Establishing Trust by Mastering the Art of Listening

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

We often think of establishing trust in business relationships in sales-related roles. For instance, if I have a product or service, I will tell you how my industry knowledge and credentials will make it clear I am the person you should buy from. In short, you can trust me. I know everything there is to know about this product or service. Just ask me!

Let’s broaden our perspective. Is your expertise the key to building trust in various business and professional situations beyond just sales?

Business relationships encompass various roles, each essential for an organization’s smooth functioning and success. In addition to the roles of suppliers and vendors who provide necessary goods and services and customers and clients who are the end-users, there are employees whose skills and dedication drive daily operations and partners, collaborators, and colleagues who are extensions of their companies, working together for the client’s good.

Regardless of your role, be it a supplier, vendor, customer, client, employee, partner, collaborator, or colleague, trust is a crucial element in fostering a thriving business ecosystem. And it all starts with listening to what each of these role players have to say.

By mastering the art of listening—understanding why you’re listening—individuals can empower themselves to create meaningful connections, better understanding, and enrich their relationships. This understanding fosters empathy, a key element in building trust and a deeper connection with others.

Let People Talk About Themselves and Their Experiences

In professional settings, it’s common for people to believe that their expertise and credentials validate their ability to perform tasks, make informed decisions, and contribute meaningfully— grounding the conversation in trust and reliability.

This is only true when you are talking about yourself, not listening.

Whether you are talking to a client, colleague, friend, or someone you just met, they want to discuss what everyone wants to discuss: Themselves. Being open and receptive to these discussions, and allowing others to talk about themselves, can significantly enhance your professional interactions.

The key to making them feel valued is actively listening as they do so.

Allowing someone to share personal stories and experiences can be powerful in building trust and making connections because it fosters authenticity and relatability. Listening to someone share their experiences and perspectives encourages reciprocity, opening the door to mutual understanding and empathy.

As you listen, it allows others to illustrate values, lessons, and insights memorably. This creates deeper emotional connections that form the foundation of solid and trusting relationships.

It ensures that you fully grasp the needs, concerns, and perspectives of others, enabling you to provide relevant and thoughtful responses. Whether maintaining friendships, working in teams, or conducting business, effective listening leads to better collaboration, problem-solving, and decision-making, enhances mutual respect, reduces misunderstandings, and promotes a more harmonious and productive environment.

Trust integrates the emotional and ethical dimensions that credentials alone cannot provide, making it a cornerstone of successful and fulfilling relationships in all aspects of life.

Put the Art of Listening Into Action

The art of listening is a powerful tool that enhances communication, builds strong relationships, and fosters personal and professional growth. By practicing active, empathetic, non-judgmental, and attentive listening, individuals can improve their interactions and create a more understanding and connected world.

Here are five tips for listening this way:

  • Ditch the distractions. You cannot multitask undiscovered, and being multitasked feels insulting. Close the door, face away from the window, blank the computer screen, turn the cell phone over, and avoid glancing at your smartwatch (an all-too-common distraction). Looking at your watch—any watch—suggests that you have other priorities or engagements that you deem more important than the current conversation.
  • Use your whole body. Lean toward the speaker—even on the phone. Use facial expressions. Use hands and arms, shake your head, and use “non-verbal” language. Positive body language encourages the speaker to continue and feel valued, promoting a more open and honest dialogue. This improves your listening and indicates to the speaker that you are 
  • Keep it about them—not you. Use open-ended, not closed, questions. Let them tell their story. By actively listening and keeping the conversation centered on the other person, you demonstrate empathy and understanding, making them feel valued and heard. Keeping the conversation about the other person also allows you to gather valuable insights and information to help you understand their perspective, needs, and expectations.
  • Acknowledge frequently. Frequent acknowledgments can include reflective statements or paraphrasing, which help clarify your understanding of the speaker’s message and ensure no misunderstandings. Consistent acknowledgment fosters trust and rapport by demonstrating genuine interest in the speaker’s experiences and perspectives.
  • Think out loud. The biggest obstacle to listening is your own thinking. Be courageous— postpone your thinking until they’re done talking. Be willing to think out loud—withthe other person. Doing so role-models collaboration and transparency, and that reinforces trust. I hear you. I value you. I respond to you with no hidden agenda. I trust you. You can trust me.

Listening—unrestricted, unbounded, listening for its own sake—is how we develop such relationships. The point of listening is not what you hear but the act of listening itself.

