What? You Don’t Trust Me?

I wrote several articles in 2022 regarding the lack of trust between leaders and their team members and between employer and employee.

In May 2022 I talked about “Reinstating Trust ”, and I used TRUST as an acronym to describe 5 elements that must be in place to create an environment of trust.

·?????? Transparency

·?????? Relationship

·?????? Unity

·?????? Safety

·?????? Touchpoints

In January 2022 I published a 2-piece newsletter called “No Trust. No Future. Part 1 and Part 2 .”, in which I described the impact that a lack of trust has in the workplace and the resultant damage, and ten actions that leaders can take to rebuild trust that has been lost.

It is clearly an ongoing issue as I have read more articles about trust issues in the workplace over the last couple of weeks. It is a real concern when you consider the unaccredited, but widely used quote on trust.

“Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.”

Clearly, it has been broken but no one is attempting to repair it. Is it just too hard?

The numbers

The Edelman Trust Barometer 2023 is the firm's 23rd annual trust and credibility survey. IT sampled more than 32,000 respondents across 29 countries.

64% of respondents trust their CEO. Meaning that 36% do not. Down by 2 points since 2022.

Gallup measures US employees' perceptions of their interactions with leaders and managers.?

In 2023, only 21% of U.S. employees strongly agree that they trust the leadership of their organisation.?

PwC’s 2023 Trust Survey found that 79% of business executives say their employees trust the company, but only 65% of employees agree. This gap in perceived trust remained just as large as that in the June 2022 survey.

54% of employees reported experiencing a trust-damaging event but only 20% of executives said the organisation had been involved in this type of incident. 46% of those employees experiencing a trust-damaging event said they expected it.

45% of executives strongly agreed that the organisation’s leadership gave the appropriate attention to earning trust in the business. Only 34% of employees strongly agreed.

In the Microsoft Work Trend Index report, “Hybrid Work Is Just Work. Are We Doing It Wrong ?”, 85% of leaders said the shift to hybrid work has made it challenging to have confidence that employees are being productive.

Paul J. Zak, researcher, and author of Trust Factor: The Science of Creating High-Performance Companies,?established a link between higher levels of trust and economic performance.

He found that people at high-trust companies reported :

·?????? 74% less stress,

·?????? 106% more energy at work,

·?????? 50% higher productivity,

·?????? 13% fewer sick days,

·?????? 76% more engagement,

·?????? 29% more satisfaction with their lives, and

·?????? 40% less burnout (compared with people at low-trust companies).

A 2-way street?

Trust is a 2-way street. It is not just that employees do not trust their leaders, but the leaders do not trust the employees!

Employees

Employees do not trust their leaders to value them for their contributions or achievements. They want to trust that they will be measured on the value they deliver not the volume they deliver.

They want to be given the flexibility, autonomy, and trust to do their very best work wherever they choose to do it.

Employees know that their leaders are subject to productivity paranoia meaning that if I cannot see you, I cannot trust you to be productive.

Employees know that their leaders are subject to proximity bias meaning that they place more merit on the work done by someone in their immediate vicinity. Working remotely is likely to have an adverse impact on their career progression.

Employees know that their employer is using surveillance software to monitor their activity and check on their movements. They know that the number of keystrokes is being used as an indicator of productivity. They know that they must not let the status light on Teams or Skype turn yellow or white, because they will be considered not to be working.

Employees do not trust that their leader will allow them to speak up, challenge a decision, provide feedback, or raise a concern, without reprimand or repercussion.

Employees do not trust that their leader will act when an issue or concern has been raised with them.

Employees do not trust that their leader is transparent, honest, and authentic.

Leaders

Leaders do not trust their employees to be working when they cannot see them.

They do not trust them to do the job as well as they would do it, therefore they micromanage.?

They do not trust an employee due to past mistakes or errors made. They do not trust them due to an inconsistent performance. Sometimes their work is great and sometimes it is seriously lacking.

Leaders do not trust their employees because they do not speak up and mistakes go unaccounted for. They are not transparent about their work, their progress, or the challenges they may be facing, and therefore they must be hiding something.

It must be fixed

There is no doubt. This is a serious issue that must be fixed. There are many benefits to having trusting relationships in the workplace including increased engagement; increased productivity; better collaboration and communication; improved mental well-being; and improved bottom line.

When there is a lack of trust, engagement drops; employee turnover increases; morale is low; stress and anxiety increases; there is a reluctance to innovate, experiment, and take risks; employee surveillance increases; and a reduction in discretionary effort or engagement.

It astounds me that organisations with a low trust factor between leaders and employees and vice versa continue to survive. They are toxic places in which to work for everyone and I wonder if those keeping the lights on are just doing so as the retirement package delivery is imminent, and the organisation’s demise is looming too.

So, who is going to do it? Who is going to rebuild trust in the organisation? Who is going to rebuild the trust between leader and employee?

The good news. The quote may say, ”…forever to repair”, but that is a myth. It will not be easy, but in most cases, lost trust can be restored.

The bad news. If you are a leader in your organisation, I am looking at you. This is your job. The whole of your team can take responsibility as we will see when we look at the Trust Matrix, but the accountability is yours.

Measure it

Before we launch into fixing it, let’s work out where it is broken. Amongst the many models for measuring trust is this one from Richard Barrett , author, speaker, and social commentator.

It is based on the four cores of credibility that Stephen M.R. Covey writes about in his book, “Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything.”

Source: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/building-trust-your-team-matrix-richard-barrett/

Character reflects how you are on the inside, your intent, and the level of integrity you display in your relationship with others. These depend primarily on the level of development of your emotional intelligence and social intelligence. Intent is demonstrated by caring, transparency, and openness; integrity is demonstrated by honesty, fairness, and authenticity.

Competence reflects how you are on the outside, your capability, and the results you deliver. These depend primarily on the level of development of your mental intelligence, your education, and what you have learned during your professional career. Capability is demonstrated by skills, knowledge, and experience. Results are demonstrated by reputation, credibility, and performance.

The matrix exercise

You can evaluate the level of trust in a team using the Richard Barrett matrix.

In a workshop, ask each member of the team to identify which elements of the Trust Matrix they believe are the strongest and which are the weakest in the way the team operates.

Each person has 5 points to allocate to strengths and 5 points to allocate to weaknesses. Use green and red voting dots to indicate strengths and weaknesses respectively.

Dots can be allocated to the 12 components of the matrix (teal boxes) in any combination.

Allow people time to think about the exercise and where they will allocate their dots. As each person allocates their dots, they must explain to the rest of the team the reasoning behind the allocation.

When everyone has placed their dots on the chart, add up the results for the whole team. You will see immediately which elements of the Trust Matrix most lacking and which elements are most present.

With these insights you can now start an open and honest conversation about how to build on the strengths and minimise the weaknesses that have been identified. Every member of the team can identify areas in which they could improve and how they propose to do that. Whilst the accountability for reinstating or improving trust is with the leader, the whole team can share the responsibility for making it happen.

Conclusion?

Having undertaken the exercise to measure trust, next week I will explore each of the 12 components of the Trust Matrix and how to make improvements.

????????????????????????????????????

I am an organisational change management rebel?WITH?a cause.?

I am the author of seven books on organisational change, workforce resilience, leadership capability uplift and leading remote teams.

I am an international keynote speaker, consultant, facilitator, coach, and mentor.

I am passionate about enabling individuals and organisations to be the very best they can be through performance enablement, outstanding leadership, adaptation, agility, and resilience in the face of constant and uncertain change.

I would love to work with you and your organisation. Contact me?here .

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?