Little Book of Big Trust - Interaction Associatesinteractionassociates.com/.../Little_Book_of_Big_Trust_2015.pdf · Little Book of Big Trust A ... The top five actions employees urge

Little Book of Big Trust

A Practical Guide for Maximizing Workplace Trust

Table of Contents

© 2015 Interaction Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. This work may be freely distributed in

its current form, including photocopying, and for internal use. It may not be altered or offered

for sale without written permission from the copyright holder.

Trust and High Performance 01

Attending to the “people side” makes a financial difference

Building Workplace Trust 03

Key research findings 2014/15

Trust Ten Test 05

How much trust is in your organization?

Facilitating Trust 07

What leaders need to know for maximimum trust

Five Steps to Feedback: Key to Building Trust 13

How to create trust with strong, regular and consistent feedback

Rebuilding Trust after a Failure 15

You screwed up and broke trust. Now what?

Delegating to Others 17

How delegating builds trust and empowers employees

Decision Making and Trust 22

Involve people in decisions to heighten trust

boston

70 Fargo Street, Suite 908

Boston, MA 02210

(617) 535-7000

san francisco

350 Rhode Island Street, Suite 215-216

San Francisco, CA 94103

(415) 343-2600

LITTLE BOOK OF BIG TRUST | 1

Trust and High Performance Attending to the “people side” makes a financial difference

As the U.S. economy strengthens, business leaders are con-

fronting a central challenge with important implications:

How to bridge the trust gap with employees? The answer to

this has broad implications for your business results.

What trust gap, you might ask?

It’s the one that should be keeping leaders up at night: Employees’

trust in management is lagging. More specifically: Leaders get

low marks from employees for transparency in decision-making,

managing change, listening to employees, giving feedback, and

learning from mistakes.

Interaction Associates has conducted research on workplace trust for six years, the

findings of which are released annually in the report, Building Workplace Trust. Our

research includes key indicators for leadership and collaboration — pointing to how

high-performing companies achieve key business results by emphasizing all three. The

Key Findings of our latest research for 2014/15 are detailed in the next section.

In reporting on our research, TD Magazine said that paying keen attention to trust,

leadership, and collaboration defines “the formula for high performance.” You see, it

turns out that focusing on the people side is what makes the difference for companies

motivated to achieve high financial returns.

For 45 years, Interaction Associates has been in the business of helping clients achieve

greater and more sustainable levels of business ROI by concentrating on a different ROI

— Return on Involvement.

We stress a critical principle for achieving excellent ROI: Involved employees share in

the responsibility to deliver strong results. In other words, we know that deeply engaged

employees and a collaborative culture of shared responsibility for success leads to

impressive business results. Said more pointedly, from the employees’ perspective, in

highly collaborative and engaged workplaces: We care. We have skin in the game. We

deliver results.

Employees who distrust

leaders are not highly

engaged; they don’t feel

a shared responsibility

for success.


So, what about that trust gap? In terms of ROI as we measure it — employees who

distrust leaders are not highly engaged; they don’t feel a shared responsibility for

success – so, no skin in the game, and no responsibility for results. Whether you

know this intuitively or have read study after study over the last ten years, there is no

denying the involvement factor can make or break your business.

We believe that companies must go beyond engagement to the place where everyone

shares in the responsibility for executing the business plans and delivering results.

Return on Involvement is a simple but powerful concept that, when executed properly,

results in the traditional ROI: return on investment.

Our research has shown it’s critical for leaders to build trust with employees in order

for teams to excel, to ensure everyone has more skin in the game, and to deliver your

desired business results.

Please reach out to us at 617.535.7000 if we can be of assistance.


Building Workplace TrustKey research findings 2014/15

What follows are the key takeaways from Interaction Associates’ sixth

year of research into Building Workplace Trust. The implications are clear

for companies seeking high performance, better financial results, and better

relationships in the workforce.

3 More than half of employees don’t trust their boss. When asked to consider

the statement, “Employees have a high level of trust in management and the

organization,” just four in ten agreed

that it described their organization

well. In fact, more than half of those

surveyed give their organization low

marks for both trust and effective

leadership.

3 Trust in leaders is down — even

though it’s critical to workplace

effectiveness and productivity.

Individuals report that a high level of trust in bosses and senior leadership is

necessary to be effective in their jobs. However, many trust their bosses and

the senior leadership team less than in 2013 — at least 25 percent report a

lower level of trust in these two groups.

3 Employees crave transparency from their leaders, and want input into decisions

that affect them. The top five actions employees urge leaders to employ in order to

build trust are:

• Ask for my input on decisions that affect me.

• Give me background info so I can understand decisions.

• Set me up for success with learning and resources.

• Admit your mistakes.

• Don’t punish people for raising issues (don’t shoot the messenger!).

3 Trust in direct reports is up – and that has an impact on workplace effectiveness.

Individuals state that a high level of trust in Direct Reports is essential to be effective

in their jobs. Trust in Direct Reports is up for 23% of respondents over last year’s level.

