Tag:

Trust

Organizational Integrity: Trusting Others

by Ron Potter January 7, 2019

We continue our Monday series where I’m providing some snapshots into what makes up organizational integrity.

To have a great organization, integrity must be widespread. It won’t do to be a saintly leader of highest integrity if the rest of the team consists of liars, backbiters, and thieves. Integrity must exist from top to bottom. There are some key qualities that need to be modeled by leadership in order for an organization to embrace integrity.

Last week we unpacked with Learning to Change. This week we’ll explore Trusting Others.

Trusting Others

When leaders work to create high-trust cultures within their organizations and to ensure a sense of security, people feel that they can trust one another.

Fostering employee loyalty is a tall order for a CEO. One old-fashioned gesture of trust is giving employees keys to the store. At Edson International in New Bedford, Mass., president Will Keene has given 7 of the 25 workers keys to the family-owned machine shop, which makes steering systems for yachts.

“These people have been with the company at least five years,” says Keene. “They’ve made it known they plan to stay with our company for the long haul. They aren’t out to rip us off.” Newer employees get the message that long-term commitment is rewarded.

And the keys are used. Employees can work on their own projects in the shop on weekends, as long as someone else is present in case of injury. For workers who can’t afford their own shop, it means a lot.

When people do not trust one another, it is difficult for the organization to succeed and for the people within the organization to feel completely fulfilled. People who feel trusted and who find their leaders trustworthy are more satisfied, and their work environment is less stressful. There exists a feeling of openness and confidence and a greater ability for people to believe they can take risks.

0 comments

Blog Culture Organizational Integrity

Integrity-Based Leadership

by Ron Potter November 19, 2018

To have a great organization, integrity must be widespread.

So what does this look like?

As leader, you are the key. Integrity and trust are inseparable; one cannot exist without the other. According to Charles O’Reilly and Karlene Roberts,

Leaders who build trusting relationships within their team are willing to consider alternative viewpoints and to make use of other people’s expertise and abilities. They feel comfortable with the group and are willing to let others exercise influence over group decisions. In contrast, managers in a distrustful environment often take a self-protective posture. They’re directive and hold tight the reins of power. Those who work for such managers are likely to pass the distrust on by withholding and distorting information.

How does integrity-based leadership work?

In a research study, several groups of business executives were asked to be involved in a role-playing exercise. The groups were given identical factual information about a difficult policy decision, and then they were asked to solve a problem related to that decision. Half of the groups were briefed to expect trusting behavior from the members of their group; the other half were told to expect untrusting behavior (“You cannot openly express feelings or differences with members of your group”).

After thirty minutes of discussion, each group member as well as those who had observed the role playing completed a questionnaire. The responses were in harmony with each other: The discussions among members in the high-trust group were significantly more positive than the discussions among members of the low-trust group. In fact, people in the low-trust group who tried to be open and honest were virtually ignored. Hostility was caused by a mere suggestion, and it quickly spread throughout the group. The people in the low-trust groups realized that the lack of trust kept them from high achievement. They did not feel free to be vulnerable due to the actions and rejection of other group members.

Here are some findings on the high-trust group:

Members were more open about their feelings.
Members experienced greater clarity of thinking.
Members searched for more alternative courses of action.
Members reported greater levels of mutual influence on outcomes.

The high-trust group opened the gate of personal vulnerability, and the result was a better team and a model of integrity-based leadership.

When people do not trust one another, it is difficult for the organization to succeed and for the people within the organization to feel completely fulfilled. People who feel trusted and who trust their leaders are more satisfied, and their work environment is less stressful. There exists a feeling of openness and confidence and a greater ability for people to believe they can take risks.

0 comments

Blog Trust Me

What Difference Does Trust Make

by Ron Potter November 5, 2018

In a research study several groups of business executives were asked to be involved in a role-playing exercise. The groups were given identical factual information about a difficult policy decision, and then they were asked to solve a problem related to that decision. Half of the groups were briefed to expect trustworthy behavior from the members of their group; the other half were told to expect untrusting behavior (“You cannot openly express feelings or differences with members of your group”).

Here are some findings on the high-trust group:

Members were more open about their feelings.
Members experienced greater clarity of thinking.
Members searched for more alternative courses of action.
Members reported greater levels of mutual influence on outcomes.

The high-trust group opened the gate of personal vulnerability, and the result was a better team and a model of integrity-based leadership.

