When leaders say that they need to build trust among their middle managers, the term trust often means different things to different individuals or groups. Sometimes there are differing perceptions, perceived causes, or desired outcomes, yet most leaders tend to work simply with that one word—trust. But having a common language and understanding among the parties involved helps them identify what they mean when some aspect of a relationship, behavior, or performance is amiss.
In the article “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust” by Roger C. Mayer, James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman, the authors describe trust as embodying distinct elements of ability, benevolence, and integrity. What they call factors of perceived trustworthiness—dimensions of trust—can appear as three different kinds of trust; more precisely there are three distinct elements of human reasoning that each relate to one’s willingness to be vulnerable in a given situation. This helps people focus on which aspects of individual or team behavior or performance are working well and which are not. In adapting the work of the article’s authors for a global audience, this book uses the term loyalty rather than benevolence, because loyalty captures the essence of the relationship and will be more readily understood by more readers.
Figure 1
DIMENSIONS OF TRUST
Ability is about technical skills, competencies, and execution. Whenever people ask if someone is able, capable, or skilled, or if he or she can accomplish a specific task, they are considering ability. People interact with one another as leaders, supervisors, and coworkers, and they see technical, interpersonal, and leadership competencies enacted at various skill levels at different levels in the organization. And everyone has seen that people may have expertise in some areas but not in others.
When leaders make judgments about ability—remembering that trust is always specific to the situation—they often think of the skills that lead to effective outcomes for the particular assignment or project. In other words: “Can he do it?” “Does she know the right steps?”
Here’s an example: Walter has offered to write the design architecture for a new project plan, but his last three project designs have required significant rework by the team. Do you as Walter’s manager trust his ability to write a design architecture that won’t need significant rework?
Following are some examples of questions that can help you gauge aspects of ability that might influence the degree of trust you experience during an interaction.
• Can she do what I’m asking her to do?
• Does the team possess the knowledge and understanding of the processes to produce this work?
• What might he need to learn in order to accomplish this task?
• What help might he need to get this done?
• How well did she perform the most recent similar task?
Integrity includes shared values (for example, principles, fairness, and character) and expectations (for example, reliability and consistency) between the parties. When people think about a wise and principled leader, someone esteemed for living the principles they admire, for their tenacity, and for their consistent successes, they are thinking about integrity. They often see humility and a rock-solid ethic to uphold what is true, right, and honorable, even when it makes the leader look a fool, which, oddly, isn’t very often. They see someone they agree with in important ways.
When people make judgments about integrity they often think of strong character, stability, and reliability. Do I agree with the wisdom of his decisions? Can I count on her to deliver on her promise?
The following questions can help leaders gain clarity around aspects of integrity that might be affecting their perception of trust.
• Does her past behavior/history/reputation suggest unswerving, rather than self-serving, ethics?
• Does he deal evenly with others on his projects or does he sometimes have favorites?
• Do I agree with the soundness of his approach on this challenge, and is he open to discussing it?
• What about her as a leader do I really admire? What values do we share?
• Do we agree about what we’re discussing?
• Will he do what he says? Can I count on him, even as busy as he is?
Loyalty is related to truth-telling and a personal relationship between the trustor and trustee. People are considering the trust dimension of loyalty whenever they think about personal connections with others and whether those others will support them or abandon them in tough situations. They wonder if others will maintain a confidence, keep a secret, or protect them rather than take advantage of and point the blame at them, or if they will support their well-being and development. In the more extreme cases of perceived trust abandonment, betrayal shows up.
When leaders make judgments about loyalty they are thinking of such a relationship. Will she keep this matter private? Can I count on him to support me on this?
The following questions can help leaders gain clarity around aspects of loyalty that might be affecting their perception of trust.
• Can I confide in her on this?
• If things go wrong for both of us on this decision, will he accept responsibility with me?
• To what extent does he care about me and my ideas?
• Will he restructure my work so I can get experience in this new area?
• Does she see her promise to me as a priority among her other work commitments?
• Is he willing to put his commitment to me on this matter ahead of his personal goals?
• Do we have a relationship to be able to discuss this when conflicts arise rather than to let commitments slip?
With a common way to talk about the specific behaviors that lead to trust concerns in the workplace, leaders can engage in productive, solution-based discussions. All parties can now work toward the same understanding of what can create trust challenges in work interactions. But you may not be ready to meet with your colleague just yet.
Trust issues may not arise solely in one dimension; sometimes what’s not working well may be a combination of factors. Curiosity is a valuable mind-set that can help you see things more clearly, more closely to what the situation really is. Spending some time to become clear about your own understanding of the underlying trust concerns is often worthwhile and can make the difference in mounting an effective response to your concerns. Meeting with a thought partner or trusted adviser may also add insight to challenge your assumptions and initial conclusions.
“Trust is the lubrication that makes it possible for organizations to work.”
— Warren Bennis
Jenna was becoming depressed about continuing more of these counterproductive team meetings in the future. She decided to try to make productive change where she could, within her sphere of influence. She asked herself: What’s at the root of my dissatisfaction with the team? After drawing up pages of notes she wrote down the following: I have no energy to work on this team; I don’t look forward to this work.
While these issues were preying on her she overheard the end of a hallway conversation between a peer leader in another division, Paul, and one of his teammates, Julian.
Paul said: “Julian, this presentation is going to be used by senior leadership and I need to be able to trust you on this. You won’t let me down, will you?”
“No, I won’t,” was the response.
“Thanks very much, and I look forward to getting your report.”
For Jenna, a connection was made. She did research on the concept of trust in organizational life and then spent some time diagramming her team’s challenges using the trust framework.
Trust Dimensions |
|
• Lack of productivity during team meetings |
• Team processes (ability, integrity) |
• Poor or incomplete work product from some team members |
• Skill (ability), priorities (loyalty) |
• Lack of support from our manager |
• Loyalty |
• Conflicting work priorities with team members |
• Priorities (loyalty) |
• Need to work in crisis mode too often |
• Team processes (ability, integrity) |
Jenna shared some content on trust issues in organizations and her map of the team’s challenges. She asked for permission to openly discuss the team’s performance issues in hopes of improving not only team performance but also the team members’ satisfaction with working together. This time most of the team agreed.