Just over one-third of

workers say they feel

safe communicating

with leaders.


3 Bosses urge Direct Reports to minimize risk to the boss with better upward

communication. According to bosses, the top five steps Direct Reports can take to

build trust are:

• Keep me up-to-date on the status of work not yet completed.

• Ask clarifying questions when I assign tasks.

• Make suggestions about improvements to the company/department/team.

• Admit mistakes promptly.

• Listen and respond to feedback.

3 Communication with peers is mostly stress-free, but people don’t feel safe

communicating with the boss or risking failure on the job. A majority of workers

feel safe communicating their ideas and opinions with colleagues/peers. At the same

time, only a little more than one-third of workers say they feel safe communicating

with leaders. And just 1/3 report that employees are willing to take risks, make mis-

takes, and learn from them.

3 Trust Leaders (High-Trust Companies) are 2½ times more likely to be High

Performing Organizations relative to revenue than are Trust Laggards. Trust

Leaders also are better at profit growth, customer loyalty and retention, competitive

market position, demonstrating company values, and achieving predictable business

results.

3 Trust Leaders involve employees, and retain employees better as a result.

High-Trust Companies are far more likely than Low-Trust to have highly engaged

and involved workforces and better employee retention. In addition, Trust Leaders

prioritize talent acquisition and retention more than Trust Laggards.

3 Trust leaders prioritize innovation, and are more likely than other companies

to be innovative. What’s more, eight out of ten employees report that a high level of

trust inside an organization fosters both innovation and investment in new projects.

Trust Leader organizations prioritize innovation, while Trust Laggards do not — and

Trust Leaders and are more likely than Laggards to be innovative (65% vs. 14%).

3 Virtual workers’ needs are different than those of other workers. Virtual workers

urge that team leaders do four things in order to build trust:

• Reveal thinking about important issues.

• Remind team members of their common purpose.

• Create clear working agreements.

• Convene periodic face-to-face meetings with individuals and teams.


The Trust Ten TestHow much trust is in your organization?

BY ANDY ATKINS, CHIEF INNOVATION OFFICER

Leaders need to know where they stand before they can take concerted action

with confidence. This Trust Ten Test breaks down the broad topic of trust into

bite-size nuggets, and allows you to gauge where trust is strong or lacking in your

organization. Additionally, the “Triple-T” shows leaders at all levels how to make

progress in building trust fast.

Many leaders tend to ask “How can I get my people to trust more?” This question

assumes the way to improve trust is to change something in your employees. However,

the answer may lie in changing something in yourself. A good place to start is with an

assessment of your current state. Answer each question “Yes,” or “No.”

Leaders in my organization…

1. Share the rationale for their decisions Yes No

2. Help connect employee actions to the strategy Yes No

3. Involve people in decisions that affect them Yes No

4. Look for win-win solutions Yes No

5. Are consistent and predictable Yes No

6. Hold themselves and others accountable Yes No

7. Pay attention to how results are achieved Yes No

8. Ensure people have the skills to succeed Yes No

9. Provide opportunities to learn from experience Yes No

10. Provide resources needed to complete tasks Yes No


If you answered “Yes” to:

8 – 10 questions: You’re a Girl or Boy Scout.

5 – 7 questions: You’ve got work to do.

Fewer than 5 questions: You’re running a used car lot!

Kidding aside, the key thing to remember is that the environment of trust in an organi-

zation is a by-product of leadership behaviors. Leaders build trust in three ways, none of

which are mutually exclusive:

1. Building Alignment

2. Providing Accountability and Consistency

3. Proving Capability

In the “Trust Ten Test,” questions 1 – 4 deal with Transparency and Alignment. How well

do leaders set direction clearly and help create a sense of shared purpose?

Questions 5 – 7 deal with Accountability, Consistency and Predictability. Do leaders hold

themselves and others accountable for being consistent in their actions and words?

Questions 8 – 10 deal with Capability. How well do leaders’ efforts improve the organiza-

tion’s capacity to execute, so that people see their goals as challenging, but realistic?

If your scores are low in one particular area, it means you have an opportunity to build

trust more consistently by focusing on improving that element.

ANDY ATKINS, CHIEF INNOVATION OFFICER

Andy brings over 25 years of experience in organizational and lead-

ership development and education to his client work. His experience

includes work with clients in high tech, financial services, transportation,

manufacturing, and the public sector. He has held executive positions

in human resources and in leadership and organizational development. Andy holds a master’s

degree in business administration from Columbia University, and has published articles on human

resources, organization development, and quality in several publications, including Rotman. Trust

Across America named Andy to its list of top 100 Trust Thought Leaders two years in a row.


Facilitating TrustWhat leaders need to know for maximum trust

BY JAY CONE

Regardless of how we define trust, the one common element that warrants the

attention of leaders and organizations is this: Whenever we choose to trust,

we give something of inestimable value.

