Mastering Mentoring 22 Embrace Diversity

December 11, 2021

Some people have asked me if it is a good idea to mix genders or other elements of diversity in a mentoring relationship. It is common that most pairings of mentors and proteges involve people with similar characteristics, but I think that approach leaves a whole lot of richness off the table.

Think of it this way: every person is unique. The thing that makes us similar is that we are all human beings and we are all in the process of learning and growing. The mentoring process is all about getting to know the other person in depth in order to help that person along.  It makes no difference if the people are of different genders, different religions, different races, different sexual preference, different nationalities, or different anything.  

My Own Experience

I have had numerous mentor relationships over several decades, and I honestly do not see any substantive difference between working with a male or a female. I have also mentored several people from a different race or sexual orientation from me. It is not important to have the physical attributes match. What is important is that there is a desire to get to know the other individual as a person and be of assistance helping that person move forward.

I think it is an advantage working with someone quite different from me because it gives me the opportunity to experience how a person from another background is experiencing life and a career.  If I only mentored people like me, I would miss all that richness and learning.

In really great mentoring relationships, it is sometimes hard to tell which person is the mentor and which one is the protégé.  It is easy to see the ball being passed back and forth from one person to the other, even within a specific discussion. I have a friend who is close to me in terms of age. I think we both play the role of mentor at different times.  It is just a natural relationship that has great value to both of us.

Conclusion

Do not think of mentoring in terms of matching up people with similar characteristics. Rather, pair people together who truly like and respect each other. Let the demographic differences add an additional type of value to the relationship. Always seek to contribute as well as absorb information and ideas. A good mentor relationship is always bi-directional. 

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, is a consultant, trainer, speaker, and author in the areas of leadership and trust.  He is the author of: The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online, Leading with Trust is Like Sailing Downwind, and Trust in Transition: Navigating Organizational Change.  Bob has many years as a senior executive with a Fortune 500 Company and with non-profit organizations. 


Building Higher Trust 49 Trust and Consistency

December 10, 2021

What is the relationship between trust and consistency? I am sure that most of us agree that to be trustworthy, a person must be consistent. 

We have all heard the phrase “walk your talk,” which is one of the precepts for building trust.  The point seems obvious, but in this article, I will discuss some interesting nuances that you may not have considered.

I will aim my comments at leaders here, but the same logic holds for people at any level. I will also use the male pronouns for ease of understanding but recognize that both genders share the same characteristics.

How Leaders Build Trust

There are many ways leaders build trust with people in their organization. I contend that establishing a culture of psychological safety is a major way leaders build trust. When there is psychological safety, people know that they can share concerns or issues with the leader and not have to fear being punished in any way.

Another foundation to build trust is to be consistent with a set of agreed-upon values. Great leaders work with their teams to define the values of the group and then always follow those values.  Not doing so would be inconsistent, and that would destroy trust.

A Different Angle

On the flip side, it is not essential that leaders always be predictable. Once trust is established, the leader has the opportunity to experiment with different styles when reacting to situations as long as the values are not compromised in any way.

The leader has the opportunity to operate outside his normal pattern in a specific situation and not destroy trust.  This flexibility allows leaders to grow in their skill base while still maintaining trust with the team.  

Typical Example

For example, let’s take a manufacturing situation where some defective product is getting out to customers. The leader has a style that is normally very data-driven when problems surface. He is patient and deliberate about researching the facts before arriving at an action plan. 

That pattern does not have to be followed rigidly regardless of the severity of a problem. If people were not attacking an issue with enough urgency, the leader could show more anxiety to get to the root cause than he normally might. That action might be in response to a group value of always putting the customers’ needs above personal comfort.

In this case, trust will not be lost because the leader was operating under the values even though it meant being more impatient for a solution than he typically would.  In fact, the higher intensity might have taught some people on the team that the leader will flex his style in order to pursue the values.

