Trust: The Glue of Highly Effective Relationships and Organizations
Productivity levels had plummeted (after initially increasing) in the aftermath of the massive corporate re-organization. Where a can-do spirit of cooperation had once prevailed, now a pervasive mood of stress and distrust permeated conversations in the hallways and cubicles of the besieged organization. Some employees were in despair, some turned a blind eye and pretended not to notice the uproar, others felt deceived and wanted revenge, while others had already looked up their LinkedIn connections and planned to take their marketable skills elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the organization’s leaders, disconnected from the pervasive fear of the everyday workplace, were evaluating the progress of this reorganization. Financially, this was a smart move. Now they had a leaner, meaner workforce and profits were improving this quarter. The financial forecasts were looking better. Investment analysts gave strong buy signals based on management’s success at increasing investment value. Shareholders and top executives alike would be sharing a windfall in the form of dividends and bonuses. And what the top executives told no one was that they were preparing to sell the company.
The Nature of Leadership: From Caveman to the Corporate Board Room.
In the not-too-distant past our ancestors organized into tribes as a way of negotiating survival. The eventual leader was generally taller physically than his cohorts. Therefore, he had the vision to see further into the future. He was able to motivate his group to take action in a concerted direction for survival’s sake. And he was powerful as a warrior so his group respected him. For the group’s sake, he also had to be a good organizer of the talents of his tribe. The combined skills of power, organization, respect, and vision were the makings of this successful tribal leader.
Not much has changed about the requirements for excellence in leadership for the last 10,000 years – just the circumstances. Leadership has always been about insuring a successful quest into the future. But what are the motivations?
What happened in the true example (above) in the corporate vignette? What gave the leaders the continued authority to lead? Was it by sheer power? Yes, sometimes. Was it by fear? Certainly there are leaders who rule through fear. Was it simply greed? Surely the events on Wall Street within the past few years lend credence to this.
The Foundation of Relationship in Any Organization
Trust is the very first developmental moment in the formation of relationship (Erik Erikson). This is true for children who are developing trust in their mother’s capacity to care for them as well as for the employees of an organization’s capacity to trust their leaders to guide them into a better potential future. For both the child and the employees, once that trust has been broken it is very difficult to repair.
In the case above, top management’s action provoked distrust in the tribe they were supposed to be leading. And in that distrust, despair, resentment, sabotage, and disconnection became the operating norms. By managing purely for financial gain, the leaders reaped a windfall for themselves in the short term. But by disrupting a biologically-mandated organization pattern of trust and failing to manage for the long term benefit of both tribal members and leadership, the company continued to spiral down. They were blind to the reality of organizational emotional intelligence and so impelled by their notions of self-serving leadership that the notion of building strong long term organizations that require a foundation of trust never registered as a possibility in their management of the company.
Who Does the Leader Serve?
Going back to the biologically mandated foundations of the relationship between leadership and the tribe, we begin to see that the tribe trusted their leaders to serve the good of the tribe (or today’s organization or corporation). As an example of this trust-directed leadership style, Jim Goodnight of SAS has intentionally nurtured a powerful commitment in his employees to meet the needs of the company’s marketplace. When asked about layoffs in a declining economy his response was that SAS would not be laying off anyone – rather, they are reassigning them as needed.
Who does the leader serve? In the opening example, it is clear that the leaders first serve themselves. Then in declining order they serve shareholders, market and, finally, employees. They did not serve a purpose greater than themselves. And long term, it has produced a diminishing range of possibilities for the leaders – and for all concerned.
In the case of Jim Goodnight of SAS, who does the leader serve? By his stated intention and his action, he serves market and tribe (his employees) simultaneously – a purpose greater than the self. SAS’s employee retention is exemplary. Its employees trust that what their leader says and what he does is consistent with their best interests, the market’s best interest, and the organization’s best interest.
Serving a Purpose Greater Than the Self
As Wall Street has repeatedly demonstrated, if we serve only the self, we are eventually swept away by the forces of greed and fear. Then, short term irrational exuberance (Alan Greenspan) is followed by collapse of the organization – a bubble. If we serve a purpose greater than the self and become a steward in our understanding of our tribes and organizations, what becomes possible? Richard Branson of Virgin Air was asked about the link between money and leadership. His response was that leadership, in its highest forms, is not about money or power. He proposed that it was an honored burden (much like George Washington). And that a leader’s task was to create employment and opportunity across a range of domains.
And how do we maintain our stewardship, that Branson proposes as a function of leadership in the face of temptation and despite how our self-deception can blind us to our deepest values? I invite your inquiry into this question.