Trust describes an attribute of our relationship to a surprising

number of things. We talk about trusting a person, for example:

“I would trust her with my life.” We may talk about trusting an

object: “You expect me to cross the gorge on that bridge?!” We

can trust (or not) a situation, a company’s brand, or a celebrity

endorsing a product.

Regardless of how we define trust, the one common element that warrants the attention

of leaders and organizations is this: Whenever we choose to trust, we give something of

inestimable value. In this article, I talk briefly about why it’s worthwhile to pay attention

to trust, and then describe a framework for understanding what people want in return

for their trust. I conclude with practical tips for leaders who want to facilitate trusting

relationships and create a work environment where trust thrives.

GETTING THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT VERSUS GETTING SECOND GUESSED

If trust is ultimately about giving something of value, what exactly is it that we’re giving,

and what makes it so valuable? The gift I offer when I choose to trust we idiomatically

refer to as “giving the benefit of the doubt.”

Essentially, when I trust, I’m choosing to hold the belief that something good will happen

instead of holding the belief that something bad will happen, even when the available

facts make either outcome equally likely. I’m positively disposed toward that which I

trust, so that at the point in time I’m required to act I’m betting on a favorable — or at

least, a harmless — outcome. Because we hold a world-view that our interests are being

protected, we ascribe positive intentions to a trusted leader, and look for ways to rein-

force our beliefs. The trusted leader is late for an appointment, and I assume something

Whenever we choose to

trust, we give something

of inestimable value.


unavoidable is preventing her from arriving on time. The trusted leader asks for a report,

and I assume that she is preparing for a critical meeting and wants to feel prepared.

When I’m unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt — or worse, when I fear something

bad will happen — I begin to “second guess” the actions of a leader. Instead of ascribing

positive intentions, I speculate about hidden agendas or motives that do not necessarily

align with my interests. The distrusted leader is late for an appointment, and I assume

she doesn’t value my time, or is intentionally avoiding me. The distrusted leader asks for

a report, and I assume she is checking up on me, or gathering ammunition to be used

against me.

Our true relationship to our leaders generally falls somewhere in between these ex-

tremes. The point here is to consider the implications to the organization when I freely

give the benefit of the doubt, versus the implications of my second-guessing what

leaders are up to.

OUR TRUST PROFILE – HOW WE ASSESS TRUSTWORTHINESS

A deeper look at one theory of motivation sheds light on what each of us needs in order

to trust. David McClelland considered three different attributes (Achievement, Control,

and Affiliation) as distinct categories of needs we each have. In an organizational setting,

we can think of McClelland’s attributes as: Results, Process and Relationship (RPR).

Results satisfaction relates to our desire to strive for a goal or accomplish a task. Process

satisfaction relates to our desire for predictability and influence. Relationship satisfac-

tion is about our needs for rapport: how we’re treated, and the extent to which we feel

valued, included, and safe. To find out how you might score using this framework, please

complete the Trust Assessment that follows.

Results

Process Relationship

Dimensionsof Success


Applying McClelland’s attributes to trust, we can begin to see how our personality dictates

the criteria we follow when making an assessment of trustworthiness. If results matter

to me, then I will consider an individual trustworthy based on whether commitments are

met. If I can count on you to do what you say you’re going to do, I will trust you. In other

words, like me, you place a value on accomplishing what you set out to do.

If process matters to me, then I will consider an

individual trustworthy based on the

predictability of that person’s approach to things. If

the way you plan, strategize, sequence, and organize

your approach makes sense to me, then I will trust

you. Like me, you value having a consistent and or-

derly process, so I know what to expect.

If relationship matters to me, then I will consider an

individual trustworthy based on how he or she treats

me and others. If you’re inclusive, encourage open-

ness, and you demonstrate empathy, then I can trust

you. Like me, you value people’s feelings and consid-

er how decisions and situations will impact people,

so I know you’ll look out for me and my interests.

Of course, we apply all three attributes to varying

degrees based on the situation, the context, and the

people involved. At times, I’m focused on the goal

and may ignore the people and the process. At other times, I may pay exclusive atten-

tion to my relationships and let deadlines slip. Generally, however, I’m clear about what

it takes for me to consider an individual trustworthy. Those who demonstrate over time

that they share my priorities among attention to results, process, and relationship are

most likely to get the benefit of the doubt from me.

Leaders who want to be viewed as trustworthy by a diverse group of people should pay

equal attention to: 1) doing what you say you’re going to do, 2) having a clear,

consistent and well communicated approach, and 3) demonstrating that how people

feel about their work and their colleagues matters.

Leaders who want to be viewed

as trustworthy by a diverse group

of people should pay equal

attention to: 1) doing what you

say you’re going to do, 2) having

a clear, consistent and well

communicated approach, and

3) demonstrating that how peo-

ple feel about their work and

their colleagues matters.


