions, they may begin to see you as friendlier, nicer, or easier to deal with. As a result you are more likely to find that differences or misunderstandings between that audience and your organization can be resolved by conversations rather than litigation. However, it may take months or, more likely, years, before your efforts have a measurable effect on legal fees.

Resources for Further Study

There are many books available that discuss and describe qualitative and quantitative research techniques. Here are three that specifically discuss such techniques from a public relations perspective:

• Using Research In Public Relations, by Glen M. Broom and David M. Dozier (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990)
• Primer of Public Relations Research, by Don W. Stacks (New York: The Guilford Press, 2002)
• Public Relations Research For Planning and Evaluation, by Walter K. Lindenmann (available from the IPR Commission on Trust Measurement and Evaluation, www.instituteforpr.com.)

Two useful resources for qualitative and quantitative research techniques are from the Advertising Research Foundation: “Guidelines for the Public Use of Market and Opinion Research,” and “The ARF Guidelines Handbook: A Compendium of Guidelines to Good Advertising, Marketing and Media Research Practice.” Both are available from the Advertising Research Foundation, 641 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022. ∞

>>>Want to learn more about how you can measure what matters to your organization? Check out the Measurement Sherpa’s Essential Guide.<<<