Thursday, 25 March 2021





There are lots of models and theories out there. Here are some of the ones I like. There is so much information on the internet that it is simply foolish to think that I can add value beyond what is already available so the purpose is provide a mini compendium, some comments and some links and you can find out more for yourself.

PURPOSE: The idea is to share some interesting models, theories and ideas as well as some personal experience.

AUDIENCE: This is for students, line-managers, project-managers or change-leaders. There is a lot that is relevant to people studying for the Chartered Management Institute, or the IoD Diploma or MBA qualifications.

OUTCOME: The intention is to support, educate, inform, and invite feedback. Some of the models or theories are similar. Some are different. Like books, songs or breakfast you may have a favorite you want to stick to, or you may like to try different approaches because not all organisations or circumstances are the same. Having said that, I have included contact details if you are interested in discussing your organisation needs.

SHARING: There is nothing *new* these are not my ideas, although the comments and personal experience are. You are free to copy or comment, share or ignore.

IMPLEMENTATION: I have included references and links for anyone who wants to apply the models or theories to their organisation. However I have included my contact details if want advice or help.

Section 1 Kantar Model for Trust

Section 2 Tripod Model for Trust

Section 3 Trust Equation

Section 4 The leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of Trust

Section 5 Blanchard ABCD of Trust

Section 6 Iceberg Model of Trust

Section 7 Wendy Hirsch Model of Trust

Section 8 Covey Matrix Model of Trust

Section 9 Head Heart Gut Model of Trust

I hope I have attributed and named all the models correctly, and I have been careful to include all the links to the resources. I welcome comments or corrections and suggested additions.

If this mini compendium is useful or you would like similar mini compendium on the following please get in touch. These are all elements from my Projects and Change Academy Workshops and I am happy to share these common resources.

  • Stakeholder Communications and Influence Management
  • Teams Management
  • Indicators and Metrics for Manageing Performance and Change
  • Creating a Safety net for Successful Change


I am an experienced Management Consultant, Project and Change Manager. I am qualified with an MBA, various PostGrads in Technology, Finance and Compliance; I am also a Prince2 Project Manager, APMG Change Practitioner, Trainer, Facilitator and Coach; I am a tutor/mentor for the Chartered Management Institute; I am a former Independant Non Exec of the Public Accounts Committee.

My roles and responsibilities have included The Tranformation of Jerseys Harbours and Airport (from public sector department to private company); Review of governance in Health and Social Services; Set-up of Programme Office, Projects tools, templates and training for CI Cooperative; Operations Change and Sales Support for NatWest and RBSI; An USD 20million acquisition programme for a Cloud Services business.

If you are interested in Strategy, Projects, Programmes or Change please contact or phone +44(0)7797762051


Kantar's BrandZ has developed a new model of trust to reflect the drivers of trust among today's consumers. ... Traditionally, consumers trusted well-established brands based on two factors. First is proven expertise, the knowledge that the brand will 'do it well,' reliably and consistently over time.
  • Integrity
  • Identification
  • Inclusion

Comments on this model

It is interesting to think about trust in the context of people, things and concepts. To think about what we would expect from a trustworthy person (eg a good boss or leader) a trustworthy product (eg a good car or watch) a trustworthy concepts (eg a waiting list or test or measure). This model which is about brand uses IDENTIFICATION as a key model of trust (I identify with BMW car or Rolex watch) and also INCLUSION (I am a member of this exclusive club, brand, social set). The INTEGRITY ostensibly appears to be about quality.

However the INCLUSION is always balanced by what is excluded. If you are included then someone somewhere must be excluded for inclusion to have any value or meaning. The IDENTIFICATION is also awkward since not everyone will identify with a person, watch, car or waiting. The INTEGRITY is also subjective because in a brand there is a trade-off between price and quality and there are good functional cars and watches that are not BMW or Rolex just as there are people with integrity who may not be Nelson Mandella or Martin Luther King.

Overall this model of Trust appears to appeal to our sense of self. If it mirrors how we see ourselves then we will trust. If it does not then we will not. So the logic appears to be: If I am part of the gang, and the gang is like me, and consistent with what I value then I will trust.

