Three Ways to Develop Trust at Work

 

Emmanuelle looks around the room at the sales team. She’s new at the company and still learning about the relationship dynamics between her coworkers. Tensions are running high as it was just announced that the team didn’t make their sales goal for the second month in a row. Not that she’s surprised.

This past month, the marketing assistant was asked to create a pitch deck from scratch for a potential client in Canada—a large hospitality brand. Emmanuelle found out later that he’d never created a pitch deck before yet wouldn’t ask anyone for help. The marketing manager knew that he wasn’t very experienced yet was too focused on meeting her personal goals to offer guidance.

The major blow came when the marketing assistant waited until the day before the account director was flying to Canada to meet the client, to hand over a few poorly organized slides that covered only a fraction of the information needed. Not to mention that the hyper-analytical language he used that wasn’t appropriate for a luxury hotel brand.

The poor account director had to pull an all-nighter to get the deck done himself, before pitching with red eyes on zero sleep. The result? That client is no longer a potential.

Why is This Team So Dysfunctional?

Emmanuelle has been racking her brain trying to figure out how to navigate this new playing field. What’s going on with this team? Why is it so dysfunctional?

Just because the necessity of teamwork has been preached to us since childhood doesn’t mean we’re inherently good at it—or even like it for that matter. Working with other people can be challenging, even more so in the workplace when stakes are high. So now that we’re off the little league field, what can we, as working adults, do to have a positive and winning team? According to Patrick Lencioni, there are five core areas where dysfunction can be seen in teams: lack of trust, fear of conflict, avoidance of commitment, lack of accountability and not results-focused.

In Emmanuelle’s case, her team has a major trust deficit. Teams that don’t have trust don’t function well. Let’s take a look at the importance of trust, what teams with and without trust look like, and how we can start building trust in our own teams starting today.

Great Teams Have Trust

Here are some facts about teams and trust:

·         Interaction associates & human capital institute study shows high performing organizations have higher levels of trust than low performing organizations

So the studies tell us high performing teams have trust, but what exactly does a team with trust look like versus a team without trust?

Teams with and Without Trust: What They Look Like

Teams that don’t have trust:

·         Conceal weaknesses and mistakes from each other

·         Hesitate to ask for help or feedback

·         Jump to conclusions about other’s intentions

·         Don’t offer help outside of their own areas of responsibility

·         Fail to recognize and tap into one another’s skills

Teams that have trust:

·         Admit weaknesses and mistakes, ask for help

·         Give one another the benefit of the doubt

·         Take risks in offering feedback and assistance

·         Accept questions and input about their work

·         Appreciate and tap into one another’s skills

·         Offer and accept apologies

·         Look forward to opportunities to work as a group

From $200 a Week to a $30 Billion Valuation: What Airbnb Can Teach Us About Trust

A great example of how trust can benefit a team can be seen in the now uber successful Airbnb. In 2009, Airbnb was close to going bust with only $200/week in revenue. Searching for answers outside of data, they noticed a pattern – the listing photos were bad. Without any data to back it up, the co-founders decided to travel to NYC, rent a pro camera & take pictures of listings. Revenue doubled within a week.

Without trust, the founders wouldn’t have been willing to try out an idea that had no data to back it up. In fact, they probably wouldn’t have shared that idea if they didn’t trust each other. And this idea prevented them from throwing in the towel. Now with the company valued at $30 billion, their trust was worth its weight in gold.

Now that the founders of Airbnb have seen the great benefit of trusting new ideas, and allowing for vulnerability, new hires are asked on day one to come up with new features to try out. They appreciate and tap into their employees’ skills and want them feel comfortable making mistakes. They’ve seen first-hand the benefits that can come from this type of team.

Sound Familiar?

If you’re reflecting on your team and realizing it might be lacking in trust—don’t run for the hills just yet. Trust isn’t a “you have it or you don’t” thing—it’s something that takes effort and awareness. If you find yourself in a team suffering from lack of trust, try these three tips. You can start using these tips as soon as today to help get your team on track!

Three Tips for Developing Trust at Work

1. Be Honest

·         Tell the truth

·         Be honest when sharing information, even if it it’s to your disadvantage

·         Use truthful nonverbal communication

·         Experts say more than half communication is nonverbal

·         Look people in the eye, use open body language

2. Communicate Openly

·         Talk to your team members in an honest, meaningful way

·         Listen deeply for what’s being said, and not being said

·         If you have important or relevant information, share it immediately with the team

·         Meet face to face regularly

3. Meet face to face regularly

·         Share personal stories

·         Ask questions (sensitively) about colleague’s family, hobbies, where they’ve lived, etc.

