Three Tricky Questions About Trust

March 27, 2011

In my leadership classes, I often like to pose three challenging questions about the nature of trust. As people grapple with the questions, it helps them sort out for themselves a deeper meaning of the words and how they might be applied in their own world. The three questions are:

• What is the relationship between trust and vulnerability?
• Can you trust someone you fear?
• Can you respect someone you do not trust, and can you trust someone you do not respect?

I have spent a lot of time bouncing these questions around in my head. I am not convinced that I have found the correct answers (or even that correct answers exist). I have had to clarify in my own mind the exact meanings of the words trust, vulnerability, fear, and respect.

Before you read this article further, stop here and ponder the three questions for yourself. See if you can come to some answers that might be operational for you.

Thinking about these concepts, makes them become more powerful for us. I urge you to pose the three questions (without giving your own answers) to people in your work group. Then have a quality discussion about the possible answers. You will find it is a refreshing and deep conversation to have.

Here are my answers (subject to change in the future as I grow in understanding):

1. What is the relationship between trust and vulnerability?

Trust implies vulnerability. When you trust another person, there is always a chance that the person will disappoint you. Ironically, it is the extension of your trust that drives a reciprocal enhancement of the other person’s trust in you. If you are a leader and you want people in your organization to trust you more, one way to achieve that is to show more trust in them. That is a very challenging concept for many managers and leaders. They sincerely want to gain more trust, but find it hard to extend higher trust to others. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “It is better to trust and be disappointed every once in a while than to not trust and be miserable all the time.”

2. Can you trust someone you fear?

Fear and trust are nearly opposites. I believe trust cannot kindle in an organization when there is fear, so one way to gain more trust is to create an environment with less fear. In the vast majority of cases, trust and lack of fear go together. The question I posed is whether trust and fear can ever exist at the same time. I think it is possible to trust someone you fear. That thought is derived from how I define trust.

My favorite definition is that if I trust you, I believe you will always do what you believe is in my best interest – even if I don’t appreciate it at the time. Based on that logic, I can trust someone even if I am afraid of what she might do as long as I believe she is acting in my best interest.

For example, I may be afraid of my boss because I believe she is going to give me a demotion and suggest I get some training on how to get along with people better. I am afraid of her because of the action she will take, while on some level I am trusting her to do what she believes is right for me.

Let’s look at another example. Suppose your supervisor is a bully who yells at people when they do not do things to his standards. You do not appreciate the abuse and are fearful every time you interact with him. You do trust him because he has kept the company afloat during some difficult times and has never missed a payroll, but you do not like his tactics.

3. Can you respect someone you do not trust & can you trust someone you do not respect?

This one gets pretty complicated. In most situations trust and respect go hand in hand. That is easy to explain and understand. But is it possible to conjure up a situation where you can respect someone you do not yet trust? Sure, we do this all the time. We respect people for the things they have achieved or the position they have reached. We respect many people we have not even met. For example, I respect Nelson Mandela, but I have no basis yet to trust him, even though I have a predisposition to trust him based on his reputation.

Another example is a new boss. I respect her for the position and the ability to hold a job that has the power to offer me employment. I probably do not trust her immediately. I will wait to see if my respect forms the foundation on which trust grows based on her actions over time.

If someone has let me down in the past, and I have lost respect for that person, then there is no basis for trust at all. This goes to the second part of the question: Can you trust someone you do not respect?

I find it difficult to think of a single example where I can trust someone that I do not respect. That is because respect is the basis on which trust is built. If I do not respect an individual, I believe it is impossible for me to trust her. Therefore, respect becomes an enabler of trust, and trust is the higher order phenomenon. You first have to respect a person, then go to work on building trust.

People use the words trust, fear, respect, and vulnerability freely every day. It is rare that they stop and think about the relationships between the concepts. Thinking about and discussing these ideas ensures that communication has a common ground for understanding, so take some time in your work group to wrestle with these questions. I welcome dissenting opinions on my thoughts here because I am eager to learn other ways of thinking about trust.