Resources to Build Your Trust Skills:

Contact us directly to learn about private workshops

Why Taking Risks Creates Trust

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Due to several universal experiences and observations, everyone is familiar with taking risks, whether they engage in them or not. Even those who avoid taking risks are familiar with the concept because of the fear and caution they experience. This avoidance is a direct response to the perceived dangers of risk-taking.

Everyday life involves countless decisions that carry varying degrees of risk, from choosing what to eat to making career moves. Even seemingly mundane choices involve some level of risk assessment.

Many professional and personal development courses include risk management elements, ensuring that risk is understood and considered in various contexts.

That includes addressing common risk-taking challenges like:

  • Should you risk mentioning the price early on in a sales call?
  • Should you be candid about your less-than-perfect qualifications for a job?
  • When you notice the client looking distracted, should you take the risk of commenting on it?

In such situations, the thought process is, “That’s too risky. You can’t do that—you don’t have a trust relationship yet.” Or, “Well, sure, you could do that, but only when you have a long history of trust.” That is a big misconception.

The truth is, you can’t get trust without taking risks. It is the taking of risks itself that creates trust.

Early Risk-Taking Can Strengthen Relationships

Risk-taking is a fundamental aspect of human life, woven into the fabric of daily existence, cultural narratives, psychological experiences, and biological responses. Whether individuals actively take risks or choose to avoid them, the concept remains a familiar and integral part of their understanding of the world.

This is true in business, sales, finance, education, and personal endeavors. Taking small risks can build trust and credibility without being perceived as careless or unprofessional. However, trust only grows when one party takes a risk, and the other party responds in a trust-based way.

  • Should you risk mentioning the price early on in a sales call?  

You take the risk of answering a direct question about price, even though you haven’t established your value proposition yet. Being open about the price early demonstrates transparency, which can build trust. It shows that you are straightforward and not trying to hide any information. This approach is respectful and opens the door for an honest discussion about budget and value. It can help ensure that the rest of the conversation is productive and focused on how you can meet their needs within their budget.

  • Should you be candid about your less-than-perfect qualifications for a job?

You take the risk of being very open about a relative weakness in your job qualifications. This approach shows humility, a willingness to learn, and the ability to turn a potential weakness into a strength, which can be very appealing. Although the client may or may not give you the job, they’ll note your directness and trust you more.

  • When you notice the client looking distracted, should you take the risk of commenting on it?

The risk can be as easy as saying, “I noticed you seem a bit distracted today. Is everything alright? I want to make sure we address any concerns or thoughts you might have.” This approach is gentle and non-confrontational, showing that you are perceptive and considerate of their current state. It shows that you are willing to engage in honest and open communication, opening the door for them to share any issues they might be facing, which can strengthen the client relationship.

In each example, the small risk may or may not go your way, but if you avoid taking that risk, it’s guaranteed that you’ll not get the trust (unless your client initiates it, in which case you depend on someone else to make your luck).

Early risk-taking can strengthen relationships by demonstrating commitment and reliability. Strong relationships are vital in navigating more significant risks in the future.

Resources to Build Your Trust Skills:

Why the Definition of Trust Depends on Its Use

/0 Comments/in , /by

Trust, a universal concept, is pivotal in our daily conversations. We often invoke it in statements that we believe to be meaningful. It’s a comprehensive language that binds us all, connecting us in our shared understanding of its importance.

However, its meaning becomes blurred when used as:

  • “Trust in the airline industry is down.”
  • “I don’t trust what media and news organizations say – I rely on people like me for trustworthy information.”
  • “I trust Amazon, but not Google.”

While the word trust is omnipresent in each statement, and others like them, the level of discussion about trust is fraught with definitional ambiguity everywhere.

Imprecision in discussing trust is not just a minor inconvenience. It can significantly impede progress in various areas, including personal relationships, business, and societal development. The stakes are high, and the need for clarity is essential and urgent. This urgency underscores the importance of precise trust definitions.

How Clear Definitions of Trust Transform Personal Relationships, Business, and Societal Growth

Trust can sow the seeds of misunderstanding when ambiguously communicated, potentially leading toconflicts. The cumulative effect of misinterpretations, misaligned expectations, and insecurity can lead to a complete breakdown of the relationship. Precise definitions of trust are helpful and necessary for establishing and maintaining strong personal bonds.

In business, imprecision in discussing trust can erode confidence among team members, partners, and clients. For instance, stakeholders may feel deceived if a company vaguely promises transparency but fails to define what that means. Businesses that are not clear and precise about their trust policies can damage their reputation, leading to significant loss of customers and revenue. The potential damage is substantial, and the need for precision is paramount.

