Is Distrust Possible?

Terms about management and leadership are used in ways which can be construed as “flawed advice.” The words are recognised, and through frequent use they become “known” as if there is one definition of the word. Examples of such words are trust, leadership and communication.

On the 15^th September, 2016, a radio interview was held with a researcher of a report that indicated that trust in managers is very low, as rated by the workforce in South Africa. The reasons for this lack of trust are cited as “poor leadership” and “poor communication”. The reportage on these “reasons why” can be considered poor, made up of platitudes and not useful for remedial purposes.

For instance: is it possible to not-trust in a relationship one is involved in daily, and in which there is a substantial evidence base of certain behaviours occurring or not occurring? “Trust” is typically seen as “somebody behaving in a way that is beneficial to me the recipient. Trust means I can rely that it will happen, even consistently.” In a work situation if the person/manager is behaving in a way that does not meet with the criteria of the recipient, can it be called “distrust?” If the behaviour is consistent then the recipient starts to trust the pattern that “I will not benefit”, or the managers behaviour does not meet with my expectation. Even if the manager always displays erratic behaviour, the erratic pattern displayed becomes the predictor and reason why of a person’s behavioural and emotional response to the managers behaviour. Trust is the response to a pattern if the situation repeats itself, like in everyday work situations. Mistrust or distrust are therefore value-laden words implying “not good” or “not getting.” For cautious people: their decision to trust is based on waiting for the pattern. Impulsive people might trust immediately and get burned sooner because they have not verified whether trust should be awarded.

The emphasis on transparency by management is contributing to the positive cycle of trust and trustworthiness (see “Empowerment” on this blog). It is also contributing to trust in that it is helping with the understanding of, and the expectation of predictable and consistent behaviour.

Now, how useful would a reason why be if called “poor leadership?” There are as many definitions of leadership as there are writers on the topic. According to research by Jeffrey Pfeffer (Professor at Stanford Graduate School of Business: (2015) “Leadership BS: Fixing the Workplace and Careers One Truth at a Time.” HarperCollins, epub) the leadership industry in the USA is according to some figures, $10million per annum. That does buy a big heap of answers to the question: what is leadership and how do I do it? Against this background: how would one remedy the diagnosis of “poor leadership” with reference to trust? “Poor leadership” being a good example of a comparative deletion, i.e. the standard by which this comparison is made is not presented or stated.

The leadership definition I support, and work from, is Etsko Schuitema’s: “leadership is producing people through results.” With this operating definition and mind-set, trust rests on the consistent behaviour of the manager to care, grow and hold a person accountable. One of the processes by which the growing takes place is through empowerment, with the emphasis on “process”, as opposed to empowerment being an event or a gift of permission.

What does the person working with this manager come to trust? That s/he will be cared for, be recognised, that the work becomes a place and opportunity to develop capabilities and to make a meaningful contribution, that as they give evidence of competence they will benefit from a gradual suspension of control. This gradual suspension of control rests solidly on a positive cycle of trust leading to trustworthiness leading to trust.

I wish you consistent opportunities of trust and positive expectation.