Manager's Actions That Create Distrust - Coursework Example

Manager Actions That Create Distrust 0 Introduction The issue of trust has assumed central importance, with organizations increasinglybecoming flat, and the work culture getting team-based. Intra-organization trust is extremely important for fair and healthy business performance. However, recent business catastrophes like that of Enron, WorldCom, and, more recently that of, Lehman Brothers have hit the public trust, in the corporate world, the hardest. Similarly, these scandals have indented the faith of all the stakeholders and belied the trust of thousands of employees. On a broader scale, employee distrust is a serious problem rampant in the business world. In a study, carried out by Hurley (2006) in 30 companies, it was found that half of the executives interviewed did not trust their leaders. Quite similar results were found in a study conducted by Golin-Harris (2002) (as cited in Hurley, 2006). 2.0 Overview Trust is a valuable intangible social capital of the organization. It is defined as confident reliance on someone when you are in a position of vulnerability (Hurley, 2006). In interviews conducted over a spectrum of businesses by Hurley (2006), executives defined the atmosphere lacking in trust as ‘stressful’, ‘threatening’, ‘divisive’, ‘tense’ and ‘unproductive’. On the contrary, a high-trust environment was seen as ‘supportive’, ‘motivating’, ‘productive’ and ‘comfortable’. Trust is the child of spirit of cooperation; and distrusts that of fear. Thus anti-thesis of trust is distrust. The issue of trust is of primary importance in the knowledge industry, which thrives on the ideas and innovation of the employees as the companies would never be able to fathom the opportunities lost, by the way of ideas that never surfaced (Kim and Mauborgne, 1997). 3.0 Research 3.1 Importance of trust There are manifold benefits of trust wielded by managers in competitive market and times of shortage of skilled labor. Better relationship between employees and managers decreases the turnover costs. The companies that have employees who trust their leadership drive more profitability. Trustworthy leaders demonstrate a passion for their purpose, and they practice their values, over a period of time. They develop self awareness from their experience. Companies that generate trust get repeat business as customers tend to keep on doing business with trustworthy companies. A culture of trust is thus a valuable and highly powerful asset of the organizations. Trust becomes all the more important during change and uncertainty. Trustworthy leaders invoke less resistance in carrying out their plans. Competence inspires trust. Though sharing and collaboration are fostered by trust, but employees do not put trust in incompetent managers. Ethical and socially responsible behavior creates trustworthiness. A reasonable amount of job security is a must to promote trust in the organization. Interpersonal trust resolves conflict and fosters creativity, teamwork, and sound leadership. 3.2 Why distrust occurs? According to Kramer (2002), a sense of distrust or a feeling of paranoia is set into motion by occurrence of disturbing events. Kramer (2002) develops the concept of ‘hyper-vigilance’, or a sense of distrust that spreads as wave of paranoia across the organization. Paranoia ultimately acts as the grist of the rumor mills thus consuming a lot of precious time of the company. It could be triggered off by such disturbing events as firing of a colleague or rumors of layoff. It could also be created when the managers use their position to take credit for the work of the subordinates or do not practice what they preach. According to Hurley (2002) such actions of the managers send a signal that they act for their own satisfaction rather than for the general well-being of the company. As a rule, the higher the stakes in a given situation, the less likely will people be in a position to trust. For example, the employees would be more prone to distrust in uncertain situations like impending layoffs. Consequently, it can be averred that there is a general situation of distrust as nobody’s job is secure, in today’s world. Employees tend to trust those superiors and colleagues, who seem similar to themselves. In deciding to trust or distrust, individuals tend to size up similarities and differences in personalities. The circumstance with less similarities and differences galore, invokes distrustful situations (Hurley, 2006). If a signal percolates down to the employees that their managers do not take right decisions or display enough integrity their motivation gets compromised. Often, the leaders, who tend to take credit for achievements and throw the blames of failures on their subordinates, foment distrust. Hurley (2006) cautions that the employees become distrustful of managers who consistently ‘overpromise’ and ‘underdeliver’. Despite their best efforts such business leaders are never able to generate goodwill and trust. Hurley (2006) also emphasizes that alignment of interests is important in creating a situation of interests. According to him interests lead to trust; misaligned interests lead to suspicion (Hurley, 2006). 3.3 Fair-Process The need for adoption of fair process, too, has been felt, more than ever, in the contemporary times (Kim and Mauborgne, 1997). Managers and business leaders should not only attain desired benevolent outcomes but also display an ability to attain it through a fair process. Fair process helps in trust building and unlocking of ideas (Kim and Mauborgne, 1997). Fair process is adoption of innovative ideas irrespective of the fact that they are put forth by any member of the team. People cooperate and develop trust on systems when employees believe that fair process has been used to develop those systems. Fair process ensures that everybody’s voice, even that of dissenting individuals, is heard. Employees, then, tend to acknowledge that their point of view was considered and they had their say in the decision making process (Kim and Mauborgne, 1997). Outcomes do matter but not at the cost of fair process adopted to achieve them. Fair process includes demonstrating the entire decision making process to the people, who are most affected by them. Violation of fair process wreaks the maximum damage on corporate performance. The employees grow distrustful, when they are not properly explained and informed of the logic of adoption of course of change. 3.4 Authentic leadership According to George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer (2007) employees tend to be distrustful, when the managers imitate others or carve out a persona that is an exact replica of others. In other words, employees are more trustful of leaders who are authentic and genuine. Authentic leadership entails demonstrating a passion for purpose and continuous practice of their values. Authenticity of leadership is not put to test when everything is hunky-dory. It is only when the going gets tough that the mettle of authentic leaders is put under test (George et. al, 2007). The support teams of authentic leaders help them in times of uncertainty and difficulty. Authentic leaders have a steady presence showing themselves as consistently to their subordinates. 3.5 Silence Perlow and Williams (2003) state that distrust, often, leads to silence that can be mistakenly assumed to be a sign of assent or consensus. Normally, employees do not speak up their concerns for the fear of destroying their relationships with their managers. But, often, such a compromise leads to creation of an unbridgeable chasm between the managers and the employees (Perlow and Williams, 2003). For the organizations that have the culture that embodies the courage to speak up and fight the urge to withdraw have greater chances of success (Perlow and Williams, 2003). People use silence as a means to avoid differing from the rest and, thus, avoid a circumstance of expulsion or differing from the rest (Perlow and Williams, 2003). 4.0 Recommendations It is observed that such actions as mass layoffs, uncertainties, and over pampering of the CEOs, which create a general situation of distrust in the company, need to be avoided. It is also noted that when a leader imagines that everybody in the team has similar interests he is warranting a situation of distrust. It is to be recognized that individuals in teams have both similar as well unique interests. It is the tendency of individuals to be counted as human being and not just as ‘personnel’ or ‘human resource assets’. For prevalence of a feeling of trust, the employees need to be kept in the loop in every phase of the change management. Employees need to be given adequate job security and allowed to fulfill their potential. Employees need to be given the assurance that their goals are in alignment with that of their managers. Managers should promote integrity, frankness, and promptness in their business process. Organization actions that promote a culture of trust include investment in employees, open communication, fairness, corporate social responsibility and caring should be carried out on regular basis. 5.0 Conclusion Companies with high trust culture are better performers than others. High trust cultures act as a cohesive force and development force for the human resources of the organization. The more the companies encourage high trust culture, the more they are in position to garner capital, widen their markets, and take their profits northwards. It is imperative that the companies make trust a part and parcel of their strategic thinking. The managerial actions should be aligned to the interests of the employees in order to promote the culture of trust. References George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A, N., & Mayer, D. (2007). Discovering your authentic leadership. Harvard Business Review.129-138 Kim, W, C. and Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair process: managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review 127-136. Perlow, L., & Williams, S. (2003). Is silence killing your company. Harvard Business Review. 52-58. Hurley, R. F. (2006). The decision to trust. Harvard Business Review.55-62 Kramer, R.M. (2002). When paranoia makes sense. Harvard Business Review. 62-69. Read More