For workplace colleagues, trust is not just a nice-to-have in collaboration; it’s a must-have. Imprecise communication about trust can create an environment of doubt and skepticism, making team members reluctant to share ideas or collaborate effectively. However, clear communication is the key to unlocking the full potential of trust in collaboration, empowering us to foster a culture of openness and cooperation.

In societal contexts, the lack of precision in trust discussions can hinder the successful implementation of policies and initiatives. For instance, vague trust-based government policies can lead to public disillusionment and a lack of support for essential programs, thereby hindering societal development.

Meaningful discussions about trust are crucial. They pave the way for valid, justified conclusions and actions. They also play a vital role in fostering trust-based organizations, cultures of trust, and increased trust in institutions. These discussions are essential for understanding and addressing cross-generational trends in trust.

Without standard definitions, we are reduced to bemoaning the fate of trust, wringing our hands as bystanders, accomplishing nothing. We need basic definitions.

Let’s call them:

  1. the Grammar of trust,
  2. the Objects of trust, and
  3. the Actions of trust.

The Grammar of Trust: Trust is a Noun, a Verb, and an Adjective

What does it mean to say, “Trust in the airline industry is down?” Does it mean major airlines have become less trustworthy? Or does it mean public opinion is turning against the airline industry? Or both?

It matters if our discussions are to have any policy implications. This is loose language, meaning nothing unless we clarify our definition of trust.

  • Trust, as a noun, is the state of a relationship between two parties. It exists or doesn’t; if it does, it is described as high or low, thick or thin, broad or deep. Sociologists use this to talk about high- or low-trust societies or cultures. In business, Edelman’s Trust Barometer primarily (when it is clear) focuses on the state of trust.
  • To trust someoneis to take a risk, to willingly put yourself in harm’s way of another. This is the verb “to trust.” Psychologists focus on this propensity to trust, the entry point of business books like Bob Hurley’s The Decision to Trust.
  • Trustworthinessis an adjective, an attribute we ascribe to others. It falls in the category of virtues. We use “trustworthy” to describe people with credibility, reliability, high integrity, benevolence, and unself-preoccupied virtues. It’s discussed in books like The Trusted Advisor as the Trust Equation.

When we see “Trust in the airline industry is down,” we should immediately ask: which meaning of trust is used here?

Do we strictly intend to indicate a decline in trust? This is trust as a noun. We can track it over time, but it should always beg the question, why? What have been the patterns of trustworthiness and propensity to trust? What is driving the state of trust lower?

If we mean that people have become less inclined to trust major airlines, this is trust as a verb. If this is the problem, is it unique to the industry? Or is it part of a general decline in propensity to trust? What kind of social intervention is appropriate? Enhanced customer service initiatives? A transparent commitment to safety? Marketing campaigns that address common pain points and offer solutions?

If we mean airlines have become less trustworthy, this is trust as an adjective. If this is the issue, what data is used to define trustworthiness? And should we seek industry-based or regulatory-based solutions to the issue? Probably both.

Objects of Trust: Personal vs. Institutional

“I don’t trust what media and news organizations say – I rely on people like me for trustworthy information.”

It may seem evident that trusting a person differs from trusting an institution. We’re not confused by, “I trust FedEx to deliver my packages, but not to babysit my daughter,” because baby-sitting requires an individual, not a firm, and we don’t think of FedEx delivery people as being in the baby-sitting business anyway. Trusting people is fundamentally different from trusting organizations.

Major trust surveys, like the Edelman Trust Barometer, say that “trust in someone like me” is trending up compared to “trust in government” or “trust in companies.” This is a category mistake.

The two types of trust are qualitatively distinct; they do not belong on the same quantitative scale. The blurring of lines is similar to that of “friends” on social media platforms, as we use the same word to describe our digital tribes that we use to describe our neighbors and old college friends. The common language must be recognized and respected, but it doesn’t have the same meanings.

Most trust is personal. If FedEx misses two deliveries in a week, my “trust” in them is seriously eroded. Yet if my best friend fails to return two calls, I am perplexed—but my trust in them is barely affected. This is not surprising. It’s not the same trust we’re discussing.

Trust in particular organizations—companies, Congress—is “thin” trust. It’s connected to branding, reliability, and reputation—but not to the more powerful personal attributes we associate with trusting individuals. Most people “distrust” Congress but are more inclined to “trust” their congressperson. This is only surprising if we think the same “trust” is at issue.