TIPS FOR BUILDING TRUST

After assessing a team or an individual using the linked survey, you’ll end up with a

coordinate that falls into one of the quadrants on the graph. Each quadrant suggests a

unique strategy. Each strategy has a number of tactics, or tips, a leader can employ:

To Increase Transparency (high safety, low certainty)

• Express the rationale for your actions and decisions (see Levels of Involvement inDecision Making*).

• Externalize your thought process: “I’m trying to figure out… and right now I’mthinking that…“

• Hold frequent meetings to communicate both what’s known and what’s notknown.

To Increase Appreciation (low safety, high certainty)

• Focus on what’s working. • Say “thank you.” • Learn what matters to the people with whom you work. • Offer appropriate rewards and recognition (see Celebrating Accomplishment*).

To Increase Empathy (low safety, low certainty)

• Active listening without judgment (see inquiry techniques). • Share your own feelings about facing uncertain situations. • Check your understanding: “Are you saying that . . . ?”

To Increase Rapport (high safety, high certainty)

• Learn about the personal histories and interests of people.

• Share personal information about yourself and your vision of success

(see Sharing an Inspiring Vision*).

• Enjoy relationship-building activities not specifically related to getting work done.

Naturally, all the above ideas would be helpful in any set of circumstances for building

productive working relationships. Thinking through how individual styles and changing

situations impact people’s willingness to trust will help you set priorities for change

management and communication.

* These strategies are taught, modeled and practiced in Interaction Associates’ leadership

development workshop Facilitative Leadership®.


TRUST ASSESSMENT

Part 1: Write the number that represents the degree to which you believe the statement

accurately describes the person or team you’re rating.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Half the Time 4 = Often 5 = All the Time

Regarding the person or team I lead:

willingly takes risks

expresses optimism, often describes the benefits the future will bring

has formal or informal power/has influence over others

always expresses faith that things will work out

willingly shares personal thoughts and feelings

Safety Score (average of the ratings above)

Part 2: Write the number that represents the degree to which you believe the statement

accurately describes the current situation you’re considering.

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Half the Time 4 = Often 5 = All the Time

Regarding the person or team I lead:

the stakes are low – the worst that could happen isn’t that bad

the situation is familiar

the people involved share similar views and opinions about things

the people involved have aligned interests and goals

the people involved tend to look out for one another

leadership’s actions and decisions are fairly predictable

people are well informed about what’s going on

Certainty Score (average of the ratings above).


Part 3: Plot the “Safety Score” and the “Certainty Score” on the graph below.

What the person or group being asked to trust wants from their leaders…

The survey and graph are based on the research of Robert F. Hurley as described in his article

The Decision to Trust; Harvard Business Review, September 2006.

JAY CONE, SENIOR CONSULTANT

Jay Cone has spent the past 25 years focusing on leadership develop-

ment, strategic thinking and innovation learning processes. Prior to

joining Interaction Associates, Jay worked in the food service industry as

a training manager, Human Resources director, and internal consultant.

Jay has presented at the National Restaurant Association’s National

Show, The Southwest Food Expo and the Texas Restaurant Association’s Educational Foundation

Management Conference. His articles on leadership development have appeared in Training Mag-

azine, The Training & Development Journal, and The American Society for Training and Develop-

ment’s Best of Customer Service Training. Jay served on the editorial review committee for

David Straus’ book, How to Make Collaboration Work, and contributed to Chip Bell’s book on

building partnerships, Dance Lessons.

SA

FE

TY

C E R TA I N T Y

5

4

3

2

1

5 4 3 2 1

Transparency

Empathy

Rapport

Appreciation


Five Steps to FeedbackHow to create trust with strong, regular and consistent feedback

BY MICHAEL PAPANEK

Feedback is the oil in the engine of teamwork: keep it flowing and the engine

can operate at a high level with no damage, let it dry up and your engine could

seize up or fail completely, potentially beyond repair.

While most leaders would agree with this analogy, most do not

ensure that regular feedback is a part of their organization’s cul-

ture. They miss an easy way to make performance improvements,

improve morale, increase trust, and develop employees. Feedback

is avoided for many reasons: fear of an emotional reaction, fear of

retaliation, or the lack of a strategy for having the conversation.

The problem is, the issue that is driving a need for feedback will

not go away on its own, but tends to get worse until the person

cannot stand it anymore. This leads to “drive-by” feedback: a

quick hit of why you are driving me crazy, then a quick escape.

On the receiving side, even employees who want to improve fear

having to defend themselves or agree to something they do not

really believe.

The solution lies in leadership modeling of feedback, and the use of some simple but

powerful guidelines for giving, or better yet, exchanging, feedback. It is an organizational

truism that the higher one goes in an organization, the less feedback one gets. So start

by asking for feedback from others, and then be very careful not to get defensive. Then

try to act in a visible way on the feedback. This will show the organization you are willing

to “go first” and lead the way before you ask others to make a change. If feedback is the

“breakfast of champions,” you will need to eat the first meal yourself.