 

Bob Whipple is CEO of Leadergrow, Inc. an organization dedicated to growing leaders. Website www.leadergrow.com   BLOG www.thetrustambassador.com He is author of the following books: The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals,  Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online, and Leading with Trust is Like Sailing Downwind


Leadership Barometer 123 Achieving Impossible Goals

December 8, 2021

Does your organization establish goals that seem impossible to achieve? If so, you are not alone. Many organizations go through a negotiation process with individuals and teams to establish annual performance goals.

Managers usually ask individuals or teams what is the best they can achieve in the following year. Then, just for good measure, senior managers tack on an additional 15 to 25% and set that as the target goal.

When employees learn to anticipate this markup process, they instinctively sandbag their initial offer to account for the anticipated bump by senior management. It becomes a game of cat and mouse to establish reasonable stretch goals, and in the end, the organization and its employees suffer.

A Better Process

I believe a better process starts with an understanding of what the entire organization needs and then breaks down individual and team performance goals that will ensure the organization meets its commitments.

Quite often, goals set by senior managers seem unrealistic or unobtainable, which has a significant negative impact on trust. This impact becomes amplified in times of scarce resources. When this happens, employees take on a fatalistic viewpoint that the team has no chance to perform up to expectations.

Team members hope they can achieve the goal, but deep down they don’t believe it is possible. This creates a Pygmalion effect that almost guarantees a negative outcome.

The Importance of Believing

The truth is, you cannot “hope” your way to success. You must believe and expect success for it to become reality. When stretching for seemingly impossible goals, the most important ingredient is not technology, market size, manufacturing capacity, quality processes, sales force expertise, HR policies, or any other tangible enablers. The most important ingredient is belief.

This fundamental principle has been identified by philosophers and social psychologists numerous times throughout history. It seems that, through the ages, our civilization keeps discovering the same ideas. Here are a few famous quotations from historical figures you may recognize. Notice how they all say the same thing in different words.

Some Famous Quotations on Achieving Goals 

Zig Zigler – “When you believe it, you will see it.”

Earl Nightingale – “We become what we think about.”

Henry Ford – “If you think you can, or if you think you can’t… You are right.”

Lou Holtz –  “If you get people to believe in themselves, they will set bigger goals.”

Maxwell Maltz – “What you believe will happen actually becomes physical reality.”

Norman Vincent Peale – “The power of positive thinking: No success occurs without it.”

Andrew Carnegie – “You will not be able to do it until you believe you can do it.”

Napoleon Hill – “What the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve.”

This list is just a small sample of available quotations with the same topic. The phenomenon of creating success by visualizing it already accomplished is well known.

Unfortunately, most teams in the working world have forgotten this time-honored wisdom. They wring their hands and lament that achieving the goal set out by management is simply impossible. Well of course it is impossible if they believe that.

Forget about how you will accomplish a goal; simply set out to believe that it will happen. There are many tools available that can help you accomplish the goal. Resolve to find the right ones for your situation. If you do that, you will achieve the goal in ways you could not possibly imagine at the outset. Unfortunately, it is easy to experience the pangs of fear.

The way out

The antidote is to teach individuals and teams to re-train their brains so that they drive out any thought of failure. Set the goal high, and then use all the power of mind over matter to make that goal a reality.

Experts like the ones above, have taught us that if we reiterate an affirmative statement that we not only intend to meet the goal but to exceed the goal and have fun doing it, then repeat that phrase in earnest at least twice a day for 30 consecutive days, we will actually bring forth vital energy that was unavailable prior to the new mindset.

We then have a moment of truth where we have the opportunity to examine what is holding us back. As we address these self-limiting beliefs, we can come into mental and emotional alignment and resonance with the affirmation. We become energetically congruent with the vision, and that brings forth powers that are truly amazing.

Having this resonance and congruity changes everything. Of course, a positive mental attitude is not the only factor that will allow us to meet difficult goals. We have to have a good plan, we have to execute well, we have to have high trust and great teamwork, we have to work incredibly hard, we must employ lean and six sigma principles, we need the right technology and resources, and, yes, we sometimes need some luck. We need to enjoy and really appreciate the thrill of doing it.

