Credence: Trust, Capability, and Belief in Project Management

In an earlier article it was noted that:

“physical evidence is particularly important for communicating about credence services..." (Zeithaml & Bitner, 1998).

So what exactly are "credence services"? Are Project Management services “credence services”?

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines credence as “belief or trust” (2007). Based on our earlier construction of the definition of Project Management as a supervisory work we can infer that the relationship between the buyer and seller is based , at least in part, on trust due to the fact that management is a fiduciary function. It has also been shown how Project Management services add capability to manage discontinuity, complexity, and uniqueness in an organization. Credibility, or believability, is also a product of trust and capability (Gardner et al. 1998). So it can be said that Project Management services are credence services.

Trust, Capability, and Belief, together create the necessary condition of credibility, that distinguishes Project Management from other impersonal services. Since credibility is earned, or built over time, this infers that the initial relationship between the seller of Project Mangement services, and the consumer of those services is one of low-trust, and low-belief. Yet it is possible that the seller could possess high capability. In Project Mangement, capability can equate to process expertise which could potentially generate operational efficiencies for the client.

When a seller with high capability encounters a buyer with low-trust and low-belief it is often under the conditions where price is a factor in the purchasing decsion and where the buyer is looking to reduce expenses. Consequently the sale is usually highly competitive and little differentiation is observed from the customer's perspective. Typically, the sellers compete on price, but often err by advertising the features and benefits of their proprietary methods which are largely irrelevant to the client. However, this kind of relationship, where a buyer with a tactical need and a seller with a tactical solution is stable. It works as long as the economic conditions remain favorable to each of the parties. Initial proposals often focus on ROI. Sellers use "defensive" management language that focuses on increasing operating margin by reducing expenses.

An even more stable and advantageous relationship for the high capability seller can occur when the client's trust and belief evolve to higher levels. When this occurs, opportunities for strategic alignment of both the client and seller begin to appear. It is within these windows of opportunity that conversations can take place that address the buyer's long term, structural needs. These initial proposals, by contrast, should be focused on ROE. Sellers should use "forward-leaning" executive language that speaks to growth, competition, and market share issues.

It cannot be over emphasized that a positive prior track record is essential at this stage and that it would be premature for the seller to attempt a strategic relationship without the required level of trust and belief on the part of the buyer. This is because clients often do not reveal the full extent of their problems until they have determined that they first can depend on the consultant. In many cultures, especially the U.S. , the perception of dependency and it's attendant loss of power implies diminished value. It is therefore critical for the seller to constantly monitor the health of the relationship, and especially prior to attempting to discuss strategic positioning.

An unstable buyer/seller relationship can occur when low capability sellers attempt to enter into strategic relationships with buyers. This is often seen when personal relationships are the basis of business dealings and can present chaotic conditions for project management work, since conflicting covert and overt authority structures can be hard to identify and navigate.

Conversely when a high capability seller is matched with a buyer who has high belief and expectations, but low-trust, a situation that can be characterized as a "solution looking for a problem" occurs. At best, the consultant is viewed as "warm body" or "an extra pair of hands" which is short-term, tenuous and unstable. At the other extreme, as this scenario unfolds, the seller becomes frustrated at the buyer's unwillingness to act on her advice as the buyer beings to resent the seller's presumptions and may even feel threatened. It is a common reaction to respond to feelings of resentment with feelings of guilt, and unfortunately many project managers not only lose the trust of their sponsors, but also face a crisis of confidence after such encounters. The best strategy approach for a seller in this position is to attempt to manage the client's expectations by under promising and attempt to over-deliver.