This logic means some people will trust KKK or Hitler or Communism or Religion whereas others will not. This is perhaps a flawed model and is more like Cult. I suspect there are very close parallels between Cult and Trust.


Mapping multidimensional models of trust antecedents into the Affective and Cognitive dimensions.
  • Predictability
  • Ability
  • Benevolence
  • Integrity

Comments on this model

This model is interesting the the comparaison and link between COGNITIVE trust and AFFECTIVE trust. This is useful because some people are trusted because of what they say and think and others for their approach and actions. I may trust Nelson Mandella for his words despite no personal experience of his deeds. I may trust by carer for their ability without necessarily talking to them or even understanding them.

The ABILITY to do something BENEVOLENT driven my moral or professional INTEGRITY does seem to be an appealing formula to which many would subscribe or follow. The idea that is reliable, congruent and timely makes it PREDICTABLE and compelling.


Credibility has to do with the words we speak. In a sentence we might say, “I can trust what she says about intellectual property; she’s very credible on the subject.”

Reliability has to do with actions. We might say, “If he says he’ll deliver the product tomorrow, I trust him, because he’s dependable.”

Intimacy refers to the safety or security that we feel when entrusting someone with something. We might say, “I can trust her with that information; she’s never violated my confidentiality before, and she would never embarrass me.”

Self-orientation refers to the person’s focus. In particular, whether the person’s focus is primarily on him or herself, or on the other person. We might say, “I can’t trust him on this deal — I don’t think he cares enough about me, he’s focused on what he gets out of it.” Or more commonly, “I don’t trust him — I think he’s too concerned about how he’s appearing, so he’s not really paying attention.”

Comments on this model

I do like this model because it acknowledges the observers focus, values, attention and priority. What is in it for me? Or What are the implications for me? Will be a key factor for many people.


The leader–member exchange (LMX) theory is a relationship-based approach to leadership that focuses on the two-way (dyadic) relationship between leaders and followers.Previous research shows that better LMX results in more resources being available to subordinates and restricted information. Employees in a mobile phone company with better LMX, characterized with a high degree of mutual trust, were more willing to share their knowledge

Comments on this model

In simple terms the more we work with people and the closer we work with people (both proximity and values) the more we trust them. We tend to put more trust to people we know more and mistrust people we do not really know or have less experience of.

This suggests simply spending time with people will build trust as much as actually doing something. A regular coffee and catch-up may be more powerful than a favour done. If that coffee and catch-up include social chat about common interests that may be more powerful than a decisive action.

This can be so powerful that we trust people we know way beyond what is logical according to their skills, qualification or experience. We may trust a friend to advise on something over which they have no expertise simply because we trust them. This is how tricksters and con-men work and how some top jobs go to people who appear to manifestly unqualified for the role, but nonetheless trusted by the people who put them there: eg electing an actor (Regan) or TV celebrity (Trump )to be President of the USA.


According to Blanchard, there are a number of common elements that decide what trust is. He calls this the ABCD model, in which each letter stands for a word: Ability, Believability, Connectedness and Dependability. Based on these elements, the status of mutual trust in a relationship between people can be determined.

Comments on this model

The ABCD model has the merit of being simple to remember. It does reflect many of the elements already discussed with the other models. I like this because it is practical and transactional: it is instructive of what you can actually do to create trust.


To explore the idea of trust as an actual but intangible structure, let’s consider the iceberg metaphor. When you look at an iceberg, only the tip is visible; the greater mass lies out of sight below the surface.

By looking “beneath the surface” of daily events in your organization, you can determine the structures that influence people’s behavior. If we apply this metaphor to understanding trust, the tip is our daily interactions in which we experience varying levels of trust or mistrust (see Peter Senge “The Iceberg Model of Trust” on p. 2).

These interactions, a series of seemingly unrelated events, are the concrete results of an organization’s climate of trust, which exists in the patterns and structures “below the waterline.”

One unpleasant encounter may not lead us to feel an overall sense of mistrust. But if the behavior continues over time, it’s likely to undermine relationships and erode trust throughout the organization. (Note that certain events, such as layoffs, are significant enough to be “trust busters” the first time they occur.)