The truth is that by having the right frame of mind at the outset, we enable the other necessary elements to materialize in the physical world. When we expect and believe we will achieve the goal, sometimes the elements required to accomplish it materialize as if by magic. It is not magic; it is simply how the universe works.

I am not reporting anything new here, but I believe we need to reiterate it, especially at the end of the year when goals for the next year are being set. This is the time to create a new mindset that will allow you and your team to consistently reach or exceed seemingly impossible goals. 

Robert Whipple is also the author of The TRUST Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals and, Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online. Bob consults and speaks on these and other leadership topics. He is CEO of Leadergrow Inc. a company dedicated to growing leaders.


Reducing Conflict 18 Reversing Roles

December 6, 2021

When two people are in conflict, sometimes it is helpful to reverse roles. The technique usually helps because it shifts the perspective of both people as they try to articulate the points made by their opponent. 

There is one very large caveat with this method that I will reveal later in this article.

I believe the method is helpful primarily because it forces both people to listen carefully to the points made by the other person. If you are my opponent in the disagreement, the only way I can assume your side is to fully understand what it is. 

That means I need to listen enough to your point of view to describe it once the roles are reversed.  The same phenomenon occurs with you trying to argue for my points.

Often times just getting ready to reverse the roles forces a level of understanding that was absent when we were just shouting at each other. That may lead to a creative solution that is a third point of view, or I may come to realize your logic was better than mine.  Either way, we can put the disagreement behind us and move on.

The caveat is that both sides need to play the game fairly, or it will not work. I learned that lesson early in my career when I had a disagreement with an engineer named  Frank over how to accomplish the installation of a new packaging line. 

Frank wanted to keep an adjacent line running while we installed the new one.  I favored building up enough inventory so we could shut down the adjacent line in order to have a safer installation process.

We were at loggerheads one afternoon in his office. Both of us were so convinced that our way was better that we made little progress toward a resolution for over an hour.  Finally, I said, “We are not getting anywhere here, why don’t we reverse roles to see if that shifts our thinking?”

Frank said, “That seems a little childish, but I will play along with you. You go first.”I shifted my mental process over to advocate for his side.  I went down the six reasons he had given for why his approach was best.  Frank listened and nodded as if to say, “Right, that was the point I was making.”

I then said, “OK I spelled out your side, now it is time for you to advocate for my way.”  Frank leveled me with the following statement, “Well, Bob, I was going to advocate for the opposite approach, but listening carefully to the points you just gave, I have to agree that what you described makes the most sense.” I lost the argument

Actually, by stepping back and playing the reverse role game, we were both able to see a third pathway that had elements of the advantages of both approaches.  Essentially, we came up with a third possibility that was better than either of the two opposing views.

You can use the reverse role technique if you are the mediator between two people who are at odds; just make sure that both people play fairly.

Free Video

Here is a 3-minute video that contains more information on the technique of reversing roles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQjWLy_0l48

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, is a consultant, trainer, speaker, and author in the areas of leadership and trust.  He is the author of four books: 1.The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals (2003), 2. Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online (2006), 3. Leading with Trust is Like Sailing Downwind (2009), and 4. Trust in Transition: Navigating Organizational Change (2014). In addition, he has authored over 1000 articles and videos on various topics in leadership and trust. Bob has many years as a senior executive with a Fortune 500 Company and with non-profit organizations.

 


Mastering Mentoring 21 Upside Down

December 4, 2021

I think it is a good policy to have some of the mentor discussions be upside down. Granted, most of the time the flow of information will be from the mentor to the protégé. That’s because usually, the mentor is the person with more experience. 

For a small percentage of the time, mix things up and have some fun by turning the discussion upside down. That gives the protégé a way to experience what it is like to mentor another person, and should also provide some personal satisfaction.

From time to time, I think it is healthy for the mentor to say, “For our next meeting, would you be comfortable reversing the roles and have you teach me some things? There are ways that you can help me too.”  The protégé may feel inadequate to impart any specific wisdom on the surface. Looking deeper, there are a lot of ways a mentor can and should learn from the protégé.

Example

Let’s suppose in this case we have a mentor who is 55 years old and is an accomplished leader. The protégé is a 25 year old with a lot of potential.  The discussions will naturally be the mentor sharing experiences from the past (good or bad) and highlighting what was learned in these situations.

The protégé might feel shy about taking the lead on a discussion, but there is a lot to be gained by doing it. The protégé may see that the mentor is calcified in certain areas where there is potential for new growth.  The mentor does not see the same opportunities as the protégé does.

Perhaps the mentor had good outcomes by reacting in a certain way when faced with a potential risk. That becomes the “safe” approach to the mentor because it has worked for him for years. The protégé might suggest trying a more radical path to deal with impending risk that has the potential for breakthrough solutions that are far more productive than the mentor would likely experience. 

Conclusion

Mixing things up in this way will also provide the opportunity for some levity and light discovery of new thinking patterns for both people. A mentor relationship should not always be heavy with content that is serious. The ability to keep things fresh and interesting will serve to enhance the value of the relationship in both directions.

 

 

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, is a consultant, trainer, speaker, and author in the areas of leadership and trust.  He is the author of: The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online, Leading with Trust is Like Sailing Downwind, and Trust in Transition: Navigating Organizational Change.  Bob has many years as a senior executive with a Fortune 500 Company and with non-profit organizations. 


Building Higher Trust 48 Blind Trust

December 3, 2021

Blind Trust is an interesting aspect of trust that has some people in disagreement. In this brief article, I will describe the different ways people think of trust and offer my interpretation of the most helpful answer.

Imagine that you are bringing a new employee into your group.  You will be interfacing with this person extensively in the future. Do you start off with an assumption of the person being trustworthy before you have any experience with him?

Some people advocate that you should trust others until there is some reason to believe otherwise. That is, you extend blind trust until something goes wrong.

The other approach is to suspend judgment on whether a person can be trusted until you have a chance to test his integrity in a number of ways.

Ronald Reagan had a famous saying about Russia in the Cold War.  He advocated that we “Trust but verify.” The curious thing with this philosophy is whether you are really trusting at all when you feel the need to verify.  It seems that the whole premise is flawed.

Actually, Reagan borrowed the phrase from an old Russian proverb, “doveryai no proveryai” (Trust but verify ).

Smart Trust

The need to verify implies that complete trust in the other party is lacking.  I am troubled by that because it implies that in order to be real trust, it must be blind.

The concept of blind trust is covered in the book “Smart Trust” by Stephen M.R. Covey. He points out that blind trust is not often the most intelligent strategy to employ in a low-trust world. Sure, we can point to exceptions, and yet if you ask the clients of Bernie Madoff, you are likely to get high agreement that they would have achieved a better result if they had verified.

One thought-provoking loop on this topic was provided by Covey when he wrote: “Though we’ve become very good at recognizing the cost of trusting too much, we’re not nearly as good at recognizing the cost of not trusting enough.” The point here is that when we extend more trust to others, we will normally receive more trust in return. I call that “The first law of trust.”

I think changing the phrase from “Trust but verify” to “Trust and confirm” might make the phrase less of a dichotomy and make it more operational.  The reason we must confirm is that, while we want to trust that the other person proves to be trustworthy in the end, there is a finite chance that the person either did not understand or is not capable of performing as expected.

When we confirm that our expectations are being met, we reduce the chance of being disappointed with the result. The reason I like the second phrase more than the first one is that we replace the exclusive conjunction “but” with the more inclusive conjunction “and.”

The confirmation process is merely part of the due diligence that recognizes the fact that activities do not happen in a vacuum.  There may be other parties involved, and often we are acting as the agents for others as we trust someone to perform a task.  Confirming that things are done correctly is just being prudent and being true to the trust others have in us. If people know we are responsible in our due diligence, they will be more likely to perform to a high standard.

“Trust and confirm” does not sound like an oxymoron to me. In a world where blind trust is not normally the best strategy, the concept of “trust and confirm” leaves the concept of trust more intact than “trust but verify.”  It is not just a matter of semantics.

The words we choose make a difference in how people interpret meaning. You will have a better result if you avoid using the phrase “trust but verify.” By using “trust and confirm” you will send an unambiguous message that avoids blind trust.

Open Hiring

The Greystone Foundation recently opened a new Center for Open Hiring in my hometown of Rochester, New York to assist underserved populations. When people are in need of a job, they put their name on a list, and when their name comes up they are immediately hired.

There are no background checks and no difficult interviews. The concept has been working well at Greystone Bakery in Yonkers since 1982. They have consistently excellent results with this philosophy, which many people believe is blind trust.

Bagel Vendor

A bagel vendor in New York City noticed that it took people a long time to wait through the line to get change.  The vendor put out a basket with small bills and change and a sign that read “In a hurry, make your own change. I trust you.” 

I ask people in my leadership courses if the idea was brilliant or stupid. Usually, the majority of students think the idea was stupid, but they were wrong. There were three reasons why the idea really was brilliant.

  1. The throughput of his stand went up dramatically because the lines were shorter. His income rose by more than 100%.
  2. People tended to not take the full amount of change they deserved. They were self-conscious about rummaging around in the basket for money.
  3. People in the adjacent buildings came pouring out to experience this trustworthy vendor.

Summary

The concept of blind trust is an interesting conundrum.  Covey offers this advice.  First, you should assume that most people are basically good, but recognize that is not a universal truth. Then you observe their behavior to confirm that they really are good. Start by extending more trust and recognize that there are risks involved.

Bob Whipple is CEO of Leadergrow, Inc. an organization dedicated to growing leaders. Website www.leadergrow.com   BLOG www.thetrustambassador.com He is author of the following books: The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals,  Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online, and Leading with Trust is Like Sailing Downwind


Leadership Barometer 122 Losing Control

December 1, 2021

Supervisors may have the feeling that they are losing control as more people are partially working from home. In reality, a more flexible work pattern offers a chance at high engagement without the constant need to try to enforce rules.

In earlier times, supervisors and managers had a fighting chance of enforcing the local rules.  Things like quitting time, length of breaks, and other mechanical rules were a little easier to enforce because you could see most people on most days.

Even then, people would test the supervisor by stretching the rules to see what the real limits were.  Those days are history, at least for many employees in the short term.  With people working hybrid schedules, it is difficult and intrusive to check up on workers. 

Supervisors should rely on different means to engage people rather than try to control them. Let’s start by examining the meaning of control to look for clues on how to accomplish it in today’s environment.

Webster defines “control” as a means of restraint. The implication here is that if there were no control then workers would goof off and not give their fair share of effort while still expecting full pay. I think the notion of control is antiquated.

If the supervisors and managers have set up the right kind of culture, then they should not need to play policemen in order to maintain productivity.  If people are treated like adults and are trusted to do the right thing, most of them will give not only the minimum effort required, but many of them will go beyond what is expected.

Workers may not adhere to a rigid schedule of start and stop because they have other constraints based on their current situation. The vast majority will give at least the minimum effort required, although the exact timing may be broken up by family needs.

The notion of holding people in control by checking up on them is now yielding to having people police themselves and their peers out of a sense of rightness and respect for their employer.  It is a very different dynamic. 

Leaders who try to check up on hybrid employees end up on the losing end because they send a signal of low trust, which usually begets bad behavior in return. In most cases attempts to maintain conventional control lead to lower rather than higher productivity.

The notion of control needs to shift the onus onto workers and their sense of rightness. Many remote workers indicate they are more productive because there are fewer interruptions or distractions, although family distractions can be formidable in certain situations.

Several other mechanisms allow for maximum productivity in a hybrid world.  The concepts of trust, innovation, inspiration, teamwork, engagement, and empowerment are more powerful ways to obtain maximum performance.

The whole notion of control needs to be recast in today’s environment.  It is time to focus on culture and trust to be the main control mechanism rather than a supervisor looking at his watch. 

