One of the curiosities of modern life is the extent to which “trust” is cited as a key aspect of successful organizations even as levels of confidence in a range of institutions continue to bob along at historic lows. According to Gallup’s annual Governance survey, carried out last month, fewer than half of Americans are confident about the executive and judicial branches of the federal government and elected officials and candidates for office. Nor are they impressed with the federal government’s ability to handle both domestic and international problems. Even though polling took place before the ousting of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, respondents expressed especially little trust in Congress, with the proportion expressing a great deal or fair amount of trust in it dropping sharply from 38 per cent last year to 32 per cent. The only bright spot is local government, where two-thirds of those questioned express trust. Otherwise, all institutions have below-average trust levels compared with historical Gallup norms going back to the 1970s.
The situation does not appear to be much different elsewhere. In the summer, the U.K. consumer group Which? reported that confidence in the country’s grocery industry was at its lowest since 2014. Earlier the heads of the four biggest supermarket groups had rejected accusations from MPs that their sector was behaving like a cartel and profiteering from the cost of living crisis. Not that MPs are immune to this epidemic of declining trust, while a series of scandals has led to organisations ranging from the Metropolitan Police to various hospital trusts losing the confidence of the public.
And yet listen to successful sports teams and they talk about the trust their coaches have in them and individual players have in each other. In a recent book about the England men’s rugby team that won the world cup in 2003, Martin Johnson is quoted talking about how head coach Clive Woodward managed a strong-minded group of players. “After a while, he realised that he had to trust us, that we weren’t there to be told what to do and, ultimately, on the back of all that, I think we came out stronger as a group,” he said.
The same is true of businesses that have managed to throw off the old command-and-control habits. Henry Stewart is the founder of Happy, a training company in London that focuses on helping charities, social enterprises, public sector bodies and small companies. As its name suggests, Happy is focused on helping people find joy in their work. But among its core values is wanting to create organizations where workers feel trusted and empowered. Stewart is a great proponent of self-management and has relinquished the CEO role in favour of styling himself the “chief happiness officer.” In a recent interview, he said: “The pandemic showed that you can trust people. You didn’t have to have them in the office.”
The current attempts by many employers to impose back-to-the-office regimes suggests that not everybody agrees with his hands-off style. But Stewart insists it is working. “I make virtually no decisions and we made our best profit last year,” he said.
The lack of trust in public institutions is undoubtedly to some extent linked with a general dissatisfaction with the way the world is going — although the extraordinary behaviour of certain individuals has certainly not helped. So it is hard to see what, other than a general uptick in standards and in competence, can help improve matters.
But there is plenty that individual enterprises — whether in the public or private sectors — can do to improve their trust ratings. Stewart, for instance, has long argued that organizations are not sufficiently circumspect about whom they make managers. Individuals who do not see themselves as “people people” should not be put in management positions even if they have excelled in their functional roles, he believes, pointing out that many are relieved at not having to carry out the role. Since there is extensive research indicating that wanting to get away from a bad manager is a key factor in employees’ decisions to quit, it is surprising that more organizations have not cottoned on to this.
A recently updated Gallup article suggests other factors that can help build trust in a workplace. Among them are authenticity and truthfulness on the part of managers, and a culture of transparency. It cites the clothing company Patagonia, recently top of a list of consumers’ most trusted brands, and its decision to describe the process by which raw materials were turned into products as an example of how to be transparent.
In the end, though, leadership behaviors are crucial. After all, if organizations say certain things are important and then appoint people who do not abide by them, employees are unlikely to be inspired. The competencies that Gallup rates as important are:
The ability to build relationships that establish connections that transmit ideas and accomplish work;
A drive for development that focuses on followers’ needs, expectations and aspirations;
Comfort with leading change in organizational strategy and in alignment with the vision;
The capacity to inspire others by encouraging their efforts and celebrating success;
Critical thinking that seeks information openly, invites dissent and stimulates debate where needed;
Communication skills that result in clear, open and transparent dialog that empowers trust;
A need for accountability to hold yourself and others responsible for performance.
Not only do such factors help to create happier workplaces, they make them more successful, too. A trust culture helps create that much sought after concept — engagement. And that, of course, enhances the just as elusive productivity.
Read the full article here