Companies that consistently score high on broad measures of trust (see, for example, Trust Across America’s Most Trustworthy Companies) are usually, on closer examination, that assiduously foster trust-based relationships between individuals—between employees and customers, among employees, with local constituent organizations.

Writers should avoid sloppy use of the object of trust—humanizing trust when we talk about institutions, for example—and readers should point this out sharply. The word “trusted” means very different things when applied to Toyota, LinkedIn affinity groups, and next-door neighbors. I may “trust” them all, but we are discussing distinct phenomena.

Actions of Trust: Trust to Do What?

“I trust my dog with my life, not my ham sandwich.”

We all understand the difference, yet we often hear sentences like, “I trust Amazon—but not Google.” The Amazon/Google difference is probably the same as the life/ham sandwich difference, but we don’t usually hear it the same way.

To see why, ask what it is that we trust Amazon and Google to do. Most likely, the utterer of that sentence means that Amazon delivers fast and reliably and that Google tracks mountains of information about us. Fast delivery and responsible guardianship of private details are very different—maybe as different as “life” and “sandwich.” And yet, we act as if we’re making a meaningful statement about corporate trustworthiness when we use the “T” word with both companies in the same sentence. We are not expressing distinct opinions about two very different phenomena.

Whenever you read (or write) something comparing levels of trust—whether between people or organizations (or across people and organizations)—always remember to ask: Trust to do what? If we had more critical readers (and writers) about the above three distinctions, the discussion of trust would be incredibly advanced.

Resources to Build Your Trust Skills:

Five Misconceptions about Trust in Business: Part 2

/1 Comment/in , /by

In this blog series, we explore five of the most common misconceptions about trust that, while they are widely-held, are powerful inhibitors to creating real trust:

  1. Trust has to be earned
  2. Trust takes time to grow and is quickly lost
  3. Clients just want you to solve their problem
  4. Clients will trust you if you give good advice
  5. Having the right answer is critical

MISCONCEPTION 2: TRUST TAKES TIME TO GROW AND IS QICKLY LOST

Trust takes a long time to build, and only a few moments to be destroyed. That has to be one of the greatest trust platitudes, and it is as wrong as it is commonly believed.

Trust takes a long time to build? Not necessarily, in fact frequently not.

Trust takes only a few moments to be destroyed? Even less true.

The Truth

Of course, platitudes don’t achieve that status out of thin air. There’s usually something to them, and of course there’s something here too.

Let’s start with the first part: trust takes time. As we explored in Part 1 of this blog, most of the time we start off even new relationships with at least a limited amount of trust. But there are two points to consider when examining how long trust takes to build: the trustworthiness of the person seeking to be trusted, and the propensity to trust of the person from whom we are seeking trust.

The Trust Equation breaks down trustworthiness into four discrete factors: Credibility, Reliability, Intimacy, and Self-orientation. Of these, Reliability is the only factor that requires the passage of time to be evaluated: you need to set an expectation, then follow through on it. And even then, it’s really more about the number and consistency of interactions than the amount of elapsed time.

The other element is what social scientists and trust academics call “generalized” trust—the propensity to believe well of the motives of strangers, and to be generally optimistic about the future. That one, it turns out, can take ages to turn around—negatively or positively. As Dr. Eric Uslaner points out, generalized trust is installed early, and usually remains stable throughout our lives.

So, does trust take time or not? The answer is, “it depends.” And what it depends on is the type of trust we’re talking about. Let’s break it down:

Now let’s look at the second part: trust is quickly lost. Most relationships, like most emotions, take roughly as long to get over as they took to develop. Marriages or friendships don’t end overnight. There may be a flash point, a straw that breaks the camel’s back. But we usually give people we trust the benefit of the doubt. We don’t dump them abruptly the first time things get difficult.

Most examples of “trust lost quickly” turn out to be either just the last drip in a long series of drips eroding trust, or a delusion about trust’s existence in the first place (you don’t “violate the trust” of a subscriber to your email list by sending them a worthless referral; the relationship you have with a name on your email list may be many things, but “trust-based” is probably a stretch).

Trust formed quickly can be lost quickly; trust formed at a shallow level can be lost at the same level. But trust formed deeply takes deeper violations, or a longer time, to be lost.

But, you might say, so what?  Why is that harmful? What’s the big deal?

The Harm

If you believe that trust takes a long time to build, then you likely believe that it also takes sustained effort, and that there are limited opportunities to build trust when you have limited time. You are inclined to focus only on those things that bring immediate gratification, like solving the problem or delivering the solution (Credibility and Reliability, which are shallow forms of trust). You are less likely to be vulnerable and take risks to connect at a human level, and less likely to set aside your own goals (Intimacy and Self-orientation, which create deeper personal trust).

If you believe that trust can be lost in a moment, then you likely believe you must be cautious and careful about protecting it. You are likely to think about trust as a precious resource to be guarded against being tarnished. You are inclined to institute rules and procedures to protect it and to give cautionary lectures about the risk of losing trust.

These beliefs are self-defeating. Why would you expend energy on something for which you are not likely to see results quickly, or at all? Or that you could lose in just a moment?

And they lead to precisely the kinds of behavior that result in trust lost.

Trust, at a personal level, is like love and hate: you tend to get back what you put out. You empower what you fear. Those afraid of getting burned are the most likely to get burned. Fear of trust not only doesn’t save trust – it actually causes low trust.

Trust is a Muscle

Thinking of trust as something that takes a long time to build makes you unwilling to invest in it, and thinking of trust as something you can lose in a minute makes you cautious and unlikely to take risks. But the absence of risk is what starves trust. There simply is no trust without risk – that’s why they call it trust.

If your people aren’t empowered, if they’re always afraid of being second-guessed or saying the wrong thing, then they will always operate from fear and never take a risk – and as a result, will never be trusted.

Trust is a muscle – it atrophies without use. And the repetition of the mantra “trust takes time to build and can be lost in a moment” just tells people not to use it.

Turns out the stupidest trust is the trust you never engaged in because you were unwilling. The smartest trust is the trust you create by taking a risk.

UP NEXT – Come back tomorrow to read about the third misconception: Clients just want you to solve their problem.

 

Trust-Based Resources to Maximize Your Team’s Potential:

Trust and Return to Office | Part I Reframing the Debate

/0 Comments/in , /by

Businessman return to work concept. Reopen economy after Coronavirus lockdown. Woman runs to work in office after removal of restrictions on Covid 19

As we navigate the uncertain waters of returning to the office in a post-pandemic world, one crucial element stands out as the cornerstone of a successful transition: trust. Trust is not only the foundation of healthy workplace relationships but also the linchpin that holds together the entire ecosystem of the modern office. In this blog series, we explore the pivotal role of trust in facilitating a smooth return to the office.

The return to office marks a pivotal moment for both employers and employees. After a prolonged period of remote work during the pandemic, employers have begun asking – or demanding – that employees return to the office. Employers have valid reasons for wanting workers back in the office and, while many employees are eager to return to the sense of normalcy they had pre-pandemic, others prefer the autonomy and flexibility to which they have become accustomed while working from home. As a result, the return-to-office conversation has become polarized, highlighting concerns about productivity and the balance between in-person and remote work arrangements.

In the first of this three-part blog series, I attempt reframe the current return to office debate, looking at employee perspectives on remote and in-office work, the employer motivation behind calling employees back to the office, and the societal impacts of returning to the workplace. The next two blogs in the series will address what employers and employees, respectively, can do to smooth the transition.

The Employee Perspective

The reluctance of some employees to return to the office can be attributed to various factors, ranging from control over work hours and location to a desire for greater autonomy. Here are some common reasons why employees may not want to return to the office:

  1. Productivity: Working from home helps workers efficiently drive personal performance and stay focused on completing individual tasks.
  2. Commute and work-life balance: Commuting to the office can be time-consuming and stressful. Remote work has allowed employees to reclaim some of the time they previously spent commuting, and they may be reluctant to give that up.
  3. Flexibility: Many employees have come to appreciate the flexibility that remote work provides. They have had the opportunity to tailor their work environment to their preferences, which can be challenging to replicate in an office setting.
  4. Childcare and family responsibilities: Remote work offers flexibility in managing childcare and family responsibilities, and a return to the office can pose significant economic and logistical challenges for family care.
  5. Psychological well-being: Remote work has provided many employees with a sense of control and reduced workplace stress. A return to the office may reintroduce stressors associated with the physical office environment, such as a noisy or distracting workspace.

At the same time, many workers look forward to the return to office to regain a sense of normalcy. A recent Gallup poll, identifies ongoing challenges related to remote work:

  1. Networking, relationship building, and professional development: In-person work settings facilitate organic networking and relationship building and present opportunities for professional growth and mentorship. Being in proximity to colleagues and superiors fosters learning and contributes to career advancement.
  2. Feeling less connected to the organization’s culture: Employees may miss the sense of belonging and connection to the company’s culture that the office environment fosters. The office often embodies the company’s values and mission, making it an important place for cultural immersion.
  3. Access to resources: while many workers have invested heavily in home offices, the workplace can provide resources that employees may not have at home, such as specialized tools, software, and a more reliable and faster internet connection.
  4. Disrupted work processes: For many, going to the office can provide a structured and professional work environment, which improves time management and can lead to increased motivation and a sense of purpose.

The Employer Perspective

While the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote and flexible work arrangements, there are still several compelling reasons why employers are keen to have their employees back in the physical workplace:

  1. Customer service: The American Customer Satisfaction Index dropped 4 points between 2019 and 2022, falling to its lowest level in almost 20 years. While it is rebounding, lower customer satisfaction is related to how quickly and easily customers can reach providers for problem resolution, and the quality of customer service varies with remote work.
  2. Collaboration and innovation: Physical proximity can enhance spontaneous interactions and facilitate more effective collaboration among employees. Being in the same location allows for in-person meetings, brainstorming sessions, and face-to-face communication, which can lead to increased creativity and innovation.
  3. Supervision and management: In-office work allows for more direct supervision and management of employees. Employers can observe and provide guidance to ensure that work is being carried out efficiently and in accordance with company standards.
  4. Organizational culture and values: The physical office environment can help reinforce company culture and values. It provides a space for employees to immerse themselves in the company’s ethos and connect with its mission and values.
  5. Networking and relationship building: In-person interactions can facilitate networking and relationship-building opportunities, both within the organization and with external partners or clients. These connections can lead to new business opportunities and partnerships.
  6. Branding and image: A well-designed office space can enhance a company’s brand and image. It can leave a positive impression on clients, partners, and potential employees.

The Societal Perspective

The return to the office also has several societal benefits that extend beyond the individual organization. These advantages can positively impact communities, economies, and society as a whole. Here are some potential societal benefits of employees returning to the office:

  1. Economic stimulus and urban revitalization: When employees return to the office, they may contribute to increased economic activity in the surrounding communities. Office workers patronizing local businesses and public transportation services boost both private and public revenue. Commercial real estate benefits from the return to the office, as organizations invest in office space, renovations, and expansions.
  2. Volunteering and community engagement: The return to the office can encourage employees to participate in local volunteer and community engagement activities, furthering social responsibility and giving back to society.
  3. Public safety: Greater office presence in urban areas can enhance public safety, as more people are present to observe and report any safety concerns. This can contribute to the well-being of the community.

It’s important to note that the societal benefits of returning to the office may depend on the size and density of urban areas, the local economy, and various other factors.

Finding Common Ground

The pros and cons for returning to the office may at first may at first blush appear to be divisive. Looking more closely, however, there is a lot of common ground between what employers and employees want. Topping the list are increased productivity and collaboration, which fuel innovation and customer satisfaction. Employee engagement and connection to corporate culture are high on both audiences’ lists. Availability and utilization of corporate resources also shows up in both perspectives.

With so much common ground, how is it that the debate continues to be so polarized?

Reframing the Debate

The challenge with the return to office debate today isn’t a lack of common ground. Instead, it’s a lack of common understanding. Each side appears to be fully vested in their own perspective, to the extent that they appear to have missed how much they have in common with the other side. The debate has devolved from a conversation on how to achieve common goals to a series of demands for each side to get it’s own way, with employers threatening to fire workers who refuse to return to the office, and employees threatening to quit if they are forced to return.

Rather than debating which side is right, we should be asking what’s important in each perspective, and how can we leverage the common ground to find solutions that work for both employers and employees. Both sides need to exercise empathy, reflecting on what’s driving their desire to return to the office (or not) and understanding what’s important to the other side, and why.

As we embark on the journey back to the office, trust emerges as the linchpin that can make or break this transition. A culture built on trust fosters collaboration, innovation, and overall well-being. By prioritizing trust, organizations can not only successfully navigate the return to the office but also thrive in the ever-evolving landscape of work. Trust is not just a means to an end but an essential part of the destination itself—a more resilient, adaptable, and connected workplace.

In Part 2 of this series, we’ll look at how employers can boost trust to smooth the transition during return to office.

I used AI to support researching and writing this blog series.

Trust-Based Resources to Maximize Your Team’s Potential:

Want to Retain Top Talent? Look to Your Corporate Culture

/0 Comments/in , /by

Magnet attracting chess pieces symbolizing attracting and retaining talentOne of the myriad things we learned from “The Great Resignation,” where employees across the nation voluntarily resigned from their jobs, is that people are no longer willing to stay in unfulfilling roles or work for employers that do not respect their values. A powerful component of the mass exodus from organizations of all sizes and industries is the effect corporate culture has on the workplace environment, productivity, and relationships.

Employers quickly realized what they already knew – the same thing we all know yet tend to forget until it is too late – that a positive workplace culture supports the well-being and success of employees and makes them feel valued and connected to their colleagues, making them more likely to stay and contribute their best work.

Corporate culture stems from the shared values, beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral norms that influence everything from a company’s mission and vision to employee satisfaction, work-life balance, and a positive work environment.

When we forget this, the result is clear: a negative workplace culture leaves employees feeling demotivated and disengaged, ultimately leading to high turnover, which has a resonating impact on the company’s reputation, brand, and long-term growth.

Here, we discuss why trust is a foundational element that profoundly impacts corporate culture and how it plays a pivotal role in shaping an organization’s dynamics, behaviors, competitiveness, and overall strength and success.

Strong and Effective Leadership Sets the Tone for Corporate Culture

Influential leaders who lead by example and prioritize the well-being of their teams create an environment that employees want to be a part of. This fosters job satisfaction among employees and loyalty to the leaders by whom they are inspired and motivated.

When people feel valued, appreciated, and supported in their workplace, they are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and less inclined to seek opportunities elsewhere, contributing to higher retention rates.

Trust Matters: Trust is critical in leadership that influences, inspires and promotes a culture where employees are more likely to follow the company’s vision and values. Leaders who build a culture of trust are those who consistently role-model trustworthy behavior and uncompromisingly promote principles that enable employees to be both trustworthy and trusting. This enhances reputation and brand image, which in turn helps retain employees and attract top talent who take pride in being associated with a respected and ethical organization.

Open Communication Leads to Employee Engagement and a Sense of Belonging

Effective communication is a cornerstone of a healthy corporate culture. Employees are more likely to stay in an organization where their opinions matter and they feel informed, that their voices are heard, and that their concerns are addressed.

A strong corporate culture creates a sense of belonging and community among employees who feel part of something bigger, developing connections with their colleagues and the organization crucial for retention. Open communication helps workers feel engaged and emotionally committed to their work and the organization, taking the initiative to go the extra mile, take ownership of their roles, and remain loyal to the company.

Trust Matters: Open and honest communication within an organization fosters trust. When employees trust their leaders and colleagues, they are more likely to share ideas, concerns, and feedback without fear of negative repercussions.

Open communication goes both ways: leaders need to be transparent about what’s happening in the company and what they expect from employees, and actively solicit and listen to employee feedback. In return, employees need to share their input candidly and proactively.

A Positive Corporate Culture Promotes Work-Life Balance

Many organizations recognize that flexibility and work-life balance initiatives show respect for employees’ well-being and contribute to a positive corporate culture, but the reverse is also true: corporate culture contributes to work-life balance.  Employees who consistently feel forced to choose between work responsibilities and taking care of their families and personal needs usually end up feeling unsatisfied with both.

Trust Matters: Employees who feel they can focus fully on their professional responsibilities while at work, and fully on their private lives in their private time, are likelier to stay with their employer. Knowing that their organization cares about their well-being can lower stress when they’re away from work, whether they’re enjoying regular time off or dealing with family emergencies.

Effective Teamwork and Collaboration Encourage Innovation

Corporate cultures that intentionally build trust and promote collaboration provide opportunities for continuous improvement, creativity, and calculated risk-taking, creating a competitive advantage.

Trust Matters: Without trust, innovation initiatives will struggle as teams do not feel comfortable taking the necessary risks to drive change. This is especially crucial in situations with high uncertainty and vulnerability.

Intentionally-built trust makes it possible for teams to take action to achieve success while ideas are blossoming and in times of crisis where they can falter without embarrassment in front of their leader or colleagues. When employees believe their team will provide a safe environment for individual and combined risk-taking, they deliver results.

In a culture of trust, team members are motivated, collaborate more smoothly, leverage their strengths more effectively, and constructively resolve conflicts and disputes to reach mutually beneficial solutions, radically expanding confidence in each other, leadership, and the organization.

