The Elements of Procedural Justice – Trust

I introduced the 4 elements to procedural justice in my introductory newsletter. I talked about neutrality last time, this time I want to talk about trust.

Trust is a funny old thing. It means so many things to so many people and yet it can be so hard to win but very, very easily lost. In the context of procedurally just processes we need to create situations where trust is inbuilt and established; it is not fragile but consistent and is there for all to see, regardless of people’s personal ‘tolerances’ for trust.

As a leader I start from a point where everyone has my trust. It’s instant and non-negotiable. You get it on day one and it’s for you to lose. Once people have got use to the concept – it can take some people much longer to believe that I do really mean it - I have found that this helps people feel psychologically safe, to do their job better, not feel micromanaged and deliver better outcomes and results. It’s a win/win.

Interesting when you look for the meaning of trust on Google you get tax advice (if you don’t know you will have to look it up) but a dictionary definition of trust can be read as a firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something. This is a big thing to do consistently so let’s look at a couple of examples.

How trust can be lost – over the size of a bag!

Institutions are much more difficult to trust than people, there’s a lot going on that can let you down and break your trust relationship. I recently flew to the US with a national airline. I had trusted their policies on all manner of things, I had flown with them previously on multiple flights, they were on time, the service was usually good and because of my history with them I booked this flight….because I trusted them.

This time was slightly different though.?I had seen several travellers previously taking on fairly big hand baggage and so I had diligently read their luggage policy online, got a tape measure and measured my bag. It was the right size, and so I booked my ticket without any hold baggage and made my way to the airport.

When I arrived, I was met by one of the airline representatives who very politely me told me about process and asked if I would be checking in my bag. ‘No’ I said ‘I have measured it and it meets your hand baggage policy’…..’hmmm I don’t think so sir it looks too big for me’. I explained what their site had told me – I referenced it with him in the airport, on their app, on my phone, and yet he still said no. I asked if he could check, with a rather loud tut he spoke to a colleague next to him who agreed with me, in her opinion my bag would count as hand baggage. At this point they started to debate (some might say argue) about who was right and who was wrong. They did this quite loudly and I stood and watched this unfold. I had no voice in this part of the process. This will make sense to readers from the beginning of my articles, if not you may need to go back a few.

Because of the noise a manager became involved. As a result, metal boxes were produced for me to put my bag in, a tape measure was produced, and all agreed it did meet the required standard, however it had wheels which meant it would not qualify as hand baggage. Having stood and watched the decision making unfold and having not once been consulted I then made my point to the manager about their policy. He agreed with me and agreed that in his opinion it met the standard, apart from the wheels. As a gesture of goodwill, he would place my bag in the hold without charge and arrange for the same as I flew back. All very nice – but I have now lost trust.

This is a very small example of where procedural justice starts to break down, I had no voice, there was limited respect as defined by the tut, I was not being treated neutrally and I have now lost trust – will I book again or look for another airline? Well in all honesty I think I will find another airline. My response to this may be futile, but if I can’t trust that policy, how can I trust their policy on filling up the plane with fuel or that the pilots will do their jobs within policy – I know this maybe an exaggerated example, but I hope you see my point.?

The loss of confidence (or trust to all of us) in the Police

There has been a debate in recent months, if not years, about the trust we have in the police. We have seen examples such as Wayne Couzens, we have seen the inappropriate use of WhatsApp Groups for the sharing of crime scene photographs and for misogyny to play out. These cases are the preverbal ‘bad apples’ in the barrel.

This has led to the police and other institutions looking at internal policies and processes and how they might let us down, breached our trust. But this is a good example of just how hard it is to win trust and confidence as an institution.

Conclusion

All this comes to bear on the wider processes that these institutions stand for. Trust breaks down and authority starts to falter. Belief that I will get the care I need from a hospital or my child will get the support they need form their school. That customers have in our business to deliver on what we say we are going to do.

If you lead, then it is imperative that you create a trust in your followers. Doing the things you say you are going to do, following through. Simple things like making sure you pay people on time and that you honour the promises you make, personally or as an organisation. Trust as I have said is hard won but easily lost. Baroness Casey has set out a blueprint in her recent report about the Metropolitan Police, but expectations are low and there is much work to do. Is this the same for your organisation, could you stand up and say that Trust exists within your workforce, customer base or those you serve.

We probably have much work to do in this space if we step aside for a bit and look at the trust relationship through a different lens. Maybe that’s this month’s reflections…?