·         Don’t underestimate casual social activities after work

So let’s get back to Emmanuelle’s team—the team that for two months straight hasn’t reached their sales goals.

If the marketing assistant had trusted his manager, he would have asked for help with the pitch deck, knowing that he wouldn’t be reproached. He wouldn’t have hidden the fact that he didn’t know what he was doing. And if his manager trusted the team, she wouldn’t be only focusing on her goals, while ignoring the goals of the team. She would have made it a priority to check in with the assistant, knowing his inexperience warrants a little extra attention, for the benefit of everyone involved.

Imagine how this situation would have turned out if the team had trust—the deck would have been completed well and on time, the account director wouldn’t have had to drop his responsibilities to stay up all night and fix a deck. Instead, he would have been well rested and prepared to land a new client. And you know what? They may have a large luxury hotel brand on their roster—if only they had trusted each other.

Do you have trust at work? Yes or no, how can you tell? Let’s talk about it.

Let’s share experiences. Leave a comment below, send me an email, or find me on Twitter.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Why Attracting and Retaining Diverse Talent is a Strategic Priority

To tackle longstanding workplace discrimination, many future-focused organizations are adding diversity officers to their leadership teams.

Why? Because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission didn’t solve the ethnic, racial and gender imbalances prominent in the U.S. workforce, and the issues aren’t going away on their own. For example, check out the following statistics about the dismal state of diversity in today’s workforce.

·         American Progress reports that in nonprofits, 82% of employees are white, despite the fact that just 64% of the working-age population is non-Hispanic white.

·         As of 2014, of the Fortune 500 CEOs, just over 4% were people of color, and only 24 (4.8%) were women. As Silvie Woolf said, fewer CEOs are named David than are women.

·         Google reports that 3% of their employees are Hispanic and 2% are black.

·         Apple’s employees are 70% male.

·         LinkedIn has a global employee base that is 3% Hispanic and 1% black.

Diversity Roles Future-Proof Organizations

Diversity roles are not only relevant for today’s workforce, but for the future workforce as well. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in 2012 that by 2020 more women are expected to be working than men. And according to 2012 census data, by 2050 there will be no racial or ethnic majority in the U.S. This trend will continue, because 85% of the net workforce growth over the next two decades will come from immigrants and their children.

That means the talent pool will be a diverse one; and if organizations want the best talent, they need address any issues that are keeping diverse talent out of their ranks and out of their boardrooms. Beyond talent on an individual level, a diverse workforce as a whole is important for the bottom line. In fact, 96% of executives polled in a Korn/Ferry Institute study believe diversity can boost the bottom line.

Diversity and the Bottom Line

Here are four examples of the measurable, positive effects that employee diversity has on organizational success.

·         Catalyst took a look at Fortune 500 companies with women on their board of directors and found that these companies had a higher return on equity by at least 53%, were superior in sales by at least 42%, and had a higher ROI, to the tune of 66%. Those are not small numbers.

·         McKinsey quarterly reported that between 2008 and 2010, companies with more diverse top teams were also top financial performers.

·         When 321 executives at large global enterprises ($500 million plus in annual revenues) were surveyed for the Fostering Innovation Through a Diverse Workforce study, diversity and inclusion were identified as the key driver of not only internal innovation, but also business growth.

Groups of diverse problem solvers outperformed groups of high-ability problem solvers, according to a study by Lu Hong and Scott E. Page.

The Course of Action is Clear

So if the workforce is becoming more and more diverse, and financial performance, business growth, innovation and problem solving can be attributed to diverse teams, the course of action is clear: make attracting and retaining diverse talent a strategic priority. That’s where diversity officers come in.

Unfortunately, many organizations don’t know how to incorporate this type of role into their current structure. They don’t know if they should add diversity responsibilities to current employees or create a new role. They aren’t clear what that role would really look like, and therefore have no idea who, or what department, would be the best fit.

Where Do Diversity Officers Fit In?

Diversity officers are often based in the human resources (HR) department. Yet HR can often be seen as more tactical rather than strategic in its thinking. Not to mention HR often doesn’t have a seat at the C-suite table. So who should claim this type of work? Who should look at trends, figure out a talent plan and advise the C-suite?

Next week we will take a look at the type of person, inside or outside the organization, that could successfully claim the important work of diversity. What qualities are most important? We’ll look at a hypothetical candidate and explore where this role might fit into the organizational structure. Stay tuned for a blueprint that can be used to build a diverse and inclusive workforce for any organization.

Have you had experience working in both diverse and not diverse teams? Were there any noticeable differences between the two? I’d love to hear your perspective.

Let’s share experiences. Leave a comment below, send me an email, or find me on Twitter.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

 

Avoid Bad Meetings: Understand Cultural Differences of Time, Hierarchy and Decision Making

 

The meeting went badly. Very badly.

The CMO was thirty minutes early, and the CEO was twenty minutes late. The COO and CMO were both attempting to lead the meeting, while simultaneously offending each other for doing so. Meanwhile, the CFO and CIO interrupted them constantly, both steering the conversation where they saw fit. After two hours of this, when it was time to make decisions, the CIO was only concerned with the short-term, cost-effective approach, while the CMO was focused on the long term results. In the end, no decisions were made because the CEO and CFO refused to move forward without a complete consensus from the team.

No one anticipated that the first global leadership meeting would be such a mess. Yet it turns out that the leaders could have been better prepared for the meeting. How? All it takes is a little cultural awareness.

When I say cultural awareness, I don’t mean to imply that all you need to do is be aware that cultural differences exist. Cultural awareness comes from learning about other cultures, with a sincere effort to understand them. On a personal level, you can ask members of other cultures about their geography, music, history, and/or literature.

On a theoretical level, you can turn to Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory, as a framework for building a greater understanding between different cultures in an organization. Social psychologist Geert Hofstede conducted a six-year worldwide survey of employee values in 50 countries and three regions, identifying cultural differences in six primary dimensions. These dimensions address four anthropological problem areas that national societies handle differently.

While the six dimensions may seem a bit abstract, they inform important aspects of business relationships, including how people view hierarchy, time and decision making. These three elements cause conflict in the workplace even when there are no cultural differences. Toss a group of people into a room who are not culturally aware, and you get bad meetings.

Since hierarchy, time and decision making are so often the cause of workplace miscommunication, a client of mine asked me to discuss the different cultural perspectives of each. Because the client has global offices in Sweden, India, China, the United States, and the United Kingdom, I will focus exclusively on those countries.

Keep in mind that this is a basic overview, which involves generalizations. Ultimately, everyone you work with is an individual who will have his or her own perspective.

 

Cultural Differences With Time

Let’s start with time. There are early people and there are late people, right?

It’s not that simple. Different cultures have different perspectives of time on a fundamental level. Here is an overview of how the UK, U.S., China, India, and Sweden generally approach the concept of time in business.

U.K.: In the U.K. it is customary to be punctual. Meetings are generally time-consuming and set well in advance. Agendas are preferred.

U.S.: In the U.S., time is seen as a precious and scarce commodity (think about the phrase ‘time is money’). Culturally, people in the U.S. tend to equate working time with success—the harder you work (more hours), the more successful you will be. They see time as linear and doing one thing at a time with a fixed schedule is preferred.

China: China is a big proponent of punctuality. In fact, it is customary to arrive 15 to 30 minutes early to a meeting in the Chinese culture. Other people’s time is seen as precious, due to a penchant for humility. It’s wise to allow time in a meeting after a transaction is decided to attain a degree of closeness. In other words, don’t shake hands on the deal and run out the door to another appointment.

India: The Indian perception of time is not linear. Time is not about countable, segmented hours and minutes, but rather is measured in events, priorities, and emergency requests. Expressions of time are expressions of intent, not mathematical.

Sweden: In Sweden, being punctual is a sign of respect and efficiency. It is also not considered rude to set strict deadlines for projects or decisions.

What’s Time Got To Do With a Bad Meeting?

So let’s go back to the horrible meeting we talked about earlier. Remember how the CMO was thirty minutes early, and the CEO was twenty minutes late? The early leader wasn’t anxious or trying to show people up by being early; she was just from a culture where early arrival is customary. And the CEO is from a different culture—one where expressions of time are expressions of intent, not mathematical. If the whole team was aware of these cultural differences, the meeting wouldn’t have started with tension.

Cultural Differences With Hierarchy

Now let’s move on to hierarchy. The concept of hierarchy, a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority, varies widely among cultures. While some cultures find hierarchy to be a must, other find it intrusive and unnecessary. Here is an overview of how the UK, U.S., China, India, and Sweden generally approach the concept of hierarchy in business.

U.K.: Distinct hierarchy characterizes the majority of British companies and organizations. The decision maker’s authority is not to be questioned, and major decisions are made at the very top. Culturally in the U.K., the people consider a group-established order to offer a sense of security and something with which they can identify.

U.S.: The US often has a hierarchal corporate structure, where there is top-down control that guides business practices and activities, and positions are ranked with levels of authority. However, the U.S. is culturally uncomfortable with hierarchy and class systems. They prefer the “open door policy” and using first names, or even nicknames, with superiors.

China: In China, hierarchy influences many aspects of business. Seating arrangements require the most influential people seated the farthest from the door, and top ranking dignitaries face the door. A person in a subordinate position would never speak for the group, and senior managers do not expect or appreciate being contacted by more junior people from outside organizations.

India: Indian businesses are often very hierarchal. In negotiations, unless members of the highest level (company director, owner, senior manager) are present, a decision will not be made. Roles are well defined and once people are in their allotted position, they rarely attempt to overturn. Leaders are respected and their instructions are unlikely to be questioned—even raising a red flag can be seen as disrespectful.

Sweden: In Sweden, strict hierarchy is largely absent. Everyone’s role in the group is seen as important and managers invite feedback from all team members. In general, many angles are discussed before a group-wide decision is made.

What’s Hierarchy Got To Do With a Bad Meeting?

Remember, “The COO and CMO were both attempting to lead the meaning, while simultaneously offending each other for doing so. Meanwhile, the CFO and CIO interrupted them constantly, steering the conversation where they saw fit.”? Can you guess where these leaders might be from? The COO and CMO are both from cultures where hierarchy is an important and respected structure, like the UK and China, and the CFO and CIO are from cultures that shy away from hierarchy for a more casual, collaborative approach, like Sweden or the United States. Had these leaders been more culturally aware, they would have seen what was happening in the situation and been able to adjust their behavior accordingly.

Cultural Differences With Decision Making

Cultural differences in decision making is the last topic we will cover today. This isn’t about being indecisive or not; it’s about how decisions are customarily made. Not understanding how this process differs among cultures can not only create frustration, but also prevent decisions from happening at all, which hampers progress. Here is an overview of how the UK, U.S., China, India, and Sweden generally approach the concept of decision making in business.

U.K: When a decision is announced, it might sound more like a proposal open to discussion yet that is not the case in the U.K. They favor a pragmatic approach to decision making and use logical reasoning.

U.S.: In the U.S., executives are influenced by a short-term, cost-benefit approach to decision making. They approach decisions in a democratic fashion, operating on debate and discussion between opposing parties. Decisions are made either to respond to challenges or create opportunities for recognition and praise.

China: When it comes to China, decision making tends to be authoritative, which employees rarely challenge. They trend toward decisions based on long-term goals, instead of short-term goals.

India: All attendants of a meeting need to be considered in the decision making process in order to maintain harmony in India. This can create a longer decision-making process, often considered by other cultures as time consuming. They tend to value stability when making decisions.

Sweden: Compromising is strongly favored in Sweden. Getting into a heated debate in a typical Swedish meeting would be unusual. Decisions are made with great consideration because they value consensus and agreement and feel it cannot be risked.

What’s Decision Making Got To Do With a Bad Meeting?

Let’s go back to that horrible meeting one last time. Remember the CIO and CMO clashing when it was time to make a decision? The CIO was most concerned with a short-term, cost-effective approach, as is common in the U.S. culture. This conflicted with the CMO who was focused on the long-term results. And in the end, the CEO and CFO were so concerned with all team members being involved and invested in the decision, often culturally relevant in India and Sweden, that a decision was never made.

Armed with this basic knowledge of cultural differences in time, hierarchy and decision-making, the horrible meeting could have had an entirely different outcome.

I challenge you to look more into cultural differences as you approach your professional life. One way to do that is to look more into the Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Theory. Another way is to nourish your curiosity, ask questions, and really listen to what your team members have to say. This will improve your effectiveness, improve your work relationships, and enrich your life.

I would love to hear any stories you have about misunderstandings at work in regard to hierarchy, time or decision making style. Were you able to see what was happening at the time? Are you able to see it more clearly now?

Let’s share experiences. Leave a comment below, send me an email, or find me on Twitter.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter