Leading with Trust

Build Trust by Sitting on The Same Side of The Table

By their very nature, unionized workplaces and industries often promote a culture of distrust between stakeholders. Each party is suspicious of the other and is afraid of being taken advantage of, so they hold their cards close to their vest and try to cut the best deal possible for their stakeholders. It’s us on one side of the table versus them on the other.

Must it be that way? I don’t think so. I think both sides can build trust by sitting on the same side of the table.

First, let’s talk about why we don’t trust each other. We refrain from trusting because it involves risk. If there’s no risk involved, then there’s no need to trust. But if you are vulnerable to the actions of another, then trust is required. You have two choices when presented with relationship risk: you can withhold trust to protect yourself, or you can extend trust in the hopes it will be reciprocated and both parties will benefit.

Reciprocation is a key factor in the development of trust. There is a social dynamic in relationships known as the Law of Reciprocity. Essentially it means that when someone does something nice to us—give us gifts, show love, extend trust, give grace, grant forgiveness—we have a natural human instinct to respond in kind. Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well. When someone acts cruelly or hostile toward us, we often respond in even more cruel and hostile ways.

In the public square these days, negative reciprocity is the norm. Warring factions have developed a singular membership criterion: you’re either with me or against me. We have demonized those whom we believe to be against us. They are no longer honorable, well-meaning people with different ideas. They are mortal enemies who cannot be trusted at any cost. The result is one group treats the other with contempt and hostility, the other group responds in kind and even turns it up a notch for good measure. Around and round we go in a negative, downward spiral, zero trust loop.

Trust cannot begin to grow until one party extends it to the other. Trust must be given before it can be received. It really is that simple.

Once you understand someone must make the first move to extend trust, how do you get both parties on the same side of the table? I think it involves have a common mindset and skillset about trust.

The trust mindset is understanding the fates of each party are intertwined. All successful relationships are built on a foundation of trust. It doesn’t matter the type of relationship—husband/wife, parent/child, boss/employee, or union/labor–trust is what binds us together. Operating from this mindset eliminates the fear of being disadvantaged by the other party and allows you to work toward solutions that provide mutual benefit. In a relationship of trust, both parties are searching for win-win solutions, not win-lose or win-break even.

The skillset of trust involves behaving in a trustworthy manner. Sometimes this is challenging because people have different perceptions of what constitutes trustworthy behavior. That’s why it’s helpful to have a common definition of trust.

Research shows there are four key elements of trust. Since every language has an alphabet, we’ve created the ABCD Trust Model to define the language of trust. You build trust with others when you are:

Able—You demonstrate competence by having the knowledge, skills, and expertise for your role or profession. You achieve goals consistently and develop a track record of success. You show good planning and problem-solving skills and make sound, informed decisions. People trust your competence.

Believable—Acting with integrity. You tell the truth, keep confidences, and admit your mistakes. You walk the talk by acting in ways congruent with your personal values and those of the organization. You treat people equitably and ethically and ensure that rules are applied fairly.

Connected—You care about others. Connected people are kind, compassionate, and concerned with others’ well-being. They readily share information about themselves and the organization. Being a good listener, seeking feedback, and incorporating the ideas of others into decisions are behaviors of a connected individual who cares about people.

Dependable—People trust others who honor their commitments. DWYSYWD—doing what you say you will do—is a hallmark of dependable people. They do this by establishing clear priorities, keeping promises and holding themselves and others accountable. Dependable people are punctual, adhere to organizational policies and procedures, and are responsive to others.

Building trust is not a one and done proposition. Trust is not a destination you reach, but rather a journey that never ends. Extending trust, embodying a mindset of trust, and using the skillset of trust will transform distrustful relationships into trust-filled partnerships that promote the growth and well-being of both parties.

This article was published in the March 2021 issue of Partners in Progress magazine.

 3 Comments

 Posted on May 16, 2021 by

 Communication, Conflict, Management, Trust

     , , ,

Does Forgiveness Need To Be Earned?

While watching a college basketball game today, I saw this statement in the scrolling news ticker at the bottom of the television screen: “From our conversations, he understands that forgiveness must be earned, and he is willing to work for it.”

Uh…what? Forgiveness has to be earned? Since when?