Investing in People Facilitates Adaptability and Growth

Companies that prioritize a healthy corporate culture invest in employee development. Employees who see opportunities for advancement and skill-building within the organization are more likely to stay and grow with the company than to seek external opportunities. They are also more likely to pivot, grow and embrace organizational change.

Trust Matters: Employees are more likely to embrace new strategies and directions when they trust that leadership is invested in their personal success.

Businesses Thrive When They Put People First

A culture that encourages long-term thinking and values employee retention as a strategic goal is more likely to build a sustainable and prosperous organization. Businesses who put their people first:

  • Retain experienced employees who contribute to institutional knowledge and continuous improvement;
  • Attract top, value-aligned talent who are engaged, innovative, productive, collaborative, and curious employees;
  • Are less likely to be seen as a “stepping stone” for employees toward their long-term goals;
  • Develop employees who are passionate about the organization, its purpose, and their role in its success;
  • Have lower turnover costs, including recruitment, training, and lost productivity during the transition;
  • See internal trust reflected in healthier client, vendor and partner relationships, increasing trust and loyalty from key external stakeholders.

Trust is a fundamental element underpinning a corporate culture’s character and dynamics. Organizations that prioritize building and maintaining trust among employees tend to have healthier, more positive, and more productive cultures, contributing to long-term success and sustainability and increasing trust with clients and partners.

Trust-Based Resources to Maximize Your Team’s Potential:

 

 

 

Selling Trust into the Sales Process (Episode 40) Trust Matters,The Podcast

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

Podcast: Embed

Subscribe to TrustMatters, The Podcast RSS

Welcome to the newest episode of Trust Matters, The Podcast. Listeners submit their personal questions about professional relationships, trust, and business situations to our in-house expert Charles H. Green, CEO, Trusted Advisor Associates, and co-author of The Trusted Advisor.

Jennifer from a Telecommunications company writes in and asks, “I know you’ve written about Trust-based Selling. My question is not to ask you to explain Trust-based Selling, but instead how to SELL the Trust-based Selling approach into my sales training team?  What’s the hook? The business case? How can I get them to consider it seriously?”

Do you want to send your questions to Charlie & Trust Matters, The Podcast?

We’ll answer almost ANY question about confusing, complicated or awkward business situations with clients, management, and colleagues. Email us: [email protected]

Podcast Interview: The Importance of Trust in Remote Leadership

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by
Richard Hsu, Director of the Partner Practice Group, interviews Charles H. Green, on the HSU Untied Podcast, for a deep dive discussion into how leaders can refine their trust and communication skills in this new, virtual business world.

Learn how to connect with and read your team better, virtually. Understand how Intimacy and Self orientation are more important than ever.

Trust in the Job Hunting Process (Episode 37) Trust Matters,The Podcast

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

Podcast: Embed

Subscribe to TrustMatters, The Podcast RSS

Welcome to the newest episode of Trust Matters, The Podcast. Listeners submit their personal questions about professional relationships, trust, and business situations to our in-house expert Charles H. Green, CEO, Trusted Advisor Associates and co-author of The Trusted Advisor.

A technology project manager writes in and asks, “I’ve been responding to postings in my field, I’ve got a solid resume, and I’m getting interviews, but – I’m not getting call-backs. In my interviews, I make sure to highlight the project management fits in my resume with the specific requirements they cite. But something isn’t working. Any advice?”

Looking for more advice on how to improve your interview skills?  Join our next webinar How to Influence a Skeptical Audience: 3 Simple Steps

Do you want to send your questions to Charlie & Trust Matters, The Podcast?

We’ll answer almost ANY question about confusing, complicated or awkward business situations with clients, management, and colleagues. Email us: [email protected]

 

Does Trust Differ From Salesperson to Sales Management? (Episode 36) Trust Matters,The Podcast

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Podcast: Embed

Subscribe to TrustMatters, The Podcast RSS

Welcome to the newest episode of Trust Matters, The Podcast. Listeners submit their personal questions about professional relationships, trust, and business situations to our in-house expert Charles H. Green, CEO, Trusted Advisor Associates and co-author of The Trusted Advisor.

Dr. Peter Johnson, Clinical Professor of Marketing at Fordham’s Gabelli School of Business in New York. Dr. Johnson writes in to suggest we talk about the role of trust in a critical business transition –  from a salesperson to a sales manager.

Learn more about the basic tools of trust and professional relationships. Play the podcast episode above and register for our next webinar on February 25.