Robert Whipple is also the author of The TRUST Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals and, Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online. Bob consults and speaks on these and other leadership topics. He is CEO of Leadergrow Inc. a company dedicated to growing leaders.

 


Reducing Conflict 17 Get a Word In Edgewise

November 29, 2021

Do you have trouble getting a word in edgewise when dealing with a compulsive talker? Some people have a habit of constantly talking.  It may not seem like a big deal, but if you have a compulsive talker in your group, he or she can cause all kinds of problems. 

The first problem is that they tie up people from doing their work.  It really saps productivity when you are constantly distracted by someone rambling on.  It can also affect group productivity in certain circumstances.

The second problem is that often the tone of the excessive talker can be negative. This not only ties people up, it lowers morale because of all the negative points.  Often the person will pit one group of people against another, sowing division. This problem leads to silo thinking, which is another form of productivity loss. 

What Can be Done

Trying to retrain a compulsive talker is usually a vexing task.  The talker does not even realize there is a problem.  If you try to explain the negative influence, you will usually encounter denial.  If you suggest the talker just keep quiet for at least 70% of the time, there may be an agreement to try, but the habit will likely not change very much.

One technique is to appeal to the person’s more noble instincts and suggest that if others took up that much air time nothing would get done. Other people have a right to be heard as well.   

Isolating the talker in a remote area is one possible solution, but it really is ineffective because the person always finds a way to communicate anyway.

The best defense is to screen out people who have this problem during the interview process. They are really quite easy to spot, so you can save yourself a lot of grief by not having the person on the team at all.

If you have a rather mature team and members are complaining about the talker, you might try a candid discussion during a group meeting. Invent some kind of signal that people can use when the talker is rambling on. That can work, or it can backfire depending on the particular culture within the group.

Examples

I once had a customer service person who had this problem. I tried to get her to see that she was not doing her fair share of the work because she was always chatting with her mates. I finally isolated her and gave her more work to do in order to keep her relatively quiet. These ideas were only partially successful, and she did not appreciate the increased workload.

I know a man in our local grocery store who has the problem.  He is constantly chatting with the various customers as a way to express friendliness. For me, he is a huge distraction, and I try to avoid him at all costs. I’m not sure if some people enjoy his constant blithering, but I sure don’t.

Some Training Programs

There are some training programs to help people speak more succinctly.  These might be effective in some percentage of cases, but most compulsive talkers would not really want to change, so the training would not be very effective.

Conclusion

Having a constant talker on your team can be a challenging problem to solve. Some of the techniques suggested may be helpful, but none of them would work equally well for all people. You need to try different approaches and stick with the one that works best for that person.

Free Video

Here is a 3-minute video that contains more information on how to deal with a Compulsive Talker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X–gb3lDAa0

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, is a consultant, trainer, speaker, and author in the areas of leadership and trust.  He is the author of four books: 1.The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals (2003), 2. Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online (2006), 3. Leading with Trust is Like Sailing Downwind (2009), and 4. Trust in Transition: Navigating Organizational Change (2014). In addition, he has authored over 1000 articles and videos on various topics in leadership and trust. Bob has many years as a senior executive with a Fortune 500 Company and with non-profit organizations.


Mastering Mentoring 20 Shortage

November 27, 2021

I make the observation that there are not enough great leaders in the world, not due to a shortage of good candidates, but because of a shortage of great mentors. Leading organizations is a daunting task for most leaders primarily because they fail to build a culture of trust.

The Relationship Between Trust and the Shortage of Mentors

Most leaders I know are consumed trying to optimize the organization’s performance in a very complex time. Challenges come in a steady stream, and leaders are faced with solving problems continuously.  They have no discretionary time to devote to mentoring the next class of leaders.  The situation seems to get worse with time.

Since the leaders have a difficult time letting go of their main responsibilities, they do not delegate as much as they might, so the problems and issues all fall into their lap. By trusting the workforce more, they have the opportunity to delegate more tasks to others and thus free up some time to help mentor great leaders for the next generation.

The Solution is Obvious

If leaders would carve out about 15% of their time to work with people in their organization to build a culture of higher trust, the whole dynamic would shift from one of extreme pressure to a more reasonable work atmosphere where mentoring is actually possible. In an environment like that, leadership becomes a blast rather than a chore. The environment for everyone becomes more enjoyable, and many people grow in their ability to lead.

It is extremely difficult to convince most CEOs to carve out 15% of the time to work on culture; they are just too busy solving problems. The organization becomes like a whirlpool sinking deeper and deeper into a situation where some workers just resign or check out mentally. Of course, that makes the whole problem more acute.

Summary

As I observe leaders, I see the brilliant ones have figured out that, despite the frantic pace of business problems, they have a mandate to grow the next generation of leaders. They invest calendar time to that function, and over time, things start getting better.

The number one time-burner for any CEO is the inability of people in the organization to get along and work well together. By building a culture of higher trust, people do get along much better. There are fewer problems to be resolved, so that also frees up time for the CEO to do more mentoring.  

These leaders feel free to delegate more to their employees, which is also a way to develop their skills for the future. The culture improves for everyone. The pathway is there for the taking. It is too bad few CEOs recognize the way out of their current pain.

 

Bob Whipple, MBA, CPTD, is a consultant, trainer, speaker, and author in the areas of leadership and trust.  He is the author of: The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online, Leading with Trust is Like Sailing Downwind, and Trust in Transition: Navigating Organizational Change.  Bob has many years as a senior executive with a Fortune 500 Company and with non-profit organizations. 


Building Higher Trust 47 The Meaning of Trust

November 26, 2021

In your opinion, what is the meaning of trust? Most of us use the word trust several times a day. It is actually one of the more common words in our lexicon, yet when I ask people in my seminars to define what it means, I often get an awkward silence, then a few definitions come out, like “confidence,” or “integrity,” or “walk the talk.”

Eventually, most groups come up with a dozen or more definitions, and they begin to realize that what they pictured as one single phenomenon is actually a myriad of concepts that mean vastly different things in different circumstances.  

I have been working in the area of trust for nearly 30 years. The topic is infinitely fascinating to me, and I am always gaining new understanding thanks to the many other authors and people who network with me. I have found several concepts to be central to the idea of building and maintaining trust, and as I thought about some of these words, they started to form an acronym for the word TRUST.

Acronyms are strange mutations of the language that I find curious. Sometimes an acronym will seem rather strained or far-fetched as an attempt to be cute or simply a trick to help people remember concepts.

The acronym below is neither of these; instead, it is a way for me to highlight five central issues about trust that I continue to emphasize.

Trusting others. I have coined what I call “The First Law of Building Trust.” It is that when leaders are not satisfied with the level of trust they see within their organization, the first question to ask is how they can show more trust in others.

Trust is a reciprocal relationship, and numerous authors have identified the best way to have people trust you more is to increase your visible trust in them.

I once observed a male Vice President who really struggled with trust. I asked him if he could find ways to demonstrate more trust in his people. His reaction was, “You are asking the impossible; these people show me by their actions every day that they cannot be trusted to do what is right.” 

As I dug into the situation, I found that his workers had been so abused by this leader, they had no reason to even try to do things right. It was a toxic environment, where the VP would literally yell at the people and say things like, “You are so stupid I cannot rely on you for anything. I have to watch you like a hawk or you will just goof off and not even try to do your job right.” 

This is a classic case of a Theory X management style described by Douglas McGregor in the 1960s, and the VP was truly unaware that he was the real cause of his problem.  

I grant that in any workforce, there are some bad apples who can never be trusted, but if you have any of these people on your team and tolerate them, shame on you. Get rid of them.

The vast majority of workers, I believe over 95%, will respond positively and do good work if they are well led. When trust is low, The First Law of Building Trust puts the onus on the leader to do three things:

  1. Recognize his/her own contribution to the problem,
  2. Modify his/her behavior to be more trustworthy, and
  3. Start showing more trust in his/her workers.

Unfortunately, the first step is the most difficult. I have observed numerous leaders who are simply blind to the fact that they are causing their own problems. It is so much easier to blame the workers than to take a hard look in the mirror and ask some tough questions.

There are numerous other actions required to build and maintain trust, but the three steps above are the precursors that must be in place, or nothing will change.

Also, recognize that the process to rebuild lost trust is arduous. Wounded workers will observe improved behaviors for a long time before believing they are genuine.

Reinforcing candor. After a couple decades studying trust, I believe the most central enabler of it is reinforcing candor. This is the leader’s ability to refrain from punishing people when they speak their truth. Most leaders cannot do this.

When workers state that a leader is doing things inconsistent with the vision, they take a risk because most leaders punish that kind of candor. Brilliant leaders recognize that if they can establish a pattern of making people glad when they bring up difficult issues, it enables trust more than any other single factor. The concept is called enabling psychological safety.

I put reinforcing candor in the center of my Leadergrow Trust Model because it is the one skill that most leaders find difficult to do, yet once they understand its power, they have a much easier time creating and maintaining trust.

Universal goals. I have found when trust is absent in an organization, usually, individuals and groups have conflicting goals. They often do not realize they are pulling in different directions.

When you have an organization that is truly focused on one consistent set of goals, then you have alignment. Many organizations struggle with poor alignment such that only a small fraction of the workforce is actually pulling in the direction of the stated vision. Organizations with high trust achieve the reverse of that condition and have almost all people in the organization pulling in the direction of the vision.

It is easy to see if goals are not universal when you observe silo thinking, conflict, low trust, lack of respect, fear, management abuse, and any number of other organizational ills.

The starting points for establishing an environment of high trust are 1) complete agreement on where the organization is trying to go, and 2) enrolling all members of the organization to engage their full effort toward that vision.

Sincerity. This is the human dimension that shows leaders care about everyone in the organization. It is never the case that all people in an organization are exactly equal, yet the role played by each individual is of critical importance to the organization’s success. When managers and leaders are duplicitous, people quickly get the idea, because they see a lack of sincerity and care for individuals.

The antidote for low sincerity is very simple. The Golden Rule is the most important concept to show others that we care about them. If you treat other people the way you would like to be treated, you will find they respond in a positive way because they know you care.

It is quite simple, but unfortunately, many leaders have their priorities mixed and put short-term financial performance above the notion of caring for the people in the organization.

The best approach is to treat people the right way, which means being alert to the needs of each person as a unique individual and treating him or her as a person who will happily perform well if treated properly.

Transparency. The final T in my trust acronym is transparency. Organizations that share information widely about what is happening, what the goals are, where we are going, what the strategies are, what behaviors are needed, and how we have been performing recently, get the best that people have to offer.

Transparency is an interesting concept because it is not always good, or even legal, to be totally transparent. You must combine common sense, kindness, ethical behavior, and care into the equation when deciding how much information to reveal. Unfortunately, most organizations err on the side of too little transparency rather than too much.

The irony is that transparency is becoming less of a choice for senior executives due to social networking and the ability for people to get information more quickly and easily than ever before.

Leaders who try to hide information from workers are becoming increasingly frustrated because the information leaks out anyway, often in the form of rumors. A better approach is to aim for maximum transparency and a very fast response time when incorrect information gets out in the social networks.

These five concepts: Trusting others, Reinforcing candor, Universal goals, Sincerity, and Transparency form the acronym TRUST. While there are many other concepts and issues around trust and being trustworthy, I believe these five concepts are really at the core of creating an environment of higher trust.

Researchers have established through numerous studies that organizations with higher trust out-perform those that have low trust. A high trust group enjoys two to five times the productivity of a low trust group. No organization can survive for very long if they have an environment of low trust. Focus efforts on these five concepts, and you will improve your ability to achieve and maintain high trust in any organization.

Bob Whipple is CEO of Leadergrow, Inc. an organization dedicated to growing leaders. Website www.leadergrow.com   BLOG www.thetrustambassador.com He is author of the following books: The Trust Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals,  Understanding E-Body Language: Building Trust Online, and Leading with Trust is Like Sailing Downwind