Let me tell you the backstory. Gregg McDermott, head coach of the men’s basketball team at Creighton University, recently stuck his foot in his mouth, big time. In delivering a post-game speech to his team in which he was trying to emphasize the importance of team unity, he used a racially insensitive analogy that was completely inappropriate. He recognized his mistake and quickly apologized. Last week the university suspended him indefinitely while they investigated the incident. Today, Creighton athletic director, Bruce Rasmussen, issued the following statement:

“Through his immediate apology, ownership of his actions, difficult dialogue with his team, and more, Coach McDermott has demonstrated a commitment to grow. I believe his apology, his commitment to grow from this, to learn, and to regain the trust of his student-athletes and others impacted by his words. From our conversations, he understands that forgiveness must be earned, and he is willing to work for it. His actions during his career reveal an individual committed to his team and his community. As such, coach Greg McDermott has been reinstated for all team activities, including this week’s Big East tournament.”

Perhaps it was just an awkwardly worded press release, or maybe Bruce Rasmussen was simply trying to emphasize the importance of Coach McDermott working to regain the trust of those around him (which was explicitly mentioned), but the truth is this: Forgiveness can’t be earned; it can only be given. (click to tweet)

Forgiveness is not something under the control of the person who committed a breach of trust. Forgiveness rests solely with the person offended. The offended party has the choice to offer forgiveness or withhold it. What McDermott does, or doesn’t do, has no impact on whether his players, assistant coaches, university administrators, fans, or anyone else chooses to forgive him. There’s no way he can earn it. Don’t confuse forgiveness with making amends. Making amends is the responsibility of the party who committed the offense. Forgiveness is the responsibility of the offended.

If forgiveness had to be earned, it would also mean that forgiveness was conditional and could only be granted upon meeting certain criteria. How would that work? If Coach McDermott doesn’t say anything stupid for six months, does he earn 25% forgiveness? Maybe six months is worth 50% forgiveness? Or maybe it’s only worth 15% forgiveness if the offended party is still holding a grudge? Forgiveness is either given or it’s not. Forgiveness is not a weapon to be wielded to manipulate, coerce, or control someone into doing what you want them to do.

There are many misconceptions about forgiveness, like it’s a display of weakness, it lets the offending party off the hook, or opens the door to people taking advantage of you. Those are misconceptions for a reason: they’re wrong. I’ve written in-depth about the role of forgiveness in restoring trust. It’s the most powerful tool at your disposal to move beyond the pain and suffering of broken trust. Forgiveness is a soothing balm to the wounds of broken trust. It works best when applied liberally and frequently.

What are your thoughts about the role forgiveness plays in restoring trust? Do you believe forgiveness is earned or given? Please leave a comment and share your perspectives.

 16 Comments

 Posted on March 9, 2021 by

 Forgiveness, Repairing Trust, Trust

     , , ,

4 Ways Managers Cheat Their Employees

The legendary college football coach Woody Hayes once said there were four ways he could cheat his players: do for them what they can do for themselves, allow them to get by on less than their best effort, allow them to believe their athletic talent is the only education they will need, and allow them to believe that football makes them privileged.

As a manager you may have never thought of it this way, but there are times when you cheat your employees. You probably don’t do it intentionally, and in fact, I’d almost guarantee you don’t. However, we all get stuck in patterns of unexamined behavior which lead to unintended consequences. Here are four common ways manager’s cheat their team members:

1. Solving their problems. Prior to being a manager, the odds are that you were a top performer on your team. You likely developed a reputation as someone who could solve any problem that came your way and that ability probably helped you get promoted. Now that you’re the boss, you relish the opportunity to help team members solve problems. When they come to you for advice, you don’t hesitate to jump right in and solve the problem for them. Although you think you’re helping your team by doing this, the reality is you’re cheating them from gaining the competence and confidence that comes from solving their own problems. You’re also creating a sense of learned helplessness among your team members. Even if you have the noble intention of wanting to help your team, your efforts will have the unintended consequence of conditioning them to expect you’ll always be there to give them the answer. Instead, help them become self-reliant problem solvers. Practice asking open-ended questions that draw out their thinking, help them consider alternatives, and provide perspective to expand their approach to solving the problem.

2. Micromanaging. Lack of trust is at the heart of micromanagement. Although you may rationalize your behavior as helping a team member because you’re taking work off their plate, or wanting to make sure things are done right, the fact is you resort to controlling behavior because you don’t trust the abilities of your team members. Micromanagement kills the motivation of your team members, reduces their creativity, and stifles innovation. It leads to them checking their brains at the door because they know you’ll do all the thinking for them. Micromanagement cheats your team out of embracing their own knowledge and power that leads to them performing their best.

