Trust, the Foundation of a Functional Team

Transcription

1 When Patrick Lencioni set out to write about the attributes and behaviors that determine if a team will be functional (that is accomplish the results it set out to achieve) 1, he described five key attributes in terms of a pyramid with results at the pinnacle. At the foundation of the pyramid was trust. Effective teamwork is, Lencioni asserts, the one sustainable competitive advantage that is largely untapped. When people set aside individual needs for the good of the whole, they get a lot more done well in less time, at less cost. Not only that, effective teamwork also gives people a sense of connection and belonging. But many teams and organizations, if not most, never get to the level of high performance. Participants are reluctant to set aside their own agendas and focus on achieving the team s goals. And in most cases, the trouble stems from a lack of trust. Teams must trust one another, Lencioni says, on a fundamental emotional level so they are comfortable being open with one another about their weaknesses, mistakes, fears and behaviors. If people fundamentally trust one another, they are not afraid to engage in passionate dialogue around issues and key decisions that are critical to the organization s success. This unfiltered debate ensures that all ideas and objections are put on the table and worked through so the team can arrive at a genuine commitment to the decision. Genuine commitment enables team members to hold one another accountable for follow through and to put achieving the results ahead of individual agendas. So trust is essential to having open and honest dialogue and debate, which leads to better decisions, better commitment, and better follow through: i.e., competitive advantage. It is that simple. Does it work? Stephen Covey 2 cites a study showing that high trust organizations outperform low trust organizations by nearly 300%. Covey describes a lack of trust in an organization as a tax that reduces the value of every interaction. People waste time worrying about their image. People don t hear the message clearly enough because they are factoring in assumptions about intentions. They often take things the wrong way wasting time and talent. People who are unafraid to admit truth about self have no need to engage in political behaviors that waste so much time. So the Partners in Improvement met to discuss the concept of trust: what is it, how do we build it, and how do we measure it. The ability to establish, grow, extend, and restore trust with all stakeholders customers, suppliers, investors and co-workers is the key leadership competency of the new global economy. - Stephen M.R. Covey 1 Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team 2 Stephen M. R. Covey Home page, There is Nothing as Fast as the Speed of Trust 1

2 What is Trust? The group recognized that the term Trust is used in different ways, and reappears at different points in a team s journey to results. For some, the term described a confidence in the leaders that they were looking out for everyone s best interests. A number of people described trust as that which enables people to be open with one another, admit mistakes, question one another, and put uncomfortable truths on the table. Others focused on the aspect of trust related to confidence that others will follow through on commitments: It means I can count on people to do what they committed to. And yet another said that to him, trust means delivering on the value equation for customers and associates. These descriptions describe how the concept of trust plays a role from the very start of how we work and interact with one another through to delivering of results. People trust that the organization is looking out for the best interest of everyone, and People trust it is safe to say what they think, admit what they don t know, acknowledge mistakes, and raise doubts, so The decision process incorporates open and honest debate, so Trust People can trust one another to follow through, and People deliver value to customers and associates. People trust that the organization has come to the best decisions, so The organization gains genuine commitment and buy in, so While Lencioni emphasizes the role trust plays at the base of the pyramid leading up to results, the Partners forum saw trust playing a role throughout the journey. Building a Trust Account Several of the Partners expressed the idea that building trust takes time. It does not happen overnight. But Lencioni claims that the key ingredient is not time, pointing out that people can work together for years and have not one bit of trust in one another. Time will not suffice. The standard operating condition is a lack of trust, simply because adults have an interest in selfpreservation and have learned that questioning influential people or acknowledging personal weaknesses or mistakes can be detrimental in many, many situations. Lack of trust is a learned default position. 2

3 Courage to Model Trust To build trust in a group requires courage. As one of the Partners pointed out, we must give trust before we can earn it. Someone must be first to be willing to risk saying I don t know, or I was wrong about that. If the leader of a team or an organization is unwilling to admit mistakes or be open about what she or he doesn t know, then the people who work for that leader will be unwilling. And if they are unwilling to admit mistakes, no one who works for them will be willing to admit mistakes or weaknesses. Consequently, problems will remain buried and decisions will be made on faulty information. Also, a leader must be willing to trust that the employees or team members are doing their best. If a mistake is made, leaders must deal with it, understanding that 90% of mistakes are due to the system not the person. And a leader must trust that his or her team can hear the facts about the business or receive honest feedback and deal with it constructively. All this takes courage. Personal Connections In addition to giving trust and having the courage to model trusting behavior, the group concluded that one can build trust by sharing enough information so that employees or teammates can relate to one another on a personal level. One organization s leaders rose through the ranks together from entry level positions. They all knew what it was like to work at the different levels and functions of the organization and people throughout the enterprise felt they could understand and be understood by the leadership. But shared history is uncommon in today s business environment, and many other ways are available to build connections and trust among people. Simply sharing some personal information can help people lower their guard and better understand one another. Our forum shared ways that they built trust in their organizations: Allow people to get to know us, People work for people not organizations, Take time to get to know employees as individuals. Periodic one-on-ones can help build trust. A team leader taking the time to check in personally with teammates helps to build trust: how is the new baby?, how s the band coming along? The role that personal interaction plays in building trust may explain why The 2011 BlessingWhite survey indicated so clearly that trust is highest in one s immediate supervisor, however it was trust in the leadership that had a greater influence on how likely one was to be fully engaged at work. Learning Where Each Other is Coming From Understanding where one another is coming from can also help build trust by reducing what Lencioni calls the attribution error 3 (i.e. misunderstanding one another s motives behind the behaviors). Lencioni describes an exercise he has found helpful: each person shares with the group: where they grew up, 3 Lencioni observes that people tend to falsely attribute other people s negative behaviors to character flaws while attributing our own weaknesses to environmental factors; and we tend to attribute other people s success to their environment and our own success to our character. By getting to know and understand one another, we have a far greater chance that empathy will trump accusation when interpreting questionable behavior. 3

4 how many siblings they had, and the hardest challenge they faced in their childhood. While there are a number of systems for understanding people, Lencioni recommends the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Understanding one another s personality type and preferences can help to reduce misunderstandings about one s style. Communication Communication can help build trust. One of the Partners said that the organization has monthly safety talks at the end of which the president talks about whatever is pertinent. Another says that in addition to monthly meetings, he makes sure he talks with his key team members once or twice every week. Another makes sure to have town hall meetings where he shares information about what is going on and what to expect. Providing an opportunity for people to raise questions or concerns can also build trust. But it is not just the quantity of information. Quality is even more important. Employees use these opportunities to assess how well the leader addresses problems and questions. Is it OK to raise a question that might suggest that you have a concern about the plan? Or that you don t fully understand something? How are mistakes handled: are they fatal? Swept under the rug? Or are mistakes learned from so that the organization continuously improves? Does the leader show eagerness to surface issues? If we don t discuss it, we will never improve it. Follow Through Finally, it is important to do one s best to follow-through. Understand what you can and cannot deliver so that you can do what you say you will do. When one does what one says and says what one does, employees or teammates can feel confident that they can trust what you say. How Do We Measure Trust? Lencioni pointed out that despite its importance to an organization s success, trust is almost never measured because it is so difficult. Trust and lack of trust have such a pervasive and complex influence on an organization that it is nearly impossible to tease out the impacts of trust from other influences. When an organization fails, the analysts will point out the strategic errors that were made. But an underlying driver of those errors is the incomplete information, lack of honest debate, and the artificial agreements that stem from a lack of trust. Our forum agreed it is indeed difficult to measure. But we laid out ways of assessing the level of trust in two dimensions: direct measurements through surveys and/or complaints files and indirect measurements of the outcomes and manifestations of trust or lack thereof. It s not a problem if we have a problem. It is a problem if we don t deal with a problem. - Deepak Rustagi 4

5 Direct Measurements Organizational surveys can ask employees questions about how much trust there is in the organization. Asking the question flat out gives you one measure, but asking specific questions might yield more insight, such as: If you see something that s not quite right, are you comfortable raising it? Do you feel your team mates or associates have got your back? When someone makes a mistake, how comfortable are you pointing it out? Will a mistake be used against them at some point? Do you feel that the leadership shares with you all the information that is important for you to know? Another Partner suggested that Exit Interviews can be helpful. And yet another added that a Stay Interview (a periodic check-in with people who are staying about what they like, what is going well or not, and why they are staying ) can also be illuminating. Indirect Measurements The indirect measurements can also be very powerful. If trust is as pervasive an influence as we believe, it will show up in positive outcomes. For example, turnover is likely to be lower in a high trust environment. It is also possible to gauge the level of trust on a team when observing a meeting to debate a question and arrive at a course of action. Count how many times questions, concerns, or unintended consequences are raised. If none are raised, the team lacks trust (or engagement). People are probably being too careful, lest they give offense or appear to be on the wrong side of an issue. If objections are raised, watch the reaction to these objections. Does raising an objection constitute shooting down an idea? Or does it lead to further discussion of the objection to test it out? If it holds up, does the team work with it to move to a newer better idea? Counting the back and forth as a team moves toward the best possible decision is often a good indicator of the amount of trust in the room. Another measurement is how many problems are surfaced on a regular basis. How many sacred cows are there that no one wants to touch because they know it is near and dear to the CEO s heart? How many unsolicited suggestions are received? How many tough questions are raised? If you ask people for opportunities for improvement and they come up with almost nothing, you can be sure that plenty of waste is buried and will remain so for a long time because there is not yet an atmosphere of trust that it is safe to mention the problems and waste. If this is the case, it is time to work on building trust. Only with a foundation of mutual trust can people engage in the passionate debate and constructive conflict that lead to new and better ideas, fuller commitment, and the putting aside of individual agendas to achieve the results the team has set out to accomplish. 5