To determine the degree of trust being transacted during an interaction, you can take the following elements into consideration:

  • The history of interactions between individuals and/or groups (What has happened between them in the past?)
  • The literal meaning conveyed through the interaction (What words are being expressed?)
  • The inferential meaning conveyed through the interaction (What voice tones, facial expressions, and body language are being used?)
  • The result of the interaction (Did one party gain an advantage over or “hurt” the other in some manner?)

Comments on this model

Whilst the ABCD model discussed elsewhere is practical, this Iceberg approach is useful since it references the emotional, sub-conscious elements that influence trust, particularly the daily events or lived experience.

The alignment of what we say and what we do, or what people say and what happens is powerful, whether or not there is a direct or causal link. The meaning or sense-making is in the mind of the follower and so trust may be created or broken simply by the sequence of events, how they are interpreted, understood and their relatedness, irrespective of the historical facts.

Spin-doctors and tabloid story tellers use this phenomena to great affect and it is how an emperor may parade with no clothes, but not be naked: Because emotional or sub-conscious needs, belief, hope tells us they must be clothed. We trust them because we need to, we want to, to [have a hero (trust) or villain (mis-trust)]. The trust (or mistrust) is projected onto them rather than earned by them.


Some researchers differentiate between trust, and the things that may inspire or support it, as follows (Colquitt, 2007) :
  • Trust: One’s willingness to accept some vulnerability based on expectations of a positive outcome.
  • Trust Propensity: One’s general disposition towards relying on others.
  • Trustworthiness : Characteristics that inspire or inhibit trust.
There are a variety of ways to look at what makes us trustworthy, but I will focus here on the model put forth by Roger Mayer and colleagues (1995), the merits of which have been supported by a meta-analytical study (Colquitt, 2007). Mayer reviewed other models of trust and identified three characteristics that people often use to evaluate trustworthiness. I’ve adapted them below.
  • Ability: Are you “good” at what you do? (Skills, competencies, technical knowledge)
  • Benevolence: Are you looking out for my best interests? (Caring, openness, loyalty)
  • Integrity: Do you uphold principles that are important to me? Do you do what you say? (Consistency, reliability, fairness)

Colquitt, Jason A., Brent A. Scott, and Jeffery A. Lepine. "Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance." Journal of Applied Psychology 92.4 (2007): 909-27. Web.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628.

Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. "An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust." Academy of Management Review 20.3 (1995): 709-34. Web.

Comments on this model

There is a good blend of the theories in this model. I like Trust Propensity: One’s general disposition towards relying on others, as this builds upon the idea that trust is not earned (by the boss/leader) but gifted (by the follower).

See earlier comments on those that are trusted by the people who put them there: eg electing an actor (Regan) or TV celebrity (Trump )to be President of the USA. Or those we trust because we have a propensity to trust a policeman in uniform, a surgeon in scrubs or a pilot with braiding or a researcher with a clipboard.


  • Talk Straight
  • Demonstrate Respect
  • Create Transparency
  • Right Wrongs
  • Show Loyalty
  • Deliver Results
  • Get Better
  • Confront Reality
  • Clarify Expectation
  • Practice Accountability
  • Listen First
  • Keep Commitments
  • Extend Trust

Comments on this model

The value of this model is that it suggests the many elements that might make-up trust. If trust were a wall of bricks it is possible that some bricks could be missing but the wall would still serve its purpose. However WHAT is missing and WHERE could be a window, a door or the cause for collapse.


Comments on this model

I like the heart, heart and gut considerations of trust because as we have seen in the discussion of the previous models it is not about logic, emotion or instinct, it is not about action, attitude or need, it is not about behaviour, style or desire but a complex synthesis of all of these factors and as much about the follower (trustee) as the leader (trusted).


I suspect TRUST is heavily linked to our ability to INFLUENCE and people's experience of what we DELIVER

Do it…
  • Because you like me, and you’re like me
  • Do it to reciprocate, repay past or future debt or promise
  • Do it because everyone else is doing it
  • This offer is good for a limited time only
  • Do it to be consistent, with past, with values, with type
  • You can believe me, I’m an authority
  • Do it or else

No, because...