Successful feedback must be focused on three key dimensions: results, process,

and relationship. The feedback must increase results, use a clear process , and lead

to enhanced, rather than diminished, relationships. This can be done by following

these guidelines:

Feedback is avoided for

many reasons: fear of an

emotional reaction, fear

of retaliation, or the lack

of a strategy for having

the conversation,


1. Choose when to give the feedback. If you are too angry or upset yourself, you will

not be able to give the feedback in a respectful way. Wait until you cool down. Also, find

a time and place which allows the employee to hear the feedback (especially negative)

in private and a time when they can handle it emotionally, but do not wait so long that

they can no longer act on the input. Positive feedback should be given quickly, when the

employee is still “sweating from the effort.”

2. Describe the behavior in as objective language as possible and be specific.

Words like “bad attitude” will not be understood and will seem judgmental.

3. State the impact of the behavior on you, the team, the goal, the client, etc.

Saying what the impact is allows the receiver of the feedback to better understand why

they should change or at least consider the input.

4. Make a suggestion or request. You may ask them to change a behavior that is not

working, to continue or do more of an effective behavior, or to simply understand your

point of view. “You are not well organized” is a criticism, not feedback. Have a concrete

action in mind so the employee has a clear path to improvement.

5. Lastly, check for understanding and be open to alternative views. There may be

relevant facts of which you are unaware, and asking for a response avoids just

dumping on the employee and damaging the relationship.

MICHAEL PAPANEK, AFFILIATE CONSULTANT

Michael Papanek is an Affiliate Consultant with Interaction Associates.

He has been a trainer, facilitator, coach and collaboration consultant to

clients in high-tech, retail, healthcare and financial services, as well as

local, state and federal governments.


Rebuilding Trust after a FailureYou screwed up and broke trust. Now what?

BY BETH O’NEILL

There are lots of people in the news these days who

are probably facing constituents, employees, and

colleagues who don’t trust them. Any number of politi-

cians and businesspeople come to mind. Since IA released

our Building Trust research this year, the topic has been

on my mind – and the question that’s uppermost is this:

“What do leaders need to do to engender trust after they

screw up?” IA’s research shows a strong correlation between financial health and

strong leadership, trust, and collaboration, so the stakes are high. How well a

leader recovers from a breach of trust can have bottom line implications, not to

mention personal career ramifications.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines trust as “the belief that someone or something is

reliable, good, honest, effective, etc.” IA’s Trust Toolkit defines it as, “the willingness to put

oneself at risk based on another individual’s actions.” These definitions add gravity to an

already daunting challenge. So how does anyone win back trust?

RECOVERING TRUST

A clue may lie in the HBR article, The Decision to Trust by Robert Hurley. In this piece,

Hurley describes a model that can be used to predict whether an individual will choose

to trust or distrust in a given situation. The model identifies ten factors in the decision-

making process. Hurley says, “The first three factors concern the decision maker

himself: the ‘truster.’ These factors often have little to do with the person asking for

trust: the ‘trustee.’ They are the result of a complex mix of personality, culture, and

experience. The remaining seven factors concern aspects of a particular situation and

of the relationship between the parties. These are the factors that a trustee can most

effectively address in order to gain the confidence of trusters.”

Hurley’s three factors on the truster’s side include:

1. Risk-tolerance.

2. Level of adjustment.

3. Perceived relative power.

How well a leader recovers

from a breach of trust can

have bottom line implications.


The situational factors include:

1. How secure the parties feel.

2. How many similarities there are between them.

3. How well aligned their interests are.

4. Does the trustee show benevolent concern.

5. Is the trustee capable.

6. Has the trustee shown predictability and integrity.

7. Do the parties have good communication.

STEPS TO MEND BROKEN TRUST

This indicates there’s good news and bad news. The bad news is that a one-size-fits-all

communication approach won’t engender trust in everyone. The good news is that de-

pending on the leader’s assessment of Hurley’s factors, the leader can create a strategy to

that will direct his/her approach to mitigate the challenge of the biggest driving factor(s).

Following a breach of trust, then, the leader’s first, best steps are: an acknowledgment,

an apology, and a promise to make amends and do better in the future. By making

explicit his or her own failures, the leader demonstrates integrity (Factor #6) and good

communication (Factor #7).

The best second step is an honest assessment of the reasons for the failure, so that the

leader can make good on the “do better” part, and begin to show predictability (Factor

#6). Holding oneself accountable the way one holds others accountable is essential.

Finally, an evaluation of key stakeholders will help the leader to shape future actions and

communications.

Everyone screws up, even leaders with the best of intentions. Knowing the factors that

help engender trust is vital to repairing it when failures occur. Mending trust takes time

and attention — but in the end, the rewards are worth the effort.