3. Not giving honest feedback. Nobody likes to be the bearer of bad news and giving feedback about poor performance is probably the most dreaded task of any manager. Too often we dance around the issue, talk in vague generalities, and hope the employee will somehow get the message that they need to improve. I’ve learned over and over in my career that people not only need honest feedback about their performance, they deserve it. As a manager, we should consider it a fiduciary responsibility to coach our team members in areas that need improvement. That doesn’t mean the feedback needs to be delivered in a harsh, in your face manner. It can be communicated with candor and care. The two are not mutually exclusive. Don’t cheat your team and stunt their development by sugarcoating performance feedback.

4. Not having high enough expectations. A hallmark of winning teams is having a leader with high expectations. People often perform to the level of expectations placed upon them. Good leaders know this and push their team to perform at the highest level possible. These leaders don’t just expect it, but they train, coach, equip, and encourage their team to reach heights they wouldn’t normally achieve on their own. It’s easy to get beaten down with the grind of everyday corporate life. We get so engrained in the mundane activities of keeping the business running that we neglect setting stretch goals for our team members. Don’t cheat your team by letting them stay comfortable with the status quo. Anyone can set the bar low and reach it. Great things are achieved when the bar is set high and the team works hard to clear it.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re the coach of a sports team, a leader of a volunteer group, or a manager in the workplace, cheating your team members comes down to failing to act in their best interests. Always do what’s right and best for your employees, even if it’s hard and uncomfortable, and you won’t ever have to worry about having cheated your team, or yourself.

 Leave a Comment

 Posted on January 24, 2021 by

 Management

     , , ,

We Must Move From Self-Serving Leadership to Leading at a Higher Level

The events of January 6th, 2021 in our nation’s capital starkly illustrate the results of self-serving leadership.

As I tweeted last night, there aren’t enough adjectives to describe the despicable acts that took place yesterday. I’m embarrassed and ashamed for our country, and totally disheartened that those who accepted the mantle of leadership for our nation have failed us so miserably.

Self-serving leadership looks like a president blatantly telling lies and perpetuating debunked conspiracy theories.

Self-serving leadership looks like a president shamelessly pandering to the base instincts of his followers in order to feed his ego and promote his own self-interests.

Self-serving leadership looks like a president publicly humiliating and denigrating his own team members.

Self-serving leadership looks like senators and congressmen and women vocally supporting their leader’s lies or remaining silent in the face of his atrocious behavior in order to protect their own political future.

Self-serving leadership looks like average citizens, people like you and me, who have grown complacent and accepting of the political circus we’ve allowed our government to become.

Self-serving leadership looks like citizens placing a higher priority on their own special interests—I’ve got rights!—ahead of the common good of our country.

Although self-serving leadership may seem successful in the short-term, it can never sustain itself in the long run. Ultimately, it will collapse upon itself because it’s built on a foundation of sand. As history has shown, at some point in time, people will band together to demand leaders who lead at a higher level.

Leading at a higher level looks like a leader being trustworthy.

Leading at a higher level looks like a leader putting the needs of their followers ahead of their own.

Leading at a higher level looks like a leader acting in a moral and ethical manner.

Leading at a higher level looks like a leader fostering unity, collaboration, and teamwork.

Leading at a higher level looks like a leader who displays humility and treats others with kindness and respect.

Leading at a higher level looks like a leader who calls their followers to a higher purpose and appeals to the better angels of their nature.

Leading at a higher level means viewing leadership as a calling, not just a job, title, or position of power. As a calling, leaders answer to a higher power and are held to a higher standard. It’s time for all of us to treat our leadership responsibility with the reverence and respect it deserves.

 6 Comments

 Posted on January 7, 2021 by

 Leadership

     , , ,

The Answer to This One Question Reveals Your Success as a Leader

Judging the performance of a leader can be tricky. One person’s notion of a successful leader can be the polar opposite of another’s. It’s hard to agree upon a common definition of leadership, much less the definition of success.

Do you define a leader’s success as hitting the revenue goal? Is it the satisfaction scores from your customers? How about employee engagement statistics? Is that your primary measure of success? There’s no shortage of metrics that are used to judge a leader’s effectiveness, but most of them are backward-looking data points. How can you judge your success as a leader in real time?

Let me suggest a single question that can help you calibrate the effectiveness of your leadership at any moment in time:

Are my people better off because of my influence in their lives?

At its most fundamental level, leadership is an influence process. A leader is charged with influencing the attitude and actions of their team members. It doesn’t matter the setting, organization, or objective; a leader’s influence is received by their team members in either positive or negative ways.

How does your influence manifest itself in these common areas critical to leadership effectiveness?

Teamwork and Collaboration—Does your leadership result in team members working together cohesively and collaborating to achieve a common goal, or do team members compete to diminish the accomplishments of others, or worse, stab each other in the back?

Innovation and Creativity—Positive-influence leaders foster a culture of trust and psychological safety. They create an environment where team members feel safe to take risks, try something new, and use their best judgment to solve problems. Conversely, negative-influence leaders rule with fear and intimidation. They punish people for stepping out of line, or heaven forbid, using their brains at work.

Sustainable Performance and Results—Lest you think all this talk about positively influencing people is a bunch of touchy-feely nonsense, let’s talk about results. At the end of the day, leaders are out to help their teams accomplish specific objectives. Contrary to popular opinion, caring about results and caring about people are not mutually exclusive. Just about any bad leader can drive short-term results, but it’s the good leaders who are able to sustain performance and results over a long period of time. Does your leadership influence produce inconsistent, flash in the pan success, or does it result in steady achievement and growth?

Employee Growth and Advancement—Examining the employee lifecycle on your team is an insightful way to measure your influence. If you experience frequent turnover, morale problems, or employee grievances, that tells you something (hint…it’s not good). On the other hand, if team members leave because they’ve gained new skills, improved their performance, and are moving on to bigger and better opportunities, that tells you something else (hint…that’s good). One of the best testimonials to your influence as a leader is what former team members say about you. What’s the word on the street about your leadership?

Are my people better off because of my influence in their lives? It’s a sobering question, isn’t it? But it’s also a great one for assessing the quality of your leadership. What’s your answer to that question?

 2 Comments

 Posted on December 16, 2020 by

 Leadership, Success

     ,

You’ve Got to Give It to Get It

While teaching a class this past week on Building Trust, I found myself giving the participants this admonishment: “Just like anything in life, you’re going to get out of this what you put into it.”

I’m not quite sure where that came from, but I suspect it was the words of advice given to me over the years from my mother, teachers, coaches, and bosses. I imagine you’ve probably received, or given, that same advice before. It’s good advice because it’s true.

When it comes to trust, it’s especially true. You see, trust can’t begin to grow until someone first extends trust. That’s because there’s risk involved. Risk and trust go hand in hand. If there’s no risk involved, then there’s no need to trust. But if you are vulnerable to the actions of another, then trust is required. You have two choices when presented with relationship risk: you can withhold trust in order to protect yourself, or you can extend trust in the hopes it will be reciprocated and both parties will benefit.

Reciprocation is a key factor in the development of trust. There is a social dynamic in relationships known as the Law of Reciprocity. Essentially it means that when someone does something nice to us—give us gifts, show love, extend trust, give grace, grant forgiveness—we have a natural human instinct to respond in kind. Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well. When someone acts cruelly or hostile toward us, we often respond in even more cruel and hostile ways.

In the public square these days, negative reciprocity is the norm. Warring factions have developed a singular membership criterion: you’re either with me or against me. We have demonized those whom we believe to be against us. They are no longer honorable, well-meaning people with different ideas. They are mortal enemies who cannot be trusted at any cost. The result is one group treats the other with contempt and hostility, the other group responds in kind and even turns it up a notch for good measure. Around and round we go in a negative, downward spiral, zero trust loop.

I’m not being Pollyannaish and suggesting you always need to blindly trust everyone; that’s foolishness. You need to assess an individual’s trustworthiness before you extend trust. However, if you find yourself never or rarely willing to extend trust, it’s likely you’re being negatively influenced by some common problems that cause people to withhold trust.

Leaders in all realms of society need to get back to leading with trust. We need to smartly, yet courageously, extend trust to our stakeholders with the positive expectation they will reward our trust by responding in kind. Trust begets trust. The Law of Reciprocity.

You’ve got to give it to get it. That’s the way it works with trust.

 1 Comment

 Posted on November 22, 2020 by

 Distrust, Leadership, Relationships, Repairing Trust, Trust

     , , ,

Vote for Trust – 4 Signs of a Politician’s Trustworthiness

trustA trustworthy politician…some might say, “Is there such a thing?” Listening to the rhetoric of this year’s presidential election would make one think neither of the two major party candidates has a trustworthy bone in their body. But trust isn’t an “all or nothing” proposition. Very few people are unequivocally trustworthy or untrustworthy in every aspect of their behavior. We all make mistakes and act in ways that erode other’s trust, but by and large, I think most people strive to be trustworthy the majority of the time.

The definitive way to judge someone’s trustworthiness is to observe their behavior over time. Does the person consistently act in ways that build trust with others or are they inconsistent and unpredictable in their behavioral patterns? When examining a person’s behavior to assess their trustworthiness, there are four factors to consider: Ability, Believability, Connectedness, and Dependability. I call these the ABCD’s of trust.