  • I like you, but I don’t like this proposal
  • Is this a favour? Are you looking for something in return?
  • Just because everyone else is doesn’t mean..
  • If I don’t have time to think, I don’t have time to buy
  • I need to think about what I want, and be consistent with that
  • If I were you I might, but I’m not you
  • Please explain the “or else” slowly so I fully understand


The following six questions should be answered YES (and if they are not, your job is to do whatever it takes to make the anser YES)

  • I know what is expected of me at work
  • I have the materials and equipment I need to do my job right
  • I have the opportunity to do what I do best every-day
  • In the last 7 days I have received recognition or praise for doing good work
  • Someone at work encourages my development
  • At work, my opinions count

I think TRUST exists in the delivery of the above

Further Reading References or Resources

There are hundreds more... if you find a particularly good resource let me know! Tim@AdaptConsultingCompany.Com



If you are interested in Strategy, Projects, Programmes or Change please contact or phone +44(0)7797762051

Tim HJ Rogers MBA CITP
Mob 447797762051

Adapt Consulting Company
Consult CoCreate Deliver
#People > #Process > #Plans > #Progress > #Performance


Wednesday, 14 October 2020


I always used to think about performance (I can control) rather than result (compared to others). Training focuses on all the things you can control: mind & body (strength, stamina, speed, flexibility, technique, self-talk, grit) and how to prepare for (but not get anxious about) what you cannot control (wind, rain, heat, cold, other people, sh*t that happens). No plan is perfect. But the process of planning (thinking and self-control) is important.

People > Process > Progress > Performance

Whatever your challenges there is always at least one step that you can do to move nearer your goal. 

Perhaps your next step is getting in touch.

Tim HJ Rogers


[1] Consulting and Project management (I will do the task for you)

[2] Teaching (I provide the tools, templates, training to do the tasks)

[3] Mentoring (You own the task and have the knowledge. I support with my experience and observation)

[4] Coaching (You are the expert. I support reflection and thought for you to develop your own ideas and path)

Mob 447797762051

Thursday, 3 September 2020


My background is in projects, process and systems.

Those systems may be political and organisational systems (for example the integration and incorporation of Jersey Ports). Those systems may be  regulatory systems (for example the data protection, tools, templates, training and support)

I also improve process and systems:  using LEAN to reduce costs or increase income, or help monetise the products and services. Typically making money from the savvy use of data (also linked to a understanding of marketing and data protection)

I have worked with clients on a no-save no-fee basis. For example for 3 Care Homes I said "If I cannot find £25k of savings do not pay me!". I would be very happy to work with anyone on a similar basis: If I cannot save (or make) money at least 5 times what I cost then simply do not pay me.

It might be worth a coffee and a conversation to discuss which existing or potential products, services or systems might provide these rewards.

To see case studies or find out more, or just share a coffee and conversation contact us. We love what we do and we would enjoy sharing ideas which may be useful to your organisation or team.

Adapt Consulting Company
@AdaptCCompany +447797762051


Wednesday, 29 July 2020


The world is moving away from GNP / GDP Growth because it is dysfunctional.

As Robert F. Kennedy said...

Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

Jersey has already made a move to sustainable wellbeing is a more holistic concept and uses different tools to measure how well society is doing across the key areas. [See link Government Performance Measures]


All children in Jersey live healthy lives
All children in Jersey learn and achieve
All children in Jersey grow up safely
All children in Jersey are valued and involved
Islanders benefit from healthy lifestyles
Islanders are protected against social and environmental health hazards
Islanders can access high quality, effective health services
Islanders with long-term health conditions enjoy a good quality of life
Mental health and wellbeing are fundamental to quality of life in Jersey
Islanders are safe and protected at home, work and in public
Islanders enjoy living in a vibrant and inclusive community
Islanders engage in the public decisions that affect their Island
Islanders are able to afford a decent standard of living
Islanders benefit from a strong, sustainable economy and rewarding job opportunities
St Helier is an attractive town to live in, work in and visit
Islanders live in secure, quality homes that they can afford
Jersey benefits from a safe, sustainable transport system
Jersey's unique natural environment is protected and conserved for future generations
Jersey's natural resources are managed and used responsibly


The move to sustainable wellbeing is to be applauded and there are good links with OECD Sustainable Development Goals SDGs and current economic thinking based around Doughnut Economics. However there are problems.