BETH O’NEILL, SENIOR CONSULTANT

During Beth’s 22-year tenure with IA, she has served clients in the

high-tech, health care, financial services, pharmaceuticals, biotech, and

manufacturing industries, among others. She serves on IA’s Board of

Directors. A Connecticut native, Beth holds a bachelor’s degree from

Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications

and The Whitman School of Management. She also holds a master’s degree from the University

of Hartford’s School of Communication.


Delegating to OthersHow delegating builds trust and empowers employees

BY JAMIE HARRIS

Whether you’re a leader at your company, or you help

develop them, the practice of delegating to others

successfully is both an art and a science. And the upside

to your organization is huge: Effective delegation can

empower and engage employees, fuel initiatives, and spur

energy and creativity. What’s more, delegation clears a

leader’s crowded plate of things that someone else can

do, so you can focus on the things you must do. When a

leader excels at delegating, ownership and accountability

take off, too.

According to a former client, Steve Arneson, who is also the author of Bootstrap Leadership:

1. Delegation is your most precious management resource. It allows you to

get more work done, and frees you up to focus on critical tasks.

2. Get good at delegating — now. You won’t survive doing everything yourself; start

getting the team involved.

3. Once you delegate, step back. You’re giving others the assignment, and also

the authority to do it their way. They might not do it exactly as you would, but

that’s okay — they might do it better!

Delegating is critical to a leader’s success, and yet many leaders struggle to do it effec-

tively. Delegating unsuccessfully is far more common, and there are different ways to see

how it fails. One is where the leader has delegated decisions and actions, and then does

not accept the resulting decisions or actions of the employee. Another common type

is when a leader doesn’t “let go” and continues to micromanage how the work is done,

which is often worse than not delegating. Unsuccessful delegation results in frustrated

employees, rework, disempowerment, and a vicious spiral of declining trust.

HOW DO YOU MAKE DELEGATION WORK?

First, understand the difference between assigning a task and delegating responsibility

coupled with authority. If you feel there is only one right way to get something done, or

Delegating is critical to

a leader’s success, yet

many leaders struggle

to do it effectively.


only one way you will accept, then simply assign the task with great precision, including

“how” you want it to be done. In this situation, don’t pretend that you are delegating; be

clear with yourself and the employee that you are simply assigning a task with a defined

outcome and defined way to accomplish it. Honest clarity will benefit both parties.

Assuming you really do intend to delegate responsibility and authority for some key

decisions in regard to the work to be done, then there is a useful discipline that will in-

crease your chances of success. Delegation is a form of management conversation that

involves certain key components for success. Understanding and practicing these key

components in a thoughtful way, in a spirit of shared responsibility, works for both the

leader and the employee.

A flexible “Big Picture” model is helpful for moving from problem to solution, as depicted

in the circle-arrow-circle model below. This framework summarizes the components of a

successful delegation conversation:

As a leader, you need to be clear on “The Big Picture.” What is the problem or opportunity

that calls for some delegation of responsibility? In general terms, what is the outcome

are you looking for? As a leader, you must make a conscious choice about who you’re

delegating to. Does he/she have a particular expertise? Is this an opportunity for

stretch and growth of the person? “Drive-by” delegation, i.e. choosing a person to

delegate something important to just based on happenstance or mere expedience,

often leads to disappointment. With the big picture in mind and a reasoned choice of

employee, the facilitative leader will then plan for an effective conversation including

three phases: Set Up, Engage, and Complete.

SuccessfulOutcomes

The Situation:

Problem or Opportunity Prepare Conduct Follow Up

Engage• The Task and Goal• Rationale for

Employee’s Selection• Expectations and

Parameters• Resources• Communication

Complete• Summary of

Agreements• Immediate Next Steps• Meeting Plus/Delta

Set Up• Desired Outcomes• Topics and Flow• Big Picture

The Manager-EmployeeConversation


SETTING UP THE CONVERSATION

A delegation conversation basically is a meeting but, as in any meeting, the facilitative

leader wants to be sure all participants understand the objectives and agenda of the

meeting before diving directly into the content. At the beginning of any conversation

with a senior manager an employee is often wondering: What’s this about? Why me?

Where is this conversation going? Taking a few minutes at the

beginning to describe The Big Picture provides context. Laying

out a simple agenda gives a roadmap for the conversation. This

set-up part of the conversation will help answer the employee’s

natural questions, and allow the employee to focus on the content

rather than continue to be distracted by the questions and un-

certainties in his or her head.

A simple statement of the Desired Outcomes might sound like this: “In this conversation

I want to delegate a specific responsibility to you, be sure you have a full understanding

of the project and my constraints, and agree on what support you may need to get the

job done.” The “topics and flow” could be as simple as “First let me describe the Big

Picture and what this is all about in general terms. Then I’ll define the job I want you to

take on, and we can discuss the parameters and constraints I have in mind and any

questions you have. Then we’ll talk about your ideas about support and resources you

think you might need, and come up with agreements on how we’ll communicate about

this project while you’re working on it. How does that sound to you?”