  1. Ability—Does the person demonstrate competence in their given role or function? Do they have the skills, expertise, and track record of success that gives you confidence in their abilities? We trust competent people because they have good planning, problem-solving, and decision-making skills. They know how to get the job done and how to do it right.
  2. Believability—A believable person acts with integrity. You can believe this person because he/she not only talks the talk, but walks the walk. A believable person is honest, credible, authentic, and owns up to their mistakes when they happen. Believable people are also fair in their dealings with others. They treat people equitably and ethically and don’t bend the rules by playing favorites.
  3. Connectedness—A connected person demonstrates trustworthiness by caring about people. They are kind, compassionate, and concerned with the well-being of others. They are also open communicators. They readily share information, are receptive to feedback, and listen well. Connected people build rapport with others and promote a sense of connection and harmony, not divisiveness and rancor.
  4. Dependability—A trustworthy person is dependable. They honor their commitments by being reliable. If they say they are going to do something, they do it. A dependable person builds trust by holding him/herself accountable, and if they lead others, holding their team members accountable as well. Dependable people are also responsive. They anticipate others’ needs and flexibly respond to the situation at hand.

I like to think of the ABCD’s as the language of trust. When a person’s behavior shows they are able, believable, connected, and dependable, they are communicating to me they are trustworthy. I know I can extend my trust to them with a reasonable expectation they won’t let me down.

As you head to the polls this year to cast your vote in local, state, and national elections, consider the trustworthiness of the candidates by examining their ability, believability, connectedness, and dependability. Vote your conscience. Vote for trust.

 1 Comment

 Posted on October 25, 2020 by

 ABCD Trust Model, Ability, Believability, Connectedness, Dependability, Trust

     , , ,

Use This Survey to Conduct a Trust Tune-Up with Your Team

Teammates, Fistbump

If you’re like millions of other people, you’ve been working remotely part or full-time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Literally overnight, teams were challenged with finding new ways to communicate and collaborate, and the bonds of trust those teams had established were put to the test.

High performing teams thrive on trust and research has shown that trust in one’s team leader is one of the two primary factors that drive employee engagement. There are four elements of trust that characterize trusting relationships among team members.

Trusting teams are able. They possess the skills, knowledge, and expertise to perform their work. They achieve their goals and demonstrate the ability to make smart decisions and solve problems. Trusting teams are also believable. Team members are honest in their dealings with each other, act in alignment with team and organizational values, and treat each other fairly. A third characteristic of trusting teams is being connected. Team members look out for each other, have each other’s best interests in mind, share information readily, and find common ground with each other. Finally, trusting teams are dependable. They keep their commitments, are accountable to each other, and are responsive to the needs of the team and organization.

Whether your team has performed with flying colors during this pandemic, or if they are clearly in need of help, there is no better time than now to do a trust tune-up. Remember the old management saying, “What gets measured gets managed?” Well, it applies to trust, too. The only way to know if your team has high trust is if you measure it. If you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it.

To help you in this effort, I’ve included in this post a survey you can use to gauge the level of trust in your team. Have each team member download and complete the survey below. Tally up the scores, identify the lowest scoring element of trust, and then involve your team in creating action plans to strengthen that particular element of trust. Keep your team’s level of trust tuned-up so they continue to perform their best. 

After you’ve surveyed your team, please come back and share the results of what you learned and what you’re doing about it. The Leading with Trust community will benefit from your experiences!

Building Trust Team SurveyDownload

 1 Comment

 Posted on October 4, 2020 by

 ABCD Trust Model, Teamwork, Trust, Virtual Teams

     , , ,

The 4 Skills That Allow Your Team to Discuss The Most Difficult Issues

Webcam conferenceIn my last two articles, I’ve explored the concept of a team’s Conversational Capacity®. Conversational capacity is the ability to have open, balanced, non-defensive dialogue about tough subjects and in challenging circumstances. Teams that have a high conversational capacity know how to stay in the “sweet spot.” The sweet spot is where candor and curiosity are in balance. Dialogue flows freely, people share their input willingly, and listen to the feedback of others without judgment. Good work happens in the sweet spot.

The challenge, of course, is getting and keeping your team’s conversations in the sweet spot. There are two primary factors that pull us away from the sweet spot and lower our conversational capacity: fight and flight. The fight reaction shows itself in team communication when people engage in “win” behavior. They argue, try to dominate conversation, discount the input of others, or even refuse to listen to alternative viewpoints. The flight reaction is manifested when team members “minimize” their contributions. They shut down, don’t offer their ideas, discount their own opinions, avoid conflict, or offer half-hearted, wishy-washy viewpoints to avoid upsetting others. Both tendencies, win and minimize, pull a team away from the communication sweet spot and lower the team’s overall capacity to have productive conversations. Fortunately, there are four skills we can learn and develop to counteract our tendencies to win or minimize.

