Even I can make a map in Google Maps!

I am not particularly tech savvy. Imagine my surprise to discover that I CAN make a Google Map for Guelph’s upcoming Random Act of Kindess Day on November 9th. (Shameless plug #1).

Random Act of Kindness Day promotional cardIn previous years we simply listed the locations where people could pick up their Random Act of Kindness Day cards ahead of the day. A number of business help to distribute the cards along with all City of Guelph locations, churches, schools, etc… The cards just say “You have been touched by a Random Act of Kindness. Please Pay it Forward” and list the date of the event (Shameless plug #2).

The address list is a little ho-hum and not really helpful if you’re trying to find something close to you so… drum-roll please… I discovered this easy video.

 

I think this is very cool and I hope it can be useful to you too. Check in later to find out where you can pick up Random Act of Kindness Day cards – they’re great for client appreciation, team building, community building, and more! (Shameless plug #3)

 

Sometimes change just hurts

change, moving,

A few weeks ago our neighbours moved to another province. From the moment she learned that her best friend, neighbour and classmate was moving, my daughter was heartbroken.

While we maximized opportunities to play together over the summer months and demonstrated the power of Skyping, she really struggled with the change. There were many tearful bedtime conversations about how things would never be the same.

Many well meaning people told me :”Kids are resilient.” My husband and I tried to point out the silver lining of opportunity and adventure the move represents for this family and opportunities to visit; but the truth is, she was sad. She didn’t chose this. It was a huge change for her and it hurt.

It got me thinking about how we handle change in organizations. We want to ‘manage’ change, overcome objections, convince people the outcome will be for the best, implement processes, etc… In this process, is it possible we are working so hard to implement the change that we gloss over the deep and painful emotions it can evoke? Are we uncomfortable with the emotions that change evokes? Sometimes we just need to acknowledge that change hurts. It involves loss, fear and uncertainty that is painful for everyone.

In my case, acknowledging the feelings and that they are difficult; providing a little time, space, Skype and ice-cream seem to be helping.

Twelve Practical Ways for Leaders to Build Inter-organizational Trust – Week 12: Twelve Weeks to Trust

Since April, the Twelve Weeks to Trust Series has taken readers through fundamental facts about trust, benefits, downsides, formal and informal governance mechanisms that build trust and, I hope, quite a bit more. This final post in the series – though certainly not my final post on trust – is not a summary of the series but a summary of some of the recommendations gleaned in my readings in economics, marketing, ethics and business strategy.

While focused on building trust between organizations, these recommendations apply on an inter-personal or inter-departmental level. For instance, choosing the right partner can apply to a joint venture partner or supplier but it can also apply to hiring. And while it’s important to remember that trust is strongest when relationships are by choice and parties have other alternatives (week 2), these tactics can help foster trust even if you inherit a partnership that is less than ideal. So…

  1. Choose the right partner. For the best outcome, select partners with similar values, purposes and expectations but distinctive or complementary competencies (Argandoña, 1999; Barney & Hansen, 1994; Bhattacharya et al.,1998; Dyer & Singh, 1998; Jap, 1999; Kumar, 1996).
  2. Signal your own, and your organization’s, trustworthiness. Your reputation, being open to outside auditing of the exchange relationship, being prepared to invest in Transaction Specific Investments (TSIs) before that exchange is actually in place (Barney & Hansen, 1994), being willing to customize investments (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Ganesan, 1994) and not requiring lengthy and detailed contracts are all ways to signal trustworthiness.
  3. Do you have the right mechanisms in place to build trust?

    Implement formal and informal governance structures in which inter-organizational trust can flourish (Argandoña, 1999).  Formal governance mechanisms include: hierarchy, monitoring & contracts and Transaction Specific Investments. Informal governance mechanisms include aligning values, norms and goals; joint planning and problem solving; communication and reputation.

