A Taligens Insight
Throughout our lives and careers, most of us have had the unpleasant experience of either not being trusted the way we would have wanted, or of us not trusting someone else, either at work or in our personal lives. As often happens in any group of individuals who work together over the long term (be it a large corporation, a small not-for-profit organization, or even a family), over time distrust is likely to build up as people grow disenchanted with the group or with their roles in the group. Causes may seem trivial -- a meeting requested with the executive never happens; that suggestion made time and again to improve customer care never gains attention or traction –- but the consequences of even emerging distrust are hardly trivial. Employees may find their work roles have become more complicated or less focused than they were described when they were hired and they lose interest or motivation, becoming less engaged. What they expected to do is not happening and they feel pulled in too many directions by too many people. They may begin to feel that they are spending too little time focusing on where they want to be to make the differences they care about. There are common misconceptions about trust that contribute to the emergence of distrust. We discussed one in a previous paper, the belief that trustworthiness is a personal quality that one either has or doesn’t, that it is innate and permanent (see The Four Dimensions of Trust).
If employees feel they cannot trust one another –- to tell the truth, to honor commitments, to behave ethically -- organizations lose focus and performance diminishes. Another, perhaps more significant misconception, one that leaders often make, most often without being aware of it, is that what they say and how they say it creates trust. The reality is that how employees perceive what leaders have said creates trust or diminishes trust. What leaders say –- whether aloud in meetings or over Zoom calls, or in emails or text or video messages -– creates expectations in listeners’ minds. Those expectations can be perceived as promises that are out of line with what the leaders had in mind. For example, announcements about strategic plans, while critically important to be shared with the entire organization, creates anxiety unless those plans are communicated in detail at team or group level and employees are then queried about what they heard and allowed to contribute feedback.
Communicating with employees is a two-edged sword: done well and clearly with the listeners’ possible reactions in mind nurtures trust; done without understanding that how a message is received is just as important as the message undermines trust. To be clear, listening and hearing are two different phenomena. Many people use these two terms interchangeably, confusing the different nature of these two activities. They are certainly connected, but they both point to two different phenomena that happen within the human body. Hearing refers to the physical capacity to perceive sounds and incorporate them into the nervous system through the auditory nerve, where they get decoded and made into something that we can recognize - a passing car, a romantic song, a bird, a crying baby, or a friend’s voice. Hearing is a passive activity. Listening is much more than a biological process. Listening involves a cognitive and behavioral process that goes well beyond our physical ability to hear. It is not just that our ears are sensitive to the noise others make. When we listen, we hear what others say, try to understand what they mean within the context of the conversations, and seek to respond accordingly, which involves a lot of interpreting. Listening, therefore, is an active, social activity.
Communicating with colleagues, team members, or even family members creates both opportunities and risks, and the risk of creating distrust is among the most challenging, in part because it is not often obvious when it is emerging. We have found that distrust manifests itself in behavior that can be seen but must be looked for. We have identified a few of what we call organizational pathologies, distrust-driven behaviors that can be observed:
Each of these behaviors has its own set of adverse consequences on performance. Distrust creates divisions between people and hinders the collaboration that is essential to effective execution and innovation in teams. People do not share when they feel isolated or separate or do not trust leaders. Language leaders use creates trust or creates opportunities for distrust. Clear communications must be with the audience in mind, and not just in the mind of the author.
What employees or team members hear when they are listening is the message, the promise, and leaders are unwise to assume they have accurately conveyed their message without confirming that what they meant is what is heard. Employees -– well, everyone –- has a powerful outlet for expressing their frustration with leaders’ promises: social media. It is essential that leaders confirm the impact of their messaging with the listeners to avoid the emergence of distrust. In the Edelman Trust Barometer 2021 report, 50% of those surveyed said they were more likely than a year ago to voice their objections to management or engage in workplace protest[1]. Thus, employees missing the message can turn out to be very disruptive to an organization, and the ready availability of various social media platforms means that their misperceptions are very difficult to correct if the message reaches a wide audience. When distrust builds up, even in the most admired organizations, people grow disenchanted and suspicious. Trust is hard earned so maintaining trust needs to be an operational imperative just like strategy development.
At Taligens, we help our clients imagine and build inspired futures by reconnecting people to the meaning of their work. Set up a Calendly conversation with one of our partners