0 comments

Being Genuine Blog Culture

Being Genuine – Part I

by Ron Potter November 1, 2018

A couple of years ago Travis Bradberry wrote an article for Forbes titled “12 Habits of Genuine People.” He begins the article by looking at the concept of Emotional Intelligence or Emotional Quotient (EQ). It’s been demonstrated that people with high EQ’s perform better, get paid better and are better leaders. His point is EQ doesn’t produce any of those benefits if you’re not genuine.

Timeless Message

That title caught my eye and it went into the pile of topics for blogs. Well it’s now two years later but as I reread the article it has a timeless message that will never go out of date.

I’m going to comment on his 12 Habits in a series of blog posts and will consolidate a few of them. Here is his list of 12:

They don’t try to make people like them.
They don’t pass judgment.
They forge their own paths.
They are generous.
They treat everyone with respect.
They aren’t motivated by material things.
They are trustworthy.
They are thick-skinned.
They put away their phones.
They aren’t driven by ego.
They aren’t hypocrites.
They don’t brag.

Genuine

Let’s start with the definition of Genuine. As I looked up the history and meaning of the word I would see many references to the word “Authentic” and vise versa. The two words seem to be tightly coupled.

We can learn a lot by looking at the synonyms and you wouldn’t be surprised by any of them. Both words have many of the same synonyms. But I often find it more revealing to look at the antonyms.

Antonyms

Bogus
Insincere
Fake
Unreliable

The antonyms begin to paint a very clear and often recognizable picture. Both our experience and brain science notes that the human mind seems to be very aware of and skeptical of anything that appears to be bogus, insincere, fake or unreliable. These things are rooted in the deepest part of our brain that is on a constant lookout for danger. Most of it happens in the subconscious but as soon as our brain sends up some warnings our body begins to react in many ways to gain our attention and prepare us for fight or flight.

Think about your reaction to those words.

Bogus

We’re watching TV and suddenly the words say, “Wait! Order now and we’ll double your order for the same price of $19.99!” What’s your reaction? BOGUS

Insincere

The words are coming out of their mouth but there is no real concern in their expression. We instantly know that the words are INSINCERE.

Fake

We hear this one almost every day. FAKE news. FAKE stories. FAKE accusations. I’ve heard many family and friends say, “I don’t know who to trust anymore.” The only way to judge news and behaviors is to know what you believe in, what you stand for and why.

Unreliable

Did someone do what they said they were going to do? Are they reliable? This brings in many of the synonyms related to genuine and authentic: dependable, trustworthy, honest, faithful. If people don’t live up to these standards, they are UNRELIABLE.

Being Genuine

Being genuine is a lot of things. But it is not bogus, insincere, fake or unreliable. Over the next few posts, we’ll look at Mr. Bradberry’s list to help us stay on the path of being genuine.

0 comments

Blog Culture

Restoration or Revenge

by Ron Potter August 9, 2018

Team Unity is the most powerful productivity booster that can be applied.

There are several “multipliers” to team productivity. One is trust. Another is respect. And you need both in place to build unity. But unity is the greatest productivity booster of all.

Whenever people are involved there will always be conflict and friction. It’s just the nature of things. How we respond to the conflict and friction will determine the value of the team.

Revenge is a power play. When you take a tit-for-tat approach to conflict and friction it’s because you want to maintain power over the other person. Teams are not built on power, they’re built on unity.

Unity requires reconciliation. Reconciliation requires giving up power and control. This doesn’t mean you need to give up your beliefs and assumptions or cave into another person’s need for power and control but it does take humility. The original definition of humility meant tremendous power under complete control. Being under control means self-control, not controlling others. Restoration helps build trust.

Restoration means reaching out to others. Listening to their point of view. Not arguing or countering every point they make but attempting to understand their background, experiences, beliefs, and assumptions that are leading to their position. Steven Covey addressed this approach in his 7 Habits of Highly Successful People when he said, “Seek to understand first before being understood.” Few people seem to have the patience to fully understand the other person before expressing their point of view but when it does happen, it is very powerful.

However, there are occasions that despite the effort to understand and reconcile, the other person may not be willing to reconcile. In these cases, there is an ancient process that says bring one or two others with you to help reconcile. That doesn’t mean that you bring one or two supporters to overcome your “opponent.” It does mean to bring one or two others to help assure that the process is facilitated well and that both sides are completely understood.