  4. Ensure appropriate resourcing (Currall & Inkpen, 2006). You need to put your money where your mouth is and show a tangible human, technical and financial resource commitment to the success of the joint project. Conversely, an under-resourced collaboration is destined to fail and erodes trust from the outset. In their book Smart Trust, Stephen M.R. Covey & Greg Link call “false trust” giving people responsibility but not authority or resources (p.208).
  5. Select and support the right boundary spanners based on the complexity of the exchange and the level of collaboration/trust required (Saban & Luchs, 2011). As you’ll recall in Week 9, trust can change based on levels within the organization. “Strategic-level trust” exists at the executive level and is driven more by calculation due to the focus on organizational strategy and objectives. Your boundary spanner at that level is usually another executive who is in a position to make high level decisions based on mutual strategies. “Operational-level trust” exists at the daily transactional level where boundary spanners trust one another to the extent to which it allays personal risks and anxieties (Janowicz &Noorderhaven,  2006, p.273). At this level you are looking for highly competent individuals who can deliver on the organizational commitments and who are adept at inter-personal relationships. Check out Week 9 for more on the role of boundary spanners as agents of your organization and critical ambassadors.
  6. Give counterparts “a trust advance… by acting as if trust were in place” (Sydow, 1998). Stephen M.R. Covey and Greg Link call this “leading with trust”.  This sets the tone for benevolence, the key ingredient for trust and invites reciprocity.
  7. Invest in Transaction Specific Investments. If there is one finding that is consistent across the marketing, economics, business strategy and ethics literature, it’s that transaction specific investments (training, infrastructure, marketing campaigns, locations, equipment, etc.) build trust between organizations. Lots more on this Week 6.
  8. Structure incentives to support trustworthy behaviours, e.g.: group compensation schemes (Bhattacharya et al., 1998; Fang et al., 2008).
  9. Continually signal your benevolent intent  to eliminate feelings of suspicion and to clarify communications (Girmscheid & Brockmann, 2010).
  10. Communicate constantly! Communication creates shared meaning (Hardy et al., 1998), helps to achieve role clarity (Dyer & Chu, 2004, Girmscheid & Brockmann, 2010; Saban & Luchs, 2011), goal congruence (Jap, 1999) and to engage in joint problem solving from the outset to develop goodwill trust between partner firms” (Das & Teng, 2001). Communication is vital to signal your intent. Check out Week 7 for specifics on how communications build trust.
  11. Provide ongoing training that helps employees understand how to develop trust, convey expertise and the importance of maintaining contact (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Doney et al., 1998). Training contributes to an organizational culture that values trustworthy behaviour and fosters inter-organizational trust.
  12. Model trustworthy behaviour (Argandoña, 1999). Lead by example. Be trustworthy to be trusted. Be transparent. It’s the golden rule. Enough said.

As we saw in Week 2, trust is an incredibly complex construct that changes based on each new piece of information in the relationship, on the organizational level of the boundary-spanners, on a unique history through time and many other factors. So, I don’t pretend that this list is complete and invite you to add your suggestions and to check out all the Twelve Weeks to Trust posts for additional tips, research and context.

If you’re new to this blog you may be wondering why so many names and dates are in parentheses. I just like to cite where I found the information and provide you with the full reference at My Trust Bibliography in case you want to find out more. I’m also always looking for new articles and sources on trust and welcome your recommendations.

I hope you’ve enjoyed the series and that it’s been helpful in building trust in your professional relationships.

Ivan Krastev’s TedTalk on Trust, Transparency & Democracy

While I’ve not blogged about my interest in politics – not partisanship- this TedTalk by political theorist Ivan Krastev hit the jackpot with me:

trust, politics and how transparency is not the solution!

And, it’s funny… well, some parts are funny others are daunting and a little depressing. I’ll let Mr. Krastev do the talking and invite your comments below but I just wanted to point out a few points that resonated with me.

First, Krastev points out how individualistic our society has become. It reminds me of the research on the importance of joint goals (which can be a national political vision or a departmental objective) and joint problem solving so people feel they matter in the process.

Second, the wired world – curation in particular – enables us to ghettoize ourselves so that we are exposed only to what we already believe. When we do this we are unable to understand other perspectives and are unable to see their trustworthy intent or benevolent actions. And, come on, do we really believe that people who don’t share our views wake up each morning with the intent to do horrible things in our organizations, our communities, our countries? I think things are a bit more nuanced than that. To quote Stephen Covey: “Seek first to understand than to be understood.”

Third, the point about brain science that reveals people don’t want to hear about policy so messaging has become more about manipulation than building credible, rational arguments is really important because if your organization is more about spin than ethics, you are contributing to this problem. Moreover, we need to be aware of manipulation like this and denounce it. A good place to start looking are ‘cutesy’ names for legislation. You’ll know you’re onto something when you hear someone say “How can you be against the “Ice Cream for Children” legislation?”

Finally, Krastev says:

The push for transparency is not the key because it becomes “management of mistrust”.

In this scenario the electorate and media become Big Brother and create an environment that does not attract the most civic-minded people to public office. As I’ve written  before it’s also a tax on people because managing mistrust requires expensive oversight. To this, Canadian public administration expert, Donald Savoie, also writes extensively about how the advent of Access to Information Legislation in Canada has not added transparency but has created an environment where policy experts cannot commit their recommendations or thorough analyses to paper and consultants try to keep data and recommendations to ambiguous slide decks in case any content might be taken out of context.

This means that in an environment of distrust we are

  1. not getting the best advice;
  2. in a system that costs more;
  3. where we cannot attract the best people and;
  4. that does nothing but breed more distrust.

[PS. Sadly, this is NOT the funny part]

I hope you enjoy this piece and I would love to know what resonated with you. What solutions do you think hold the most promise for restoring trust in politicians, democracy and public institutions?