Testing and Inquiring

Let’s look at how to tame our desire to win. Since winning behavior results from a drop in curiosity, we need to learn how to become more curious about the perspectives of others. We do that by learning and using the skills of testing and inquiring. We test our perspective and inquire into the perspective of others.

What does it look like to test our perspective? It looks like holding our viewpoint as a hypothesis to be tested, rather than a truth to be proven. A simple way to do this is to ask questions that invite others to examine our viewpoint: What’s your take on this issue? How do you feel about what I’m suggesting? How do you see this from your angle? Is there a better way to make sense of this? I know I don’t have it all figured out, so what am I missing?

The skill of inquiring involves drawing the thinking of others into the conversation. It’s not just asking a few questions to invite their input, but rather delving into the rationale and thinking other people bring to the topic at hand. It’s the process of asking as many questions as necessary to get the other person’s view into the pool of information being considered. The goal of inquiry isn’t agreement, it’s understanding. Sample inquiries include: Tell me more about why you believe that? Can you provide a couple examples that illustrate your point? Help me understand how you reached that conclusion. Testing and inquiring raise your level of curiosity and combat your tendency to win.

Stating a Clear Position and Explaining Your Thinking

Let’s look at our tendency to minimize. Minimizing results from a drop in candor; we aren’t openly and confidently sharing our viewpoints with the team. To increase our candor, we can use the skills of stating our clear position and explaining our thinking.

Stating our position is like a clear topic sentence in a paragraph. It’s clear, candid, and concise, and can be communicated in one sentence, or no more than two. I think we should invest the funds in project X. Option 2 gives us the best chance for success. We should disband the team and use the resources elsewhere. It sounds simple, but just think about how often you fail you exercise this skill. Too often we beat around the bush, inadvertently hide our point in a convoluted story, or soften our opinion to prevent disagreement with others. When we fail to state a clear position, we open the door to misunderstanding and muddled dialogue.

However, it’s not enough to just state a clear position. You must also explain your thinking. This is the why behind your position. Explaining your thinking means you need to share the data that informs your position and how you’re interpreting that data. W. Edwards Deming’s famous quote, “In God we trust, all others must bring data” illustrates this concept. For example: We should disband the team and use the resources elsewhere (clear position). They have missed their quota by an average of 34% the last 5 quarters (data), and we know from previous experience that teams who aren’t hitting quota by quarter 3 usually don’t improve (interpretation). Stating a clear position and explaining your thinking increases the level of candor and combats the tendency to minimize.

Communication is the engine that drives team performance. Honest and open communication fosters teamwork, innovation, trust, and just about every other positive organizational dynamic. The best teams have learned how to balance candor and curiosity to remain in the communication sweet spot. The skills of testing and inquiring help to boost curiosity and temper the need to win, while the skills of stating clear positions and explaining our thinking allows us to increase the level of candor within team communications. Team members using these four skills will keep their team dialogue in the sweet spot where their best work happens.

 5 Comments

 Posted on August 30, 2020 by

 Challenging Conversations, Communication, Relationships, Teamwork

     , , ,

The 2 Behaviors That Sabotage Team Communication

In my previous article I wrote about the conversational “sweet spot” that unlocks team performance. The sweet spot is defined as the balance of candor and curiosity in team discussions. It’s a reflection of a team’s Conversational Capacity® – the ability to have open, balanced, non-defensive dialogue about tough subjects and in challenging circumstances.

Teams that have a high conversational capacity know how to stay in the sweet spot. The sweet spot is where dialogue flows freely, people share their input willingly, and listen to the feedback of others without judgment. Good work happens in the sweet spot.

Teams with a low conversational capacity frequently get pulled away from the sweet spot. When a tough topic arises, some people heat up while others shut down. Some people dominate the discussion while others don’t say a peep. Sometimes the conversation turns argumentative and nothing gets accomplished, or if a decision is reached, it’s often forced upon people and there is collateral damage of hurt feelings and damaged relationships. Good work isn’t possible when the team is pulled out of the sweet spot.

The challenge, of course, is getting and keeping your team’s conversations in the sweet spot. There are two primary factors that pull us away from the sweet spot and lower our conversational capacity: fight and flight.