WHAT - What clear tasks or actions need to be done to improve these targets?
Take for example % of Islanders scoring their level of anxiety as high (27% in 2019) and unknown for 2020. Is that 25% being suicidal and 2% being mildly upset? What actions are being taken to address this and what is the target outcome 10% or 0%.

WHO - Who is responsible for the success or failure of the tasks or actions and the eventual outcome?
Using the example above, is this the role of government, charities, schools, businesses or community? What tools, training, funding, legislation, grants, subsidies are available to encourage, coerce or mandate the necessary actions of those who are accountable, responsible, consulted or informed?

HOW - How will we measure progress and success?
The Performance Measures above appear to be updated annually, is that enough for us to plan, do, review, improve? Would more frequent update allow us to measure the success of different initiatives and see what works and what does not. Fast, regular feedback generally helps learning and performance. How do we evaluate value-for-money or speed of delivery on initiatives by government, charities, schools, businesses or community?

WHEN - When will we achieve the outcome?
What is the right balance between quick-wins and long-term gains. Is success measures along-side annual budgets and strategy or political tenure?


I used to think about Economics as being about trade, products, production, and profit. I used to think the role of government was to provide the services that commercial business cannot and use tariffs, taxes, regulation, subsidies and grants to encourage business and community to act in a way that best serves the Island rather than the individual.

I have changed my mind. Books like What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets Kindle Edition by Michael J. Sandel, and Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist by Kate Raworth have persuaded me that the purpose of Economy is to deliver Community Goals.

This is a much more active role than policing by tariffs, taxes, regulation mentioned above, and it more about engagement. It is less about PESTLE and SWOT analysis and more about the following...


So that brings us back to sustainable wellbeing and Government Performance Measures.


A goal without a plan is just a wish…and daydreams alone seldom produce results. The challenge for government, charities, schools, businesses and community must surely be to understand, agree, and align efforts and to address the WHAT, WHO, HOW, WHEN questions above.

Maybe this is where we need to revert to the more mechanical approach Management by objectives (MBO) using the following

OKRs - Objectives and Key Results
CSFs - Critical Success Factors
KPIs - Key Performance Indicators

SMARTER Objectives
S >pecific (simple, sensible, significant).
M >easurable (meaningful, motivating).
A >chievable (agreed, attainable).
R >elevant (reasonable, realistic and resourced, results-based).
T >ime bound (time-based, time limited, time/cost limited, timely, time-sensitive).
E >valuated.
R >eviewed.

I am always interested in different perspective and experiences and welcome suggestions for blogs, books, and videos.

Helping people and organisations get things done

Adapt Consulting Company
Consult CoCreate Deliver
@AdaptCCompany +447797762051



OECD Sustainable Development Goals

Doughnut Economics


OKRs - Objectives and Key Results

CSFs - Critical Success Factors

KPIs - Key Performance Indicators


Rethinking Our Economy Post Covid-19

Friday, 24 July 2020


6 secrets to raising the happiest kids in the world

1. Babies get plenty of sleep
2. Kids spend more time with both parents
3. Kids feel less pressure to excel in school
4. Kids are encouraged to express their own opinions
5. Kids eat “hagelslag” (chocolate sprinkles) for breakfast
6. Kids are encouraged to bike

6 secrets to happiness for adults

1. Get plenty of sleep
2. Spend more time with friends and family
3. Feel less pressure at work and more community
4. Encouraged to express opinions and listen to others
5. Eat and chat together more often
6. Be more active: swim, run, bike, walk, yoga etc


Helping people and organisations get things done

Adapt Consulting Company
Consult CoCreate Deliver
@AdaptCCompany +447797762051




If you have a different perspective or experience please comment below.

If you are interested in coaching, mentoring or facilitation get in touch.
Helping people and organisations get things done

Adapt Consulting Company
Consult CoCreate Deliver
@AdaptCCompany +447797762051

Wednesday, 22 July 2020


(a goal without a plan is just a wish)

Most people will agree that goals are a good thing. They aid focus, help us grow and possibly give us purpose. But a goal without a plan is just a wish. If we are planning then we probably need a target and a method to measure progress, which is why we need OKR and KPI and SMARTER objectives.

OKR is the acronym for objective and key results. It is future focussed: An Objective tells you where to go, and a Key Result describe the components of success. These tend to be broad and ambitious. Google says the “sweet spot” for an OKR grade is 60% – 70%; if someone consistently fully attains their objectives, their OKRs aren’t ambitious enough and they need to think bigger

KPIs are used to evaluate performance over time for an organization, individual, program, project, action, etc. They look at the past and measure how well we did. They are a measurable value that demonstrates how effectively a company is achieving key business objectives. Selecting the right one will depend on your industry and which part of the business you are looking to track. Each department will use different KPI types to measure success based on specific business goals and targets.

SMARTER Objectives tend to be more narrow, personal and specific and often used in annual task setting and performance review and appraisal.

S >pecific (simple, sensible, significant).
M >easurable (meaningful, motivating).
A >chievable (agreed, attainable).
R >elevant (reasonable, realistic and resourced, results-based).
T >ime bound (time-based, time limited, time/cost limited, timely, time-sensitive).
E >valuated  
R >eviewed.


To avoid talking about something that is industry specific I am going to offer an example from rowing.

Objective: Be a world-class rower 
Key Result: Achieve top 10 of your class (age-group, gender or classification) in 2020 European Champs, Irish Champs, GB Champs, or other premium class event.

Key Performance Indicator (Something you can measure)

KPI No1: Strength - able to squat 1.5 x body weight 
KPI No2: Power - able to hold 220 watts over 40 minute effort on water or 300 watts over 40min effort on rowing machine
KPI No3: Aerobic Capacity - VO2Max over 50
KPI No4: Speed - able to row 2000 meters < 7mins or 5000 meters <38mins on rowing machine 

CSF = Critical Success Factors (What is important)

What will help the above
> Clear purpose, vision and commitment
> Clear understanding of success factors eg strength, flexibility, technique, mental focus
> Good coaching eg to improve strength, flexibility, technique, mental focus
> Good management and administration eg to get you to the start-line
> Good data eg heart-rate, power, video technique 
> Culture, Communication  and Trust
> Good training environment indoors (rowing machine) and outdoors 
> Good equipement: Boat, Oars, Clothes etc.
> Flexibility 
> Confidence  
> Communication  - cultural behaviours and knowing MBTI or DICS personality and those of team-mates and coach
>Mental Resilience - coping mechanisms, habits and rituals
> Compatible team-mates

What will hinder the above
> Poor sleep, diet, or hydration
> Too many distractions
> Poor prioritisation of time/effort
> Poor focus, stress, confusion
> Fear or uncertainty

For any factor above which may appear vague (example confidence) try to create SMARTER criteria and use a diary to keep yourself on track

S >pecific (simple, sensible, significant): I will be more confident by noting all my successes and learning from failures 
M >easurable (meaningful, motivating): I will maintain a diary of each good thing, lesson or improvement
Achievable (agreed, attainable):  I will update this weekly, and share examples with my coach
R >elevant (reasonable, realistic and resourced, results-based): I will focus on those elements which will improve me as an athlete 
T >ime bound (time-based, time limited, time/cost limited, timely, time-sensitive): I will do this for 90 days, and then review
E >valuated: I will each day score 1 to 10 how confident I feel about my rowing technique/strength/power [choose what is relevant]
R >eviewed:I will review this afer 90 days to see if there has been an improvement over the period

If you have a different perspective or experience please comment below. If you are interested in OKR KPI SMARTER or performance management get in touch.

Helping people and organisations get things done

Adapt Consulting Company
Consult CoCreate Deliver
@AdaptCCompany +447797762051


OKRs Vs. KPIs: Breaking Down The Difference

OKR vs. KPI: How they compare and how they work together

What Are Smart Objectives And How Do I Apply Them?