11 Comments | Candor creates trust, Communications, Enabling Actions, leadership, Mergers, Organization, Transparency, Trust, Trust and breach of trust, Trust and fear, Trust and motivation, Trust and respect | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Negativity is a Cancer

March 13, 2011

I believe that negativity is a kind of cancer that occurs in many organizations. It has a growing and debilitating impact on any group where it is allowed to fester. Stamping out all negativity is a daunting a task, just like trying to stamp out all diseased cells in a human body that has been infected with a cancer. For the survival of the organism, it is important to try as best we can to get rid of the problems. This article suggests some possible treatments for a negativity disease that has taken root in an organization.

It is important to realize that the cause of negativity may or may not be legitimate. Some people are just negative by nature and will grumble even under ideal conditions, while others become negative only after years of what they perceive as abuse. For example, if you are a leader and are faced with a number of people who poison the environment with toxic rhetoric daily, you need to consider whether you and your policies have done enough to create an environment of trust. If you are a leader in a group where there are just one or two individuals that are usually the ones generating negativity, what strategies can you use to turn the situation around?

First, you need to identify the sources of negativity. You must find the tumor. This is a simple task. Usually people know which individuals instigate most of the negative energy in a group. Often they are “informal leaders” to whom other people listen. Once you have identified the ringleaders of negativity, you need to establish a specific strategy to deal with these people, and, hopefully, turn them around. There are many options to do this, just as there are many treatments for physical cancer depending on the type of cancer, the stage of the disease, and the physician doing the treatments. Here are a few possible tools to rid an organization of negativity.

Seek assistance through peers. The peers of the troublemaker have the ability to let the person know that the organization would be in better shape if this person could lighten up. It could be that the peer pressure takes the form of some jovial ribbing about the propensity to be negative. (Note: I will use the female pronoun in the rest of this article, but realize the situation would be the same for both genders.) Peer pressure might take the form of a group agreeing to make only positive comments for two days and see who breaks ranks first. The idea here is to expose the tumor clearly so treatment is easier and can be more focused.

Adopt the person. As a leader, you are free to “adopt” a troublemaker so you can open an ongoing dialog. Try to understand her psychological makeup to find out what drives her to be negative. By listening intently to her message and reinforcing her candor rather than always fighting the message, you can gain a better understanding of her point of view, and she will trust you more. Learn her aspirations and dreams. Find out about her family life. Take a real interest. This is similar to all the diagnostic tests done on a cancer patient. Also, let her know that you value her ideas simply because she is an informal leader. Bring her into the management circle as a resource. Seek out ways to involve her ideas in decisions that impact the group. In some cases, you can turn the person completely around, and you have a super positive person who is also a natural leader. Wow! That changes the culture quickly. I have seen miracles like this happen.

Level with the person. You might take the approach to be logical with her. Take her aside and reflect that you know at least some of the negative energy that gives rise to low morale and rumors is coming from her. Let her know that she is hurting this organization by doing this. Ask for her help to turn down the negative energy when talking with people. Set an expectation that she can change her mental process to be a better citizen. Perhaps send her to a course like the Dale Carnegie Course. This strategy will not work with every hardened grumbler, but in some cases the gentle medication approach can cause the cancer to get better without more radical treatment. This is especially true when the condition is caught early. In this case your own candor may help bridge a trust gap and be a kind of wakeup call this person was needing.

Isolate her by moving her to another area. This is a dangerous ploy, and it would backfire in all but the most extreme cases. If it is either fire this woman or move her to a different environment, you can try the latter. You would need to couple this approach with a progressive counseling process, so she would be on Final Warning at the time of reassignment. In the case of dual grumblers, sometimes by separating the individuals, you can divide and conquer, since they lose their synergy by not being allowed to inflame each other. Often it is safer to just cut out the tumor and be done with it. That is an option, especially if the negativity is starting to spread to many others.

Do some team building. You might be able to impact the negativity by some simple team building techniques. Make sure the group shares a common goal, and work to build trust within the team. It is hard to maintain negativity in an environment of high trust. Spend time documenting the behaviors that the group intends to follow. This will allow other members to call her on negativity once the group decides this is inappropriate behavior.

There are other ways to chip away at negativity in a work group. Use your imagination, and do not always use the same approach. What works with one individual might backfire in another case, just as treating any individual with cancer needs to have a unique approach. Be flexible, creative, and persistent, and you will be able to turn around many of the cells of negativity. Do not expect to win them all. You cannot.

Finally, if there are several groups who are negative in your sphere of influence, you need to consider that the real problem might be you. Or it could be another weak link somewhere else in the management chain. It could be that corporate communications or policies are inhibiting trust. In my leadership consulting experience, the problem of low trust can often be traced to a leader with low Emotional Intelligence. Investigate this possibility thoroughly without being defensive.

If there is too much negativity in your organization, what are you doing to change your own behaviors? People generally become negative when they feel abused over a long period of time. Look at your own policies and practices and figure out if you can reduce negativity more easily by changing yourself than by trying to change them.

It is up to the leader to take responsibility for building an environment of trust.

4 Comments | Candor creates trust, Communications, Enabling Actions, leadership, Organization, Teamwork, Transparency, Trust | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

The Synapse of Trust

December 26, 2010

Trust is the glue that holds any organization together. Trust can exist at all levels because it is fundamentally a kind of synapse between two people. In the body, the synapse enables life by transmitting electrical signals between nerve cells. A similar pattern exists within organizations, where trust facilitates quasi electrical interactions between people. Where the synapse does not happen, trust is thwarted, and fruitful interaction is blocked. This barren condition is common, and it results in people “playing games” with each other in an effort to gain political traction for their own agendas.

I visualize trust as existing in the “white spaces” between thoughts and activities. Trust enables the flow of ideas and concepts in an environment free of fear. That condition is vital to creativity in any group endeavor. One of my favorite sayings is that the absence of fear is the incubator of trust. Lack of fear is not the only condition for trust to grow, but I believe it is a necessary precursor.

The benefits of trust have been well documented by many authors and researchers. For example, Stephen M.R. Covey’s book, The Speed of Trust stresses that as trust increases costs go down and things move faster. Dennis and Michelle Reina’s book, Trust and Betrayal, shares research on the process of healing broken trust relationships. In my own books, I seek to highlight the nature of trust and how to achieve it every day.

My thesis is that the heart of building trust is making people feel safe enough to share uncomfortable thoughts without fear of retribution. This atmosphere is accomplished when leaders praise people for being honest and open, even when the message is difficult to hear. I call this technique, “reinforcing candor,” and I believe it is one important way leaders build trust.

Warren Bennis is a true master of leadership and trust. He has written numerous insightful books on the importance of trust and how to help it grow. In, On Becoming a Leader, Bennis wrote, “It became clear that the ability to inspire trust, not charisma, is what enables leaders to recruit others to a cause.” In a recent article for Leadership Excellence Magazine, Bennis recalls the lesson given by Jim Burke, CEO of Johnson & Johnson, who, in 1982, boldly recalled $100 million of Tylenol because some tainted pills had been discovered. His candor by personally going on national television to announce the recall was unprecedented, and it is at least partly responsible for saving the entire brand equity.

Candor is not always a pleasant experience because the truth is sometimes repulsive to behold. Individual differences allow one person to think a situation is perfectly acceptable while another individual may see it as intolerable. Revealing the truth about an issue leaves one vulnerable to scorn if there is a disconnect with the perceptions of another. The ability to withstand differences of perspective and still maintain respect is what makes trust so precious. The synapse of real trust is enabled by honesty and candor. In the void between souls, these quasi electrical connections allow a strong bond of mutual care and support.

Raw candor is not always the best approach, as we must apply it with judgment, tact, and care. We all know situations where it is wise to avoid blurting out our unvarnished thoughts. Within an organization, our reactions to activities or situations begin as private thoughts. They are not malicious or offensive; they are simply our beliefs. The ability to share this information with leaders in a constructive dialog is important.

If we feel stifled out of fear of retribution, then our private information will remain hidden. The withheld information is lost to the organization, and we suffer frustration and loss of morale by feeling muted. Conversely, if we know it is safe to express our thoughts in a mature and helpful way and that leaders will listen, we feel more attachment to our work, and the organization benefits from our viewpoint. It is up to the leaders to enable this flow of information through the behavior of reinforcing candor. Further, it is essential that leaders hear and understand the input and be willing to consider it seriously through dialog and actions.

We must teach leaders the power of this fundamental law: without trust, little real progress is made in any society. Candor is the enabler of trust. Leaders need to embrace and reinforce candor as much as possible. This behavior is not easy, as it is much more comfortable to become defensive or aggressive when facing a contrary opinion. The best leaders make people glad when they bring up difficult discussions because it enables the synapse of trust to flow.

1 Comment | Candor creates trust, Communications, Enabling Actions, leadership, Transparency, Trust, Trust and fear, Trust and motivation, Trust and respect | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Narcissist Mergers

November 28, 2010

In any merger or acquisition, the characteristics of the top leaders in both organizations heavily impact the resulting merged culture. The sad truth is that in many mergers, one or both of the top players are narcissists. What it means is that the entire process from twinkle-in-the-eye to a fully integrated steady state environment will require people to “work around” the problems created at the top.

Narcissism is the personality trait of egotism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others. The name “narcissism” was coined by Freud after Narcissus, who in Greek Mythology was a pathologically self-absorbed young man who fell in love with his own reflection in a pool (Wikipedia). Narcissists have a distorted view of the world around them and see themselves as the center of the universe.

Merging organizations requires a tremendous amount of common sense and sensitivity to allow the feelings and needs of both former separate groups to see themselves operating effectively as a single unit. If one or both of the top leaders have narcissistic tendencies, common sense and sensitivity are not in the lexicon. The boss acts like a steamroller to flatten the ideas or creative suggestions of the impacted groups. The way is clear, and woe be to anybody who cannot catch the vision of the top gun. In any merger, we have two top leaders, and the dynamics of their relationship impacts the entire culture whether they are narcissists or not.

Of course, narcissism is a matter of degree. Some people have only slightly enlarged egos, while others have a major case of it. I know one individual who is an extreme narcissist. He recognizes these traits in himself, but he sees no impetus to change. Why should he? He is rich and has the life style he wants. Life is good for him, and his brash bullying behavior is part of what got him to his pinnacle of perfection. He can spend $2500 on a suit and not worry about it. He is sure that everyone is interested in his whereabouts at any moment in time. He can command a press conference any time he wants it. He is aware that he rubs people the wrong way, but it does not matter in the least to him. So why change?

One reason to change is that he is about to merge with another organization that may be run by an equally dysfunctional individual. In this case, it is best to issue everyone in both organizations flak jackets and give everyone lessons in how to write a good resume. They are going to need it soon. The progression is inevitable: it leads to mutually assured destruction.

Each “camp” will talk a good game of integration, but the battle will rage in the offices and hallways of both organizations until one leader emerges victorious and the vanquished individual slinks off to lick wounds and plot a comeback in a different fiefdom. If one narcissist and one more rational manager are paired up, then the dynamic is different. Still there will be a war, and the victor might be either individual depending on the circumstances and the strength and skill of each person. Whichever individual wins the most power will prevail, and the merger will be more of an acquisition where the victors devour the spoils of battle until there is little left of the losing culture.

If all this sounds depressing, it is. Unfortunately there is no good antidote to this condition unless and until the narcissists are made aware that they are operating at cross purposes to their long term best interest and the interest of the organization. This awakening is often the result of a total failure of the merger coupled with the ouster of the offending leader or leaders. Of course by that time, colossal damage to the business has occurred, and all that can be done is some kind of salvage operation to disposition the remains.

A different, but risky, outcome is for people in the organization to see the warning signs and conduct a kind of coup. Granted, this is rarely done, but I have seen it happen where a top manager was being a total bully until one brave individual closed the office door, pointed a finger at his nose and said, “Just who do you think you are? You have no right to talk to people like that. The only difference between you and God is that God does not think He is you.” That was a significant emotional event for the leader, and it actually worked to wake up the man. After that, he was much less of a bully.

The individual calling out the narcissist boss in the above example took a huge risk. In many cases, candor like that would be immediately followed by a pink slip. Before taking such a risk, one would have to be convinced there is no other way out and have alternate plans in place in case the input is rejected along with the individual. A less dramatic idea is to suggest some form of group learning, such as a lunch hour book review process, or diagonal-slice improvement team. Get the boss to not only allow such growth but be first to suggest a book to review. Reason: if the boss has first dibs at a book, it will be one of his or her favorites. This will have the boss ease into a mode of group growth with some degree of safety.

Another idea associated with weekly growth meetings is to have a “buddy” system where individuals pair up for feedback on the material read for that week. The idea is to have a “safe” environment for both individuals. The pledge ahead of time is that coaching coming from a buddy, regardless of the hierarchy position, will cause no retaliation. Once the boss has taken the pledge publicly, it is harder to decapitate the buddy for being candid.

A third idea is to bring in some help to teach the leadership team how to go about building trust during the merger. It is important to not single out one or two offending managers who need remedial centering. The entire team needs to consider behavioral changes that will lead to greater levels of trust in all layers. A skilled facilitator can help the group move to a different place, and that may include the ability to be more candid with the narcissist in safety. The reason an outsider works is because the individuals responsible for carrying out the merger are the ones responsible for the low trust situation. An outsider can be more objective and bring in Organization Development tools that can soften the silo walls and help people see themselves more accurately.

It is fascinating to watch the dynamics of mergers and how they unfold over time. If you are inside the merged organization, it can be frightening. The real scare for the organization is that while these power games are being played, the customer focus and other competitive advantages are being compromised daily, which may prove fatal to the business. The best advice is to assess the power situation at the top before the merger and create some kind of support system so the leaders really want to work in a cooperative spirit. If they model integration and self sacrifice from the first day, it is possible for people within both groups to pick up the integrated vision.

29 Comments | Candor creates trust, Communications, Enabling Actions, leadership, Organization, Teamwork, Transparency, Trust, Trust and fear, Trust and motivation | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Merger Miseries 7 – What a Rip Off

October 31, 2010

This is the seventh in a series of articles on the trials and tribulations of mergers and acquisitions. This episode concerns the speed of the integration process. A typical merger or substantial organizational change normally takes the better part of a year from inception to complete integration. Many examples take much longer than that. For example, many of the large bank mergers over the past decade have taken 2-3 years to complete. During the transition time, few people in either organization are happy.

For the management, the financial staff, the rank and file employees, and even customers and suppliers, the transition period can be excruciatingly painful. People realize that there are going to be hassles and lost opportunities while the organization is distracted with the details of the consolidation. They also realize there are likely to be layoffs to reduce duplicate staff.

Waiting for the transition to be over is like taking a bandage off a scabbed-over scraped knee. You can do it slow and painful or you can rip it off and deal with the same pain more quickly. Given those two choices, most people choose to rip off the darned bandage and get it over with. Others will peel the adhesive as slowly as possible thinking it is less painful in total, but is it really?

Typically, management votes to drag out the process so individuals in the organization can “get used to” the change. They put out half-baked plans and temporary structures in an attempt to keep people from panicking while the details of the merger are being worked out. This is like a Chinese Water Torture to the people in the organization who are looking for crisp decisions and clarity of direction. Instead, they receive vague intent and lots of sideline cheering about what a wonderful job they are doing. This is total BS, and people resent it.

The other danger is that during the consolidation process, nervous employees tend to start looking around for more stable employment. Logic tells us that the most employable people (the ones with the most talent) are going to find alternate employment easier than the dregs of the organization. So, a protracted period of integration can result in the best people leaving while the slackers or poor performers end up staying. Some companies anticipate this problem and offer some kind of incentives for the best people to stay. Stock options are the usual mechanism to retain the better workers because they only have value when the organization has success down the road. The whole exodus can be mitigated if the integration is crisp and well planned in the first place.

I am not advocating making hasty and dangerous decisions in order to just get it done. Rather, I am proposing that there be intensive planning about all aspects of the consolidation before the starting gun goes off. I am proposing that the people involved in the consequences be allowed to participate in this planning process so they have an opportunity to contribute rather than sit at their desks and shake with fear. The more specific and concrete the plans are for integration the better. Then, once the consolidation is formally announced, the time to return to a fully functioning organization is much shorter. Yes, it will be painful, but the upfront work makes that pain more manageable. The planning process is rather like Novocain at the dentist. Yes there is some pain involved, but it is far more tolerable than going without it and just grinding away.

2 Comments | Communications, Enabling Actions, Organization, Teamwork, Transparency, Trust, Trust and fear | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Leadership Barometer 54 The Impact of a Culture of High Trust

November 9, 2009

Over the past 20 years, I have taught Business and Leadership at seven universities, along with several hundred corporate and professional groups.

One thing that has disappointed me is the discussion of corporate culture in most of the MBA textbooks. They usually leave out the most important parts of culture. This topic has fascinated me for years.

The success and longevity of any organization is directly linked to its culture. We sometimes notice the parts that make up culture, but often they are transparent because they are just a part of doing business in a particular group.

If we stop to think about what defines culture and work to manage or influence it, we can uncover some powerful leadership leverage.
Most of the Leadership textbooks I have read describe the culture in terms of physical attributes that characterize an organization.

For example, here is a typical list of the things purported to make up a company culture.

1. Physical structure
2. Language and symbols
3. Rituals, ceremonies, gossip, and jokes
4. Stories, legends, and heroes
5. Beliefs
6. Values and norms
7. Assumptions

The above list is a montage of the lists in several textbooks. When you think about it, these items do go a long way toward defining the culture of an organization.

Unfortunately, I believe these items fall short, because they fail to include the emotions of the people. After all, organizations are made up of people, at all levels, interacting in a social structure for a purpose.

Let us extend the list of things that make up the culture of an organization to include how the people feel.

1. Is there a high level of trust within the organization?
2. To what extent do people have the opportunity to grow in this organization?
3. Do people feel safe and secure, or are they basically fearful?
4.  How do people treat each other on their own level and on higher or lower levels?
5. Is the culture inclusive or exclusive?
6. Do people generally feel like winners or losers at work?
7.  Is the culture one of reinforcement or punishment?
8.  Are managers viewed as enablers or barriers?
9. Are people trying to get into the organization or trying to get out?
10. What is the level of satisfaction for people in this organization?
11. Can people “speak their truth” without fear of reprisal?
12. Do people follow the rules or find ways to avoid following them?

I could go on with another 20-30 things that relate to the human side of culture. I hope you agree that the items above are at least as important as the items on the first list in terms of describing the culture.

Why then do most textbooks on leadership not mention them when they discuss culture? It baffles me.

Perhaps the view is that these “people-centered” items are best discussed separately and only the “system-centered” items define the culture. Personally, I do not agree with that.

Let’s zoom in on just one item of my list above: item #1. The level of trust in an organization is actually the most significant part of the culture, in my opinion.

The reason I put Trust in the front and center of culture is that with high trust, all of the other things (rituals, ceremonies, values, language, etc.) work to engage people in the business. With low trust, you can have all the trappings, but people will laugh at you behind your back.

You are probably familiar with the CEO who spouts out the values at every chance, but does not live them, so there is no trust. The values are just a useless pile of words.

In fact, they are worse than useless, because every time the CEO mentions the values it reminds people what a hypocrite he or she is.

Why is Trust so powerful? Let’s contrast a few dimensions for a company with high trust versus one with low trust to view the impact.

Problems

All organizations have a steady stream of problems. If the culture is one of low trust, each problem represents a high hurdle to overcome. We have to stop everything and have a meeting to figure out who said what and try to unscramble the mess. We also have to contend with the interpersonal squabbles that are part of a low trust culture.

If there is high trust, first of all there will be fewer problems, but then the remaining problems are easily overcome, like pebbles in the road we kick aside with our shoe. We can focus energy on the vision rather than the problems.

Any problems will be resolved quickly, and the solutions will be of higher quality, because people will not be afraid to voice their creative ideas.

Communication

In groups with low trust, trying to communicate is like walking on eggs. Every word or phrase is a potential trigger for a sarcastic remark. Things are frequently taken the wrong way and create damage to control.

With high trust, communication seems easy. People have the ability to “hear between the lines” and the instinctively know the intent of the message even if the words come out wrong. Employees are not coiled and ready to strike anytime there is an opportunity.

Focus

In areas of low trust, people are focusing on protecting themselves or bringing other people down. Most of the energy is directed inward to the organization in numerous battles that really don’t help the organization succeed.

If trust is high, people are feeling aligned, so their focus is outward at the opportunities (customers) or threats (competition). This shift in focus from inward battles to outward opportunities is huge in terms of organizational success.

Rumors

When trust is low, rumors spring up due to poor communication. Since there is nothing to retard them, they take on a life of their own. The rumors and gossip spread like wildfire all over the organization creating significant damage control for management.

In areas of high trust, there will still be rumors from time to time, but they will be easily extinguished before they do significant damage. This is because people believe management when they say something is not true.

Attitude

Look at the people in an organization of low trust; what is their general attitude? Usually it is one of apathy. They need their job in order to live, but they dearly wish it wasn’t such a struggle.

Now look at the attitude of people in an organization of high trust. You will see passion and motivation to really help the organization succeed. The difference here is huge in terms of organizational survival.

For one thing, customers notice the difference immediately. You know the feeling of sitting in a restaurant where the trust level between management and the servers is low. You get an uncomfortable feeling and may net even realize why you decide to not patronize the place again.

Impact

With these differences, the result when workers have high trust has been shown by several authors is that they are between 2-5 times more productive than low trust groups.

Think of the number of organizations where managers are constantly feeling under-staffed.  “We need more people,” is the common phrase.  My retort is that it is a leadership problem. What you need is not more people, but better leaders who know how to build a great culture of trust.

We could go on with numerous more examples of the difference between a culture of high trust and low trust, and that is only the first item on the list above. I hope it is obvious that having the right kind of culture makes all the difference in the ability to survive in business. Take the time and energy to work on your culture; the ROI is astronomical.

The preceding information was adapted from the book The TRUST Factor: Advanced Leadership for Professionals, by Robert Whipple. It is available on http://www.leadergrow.com.
Mr. Whipple is also the author of Leading with Trust is like Sailing Downwind, , and Trust in Transition: Navigating Organizational Change.

Bob consults and speaks on these and other leadership topics. He is CEO of Leadergrow Inc. a company dedicated to growing leaders.

 

9 Comments | Candor creates trust, Communications, Enabling Actions, HR, leadership, Organization, Teamwork, Trust, Trust and fear, Trust and motivation, Trust and respect | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Next Entries »