Trust is a given / taken

The only things holding your organisation together are the bonds between your people. And all relationships are underpinned by trust.

Now, whether you trust someone until they prove themselves otherwise, or don’t trust them until they’ve earned it is not the chicken and egg situation you might think it is. One of them can come before the other, and you prove that every time you leave the house. Consciously recognising that fact could help you raise your productivity.

What’s the issue?

Leaders perceive that as they have provided a sufficiently good standard of pay and conditions to attract and retain their staff, it’s a reasonable expectation that they achieve their objectives. Failure to do so will result in the leaders’ withdrawal of trust until such time as the objectives are routinely met. Withdrawal manifests as the likes of a reduction in authority, an increase in micromanagement, a cessation of delegation and a disregard of ideas.

The problem is that staff underperformance is either the result of incompetence, in which case they need leadership support, or it's a lack of motivation or time, in which case they need leadership support. But when a lack of trust results in a lack of leadership support, performance improvement is always going to be difficult.

Staff on the other hand perceive pay and conditions as merely hygiene factors. They expect that their leaders will make best use of their skills and experience by promoting a culture of empowerment through the likes of delegation, collaboration and constructive conflict. Failure to provide such leadership results in the withdrawal of trust. Withdrawal manifests as the likes of work-to-rule, the withdrawal of discretionary effort and disengagement.

The problem is that staff who look for more empowerment before they’ve delivered current targets are perceived as entitled. They lack the empathy to see that their leaders are unlikely to give someone who is not laser-focused on their current targets a wider scope in which to operate. That would be irresponsible.

The problem is also that leaders who think they’re demonstrating trust simply by paying people haven’t read the room and aren’t trusted.

Here’s the thing: whichever side you take, and however you justify your stance, wherever a mutual lack of trust exists, productivity is the victim.

Consider this

1 Every time you get in your car, or walk down the road, you are interacting with drivers who could kill you. Even though you’ve never met them, you trust that they’ve passed their test, they keep their vehicle properly maintained and they’re fit to drive.

You are literally trusting others with your life before they’ve ever proven to you that they’re trustworthy (which isn’t proven until they’re in your rearview mirror). In the hyper-connected world in which we live, it’s impossible to operate without giving trust before it’s earned. According to ‘Sapiens’ author Yuval Harari, collaborating with strangers is one of the reasons humans run the planet.

2 Consider how much faster that person you don’t currently trust could earn it if you proactively empowered them – albeit in a small and controlled way – to give them confidence, to show them you’re in their corner not the other one, and to demonstrate that you’re prepared to give before you take.

Try this

Break the standoff. Give a little trust to someone you don’t trust. You’re the leader, so take the lead.

For example, give them responsibility for a task that is low-risk but matters enough that it’s uncomfortable for you. Give them enough room for manoeuvre that if they succeed, they will have earned your trust.

At HPC, we developed Adaptability Based Leadership with the express purpose of raising productivity through more engaged, better led staff. If that approach resonates, contact me and let’s get you started on the next phase of your journey towards mastering leadership.