If after making the effort with a good facilitator or two, reconciliation still seems to allude you, this is an issue that needs to come to the team. Letting it fester in the background or simply agreeing to disagree will never bring the trust and unity needed to build a great team. Great teams reach unity and commitment. Without unity and commitment, the full power of the team will never be realized.

0 comments

Blog Team

Are you just a Big Splash?

by Ron Potter June 14, 2018

As an engineer, I learned about laminar flow. Let’s take the example of water for a minute. A lot of engineering science goes into what’s called laminar flow, which means aligning all the molecules of water in the same direction. We know from our science work in high school that water is made up of H2O, two hydrogens, and one oxygen molecule. When the engineers start filtering and aligning and pushing each one of these molecules in precisely the same direction, that’s known as laminar flow. Water in laminar flow is incredibly powerful. It can cut through solid steel. If it doesn’t quite achieve laminar flow, all it does is splash off the surface because there’s no alignment of the molecules. Is your team able to cut through the toughest issues or does it just splash and get everyone wet?

Once again I recently heard a CEO say,

Well, that’s not true, but that’s their perception.”

Implied in that statement is that he, and maybe he alone, knows the truth. Those other poor, well-meaning souls only have their perception. Unfortunately, many people believe their perception is the truth. Every day, more brain research is showing us that what we see and hear is processed through multiple brain centers dealing with memories, beliefs, emotions, and others before the image, or the audio file is stored in our memory. That means from the time we observe something through sight or sound, it’s completely processed in our brain based on who we are before the memory is stored in our brain.

Unfortunately, we think of our memory as if it were a computer hard drive. It’s a poor analogy. With a hard drive, we can go back several years later and retrieve the data that was placed on the hard drive, and it’s exactly the same data that was initially stored. But when we retrieve data from our brain, it has been constantly modified before placing in memory. We have further learned that even after a memory has been placed in our brain, it is continually being modified with every new experience from the moment it was initially stored. We don’t have reality in our brain. We only have our perception, and even that is being continually modified.

When we get into high levels of trust and respect for our teammates, we begin to realize that we each have valid perceptions, and our jobs as members of the leadership team are to form our collective reality from the multiple perceptions. We do this, so we can align and move forward together. We have different perspectives. But, we need to build a valid ‘reality’ of our perceptions so that we can move forward together. Without it, we will continue to move in different directions, diluting, diffusing our energy and trust, and creating nothing more than a big splash. When we line up all the “molecules” of our perceptions we begin to generate some real power.

0 comments

Blog Culture

The Truth about Fear

by Ron Potter April 26, 2018

This post may have fit well with the recent Balancing Act series. There is an interesting point between fear and excitement. Staying balanced can be healthy. Too much fear is detrimental to your health. Too much excitement with little regard for fear can be fatal. The Darwin Awards are built on this last premise. The Darwin Awards give the highest honor (tong-in-cheek) to those who remove themselves from the gene pool by doing really stupid things.

Fear and excitement produce the same physiological effect. The body can’t distinguish between the two so the brain has to make a judgment. Should I be fearful at this moment or simply excited?

If you haven’t seen anything by Jordon Peterson lately you should look him up. He’s saying things that create a lot of reaction mainly because they are simply the truth that people don’t want to hear. In his book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, rule number 8 is “Tell the Truth – or, at least, don’t lie”.

The truth about fear is that lies are intended to avoid fear while actually creating it. Jordon says

Taking the easy way out or telling the truth – those are not merely two different choices. They are different pathways through life. They are utterly different ways of existing.

Existing in a world of lies leads to fear.

Someone living a life-lie is attempting to manipulate reality with perception, thought and actions so that only some narrowly desired and pre-defined outcome is allowed to exist.

When you don’t open up to the truth by listening to others (His Rule 9 is: Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t), you begin creating a world as only you see it.

Peterson goes on to say:

If you betray yourself, if you say untrue things, if you act out a lie, you weaken your character. If you have a weak character, that adversity will mow you down when it appears, as it will, inevitably. You will hide, but there will be no place left to hide. And then you will find yourself doing terrible things. Willful blindness is the worst sort of lie.

You can pick up Peterson’s book if you want to see his other 10 rules for avoiding chaos. They are all good and some are surprising.

In my work I’m always trying to help leadership teams behave calmly in the chaos or at least make sense out of is so that fear doesn’t take over. One of the better mental models that I turn to is Aristotle’s Levels of Happiness. The highest level, Level IV, I believe creates great teams. The first element of Level IV is Truth. Speaking it. Discovering it. Acting on it. Teams that seek the truth by listening (with the intent to understand) to each other avoid the fear and chaos of dealing with lies.