THE ENGAGE PHASE

In the Engage phase, the task and goals are defined as well as the expectations, con-

straints, and requirements the leader has relating to the task. A frequent breakdown in

delegation occurs when the leader has not sufficiently thought through what his or her

expectations, boundaries and constraints actually are — or, after having done so, fails to

communicate them effectively. Lacking understanding of expectations or constraints,

the employee goes off and does what he or she thinks is the right thing, only to find out

that the result is not accepted because of something in the leader’s mind that was never

communicated.

In discussing the expectations, boundaries and constraints it is important that you

encourage lots of questions and allow challenges. This is an important part of the

shared responsibility for success. The employee needs to have crystal clarity about

expectations and constraints. By thinking them through together, the employee can

actually help the leader clarify and communicate his or her thoughts more clearly, but

only if the leader encourages and supports meaningful questions and dialogue. A

frequent flaw here is when leaders assume understanding simply because he or she

says something which is perfectly clear to the leader, but is not questioned by the

employee (yet not really understood).

Laying out a simple agenda

gives a roadmap for the

conversation.


Other key topics, as indicated in the framework,

include why the person was selected for the dele-

gation, resources and communication. Obviously

the more these topics are clear and mutually

understood up front, the less time you will have

to spend down the road dealing with issues and

problems. Clear agreements about how and when

the employee and the leader will communicate

about the work give both parties a sense of

security and help reduce the tendencies toward

micro-management and intrusion by leaders

about how the work is going. When will check-ins

and reports be expected? What is the level of

detail that will be exchanged? At what points will

the leader provide feedback, course corrections,

reviews, approvals? Who else needs to be communicated with during the work, and how

will that communication be conducted?

ON TO COMPLETION

Here, in the spirit of “Go Slow to Go Fast,” the facilitative leader will slow down to check

for understanding of the key agreements reached during the conversation, discuss and

build agreement on next steps, and at least occasionally ask for some feedback from the

employee about what worked and what could be done better in the conversation.

Complex delegations with multiple important agreements are typically put into writing.

FOLLOWING THROUGH

Often the hardest part comes next — you need to step back and follow the agreements

that were made, especially about the when and how of communication around the work.

And when the employee brings back the results, you need to accept the outcomes so

long as they are consistent with the expectations and parameters that were agreed

upon at the beginning. When you change your mind and reject decisions or work that is

consistent with the communicated expectations and parameters, the stage has been set

for frustration and mistrust that will have a long and counter-productive life in the future

relationship between leader and employee.

A simple story will help to clarify how this framework provides real and lasting value. I re-

cently taught this model and related inquiry and advocacy skills to 12 mid-level managers

in a large and complex public agency. They were requested to consciously practice using

the framework in a delegation conversation between two sessions of the learning process.

When they returned to the next session all 12 said using the framework to prepare for

conduct a delegation conversation was extremely valuable to them. Comments included:

Clear agreements about how and

when the employee and the leader will

communicate about the work give

both parties a sense of security, and

help reduce the tendencies toward

micro-management and intrusion by

leaders about how the work is going.


“It forced me to really choose the right person.” “Thinking about

my constraints helped me to overcome my usual tendency

to micro-manage people so I could let go.” “When I had the

conversation, and encouraged my employee to ask questions

about my expectations, he got really engaged and excited

about the task. I could see how motivated he was getting as we

had more dialogue and answered his questions.”

The art and science of delegation, like any other, requires conscious practice. The purpose

of the framework is to focus attention on the key elements that need to be considered

and practiced, just like music theory focuses on the key chords and scales that have to

be practiced to play jazz. In leadership as in music, the best improvisations are based

on careful preparation.

JAMIE HARRIS, SENIOR CONSULTANT

Jamie Harris is Chair of the Board and a Senior Consultant with 15 years’

experience in organizational consulting, facilitation and design and

delivery of collaborative skills training, primarily in the financial services,

health care, hi-tech, and public service sectors. He has a BA in Political

Science and Economics and JD from Yale University. Before joining IA,

Jamie had 24 years’ experience in business law, during the last 15 of which he served as managing

partner of his San Francisco firm. He is a member of the Organization Development Institute, the

California Bar, and the American Bar Association. His published work has appeared in Executive

Excellence, H.R.com, Harvard Business School Mentoring series, and The International Associa-

tion of Facilitators Handbook, among others.

The art and science of

delegation, like any other,

requires conscious practice.


Decision Making and TrustInvolve people in decisions to heighten trust

BY PATTY MCMANUS

In our Trust Research findings over six years, we found that leaders consistently get low marks from employees for decision-making and transparency. Results

like these indicate a lack of simple, basic decision-making skills. And in particular: the skills needed to make good decisions that stick.

There are two primary places where business decisions break down:

1. In the group, where the decision-making process doesn’t work.

2. Organizationally, beyond the decision-making leader or group.

In order to help managers rise in the estimations of their employees, let’s first look at a couple of very common problems with decision-making inside the group, and propose what to do about them.

SCOPING A DECISIONOften, a group leaps into making a decision before it has effectively scoped the decision at hand. In other words, the boundary of the decision is so unclear that each team mem-ber is seeking agreement on a different decision. You can recognize this is going on in your team when:

• The group appears to be deciding six things at once.

• There is lots of wheel-spinning, and people are talking about the same issue indifferent ways.

• People are in agreement about the overall issue, but fighting about details.

The solution is to ask the question: “What is it we’re trying to decide?” In the case of the purchase of a product, is the decision to purchase it, explore its feasibility, or make a recommendation to senior management? Come up with a clear statement of what you are deciding, and carry on from there. If there are several steps to the decision, break it down into its smaller agreements before proceeding.

NAILING THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSAnother issue to consider is that often the decision-making process isn’t clear. The leader believes she is getting input, and makes the decision based on that input. But the members of the group think they are making the decision. This sets up false expectations.


When the leader makes a decision that is contrary to the input, the team doesn’t under-

stand. What they thought they supported, they don’t.

The antidote to this problem is to use a framework that we call the Levels of Involvement™.

Using the Levels of Involvement™ helps you reflect on a variety of factors that influence the decision, so that you can choose to involve the appropriate people at the right level of input and influence. Its power comes from thinking through HOW it should be made, and WHO should be involved, before making the decision. You can increase ownership, empower employees, gain their trust, and get a high Return on Involvement when you use this model. It will also help you avoid consensus paralysis.

One of the most important things a leader can do is be transparent and explicit about how much or how little involvement she is seeking – so that expectations are realistic and confusion is minimized.

BREAKDOWN DEAD AHEAD!Now what about the decisions that break down outside the group, in the larger organi-zation? Many business decisions are made by, or influenced by, a team — where people are representing the interests of constituencies inside or outside the organization. But these team members may not have the expertise or be fully equipped to represent these

Decide and

Announce

Gather Input from Individuals

and Decide

Delegate with

Constraints

fallb

ack*

Gather Input from Group and

Decide

Consensus

Leve

l of

Ow

ner

ship

* Fallback can be to any other level

Level of Involvement


other group’s stakes. They may decide to implement something that isn’t feasible because of technical, legal, financial, or other barriers.

Sometimes people rush into a decision for expediency’s sake, but the decision can’t pass the reality test. If the leader or team members had checked in with the handful of people who had the needed expertise, they would have been able to represent these vital points of view and decide on a reasonable solution.

The challenge is that organizations are trying to build structures and processes that support faster decision-making. Over-reliance on consensus slows things down; not to mention that it can drive

everyone crazy! But common decision-making structures built for speed don’t always accommodate badly-needed input. . .so

a decision is made without that key input.

The solution here is for the group to know the options, define the problem, and agree on a certain few milestone points where it will check in with key stakeholders. These points should be built into an involvement map, so everyone knows when they’ll occur, who will be involved, and how the input will be used. These key input points should be predictable to everyone involved.

These simple, actionable methods are not a cure for every bad decision, but together they form a powerful way to move forward with confidence. They definitely increase the odds of making wise choices, knowing when agreements are made, and keeping decisions sticky, not squishy.

PATTY MCMANUS, SENIOR CONSULTANT

Patty McManus has worked in the fields of Organization Development

and Learning for over twenty years. In the first ten years of her career

she was an internal consultant at UC Berkeley, Kaiser Permanente, and

Apple Computer. Since she joined IA in 1997, she has consulted across

a broad range of clients and projects. In addition, she has held several

leadership positions in IA over the years. She holds a BA in General Psy-

chology, an MS in Industrial/Organizational Psychology (both from San Francisco State Universi-

ty) and did post-graduate internships at Kaiser Permanente and the Standford Business School.

The solution here is for the

group to know the options,

define the problem, and

agree on a certain few

milestone points where

it will check in with key

stakeholders.

boston

70 Fargo Street

Suite 908

Boston, MA 02210

(617) 535-7000

san francisco

350 Rhode Island Street

Suite 215-216

San Francisco, CA 94103

(415) 343-2600

Interaction Associates is a 45-year innovator helping global organizations practice

conscious collaboration and achieve excellence in a new measure of ROI — Return on

Involvement — where employees go “beyond engagement” to share responsibility for

business results. We develop leaders at all levels and focus on building proficiency in

collaboration, strategic thinking, and self awareness. With offices in Boston and San

Francisco, our services include organization-wide consulting and learning solutions. For

more info: www.interactionassociates.com

interactionassociates.com

Documents

Little Book of Big Trust - Interaction Associatesinteractionassociates.com/.../Little_Book_of_Big_Trust_2015.pdf · Little Book of Big Trust A ... The top five actions employees urge