Trust is a very delicate construction. We trust those with whom we feel safe and whole as human beings.
A crisis of trust is like a mechanism that sets off an avalanche of unconstructive thought processes and defensive behaviours. We then enter relationships with our guard partly up, ready to parry or avoid an attack. This attitude, however, costs a lot of energy, and it is hard to relax fully.
A lack of trust makes it harder to clear up crisis situations and is one of the causes of conflict. If we don’t trust others, we also pay a high price – for example, we lose our sense of meaning in life and our sense of having a place in the world.
In his book on trust, “Zaufarium”, Miłosz Brzeziński points to seven currencies that make up trust. Below we will see how they translate into the work environment and the trust built by a manager.
I. Consistency – being in line with what you said, declared and promised.
When you think about it, it is hard to be consistent all the time and in every respect. Consistency in life would mean remembering everything that has happened to us in order to live up to it, which is practically impossible. Our memory is full of holes, and our memories resemble a patchwork quilt sewn together from various remembered episodes and filled in with our own imagination.
Being consistent is an important ingredient in earning trust from others. We could call it reliability of conduct. At work, however, we have a shorter perspective. Is it easier to achieve consistency there?
The work environment may be so foreign to us that we have temporarily adapted to its rules and values, even though we don’t share them. Then there may be moments when we let our self-control slip and start behaving in a way that is natural to us, contrary to the principles and rules we ourselves are supposed to enforce.
Employees see it. Employees spot such inconsistencies with great ease. They notice situations in which the boss chases others for parking in the disabled space in front of the company, while leaving his own car there although he is not a person with a disability.
If anyone dares to point it out, he resorts to the attributes of power and privileges made up on the spot – which can be summed up by the saying “one rule for the lord, another for the peasant”.
Would we trust such a boss?
II. Keeping your word – doing what you said you would, always, not just on special occasions.
Keeping your word, also called reliability or credibility, is one of the currencies closely linked to a sense of security and predictability.
As people, we like to plan and know what to expect.
Keeping our word requires a lot of self-awareness and assertiveness: we don’t take on more than we can deliver. A manager’s credibility not only builds trust in them but is also the basis of respect for them as a person. Credibility is very easy to check. Employees, even woken up in the middle of the night, can list examples of their manager breaking promises. A lack of credibility and failing to keep one’s word are signs of a lack of respect. They show that someone is doing their own PR, with nothing to back it up.
Such people may mockingly be called cows that moo a lot but give little milk.
Would we trust such a cow to feed us?
III. Boundaries, safe on both sides – an assertive attitude
This principle refers not only to defending your own boundaries but, in the context of building trust, to respecting the boundaries set by others. Respecting boundaries gives a sense of security. A calm and honest conversation about mutual boundaries, if a situation has caused them to overlap, is proof that two people trust each other and don’t bring out the cannons.
A lack of trust in this area makes the other side adopt defensive, self-protective and manipulative attitudes, for fear that the person they don’t trust will dare to cross their boundary. Sometimes they launch a pre-emptive attack. A boss who doesn’t respect the boundaries set and communicated by employees begins to rule through force.
It can be compared to the strategy of our grandparents, who used to say you have to know the language of the enemy, meaning Russian and German. Boundaries once crossed and rights once violated leave a deep wound. It is hard to rebuild trust afterwards.
Would we trust a boss who remains blind to the boundaries we set?
IV. Responsibility – the ability to own up
It seems that responsibility is slowly becoming a scarce currency in society. It is declared and equated with commitment, with saying “this is my task” and with making noise about oneself. Many organisations expect responsibility from employees, but don’t experience it.
There is one basic aspect that strips false responsibility of all its PR: a slip-up.
A responsible person who has made a mistake admits it, doesn’t sweep it under the carpet, apologises, shows remorse and then tries to put the situation right and make amends to those who were harmed.
There is no one who has never made a mistake. Mistakes are the best lesson and the best way to improve, and they strongly affect emotions. And emotions allow us to remember the lessons. But when we look honestly at our workplaces, we see how much responsibility our people really take. A simple indicator of overall condition may be the number of skeletons in the closet, matters swept under the carpet and cases of painting the grass green. We all know what lies behind these metaphors.
As for bosses, there are none who have never made a wrong decision. But how many of them admit it? Probably many do in their own eyes – but through employees’ eyes it looks different.
A boss avoiding responsibility means numerous defence mechanisms protecting the manager’s fragile ego.
Would we trust a boss who doesn’t admit a mistake, show remorse or make amends?
V. A safe – your secrets are… public with me :)
In training sessions the rule is “what’s said here stays here”, sometimes called “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas”. But is that always the case? Are there no leaks?
There are bosses who very skilfully create an atmosphere of trust and build an environment conducive to confidential conversations. And then it turns out that the topic discussed is circulating around the company as “a lesson for everyone”. A boss we trust doesn’t tell employees’ stories, doesn’t consult others on matters unrelated to work tasks, and keeps what they have heard to themselves – they don’t even tell their spouse. Building a relationship with a boss that allows you to open up takes considerable skill. In organisations it can be like gambling.
Would we trust a person who tells us in confidence what they themselves heard in confidence?
VI. Not judging – but how do you bite your tongue when an employee makes a mistake…
In life we often go astray and have our moments of breakdown and imperfection. Such situations are necessary: they keep us grounded and stop us from getting carried away. They are also powerful life lessons, and sometimes they are needed.
What happens when we have someone next to us who notices every slip, corrects, criticises and gives unsolicited advice, all under the guise of good intentions and developmental feedback? Will we trust them? Or will we avoid getting closer and building deeper relationships with such a person?
One of a boss’s functions is evaluating employees, but sometimes we forget the purpose of such evaluation. We extend it to irrelevant aspects. It becomes pathological in an organisation when the areas employees care about – where they want reliable, developmental feedback so they can do their job better – are ignored. Instead, the boss evaluates them on aspects that have no effect at all on the outcome of the task.
An example. In one company, employees were not completing all their duties on time; historically they had coped with a similar workload, but for a few months it had been too much for them. The boss ordered a time-management training from an internal trainer, because in his opinion employees were organising themselves badly. What prompted this was that he had seen them taking frequent cigarette breaks. There followed a public dressing-down and an announcement that they had to attend the training.
The poor man never stopped to consider what had happened that made employees escape into cigarette breaks – perhaps not a very constructive way, but a way of coping with the real problem.
Would you trust such a boss?
VII. Belief in good intentions
It is utter nonsense that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Between “I meant well” and “I did badly” there is a lot more. Did I mean well for myself or for others? Did I consult my “meaning well” with others? Did my “meaning well” lead to socially acceptable action?
Belief in good intentions comes from what we think of others, of the world and of ourselves. By nature we are egocentric, so when we observe another person’s behaviour we often think of it in terms of our own safety and wellbeing. In conflict situations we assume that someone is deliberately being malicious and that harming us is their goal in life. In reality this isn’t so, because the supposed aggressor is usually egocentric too and thinks about their own needs; their goal is their need, not our harm. The harm happens, as it were, incidentally.
If we assume that the other person will deliberately harm us, we prepare to defend or attack and react inappropriately.
In transactional analysis this is called “I’m OK – you’re not OK”. It is hard to trust and hard to inspire trust when somewhere in the background there is a suspicion of deliberate harm.
Would you trust a boss knowing that he sees nothing but evil in other people?