One last quote from Peterson’s book:

You can use words to manipulate the world into delivering what you want. This is what it means to “act politically.”

Don’t act politically. It leads to fear. Act truthfully. It leads to happiness.

0 comments

Blog Culture

Balancing Act

by Ron Potter February 8, 2018

My first job right out of college was working on large engineering projects. When I showed up for my first day of work I was given my assignment… my excitement quickly faded. The project I was working on was in the early stages of construction. The concrete foundation was complete and the majority of the structural steel was in place. My assignment? Make sure the structural frame was straight and plumb and then mark every column at every level so that the coming equipment could be placed properly and would align with all the other equipment to be installed in the plant. Oh, did I mention that the structural steel rose over 200 feet in the air. That’s roughly the height of a 20-story building.

Off I went, riding the construction elevator to the top of the building to begin the several week’s process of working my way down through the building marking columns as I went. Each floor was nothing more than structural steel beams, 6 to 10 inches wide depending on their location and generally 20 feet apart. Nothing else. No floors. No walls. Nothing. Just open air, empty skies, and 200 feet straight down. This was also the days before safety equipment. No nets. Not belts. No safety harnesses.

Focused on a goal

I slowly developed a technique that allowed me to walk across that 20-foot span from one column to the next, step by step on my 6” wide structural beam “sidewalk.” I would stand with my back tightly pressed against a column as I studied the column that was my goal. I would search and search my goal until I could find a visible flaw or mark in the steel where I could lock my eyes. Looking down was death. Once I spotted my goal I would begin to slow my breathing and my heart rate so that I could maintain my focus on that distant spot. When everything seemed to be under control, step one. Followed by step two, three and however many steps it took until I reached that far goal. Never looking down, just staying focused as I moved forward.

After my first couple of days, I thought I had learned a valuable lesson. Picture your goal, stay focused and move forward. But that was just the beginning.

Up in that structural steel with this rookie engineer were veteran and seasoned ironworkers. They would run around up there like they really were on sidewalks. And they were often bored while waiting for the next structural member to be lifted to them by the nearby crane. Bored people look for entertainment. I was entertainment!

Noticing that I had gained a little bit of confidence in my approach to walking steel, they decided to shake up my world a bit. One day as I had completed my routine and was about a third of the way across the beam, an ironworker slid down the column I had targeted and began walking toward me. Now I stood about halfway across the beam, facing a smiling, unshaven, cigar-chomping ironworker with my target column nowhere in sight.

Before going up in the steel I had been taught how to pass someone in these circumstances but certainly never thought I would be using the teaching. The technique required us to get toe-to-toe on the beam, lock each other’s wrists, lean back until our weights were perfectly balanced and then begin a slow swivel keeping our toes on the beam until we were now on opposite sides. In the middle of that process, each of our bodies is suspended over nothingness, 200 feet in the air.

Once we completed our maneuver, the ironworker bid me a good day and walked off laughing in the other direction. I was left with racing breath, heartbeat and a need to find a new focal point so I could make it back to the column. The wrong column because I was now facing in the opposite direction.

Trust your teammates

After I gained some confidence in the maneuver, I thought I had learned the real lesson, trust your teammate. If at any time during that maneuver either one of us had lost trust in the other and tried to take control, the result would have been death for both of us. It amazes me even more now that the ironworker put his life in my hands!

Balance

After all these years I think the real lesson is balance. It doesn’t stand alone: you must be focused on a goal and without trust, you’ll always fall short but my real goal in those situations was to maintain balance. I’m going to start a series on balance and how important it is in many aspects of teams, leadership and culture but I wanted to share my personal journey with you first.

Balance, Balance, Balance.

0 comments

Blog Leadership

Do Executives have Over Developed Executive Brains?

by Ron Potter November 9, 2017

Probably yes, but that’s likely to be a problem if there isn’t balance.

Some brain scientist will speak of the five brains:

Reptilian – Identifying and responding to threats
Limbic – Emotions, relationships
Neocortex – Makes meaning out of experiences and memories
Heart – Understands how we’re reacting physically and chemically to interaction
Executive – Translates information into decisions and future direction

Our modern world seems to celebrate and elevate Executive brain function. Big Data and computer analysis give modern executives more instant information than any leaders in history. CEO’s are hired and fired based on their decision making and vision reputations.

But, every time I’ve been hired to help grow and develop executive teams, only a small portion of the issue is related to the executive function of the brain. Most of my work is spent with emotions, relationships, experiences (and the memory of those experiences) and interactions. Relationships. Trust!

You must be competent at your job to be trustworthy. Steven Covey (7 Habits of Highly Effective People) talked of Trustworthiness requiring both character and competence. Competence tends to be correlated with the brains Executive function. Character and style, how you relate to people are much more complex and the results of the four other brains working well.

One of the great transitions points in career development is moving from manager to leader. Your worth and value to the company are often measured by your competence and Executive brain function right up to and through being a manager. But, when you first step into that leadership role, the style: relationship, motivation, collaboration suddenly become much more valuable.

Leaders maintain the competency. But at the leadership level, that’s simply the price of admission. If you’re not competent you’ll be exposed soon enough. But the best leaders start early at understanding and developing the first four brains so that when they have that opportunity to become leaders, they perform well. In fact, those people who are often identified as “high potential” are the ones with balanced brain functions.

Yes, executives have highly developed executive brains. But that’s only one fifth of the issue. They also have four other brains working well.

0 comments

Blog Trust Me

Mentoring: An Exercise in Vulnerability

by Ron Potter August 7, 2017

We discussed last week that one of the hallmarks of a long-term mentoring relationship is the intentional vulnerability that develops between two people. This means they can easily strip away the outside masks and get down to the issues (both personal and business) that need attention. This kind of openness and willingness to share the truth is a quality found in effective leaders. They refuse to let pride get in the way of open communication that will encourage and assist others and advance the cause of the organization.

If the characteristics of a solid mentoring relationship remind you of a good friendship, you are right. Research data and our experience indicate that, more often than not, mentoring relationships grow over time into lasting friendships.

But if a mentoring relationship is to thrive, men in particular must overcome an issue that many of them struggle with: It’s hard for men to be vulnerable with one another, especially in the work environment. In his book The Friendless American Male, David Smith writes:

Men find it hard to accept that they need the fellowship of other men. The simple request, “Let’s have lunch together” is likely to be followed with the response, “Sure, what’s up?” The message is clear: the independent man doesn’t need the company of another man. In fact, the image of the independent man is that he has few if any emotional needs. Therefore, men must manufacture reasons for being together—a business deal must be discussed or a game must be played. Men often use drinking as an excuse to gather together. Rarely do men plan a meeting together simply because they have a need to enjoy each other’s company.

Even when men are frequently together their social interaction begins and remains at the superficial level. Just how long can conversations about politics and sports be nourishing to the human spirit? The same male employees can have lunch together for years and years and still limit their conversation to sports, politics, dirty jokes and comments about the sexual attractiveness of selected female workers in their office or plant. They do not know how to fellowship.

Getting beyond such superficiality takes effort, and at least in the early stages of their relationship, a mentor will have to model appropriate vulnerability to build trust with the protégé. Once the walls start coming down, the process will accelerate and the rewards will be great for both partners. Real issues will be addressed so that genuine personal and organizational growth and change may occur.

What about mentoring involving women? Are their needs and challenges different? Research from Bernice R. Sandler, senior scholar at the Women’s Research and Education Institute, says that “at least one study has shown that male mentors were more likely to direct their female protegees and therefore to be disappointed if they [the protegees] did not follow their advice. The study found, in contrast, that female mentors were more likely to encourage and affirm their protegees’ career choices; they apparently had less emotional investment in having their protegees follow in their footsteps. Also, male mentors may be largely work focused and ignore personal issues that affect those with whom they are working, while women mentors often show interest in both the personal and professional lives of their students.”

My own experience has revealed that most women prefer a coach from outside their company. While they often would not mind having a male coach, the concerns about sexual overtones and misunderstood motives are often too high to make this a comfortable arrangement. Mentoring the opposite sex (either men mentoring women or women mentoring men) presents challenges, and certainly, if any sexual overtones develop, they need to be confronted and the relationship discontinued.

The right mentee paired with the right mentor leads to those in the relationship feeling appreciated, supported, empowered, and fully equipped to complete their tasks.

0 comments

Blog Trust Me

What makes for a good mentor?

by Ron Potter July 31, 2017

What image comes to mind when you think of the term mentor?

You might picture two people sitting at a table in a restaurant, the older person, his or her head topped with waves of shimmering, gray hair, waxing eloquent while the younger listener is furiously scribbling notes on a legal pad. Although this scene may warm our hearts, it seems just a bit out of sync with the real world.

I would like to offer an alternative image of mentoring: Picture two people sitting across from each other in an office. Obviously, an important project is under discussion. The interaction is animated, intense, and often humorous. These people obviously know each other well. Speech is direct and honest. Mutual respect is readily apparent. Some coaching is occurring, but the protégé is not restrained in sharing some insights on the performance of the mentor as well. This relationship is built on trust.

With this picture in mind, we like to define mentoring as a long-term, mutually supportive and enhancing relationship rather than as a relationship in which a highly advanced human being tutors another who stands a step or two below him or her on the developmental ladder.

A successful mentoring experience does require a significant prerequisite: a quality person to mentor. A leader who hopes to succeed in mentoring must first hire great people. Too often, executives devote too little time to the hiring process. No wonder that down the road the mentoring of a poorly qualified employee resembles corrective discipline more than a shared growth experience.

Assuming the right persons are in the right jobs, a leader must then do everything possible to help those people feel appreciated, supported, empowered, and fully equipped to complete their tasks. In addition, a leader needs to help the other person understand that success is not just “making the numbers” (competency) but includes developing character as well.

A good mentoring experience also requires longevity. The leader and the protégé need to stay at it long enough for the relationship to bear mature fruit.

In the late nineties I was talking to the CEO with whom I had been working for about four years. As we were chatting comfortably at the end of a session, he said to me, “Ron, all of the work you do for us around team building, leadership development, and culture improvement is worth every penny you charge us. But your real value for me as a CEO is when we have these little chats, one on one, in these relaxing, comfortable, and trusting moments.”

At that moment I began to realize that the aspect of the business I found most enjoyable—talking openly and honestly with the leaders I worked with—was also the aspect they experienced as most valuable. Since that time a sizable percentage of my consulting business comes from personally coaching and mentoring business leaders.

During these moments of honest interaction, leaders are able to talk with me about personal doubts, concerns over the performance of another individual, and innovative ways to tackle new situations. We can do trial run-throughs of an upcoming presentation, a conference call, or a one-on-one meeting with a boss or colleague. Almost anything that is critical to their performance is open to discussion in this relaxed environment. Even personal situations and career decisions are fair game. The mentoring or coaching role is mainly about creating a safe environment to discuss any topic.

One of the hallmarks of a long-term mentoring relationship is the intentional communication that will encourage and assist others and advance the cause of the organization.

0 comments

Blog Culture

Where are you in the Pecking Order?

by Ron Potter June 29, 2017

Maybe you’ve never been around chickens very much. This is where the term comes from. In the mid-1920’s a German author described the hierarchical structure of chickens. “Defense and aggression in the hen is accomplished with the beak.” The ones with higher authority peck the others with their beak. Fun to watch in chickens. Not so fun when you’re the one being pecked.

Egalitarian

Some companies have tried to eliminate the pecking order. One modern online retailer had attempted to get rid of the corporate hierarchy. However, some recent articles about the company have indicated that they’re experiencing an extremely high level of departures and turn over. I’m always hesitant to attribute a statistic like that to any one issue. But, one article I read indicated that the CEO wrote a very long memo offering employees three months’ severance if they felt that self-management and self-organization were not a fit for them. Ouch, that felt like a peck to me.

Hierarchy Can Work

I found two Stanford studies interesting. One concluded that egalitarian work structures were disorienting while hierarchical structures were more predictable and easier to understand which made them preferable. Another study said hierarchical structures had more staying power because they were practical and psychologically comforting. Now you could argue that predictable, practical and comforting are not the characteristics that will carry the corporation through the 21^st century. You may be right. But, I believe there is a deeper issue than just structure.

Trust is the Deeper Issue

Many of my corporate clients have asked me at one point or another about their organization structure. The basic question is “Should we be centralized or de-centralized?” My unsatisfactory response is that it doesn’t really make any difference. Every corporate structure is an artificial attempt at organizing people. There are positives and negatives to each approach. The most important is Trust. If there is a lack of trust in the organization any structure will be used for protection, security, and enforcement. If there is a great deal of trust in the organization, the structure seldom gets in the way, people simply want to work better together regardless of what the structure calls for.

I’ve had a few people in my life that have pecked at me. Starting with my mother and including a few teachers and mentors. If I knew we had trust and they cared for me, I didn’t really mind the pecking. If the trust wasn’t there, I felt they were pecking me just because they had a big beak.

0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts