the playbook part 1: relationships of trust
sunk thought’s - the playbook
“the playbook” is a mini-book delivered in 8 posts (the forward and seven chapters.) It’s the dinosaur sponge bath capsule of the organizational theory world!
Relationships of Trust
Handshakes & Tokens in the Real World
Trust is Vital to Businesses
Trust is dynamic, difficult, yet vital to any organization. Everything you do, every decision you make, and everything you communicate makes an impact on the way others perceive your org’s trustworthiness.
James Davis is a Professor of Strategic Management at Utah State University. He believes that relationships are the most important resource in business. He posits that your relationships with your employees, your customers, your suppliers, or your community all undoubtedly define how your business will perform. And, the most important factor in building these relationships is trust.
The Science of Trust
“Trust, is a willingness to be vulnerable, a willingness to take risk.” - James Davis
Trust is not a lightswitch, but if it were... it would turn off far easier than it could be flipped on.
We humans all have our own individual propensity for risk (one part nature and another part nurture) that makes us more or less likely than another to take a chance, and to trust someone. Despite where someone lands on the risk spectrum, however, there are three primary indicators we look for when deciding who to trust:
Ability - “are they competent/credible in this area”
Benevolence - “do they care about what happens to me”
Integrity - “will they do what they are promising to do?”
Behaviors of Trust
So, how do you demonstrate these traits and build relationships of trust?
Jacqueline Olivera has spent 22 years as an international consultant. She has spoken to businesses around the world asking them what behaviors indicate these three attributes to them within their cultures.
Here follows some of her findings.
How Different Cultures Measure Ability (Competence):
Russians look for deep intellect. People who pick the things apart and know everything about all the details.
Germans look for a logical and orderly approach.
Indians look for accuracy and perfection in every Detail.
How Different Cultures Measure Integrity:
Japanese look for loyalty. It’s dishonorable to speak negatively about others in their culture.
Americans look for honesty. Your word is your bond, no matter the cost.
Italians look for “bella figura,” an elegant and dignified approach.
How Different Cultures Measure Benevolence (Caring):
South Koreans look for harmony, by anticipating the needs of others and acting accordingly.
English look for privacy and subtlety in personal matters with co-workers.
Brazilians look for a “good person.” Someone who actively seeks ways to help others without being asked.
The Two Leadership Theories
Incredibly, things get even less straightforward still. It turns out, there really are just two kinds of people. What’s worse, if you’re in one camp or the other, it’s incredibly difficult to move. They are: Dog people and Cat people. Just kidding (mostly.)
In “The Human Side of Enterprise,” Douglas McGregor described the two basic theories leaders have about their workers, also noting that these beliefs were difficult to essentially impossible to change in people.
Theory X - “I believe that people are lazy and avoid responsibility. Humans require extrinsic motivation.”
Theory X folks tend to create one of two kinds of corporate structures:
● Pathological Organizations: rely on authority and fear as motivation to increase productivity.
● Bureaucracies: rely on on rules, sign offs, red tape, and restriction to reduce errors/improve efficiency.
Theory Y - “I believe that people are intrinsically motivated. Humans want to perform well.”
Theory Y folks tend to create:
● Generative Organizations: rely on trust and sharing to take advantage of the cognitive capacity of their entire human structure (rather than just the head) to become more effective.
This is where your personal beliefs (X or Y) may sway you. But, at scale it becomes increasingly less effective to run an organization through fear alone.
What do the Best Teams Have in Common?
When Google wanted to understand what set their best teams apart, most Googlers believed it would come down to something simple like team experience level, skill level, perceived project impact, etc.
What they learned was that teams who felt a higher perceived sense of “psychological safety” were those that performed best. The teams who felt confident that they could take risks, knowing they might fail, did best.
High performers had more trust that their teammates had their backs and that Google would forgive them rather than punish them for any shortcomings.
The Cost of Losing Trust
Allow me to tell you about one of the biggest mistakes I made while running my last company. It was an organization we tried to build upon trust, ownership and pride in one’s work, the willingness to take risks. To “ask for forgiveness rather than permission” where well aligned with our goals. I frequently evangelized these things.
While working on a project, a designer was having trouble sourcing collateral photos. They asked me if they could create their own for it based on ones we tried out, saying it would only take 30 minutes...
I internally catalogued the steps: folding paper shapes, lighting them, photography, processing, etc and alarms went off. “30 minutes does not seem possible” my brain reported via fax… The fact of the matter was he could take all kinds of time doing it and not hurt us, but I got hung up on the mis-estimation of time as a mis-estimation of the project as a whole and couldn’t get past it.
I told them to look for another way to work with what we had, not wanting to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I blew it by not trusting this employee. I could have even told them, “Okay, I’ll give you two hours, skype me then,” and not lost trust. Instead, I chose to shut them down. What’s the risk, after all? Two hours?
In doing so, they lost the trust that I had their back. This then led to a degradation of motivation, work speed, quality, and even communication with this talented resource. We ultimately had to part ways. Such a small seed of doubt lead to a catastrophic failure. It was devastating.
After this, when in a similar situation, I would work with folks to examine the situation, identify the risks, take a second look at their estimation, and set up a reporting loop as they test their idea -- once we’ve agreed the risks are in line with the potential gains, of course.
Trust is a two way street, driving on the wrong side will end badly.
So, How Do We “Do” Trust Right?
Treat people well, care about their futures, trust them to do their work, and they'll be more likely to stay with your company. Lots of companies think caring means feeding their employees lunches and installing ping pong tables.
However, you’ll create a much higher degree of loyalty among employees by valuing their opinions, giving them ownership over their work, offering them the opportunity to experiment and refine their craft, to advance from within. By offering them vacation and work policies that will enable them to both make you and your shareholders a profit and avoid burning them out.
Want to reduce employee churn? Care about them. Show them that you honor their abilities, their culture, etc. It’s not just the right thing to do, it’s a long term competitive advantage for your business.
By “Codifying your Culture” (the topic of part 2 of this series) you have the opportunity to begin to lay out your vision, values, and evangelize to your employees. This simple act can go a long way towards building trust by showing your team:
that you are competent
that you care about them
Then you have the opportunity to demonstrate your integrity by striving to live up to these codified values. Then, with these building blocks you can work to create the trust your organization needs so badly to succeed.