When faced with challenging and tense situations, the human brain is programmed to respond in two basic ways. One is to fight, engage with the threat, and try to exert control over the situation. In team conversations this response is manifested in “win” behavior. We argue, try to dominate the discussion, discount the input of others, or even refuse to listen to their viewpoints. When we let winning behaviors take over, we become less curious in other peoples’ perspectives. That pulls us, and the team, out of the sweet spot and lowers our conversational capacity to reach better and higher quality outcomes.

Flight is a second way our brains respond to threatening and stressful situations. We want to remove ourselves from the situation, whether that’s physically, mentally, or emotionally. In team conversations this response is manifested in “minimize” behaviors. Examples of minimizing behaviors include shutting down, not contributing, discounting our value or opinions, avoiding conflict, or offering half-hearted, wishy-washy viewpoints to avoid upsetting others. When we minimize, we reduce the amount of candor in the team conversation, thereby pulling us away from the sweet spot.

Imagine a sliding scale with “minimize” on the left and “win” on the right. When you think of your natural response to difficult team conversations, where would you place yourself on that scale? Do you tend to become less curious and try to “win” the conversation by exerting control, dominating the discussion, and convincing others of your position? Or do you tend to become less candid, not share your true thoughts and feelings, and acquiesce to those who are trying to win? The goal, obviously, is to stay in the sweet spot by balancing the amount of candor and curiosity in the discussion. In a future article I will share specific skills you can develop to reduce your tendency to minimize or win and boost your ability to stay candid and curious. After all, the sweet spot is where good work happens!

 1 Comment

 Posted on August 2, 2020 by

 Challenging Conversations, Communication, Teamwork

     , , ,

The 2 Factors That Drive Powerful and Productive Team Conversations

Team around a table

It’s ok, you can admit it. We’ve all been there. Working in teams can be incredibly frustrating.

Whether it was in school, work, or a community organization, you’ve probably had a dysfunctional team experience. It’s that team who can never seem to productively discuss challenging topics. Either they avoid the conversation completely and pretend the issue doesn’t exist, or when someone does get the courage to raise the topic, the discussion becomes heated and spirals out of control.

In a world of mounting complexity and rapid-fire change, it’s more important than ever to build teams that work well when the pressure is on. Despite organizations investing in a broad array of team development strategies, research shows only 15% of mergers and acquisitions succeed, 9 out of 10 organizational change initiatives fail to achieve their intended results, and teams consistently fail to meet their goals. Why is this so? It’s because our focus on effective teamwork is overly technical. We are too concerned with processes, systems, structures, and policies, instead of focusing on the people and how they communicate with each other. If we want to build healthier, more capable teams, we must pay attention to the key piece of the puzzle upon which every other aspect of teamwork depends–conversational capacity.

Conversational Capacity® is the ability to have open, balanced, non-defensive dialogue about tough subjects and in challenging circumstances. Teams that have a high conversational capacity know how to stay in the “sweet spot. The sweet spot is where dialogue flows freely, people share their input willingly, and listen to the feedback of others without judgment. Good work happens in the sweet spot.

Teams with a low conversational capacity frequently get pulled away from the sweet spot. When a tough topic arises, some people heat up while others shut down. Some people dominate the discussion while others don’t say a peep. Sometimes the conversation turns argumentative and nothing gets accomplished, or if a decision is reached, it’s often forced upon people and there is collateral damage of hurt feelings and damaged relationships. Good work isn’t possible when the team is pulled out of the sweet spot.

So how do you get your team to stay in the sweet spot? You balance candor and curiosity.

Being candid means having open, honest, forthright, and direct conversations. Remaining curious in a conversation means being open-minded, inquisitive, and eager to learn. It’s relatively easy to balance candor and curiosity when the stakes are low, or the subject of conversation is easy or non-threatening. But when a conflict arises, a hard decision is on the table, or there’s a personality clash, candor and curiosity often fall out of balance.

If we let our candor drop, our behavior becomes more cautious, we hold-back from sharing our opinions, minimize our concerns, or feign agreement with what others are saying. On the other side of the spectrum, when we become less curious, we tend to bulldoze people. We don’t listen, we argue, we dominate the discussion, and become more arrogant or aggressive. Candor and curiosity are the yin and yang of team conversations. Being candid gets your viewpoint across to other team members. Being curious helps you learn the viewpoints of others. The seemingly opposite forces of candor and curiosity are complementary and work together to push conversations to the sweet spot, where the best teamwork happens.

Interested in learning how to build your team’s conversational capacity? Join my colleague, Craig Weber, the author of Conversational Capacity: The Secret to Building Successful Teams That Perform When The Pressure Is On, for a free webinar on July 29. Click here for more information or to register.

 7 Comments

 Posted on July 19, 2020 by

 Challenging Conversations, Communication

     , , , , , , ,

6 Ways Leaders Build Trust During Change

Photo by Ross Findon on Unsplash

Death and taxes have traditionally been viewed as the two guarantees in life, but I think a third item has officially made the list: change.

The pace of change accelerates with each passing, day, month, and year. The exponential growth of technology has enabled new products, services, and businesses to rise to prominence in short order, and has caused others to become obsolete just as quickly.

Yet research has shown that 70% of all organizational change efforts fail, cost more, or take longer than expected. Leading people through change is not a natural-born talent for most people. It’s a skill that must be developed and practiced over time for leaders to become comfortable navigating the complexities of organizational change.

The one must-have ingredient of successful change efforts is trust. If the people in an organization don’t trust their leaders, they won’t buy-in to the change. They will question their motives, drag their feet, or actively work against the change. It’s critical that leaders foster a culture of trust before, during, and after a change effort if they want to have any chance of success.

Here are six specific steps leaders can take to build trust during organizational change:

  1. Set realistic expectations – One of the primary ways trust is eroded is a failure to meet expectations. Leaders can easily over-promise the benefits of the proposed change effort, and when those benefits aren’t achieved, trust is broken. Once employees lose trust, it’s hard to regain it, which handicaps future change efforts. Set clear and realistic expectations and then work hard to hit those deliverables.
  1. Address people’s concerns – Research from The Ken Blanchard Companies shows that people have predictable stages of concern when faced with a change. Leaders improve the chance of success if they proactively address those concerns, rather than finding themselves on their heels having to react to resistant employees. The first stage is information concerns. Your people need to know what the change is and why it’s needed. The second stage is personal concerns. Team members want to know how the change will impact them individually. Will I win or lose? What’s in it for me? Will there be new expectations of me? The third stage is implementation concerns. What do I do first? Second? Will the organization provide the necessary resources? Will I have enough time? Will there be new training involved? It’s critical for leaders to address these stages of concerns to alleviate fear and anxiety so their team can embrace the change effort.
  1. Make it safe – Employees will not embrace taking risks or innovating in new ways if they are fearful of being punished, criticized, or looked down upon for making mistakes. Leaders have the responsibility to create an environment of psychological safety where people feel safe putting themselves on the line, such as asking a question, seeking feedback, reporting a mistake, or proposing a new idea The three most powerful behaviors that foster psychological safety are being available and approachable, explicitly inviting input and feedback, and modeling openness and fallibility. People will embrace change more completely when they feel safe to express their true thoughts and feelings without fear of admonishment.
  1. Share information liberally – Ken Blanchard is fond of saying, “People without information cannot act responsibly. People with information are compelled to act responsibly.” Leaders can fall prey to not sharing information because they fear people won’t have the proper context to interpret what it means, or perhaps they feel that people may take information and act in irresponsible ways. The root of this fear is a lack of trust. The opposite of trust is control, so when leaders withhold information, they are showing a lack of trust by wanting to control what people know, when they know, and how they know it. In the absence of information, people will make up their own version of the truth, and more often than not, that version will be a more negative view of the truth than what it is in reality.
  1. Admit when you don’t know – As a leader, admitting you don’t know something can be one of the most powerful trust-building behaviors you can use. It shows humility and honesty to admit you don’t have all the answers. It’s easy to let our egos get in the way and not want to appear incompetent or unable. Instead of spinning the truth, evading answers, or tap-dancing around difficult questions, admit you don’t know but commit to finding the answer. Your people will trust and respect your authenticity.
  1. Involve others in planning and implementation – One of my favorite sayings is “Those who plan the battle rarely battle the plan.” People take ownership over plans they create and implement. Successful change efforts are those that are done ‘with’ people, not ‘to’ people. Involve your team in planning and implementing the change effort and it will go much smoother than if you try to force it upon them.

Leading organizational change is tough work! In my viewpoint, the biggest difference between being a “leader” and a “manager” is that leaders initiate change. That responsibility comes with the challenge of being in the line of fire. You’re under the microscope and carry the weight of making the change effort a success. Rather than carrying all that weight alone, why not spread it out among your team? Get them involved, make it safe for them to participate, address their concerns, be honest and authentic in your dealings with them, and be the torchbearer for leading with trust.

 4 Comments

 Posted on July 12, 2020 by

 Change, Leadership, Trust

     , ,

Subscribe Now!
Randy’s New Book with Ken Blanchard!
Receive new posts via email

Categories
Download Free e-Book
Blanchard Newsletter
Follow me on Twitter
Featured on Leadership Digital
Leadership Digital

Leading with Trust

%d bloggers like this: