leadership – Page 9

May 20, 2019June 29, 2023

Navigating the Toxic Triangle of People Management

Relationships are complex, particularly so at work since employees have limited control over who they interact with.

While there’s no shortage of advice on how to deal with matters of the heart, working relationships are rarely discussed until it becomes painfully obvious they’re not working. In the wake of the #MeToo movement there has been an increasing focus on fostering more respectful workplace environments.

Yet most managers receive little guidance when it comes to building, maintaining and repairing healthy relationships that often foster toxic workplaces. In many instances they evolve into one of three types of supervisor: the buddy, the boss or the bully.

In a study of what makes a manager effective, the quality of their relationships was found to make the biggest difference to their success. Understand how to do relationships well and everything else becomes easier. Feedback is better received, delegation of duties becomes more straightforward and employees find it easier to cope with change.

Individuals who report good relationships with their managers are healthier, happier and have more fulfilling careers. They perform better, put in more discretionary effort, are more innovative, more resilient and more likely to stay with the organization.

Relationships between team colleagues are also critical. For example, in a study of hospital wards in England, teams who worked well together saw a 3.3 percent drop in mortality rates, the equivalent to saving 40 lives per year.

Destructive relationships wreak havoc for individuals and for organizations. Studies show that for three-quarters of employees, the most stressful part of their job is their boss. A 2015 Gallup survey revealed that half of respondents claimed to have left their most recent job due to a poor relationship with their boss.

As well as the human costs, the financial repercussions of toxic workplace behavior can reach the millions. Considering that managers account for 70 percent of the variance in employee engagement, the disengagement caused by bad bosses costs businesses upward of a half-billion dollars annually.

While this is not a new trend (with research dating back to the 1990s showing “job stress” related to poor management being cited in 75 percent of workers’ compensation claims) the need to address it has become more pressing in the age of #MeToo.

The Buddy, the Boss and the Bully

Psychologists in 2007 identified a “toxic triangle” of factors that foster negative relationships between leaders and followers. The combination of dysfunctional leaders, silent subjects and a permissive environment create a situation where relationships are likely to break down in a detrimental way.

Dysfunctional leaders. Most people have a dark side that comes out, particularly during times of pressure. Without clear guidance on managing the more complex aspects of workers’ personalities, managers often revert to behavioral patterns developed in childhood.

In 1950, psychologist Karen Horney published important research that outlined three patterns of coping behavior that children rely upon in times of stress. Some naturally turn toward people, seeking out closeness in order to feel comforted. Others turn away, preferring to cope independently. The third group actively turn against other people, choosing to fight.

Adults draw on a combination of these coping mechanisms but usually have a preference for one over the other. When taken to its extreme, this preference becomes dysfunctional and can result in some bad behavior.

First, we have the manager who prefers to turn toward others. These leaders want to be everybody’s friend, seeking approval in order to validate themselves. The manager morphs into the Buddy.

On its face this might seem OK, but this type of relationship can go horribly wrong. Amy Gallo, author of the “HBR Guide to Dealing with Conflict,” warns that these managers can shy away from giving feedback, avoid going to bat for their teams and give in too easily to demands. Their need for approval can create an overly politicized, clique-y organization where personal boundaries are frequently abused.

Then there is the “turn away” manager who doesn’t care what other people think of them so long as the job gets done. They are the stereotypical detached Boss, interested in delivering to deadline at the expense of everything else. They have no interest in building healthy relationships, believe in reinforcing hierarchy and don’t care if they are overburdening people. This focus on results at the expense of relationships means teams are less loyal, less happy and ultimately less likely to give it their all.

The “turn against” manager arguably takes the crown as the worst supervisor. They care about relationships but only so they can twist and manipulate them for their own gain. They are the quintessential Bully. They love relationships for the opportunities they give them to take advantage and get what they want.

Bullying and harassment in the workplace are more common than you’d think; considering that three-quarters of employees report that they’ve experienced it at some point in their career. And the worrying reality is that we’re all at risk of straying into these toxic personas from time to time; it’s not just the extreme characters that cause havoc. As people gain more power in their careers, the skills they need to be successful, such as empathy and collaboration, tend to be less important, and so a vicious cycle ensues.

Silent Subjects. For dysfunctional leaders to flourish to the extent that relationships break down irreparably, they need followers who for a variety of reasons avoid speaking out. This can mean conformers — those who are typically obedient to authority, prone to group-think, don’t feel that it’s safe to speak up or are unwilling to challenge the status quo. Sometimes people don’t even know the behaviors to look out for or what to do when they see it.

It can also be in the form of colluders who see benefit in aligning themselves with a destructive leader. Colluders reinforce the leader’s bad behavior, repress any would-be whistleblowers and help the toxic cycle continue.

Permissive Environment. A permissive workplace environment is one that permits or may even encourage bad relationships to flourish. If the culture is overly politicized and consensus is valued above all else, the inner Buddy will come to the fore. If it’s a results-driven environment in which targets must be met at all costs, the Boss is likely to emerge. And in a dog-eat-dog culture where aggression and intimidation are par for the course the Bully will come to the fore. These are all extremes, of course, but every company’s policies and processes as well as the culture, values and norms will nudge its leaders to behave in a certain way.

There are methods to limit the buddy-boss-bully syndrome and create a workplace atmosphere more conducive to building strong manager-report relationships. Here are five focus areas for making a difference to building a culture of good working relationships.

Limit the abuse of power. As an executive, encourage self-awareness and introspection in leaders. The right balance is being respectful of boundaries while also providing descriptive feedback, precision coaching and stretching but not straining targets. Organizations should consider the strategies they use to select their leaders. Is enough being done to weed out the bad apples or are there entrenched, bias-laden approaches that toxic leaders can take advantage of? Organizations might be better off hiring decent leaders than hyper-talented individuals with an uncontrollable dark side.

Establish norms and boundaries. Working relationships work best when managers strike the right balance. Overly focusing on the relationship could allow for goals to slip out of reach. Ignore your team’s needs though, and commitment to work could falter. Managers need to set standards for their team by role-modeling respectful, inclusionary behavior and being clear on the behaviors that are appropriate and the boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed. This applies in every interaction, from giving feedback and dealing with poor performance to inquiring about a team member’s well-being and sharing personal details.

Contract from the start. In every manager-report relationship there exists a psychological contract about how each should behave, although these rules usually remain unspoken. Managers should be encouraged to have a frank conversation with their reports about what each side expects from the relationship, where you draw the line and any behavioral nonnegotiables. Making these assumptions explicit means there’ll be no room for misunderstanding, and avoids relationship breaking down.

Give permission and voice. The first challenge is helping people see the toxic behavior for what it is. The second is helping them to understand that there’s nothing wrong with calling out disrespectful behavior in a professional way. With many people, their self-identity can get in the way as there is a dissonance between how people see themselves (successful, confident) and not wanting to appear as the victim.

Repair ruptures. Despite our best efforts, relationships will go awry. When that happens, refer to a quick, effective repair kit. This comes in four stages:

• Pause. Step back from the heat of the moment and do whatever needs to be done in order to emotionally reset.

• Contain. Address the conflict in the moment and keep it isolated to that specific incident to prevent toxicity from seeping into the relationship as a whole.

• Play back. Share thoughts and feelings and be open to hearing what others are saying. Play back what’s been said so they feel listened to.

• Reassure. Remind yourself and the other person that conflict is inevitable, and if handled well can strengthen the relationship in the long run.

Nobody said it would be easy but given the impact of relationships on almost every measure of workplace success, it pays to understand how to make our working relationships work.

May 16, 2019June 29, 2023

Abortion Discrimination = Pregnancy Discrimination

Thanks to, among other states, Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio, the debate over abortion is raging.

Suppose you are staunchly anti-abortion, and you learn that one of your employees is considering, or has had, an abortion. Can you fire her?

Thus far, three courts have looked at this issue, and all three courts have all reached the same conclusion.

No.

The latest, Ducharme v. Crescent City Déjà Vu, L.L.C. (E.D. La. 5/13/19), concerned an employee fired after requesting two days off to have an abortion. She claimed pregnancy discrimination, and the court held that Title VII’s prohibition against pregnancy discrimination also prohibits abortion discrimination.

The court finds that abortion is encompassed within the statutory text prohibiting adverse employment actions “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” While an abortion is not a medical condition related to pregnancy in the same way as gestational diabetes and lactation, it is a medical procedure that may be used to treat a pregnancy related medical condition. … [A]n abortion is only something that can be undergone during a pregnancy. Title VII requires that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes.” A woman terminated from employment because she had an abortion was terminated because she was affected by pregnancy.

This case aligns with the only two appellate courts to rule on the issue, the 3rd and 6th Circuits, as well as the EEOC’s interpretation of the definition of pregnancy.

Case closed. If you learn that one of your employees is having, or has had, an abortion, do yourself a favor and just let her be. Her choice, for which you cannot punish her. Moreover, unlawful discrimination notwithstanding, I promise you that the decision she is making is painful enough, without you exacerbating her pain by firing her.

For more on this case, head over to the Employer Handbook Blog, where Eric Meyer covered it yesterday.

May 12, 2019June 29, 2023

Southwest Airlines Flies to the Top of the 2019 Workforce 100

Per aspera ad astra is a Latin phrase that translates, “through hardships to the stars.”

The phrase serves as a reminder that progress is not always a straight-ahead path. Often there are forks in the road and winding turns that can hinder the journey. How one navigates those obstacles is the essence of one’s character. The same applies for companies as they strive for HR excellence. For many companies, the journey comes with a fair share of challenges, successes and lessons learned.

Workforce has recognized 100 companies for the past six years that have excelled in people management with the annual Workforce 100 list of best HR practices. Workforce editors and researchers initially partnered with employee review site Glassdoor in 2016 to get an internal perspective of employee satisfaction with their company. Before the partnership with Glassdoor the Workforce 100 list leaned in favor of large corporations and did not take into account the thoughts and responses of rank-and-file employees. Since the partnership began, the list has evolved to include smaller organizations and reveals the value of a strong employer-employee relationship. A company’s score is calculated using Human Capital Media’s Research and Advisory Group and Glassdoor rankings. The inclusion of Glassdoor to the methodology seemingly plays a role in the rise and fall of company rankings.

Over the past six years certain trends have become apparent. Some companies are consistently strong. Johnson & Johnson (No. 11), Salesforce.com (No. 18) and AT&T (No. 45) have appeared all six years. There have been one-hit wonder companies such as Netflix, appearing last year; and the Hershey Co., which only appeared in 2015. Other companies scored high in the first few years and have since fallen in the rankings. One example is McDonald’s, which scored third in 2014, then No. 17 in 2015 before dropping to No. 94 in 2016. Since then, the Golden Arches has not appeared on the Workforce 100.

While some, like McDonald’s, have tumbled down the ranks over the years, there have been companies that ascended to the top. One such company is Southwest Airlines. The Dallas-based airline first appeared on the Workforce 100 in 2015, ranking No. 48. The following year, the airline dropped two places to No. 50. Then from 2017 to 2018, Southwest rose from No. 17 to No. 11.

This year, Southwest ranks No. 1.

The Employee Experience

Julie Weber, vice president and chief people officer at Southwest Airlines, has approached human resources with an employee-first outlook. Weber serves more than 58,000 employees, ensuring that they have a fulfilling experience during their employment with Southwest.

“We’ve really put our employees first since the beginning with our founder, Herb Kelleher,” Weber said of the airline’s late iconic leader. “Our belief is that happy employees make for happy customers, which make for happy shareholders.”

One way that Southwest stands out lies within its centralized hiring practices. Companies in the retail or restaurant industries might look for seasonal employees but Southwest aims for the long haul with its hires. During the recruitment process, Southwest puts an emphasis on matching candidates to the company by attitude and culture fit.

“We look for entry-level employees who are highly motivated to work with us,” Weber said. Southwest’s continuous emphasis on employees, including their treatment before employment, has resulted in lower turnover rates.

Southwest also promotes a fun, engaging work environment for employees, including companywide Halloween parties. Employees are encouraged to wear their best costumes to work and to bring family members along for trick-or-treating around the office. Company leaders also host meals with employees going through leadership development programs.

“Though we have a highly engaged workforce now, it is ours to lose if we don’t maintain a focus on evolving the employee experience,” Weber said.

As companies grow, so do the needs of employees. Maintaining a positive employee experience can take extra effort. With a company as large as Southwest that spans across the country, evolving the employee experience means adapting to technologically advanced platforms. Under Weber’s guidance, Southwest has initiated an HR transformation in order to adapt its practices. One of the initial aspects of this transformation includes widening the scope of the talent-acquisition base to focus on the candidate of the future.

“We started with investing in tools that help us with talent acquisition and now we are really looking at the entire employee experience,” Weber said. Her goal with this process is to enhance Southwest’s ability to attract and connect with newer generations of candidates.

This transformation will also involve updating the company’s HR operating model so that employees will be able to access a one-stop shop. Weber wants to ensure that employees can easily access the HR services available to them, even from their phones.

“It’s a big undertaking. It will include investing in new technologies with a whole focus on improving the employee experience.”

While this transformation has been overall positive for the company, with change comes challenges. Part of Southwest’s journey toward transforming its HR operating model has been to keep their leaders and employee population enthused. Weber’s solution has been to maintain strong communication of the company’s vision and initiatives. Company alignment and visible leadership has ensured that these changes go beyond just the people department.

“We want to make sure that we are bringing people along with the journey and involving our HR professionals [and stakeholders] with these decisions. That way, we all own this transformation.”

Adapting to Change

T-Mobile is another company that has shown a consistent upward trajectory since debuting on the Workforce 100 in 2016 at No. 72. This year, T-Mobile climbed to 2nd. The telecommunications company is based in Bellevue, Washington, and counts more than 52,000 employees across the nation. Liz McAuliffe, executive vice president of human resources, believes that T-Mobile’s overall success starts with the employee.

“What really sets HR apart at T-Mobile is our core purpose. We are stewards of all T-Mobile employees in their personal growth and career success,” McAuliffe said. T-Mobile’s grass-roots approach to the company’s success relies on creating a culture that inspires its people to not only feel good about themselves but to reflect that goodness in others.

“We approach everything with this mindset,” McAuliffe said. “It’s a game-changer.”

Over the past five years, T-Mobile has evolved its HR operating model in order to meet and exceed the needs of a diverse employee population. To start, they’ve launched an ongoing effort to create a diverse and inclusive environment that will celebrate their employees’ unique selves.

This investment began in 2014 when T-Mobile launched diversity and inclusion networks nationwide. Today, the membership of those networks across the nation’s 50 chapters makes up approximately 42 percent of the company’s employee base. To further develop a diverse and inclusive workplace, T-Mobile initiated a companywide learning project called Insight Out. The program involves a combination of in-person and digital interactions to bring awareness to bias in order to create a foundation for more inclusive language, actions and behaviors.

“This isn’t easy,” McAuliffe said. “It requires courage, awareness, open-mindedness and commitment, but acting on this complex challenge reflects who we are at T-Mobile.”

LiveMagenta is another initiative that aims to transform the traditional face of T-Mobile’s employee assistance program. LiveMagenta would ensure that employees can access resources and benefits through a mobile-friendly app. “LiveMagenta [is] providing everything from financial experts to counseling services and life coaches,” McAuliffe explained.

While McAuliffe reports an overwhelmingly positive response to these initiatives, the company has also experienced the growing pains that come with change. “One challenge is delivering meaningful services that scale for 52,000 employees while still meeting the needs of employees at all levels and in widely varying roles,” McAuliffe said. Another challenge comes with operating an HR team at the same fast pace as the business itself.

McAuliffe said the solution for T-Mobile was found through a strong collaborative relationship with their business partners coupled with an efficient HR team. Listening to employee feedback has revealed how just how much these initiatives have improved things for the better. “[It] never ceases to amaze me,” McAuliffe said. “It’s truly magical when people can come together and deliver such fantastic results every single day.”

Recognizing Diversity and Inclusion

Goldman Sachs has also risen through the Workforce 100 rankings the past six years. Their trajectory began when they first appeared on the list in 2015 at No. 27. This year the company clocked in at No. 3.

For the investment banking company, the advancement of women and a diverse workplace has not just been a nice to-do. It’s been a business priority. Goldman Sachs’ Vice President, Media Relations Leslie Shribman offered insight to the company’s key HR initiatives in recent years. As a commitment to this advancement, the company announced last year that they aspire to have women make up 50 percent of their diverse talent worldwide, and 50 percent of all analyst hires by 2021. “We have invested in new programming to attract more women applicants to positions at the firm and have instilled accountability measures within our hiring process to review progress against our goal,” Shribman said.

The company also has demonstrated an inclusive atmosphere by implementing programs that focus on working parents. One example is LifeCare’s Milkship program for employees who are breastfeeding. This program offers a free full-service program for employees in the United States to safely ship their breast milk home when they travel overnight for business. Other programs include providing parental leave following the birth or adoption of a child, access to best parenting practices, and medical guidance should a critical situation arise.

Goldman Sachs has also made advancements in their programs to reinforce an inclusive environment. Three of these programs include their Women’s Career Strategies Initiative, Black Analyst and Associate Initiative, and Hispanic and Latino Analyst Initiative. The programs work to ensure a supportive environment by focusing on the networking and development opportunities for women and minority employees. “We believe our people are our greatest asset. We invest in their development and provide them an opportunity to work alongside talented colleagues to drive progress across markets, communities and the world,” Shribman said.

These programs are not laurels that Goldman Sachs wishes to rest upon. They have recognized that progress is an ongoing process. As the workforce changes, so must the HR teams that serve it. “We regularly evaluate how we can improve our programs, offerings and policies to best support employees,” Shribman said. “We are committed to continuing to provide our employees with the environment, resources and experiences that meet their needs and help them realize their potential.”

Benchmarking Excellence

Except for 2016 when they dipped to No. 14, Deloitte has held a consistent position in the top 10 on the Workforce 100. Based in New York, the professional services company counts 286,000 employees worldwide. Over the past five years, the company has continuously reshaped its HR operating model to keep up with an evolving workplace and workforce. Their focus has been channeled into modernizing their performance experience, promoting a culture of flexibility and well-being, and attracting, advancing and retaining women.

Global Chief Talent Officer Michele Parmelee spoke to the challenges that have come along with maintaining consistent progress of these initiatives. “Achieving gender parity at each level of the organization is challenging for even the most progressive,” she said. “We are leaving no stone unturned.”

As a company that serves employees across many different geographies and cultures, Deloitte has embraced the uniqueness of its workforce. The connection the company has to its diverse employee population comes with an environment that encourages authenticity. Thus, Deloitte’s main focus for employee experience has been to support its people in creating their own unique talent experience. “We want to create meaningful opportunities for each person to make an impact, grow, learn and lead at every point in their career,” Parmelee said.

According to employee review site Glassdoor, Deloitte employees have noted that one of the most positive aspects of working with the company has been its work-life balance, which reflects Deloitte’s commitment to a culture of flexibility. “Deloitte places trust in people to decide when, where and how best to work,” Parmelee said. For instance, Deloitte’s unit in the United Kingdom offers a Work Agility program that combines formal and informal work arrangements to support a flexible schedule. Within the United States, Deloitte has expanded its fully paid family-leave policy to offer up to 16 weeks.

“Wellness is also a major focus as we find it helps to build a sense of community and a sense of belonging,” Parmelee added. Their programs in Canada reflect this focus, where wellness centers deliver well-being services onsite to Deloitte offices in major metropolitan areas. These services include therapeutic treatments, team-building activities, and onsite quite space.

“Effecting real change is not only a mindset but requires a daily commitment and deliberate action,” Parmelee said.

May 10, 2019March 3, 2021

Australian Tech Entrepreneur Becomes President of Workforce

A group led by Australian technology entrepreneur Tasmin Trezise acquired Chicago-based Human Capital Media, the parent company of business-to-business publications Workforce, Chief Learning Officer and Talent Economy.

Trezise, 26, is the co-owner of Brisbane, Australia-based Tanda, a 7-year-old technology firm that produces time and attendance, scheduling and labor-compliance software.

“I look forward to working with the team as we continue to uphold the dignity, research and empowerment of the working man and woman,” Trezise said.

The Human Capital Media entities will operate separately from Tanda with a shared ownership, said Trezise, who will be president of Workforce, a multimedia publication that covers the intersection of people management and business strategy. Kevin Simpson will remain president of all other Human Capital Media properties, Trezise said.

“This is about serving the Workforce mission of bringing together HR, learning, engineering, research and stakeholders in the success of working people and I put the call out for them to join us,” Trezise said. “The vision is to deliver on my promise to resurrect the Workforce history and continue its rightful position as the ultimate source for how the way we work is changing.”

He pointed to the long history of Workforce as inspiration for its planned future. The publication’s history dates back to 1922 with the founding principles laid out by James R. Angell, former president of Yale University, Carnegie Corp. and the National Research Council, to coordinate the efforts of over 250 scientific, engineering, labor, management and educational bodies. Trezise aims to shape Workforce into the clearinghouse for the most advanced thinking and solutions on the future of work; and how to improve the happiness, welfare and efficiency of workers.

“I want to bring my background and experience to carry on the mission that was first formulated in 1922,” he said. “This means reuniting all engineering and technological bodies with critical research to help people leaders better connect and pursue the application of this knowledge for the benefit of their teams.”

Founded in 1999, Human Capital Media is an integrated information services and market intelligence company whose brands include Human Capital Media Research and Advisory Services, and Chief Learning Officer and Workforce magazines. Terms of the private deal, which closed April 30, were not disclosed.

The company will remain headquartered in Chicago.

April 18, 2019June 29, 2023

A Leader’s Guide to Effective Communication Under Pressure

How can a manager become measurably more effective?

To answer this question, scholars, scientists and leaders have studied personality traits; others have tried to understand and categorize management styles. While these studies yield appealing insights, they are difficult to emulate. Evidence is lacking that these approaches to managerial effectiveness have enabled managers to markedly improve their personal influence and results.

In our own efforts to help managers improve effectiveness, we’ve focused our study on crucial moments — those moments where a manager’s communication has a profound and disproportionate effect on results. In moments when the stakes are high, do managers remain calm, collected, candid, curious, direct and willing to listen? Or do their direct reports describe them as the opposite: upset, angry, closed-minded, rejecting, even devious? And how does either style under stress affect results and relationships?

Our latest research confirms, yet again, that the way a manager performs in these crucial moments has a disproportionate effect on their personal influence and their people. The research also shows, however, that a shockingly large majority of managers and leaders buckle under pressure.

We asked more than 1,300 employees to describe their leader’s style under stress and the impact of that behavior. According to respondents, one in three leaders are seen by their direct reports as someone who fails to engage in dialogue when the stakes get high. Specifically:

53 percent of leaders are more closed-minded and controlling than open and curious.
45 percent are more upset and emotional than calm and in control.
45 percent ignore or reject rather than listen or seek to understand.
43 percent are more angry and heated than cool and collected.
37 percent avoid or sidestep rather than be direct and unambiguous.
30 percent are more devious and deceitful than candid and honest.

This is significant because it’s these nonroutine moments that define you as a leader. In difficult, highly charged situations, some managers react emotionally and aggressively while others became silent and withdrawn. These responses damage relationships and undermine the work being done.

One executive we worked with was adamant and deliberate about creating a fun and supportive atmosphere where his team felt safe to try new things. He saw his role as building people. And yet, to his surprise, most of his team labelled him a “jerk.” As we described a situation his team found particularly “jerky,” he said, “You’re probably thinking I’m some sort of hypocrite. But I’m not. Ninety-five percent of the time, I’m the fun, supportive guy I’ve described. It’s only the 5 percent when I lose my temper that I say stupid things. Those statements are not an accurate reflection of who I am.”

And while it was true that his team agreed he was great 95 percent of time, it was also true that this nonroutine behavior was what left a lasting impression. His team felt those few moments when stakes were high and the heat was on revealed the truth about who he really was.

A leader’s unsavory behavior in stressful moments does more than harm his or her personal influence — it also hurts the team. When asked how their leader’s style impacted their results, respondents said that when their leader clams up or blows up under pressure, team members have lower morale; are more likely to miss deadlines, budgets and quality standards; and act in ways that drive customers away. They also described negative impacts on morale and psyche. Specifically, when a leader fails to practice effective dialogue under stress, team members are more likely to consider leaving their job; more likely to shut down and stop participating; less likely to go above and beyond in their responsibilities; and more likely to be frustrated, angry and complain.

Luckily, there are managers who handle themselves under pressure differently from the rest. In high-stakes situations, they remain calm and respectful. They don’t skirt or minimize issues. They are direct, but their behavior invites others to contribute their concerns and ideas. By doing so, they surface the most accurate, complete information; they better understand problems; they formulate with others the best solutions; and they act together with greater unity and conviction. This, in turn, creates better relationships and results.

Another silver lining? A manager’s ability or inability to deal with high-stakes, stressful situations has nothing to do with age or gender. Neither factor correlated with the skills and behaviors of dialogue under pressure. The ability to stay in dialogue when stakes are high is not dependent on genetic or inherent factors. Rather, these are skills anyone can learn and adopt to not only be more personally effective and influential, but to better lead a team to success.

Here are a few tips managers can use to improve their communication style under stress and see better results from the people they lead.

Speak up early. When we anticipate stress or pressure, most of us decide whether or not to speak up by considering the risks of doing so. Those who are best at dialogue don’t think first about the risks of speaking up. They think first about the risks of not speaking up. They realize if they don’t speak up early and often, they are choosing to perpetuate and often worsen the situation — and their reaction to the situation — as they begin to work around the problem.
Challenge your story. When we feel threatened or stressed, we amplify our negative emotions by telling villain, victim and helpless stories. Villain stories exaggerate others’ negative attributes. Victim stories make us out to be innocent sufferers who have no role in the problem. And helpless stories rationalize our over- or under-reactions because, “There was nothing else I could have done!” Instead, take control of your emotions by challenging your story.
Create safety. When communicating while under pressure, your emotions likely hijack your positive intent. As a result, others get defensive to, or retreat from, your tirade. As it turns out, people don’t get defensive because of the content of your message, but because of the intent they perceive behind it. So, when stressed, first share your positive intent. If others feel safe with you, they are far more open to work with you.
Start with facts. When the stakes are high, our brains often serve us poorly. To maximize cognitive efficiency, we tend to store feelings and conclusions, but not the facts that created them. Before reacting to stress, gather facts. Think through the basic information that helped you think or feel as you do, and use that information to realign your own feelings and help others understand the intensity of your reaction.

Managers who can effectively hold crucial conversations outperform their peers. As an organization collects a critical mass of these effective managers, it has a profound effect on successful execution of initiatives, financial agility and overall performance.

David Maxfield is a New York Times best-selling author, keynote speaker and leading social scientist for business performance. He leads the research function at VitalSmarts, a corporate training and leadership development company. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

April 12, 2019

Workforce Editorial Team Nabs Gold at ASBPE Awards

Human Capital Media editorial staffers brought home top honors in video, print design and online writing at the regional American Society of Business Publishers and Editors Awards banquet last night in Chicago.

Video Editor Andrew Lewis won Gold in the News Video category for the Workforce video, “Voting on the Clock Works as an Engagement Tool,” and the Silver award in the Tutorial Video category for the Workforce video, “How-to HR: Onboarding New Hires.”

Art Director Theresa Stoodley captured Gold in the Print Design/Opening Page/Spread-Illustration for the Workforce feature, “All Eyes on You.”

And former Chief Learning Officer Associate Editor Ave Rio took Gold in the Online/Web How-to Article category for the CLO story, “How to Prepare for Active Shooters in the Workplace.”

Lewis and Stoodley also are nominated for ASBPE national honors, which will be handed out in May in Pensacola, Florida.

April 4, 2019June 29, 2023

Flatulence as Harassment? It’s a Thing in Australia

An Australian court has rejected an employee’s claim that his supervisor unlawfully harassed him by farting on him.

David Hingst sought 1.8 million Australian dollars ($1.3 million) in damages based on a claim his supervisor would enter his small, windowless office several times a day and “break wind on him or at him … thinking this to be funny.”

According to NBC Chicago, Hingst said that his supervisor at Construction Engineering, Greg Short, would “fart behind me and walk away. He would do this five or six times a day.” For his part, Hingst would respond by spraying Short with deodorant and calling him “Mr. Stinky.”

The court was not persuaded that the stink bombs were illegal.

In oral submissions, the applicant put the issue of Mr Short’s flatulence to the forefront. He submitted that ‘flatulence is substance’, not merely peripheral, and that the judge should have so found. The applicant submitted that the flatulence constituted assaults, and challenged the notion that he had accepted that the issue was peripheral.

Yet, the court found that the “farting” was not “bullying in the ‘legal sense.’”

This case got me to thinking, has an American tribunal ever dealt with a similar issue?

The closest I could find is Stanford v. Department of the Army, an EEOC decision. The case involved a white male alleging race and sex discrimination. The allegations stemmed from what he perceived as the Department’s different treatment of his farting in the presence of female co-workers as compared to that of an African American co-worker.

Complainant argues that he was “written up” because a Black female accused him of “farting” …. He argues that Black males can “fart” in the presence of the Deputy and other co-workers and not be disciplined….

We find … that complainant’s harassment claim is severe or pervasive enough to state a claim of harassment.

I’m not sure I would have reached that same result.

But here’s the thing. Can we all just act like adults? Yes, farts can be funny. My 10-year-old laughs at them all the time. But he’s 10. He’s not a grown-up, working at a job. So can we all try to act like grown-ups, treat each other with respect, and not make a federal case out of every trivial thing that happens at work? We will all be the better for it.

March 29, 2019June 29, 2023

Q&A With John Bunch: Holacracy Helps Zappos Swing From Job Ladder to Job Jungle Gym

John Bunch began his career with online retailer Zappos in 2009 as a software developer. Since then, he has become the lead organizational designer and technical adviser to Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh. Bunch was the key leader in the company’s shift from a traditional business hierarchy to a self-organizational structure called holacracy. Workforce Editorial Associate Bethany Tomasian spoke with Bunch about Zappos’ journey away from the more traditional business structure and how holacracy has changed the workplace environment.

Workforce: In your own words, can you describe the concept of holacracy?

John Bunch: There are several different elements that holacracy brings to an organization. Traditional organizations’ hierarchy are positions from entry level to CEO and an employee resides in one place along that ladder. One of the ways that holacracy is different is that it’s a hierarchy of work, not people. That means that within holacracy there are different circles of work and an employee can reside in different circles. A circle is just another name for a team, and an employee holds a certain role in that circle. A single employee could hold different roles throughout several circles in the organization. In that sense, holacracy breaks down the one-person, one-team ideology.

Along with that element, there is distributed authority. In a traditional hierarchy you get the authority from a person higher than you in the organization, your boss. In holacracy there is a governance process which determines what roles have the authority to take which actions. The goal should be to unleash people’s creative power, let them be autonomous and only implement restrictions when there is a good reason. There are processes for distributing authority and for limiting that authority within a circle or throughout the company.

In holacracy there is also the concept of evolution. Within holacracy, you are constantly evaluating if those roles and circles in the company need to change. Anybody in the organization can propose a change to what work is being done. I think in traditional organizations, restructuring work is a big deal that could take months to unpack and it might happen infrequently. In holacracy those restructures of work can happen on a weekly basis.

Workforce: What have been the greatest challenges to overcome in a self-managing workplace that is very adaptive?

Bunch: In self-managing workplaces there is more autonomy and there also tends to be more opportunity. One of the things that we talk about is how traditional workplaces run on a job ladder where your progression at a company eventually leads you to your boss’ position. In our workplace, there are so many roles throughout the organization, and if an employee is interested they can pitch themselves for any role. Our mental model is that we are moving away from the job ladder and to the job jungle gym.

However, with more autonomy, opportunity and self-lead progression comes its challenges. Some people thrive in the holacratic environment while other people need more defined direction in terms of their day-to-day work and overall career. It can be a challenge for those people to learn and grow in the new environment. We’ve done things to help those people adapt such as offering a mentorship through the process of professional development and life-training.

Workforce: What have been the greatest successes since introducing holacracy?

Bunch: The biggest successes are the ideas that get off the ground that probably wouldn’t have happened if not for holacracy. In this new environment, your job doesn’t have to be contained to a specific team as you can move across these different circles which enables people to offer ideas that can benefit the whole company. Whereas at a traditional company, your job might be in finance and finance is all you do.

One example of this was when we launched our initiative Zappos Adaptive. This initiative focused on customers that might have adaptive or special needs in terms of their clothes and shoes. Zappos Adaptive was done through employees whose traditional job did not include this focus. These employees had a passion and a vision for helping people in that community.

Workforce: What lessons have you learned along the way with perfecting this method of organization?

Bunch: Whenever you have a change within your organization, you have to be patient with every team and individual’s journey through that change. Especially with a change as fundamental as holacracy. It could take months or even years to become efficient. Zappos, as an organization, had to be very patient in order to make this change. That is a person-to-person connection and we had to monitor where each employee was during their journey. We preach to not only be patient with yourself but also with others. That went a long way.

We also had to be open to trying new things with no guarantee that they would work. If those didn’t work, then we would have to learn and adapt. A good example of that process was when we were transitioning to holacracy. We were thinking about resource allocation and how that would work in the new environment. We realized that this was causing some big challenges in our business metrics. Our fundamental customer service metrics were being degraded based upon the way that we were operating at the time. That was a big deal to us because it went against out ideology, which is, “To live and deliver WOW.”

We tried something as an organization that ultimately wasn’t working and so we had to shift, learn and adapt. We created systems that righted the shift in our resource allocation and our metrics normalized, perhaps better than they were before. You have to be willing to learn from those mistakes and adapt.

Workforce: How has the self-management of holacracy impacted employee work-ethic and sense of personal value in the company?

Bunch: I think that the ability for different people to get involved with ideas across the company has allowed more self-direction. People can be passion-forward and get involved in things that they are passionate about. That can really help employees see the personal value that they create. This isn’t a part of holacracy specifically, but some of the other systems that are scaffolded on top of holacracy speak to this.

For example, we are working on internal market-based dynamics, which essentially means that each circle in the organization would be run like a micro-business. In this system, each micro-enterprise would be funded by the customers. These can be internal customers or external customers. Instead of a top-down funding model, we are shifting our funding as being derived from the customer of whatever work you do. In a traditional company, employees might not see the value that they are creating. This change is relevant to the employee’s personal value because employees won’t think of themselves as a cost to an organization. By creating these internal customers through these micro-business interactions, employees can really see the value that they add to the company.

Workforce: How can innovation in leadership and organization such as holacracy shape the future of how companies operate?

Bunch: As we grew at Zappos, there was this sense we got from our leaders that the things which worked very quickly as a startup were not happening as fast anymore. If you’ve ever been frustrated by how long it takes you to get something done then you might resonate with this. As we started examining that challenge, we were really inspired by this research that had been done about cities. The research found that every time a city doubled in size, productivity per resident grew by 15 percent. As cities grow, they become more productive on a per-resident basic. However, the exact opposite happens when organizations grow larger. As the size of an organization doubles, productivity per employee goes down. I think we sense this as employees at large organizations when we become frustrated by how long things can take.

What if we could structure our companies in ways that cities are structured? Could we see the same exponential relationship between growth and productivity? That is the vision of where we want to go at Zappos. We want to show that with holacracy we can make more productive and happier employees.

Workforce: What advice would you offer other companies and even startups that are thinking about evolving the workplace hierarchy dynamic?

Bunch: It is easier to start when you are small. At Zappos, we started on this journey when had around 1,500 employees. Some of the challenges that we went through were due to our size. Those were challenges that we might not have had if we started these changes when we were a five-person company. If we started when we were small, some of these changes would have grown in scale with the organization.

I would also tell companies to think small. Think about small ways that you can make your workplace more dynamic and give those a try. If you see positive change, then keep going.

It is easy to go with the status quo and the traditional methods of organization. However, there is a growing amount of evidence of the fundamental flaws with that line of thinking. If you want to have an organization that is inspiring and resilient then it is important to think about these changes.

March 19, 2019June 29, 2023

Q&A With Gary Pisano: How Managerial Leadership Drives Innovation

Over his three-decade career, Gary Pisano has been a researcher and consultant to many of the world’s largest corporations in various industries from aerospace to nutrition. He is a Harry E. Figgie professor of business administration at Harvard Business School where he has been a member of the faculty since 1988. Pisano’s extensive experience has made him one of the leading experts in management, innovation and competitive strategy. In his new book, “Creative Construction: The DNA of Sustained Innovation,” Pisano examines how businesses of all sizes, not just plucky startups, can become transformative innovators. Workforce Editorial Associate Bethany Tomasian recently caught up with Pisano.

Workforce: When did you recognize the need for leadership-oriented innovation strategies?

Gary P. Pisano: I think it goes back very early in my career working with companies, consulting for them and case writing. I saw that without the right leadership to shape the innovation process, getting the strategy and building the right culture just doesn’t happen. I kept coming across situations with some organizations where you wouldn’t see progress over time. There was no one really taking the ball and running with it to provide that energy. Where there was lack of leadership, I would see there was a lack of progress.

Then there were companies where I would see a leader take ownership and you’d see results. So that crystalized for me that leadership plays a central role in driving innovation. I set out to write the book to give leaders a guide in how to do it.

Workforce: What is the relationship between necessity and competition as driving forces for innovation?

Pisano: I think competition is critical for driving innovation. It provides the motive. I don’t think we see a lot of innovation in sectors of the economy where there is little competition because of there is a lack of incentive. If you look at any of these companies such as Amazon, Apple and Google, there’s a lot of competition going on there between these very techy companies. They’re always changing and they can’t sit still. Competition plays an incredibly important role in spawning innovation and spawning a lot of a good economic outcomes. I’m speaking here as someone trained in economics, so I tend to feel in favor of competition to drive good outcomes in general. Competition does a lot more than innovation, too. It drives better prices and efficiency.

I think competition is one of the reasons companies get interested in innovating, particularly companies whose competitive space has suddenly gotten more intense. They might have had a period where they could get away with not being very innovative and then their space starts to change. That’s when they say, “OK, we need to reenergize this innovation muscle again.”

I’ve worked at a number of those companies where it has been some 20 to 30 years since they’ve been innovative and they got away with it because their markets were only moderately competitive. When the competition kicked up and prices began to erode, they saw they couldn’t generate the margins they needed to sustain themselves without innovation.

Workforce: In an era of nearly exponential technological growth, what defines innovation?

Pisano: We do think about innovation too much as being about the technology change but it’s not always technology. There is a lot of business model change that has very little to do with technology. Technology is not the magic; the magic is their business model.

Think about discount airline carriers, somebody like Ryanair and easyJet in Europe. They all use the same planes and airports as everyone else and they have to follow the same regulations as everyone else. Yet, the story there isn’t about technology; it’s about creating a completely new business model. I think we see a lot of that. There is a lot of business model innovation that doesn’t necessarily have to do with high technology.

Workforce: How can companies stay focused on small-scale innovation rather than becoming distracted by whiz-bang innovative strategies?

Pisano: I think it’s very easy to get inebriated by technology today. To some, it’s all about the technology and pushing the technological frontier. I think you have to go back to letting value become your compass and go back to what your competitive position is. This can help you figure out what you need and what is going to drive innovation. Sometimes that is going to be functionality that is created by technology but sometimes it could be a different kind of service offering, or business model.

Take men’s shaving products. Making a razor blade sharper using ever more sophisticated technology is probably not the value driver, but convenience is something different. Think about companies like Dollar Shave Club and Harry’s, which have online models that provide convenient access to the product. This goes back to the source of value and what customers would be willing to pay for. That’s the acid test of value.

Workforce: Are there examples of established companies that are leading in innovative strategies?

Pisano: I think there are many of them across all sectors of the economy in different ways. Innovation is in almost every sector. You see it in apparel with people buying clothing online. The whole retail sector is being turned on its head, so we see a lot of innovation there as well. If you are going to survive you need to innovate.

There is a lot interesting stuff in the auto industry today. People talk about the auto companies as being dinosaurs, but they are doing a lot of innovation on the technological side. They are doing a lot of advancement around alternative fuel and most of them have some major programs there. They are also experimenting with new business models such as ride sharing. Sometimes it’s the companies that we don’t think of as innovative. When people think of innovative auto companies everyone thinks of Tesla. There are some major auto companies that we haven’t normally thought of as these bastions of innovation that are doing fascinating things.

There are also profound changes going on technologically in the drug industry. These aren’t business model innovations per se, although many pharmaceutical companies are experimenting with new business models. There are scientific changes happening that these companies are actively involved with and investing in. It’s not just startups that are innovating, there are large, established companies.

Every company, I don’t care who you are, there is an opportunity to be an innovator. Some might say, “Innovation doesn’t apply to us. We can do what we have been doing, just do it a little better.” I don’t think that there are many sectors of the economy where that is true anymore. Particularly in the U.S. economy, where we are facing global competition. That’s going to be hard to compete on.

Workforce: As climate change remains an ever-encroaching threat to the environment, how can more companies gear strategies toward greener innovations?

Pisano: I think companies are looking very carefully at their incentives to do it. This is where government policy matters because policies often create the incentive for companies to innovate. Tax policies and other regulations can tilt the field, so you will see that kind of innovation. A lot of companies are waiting and watching. Auto companies certainly see themselves on the forefront of green innovation as they invest heavily in alternative fuel sources. I think that there are a lot of things that every company can do in terms of climate concern.

Think about plastic. Plastic is atrocious for the environment and it’s all over the place. Just thinking about changing materials doesn’t require massive innovation. You can see how much waste there is every day, especially in packaging. A lot of the stuff you buy online that is shipped to your house is loaded with plastic and Styrofoam. None of us want our stuff to be broken but there is an awful amount of waste just in packaging. We don’t think of packaging as this big innovation opportunity but figuring out ways to cushion items without using so much plastic would be amazing.

I think regardless of what business you’re in, you could be thinking about fitting green innovation into your business model. This can be done by just improving efficiency. Even incremental improvements in process efficiency, where you use less energy, can accumulate quite a big effect.

Again, we can see this in the auto industry where cars have become more efficient. We now have smaller cars with much cleaner and more powerful engines. That innovation was largely driven by change in fuel and clean air standards. This is an example of how government policy matters when it comes to driving the incentive for companies to pursue climate-conscious innovation.

There are tons of opportunities for innovation that help the climate. I do think companies need polices that provide those incentives. I would tell companies to have a clear strategy of how you are adding climate change as a priority into your innovation portfolio. Ask yourself how this is going to create value and think about your broader competitive advantage.

Workforce: Any final takeaways for companies that are thinking about approaching innovation?

Pisano: Take your time. There is no magic bullet for these kinds of strategies. I wish I could offer you three easy steps but if innovation were easy then it wouldn’t be a source of competitive advantage. If it were easy, then it wouldn’t be valuable.

It is hard to build an organization that is capable of innovating and doing it over and over again. If you can do that, then your organization has a fantastic competitive advantage.

March 14, 2019June 29, 2023

Focus on Employee Work Passion, Not Employee Engagement

Every day the spirits of millions of people die at the front door of their workplace.

There is an epidemic of workers who are uninterested and disengaged from the work they do, and the cost to the U.S. economy has been pegged at more than $300 billion annually. According to a recent survey from Deloitte, only 20 percent of people say they are truly passionate about their work. Gallup surveys show that nearly 70 percent of the workforce is not engaged, with an estimated 23 million “actively disengaged.” These employees have quit and stayed — they show up for work but do the bare minimum to get by, don’t put in any extra effort to care for customers and are a drain on organizational resources and productivity.

On the trust front, the findings are just as stark. Studies show that 50 percent of employees who distrust their senior leaders are considering leaving the organization, with 62 percent reporting that low trust causes unreasonable levels of stress. According to workplace consultancy Tolero Solutions, 45 percent of employees say lack of trust in leadership is the biggest issue impacting work performance.

Building and sustaining high levels of engagement is a critical competency for today’s leaders. In our technology-fueled, digitally connected world where new products, competitors and business models seem to emerge overnight, one of the few competitive advantages an organization possesses is its people. The level of skill, talent, creativity, innovation and passion in the workforce of an organization can mean the difference between mediocre and exceptional results.

Focusing solely on engagement is not enough to get us there. We must shift the focus from engagement to the creation of a high-trust culture where employees are passionate about their work.

From Employee Engagement to Employee Work Passion

Employee engagement is a broad and complex problem that organizations spend $720 million a year trying to solve, according to a Bersin & Associates report. Yet when it comes to engagement there isn’t even a commonly accepted definition of the term. Descriptions vary widely, with elements that include commitment, goal alignment, enjoyment and performance, to name a few.

We make a few critical distinctions between the concepts of engagement and employee work passion.

First, employee work passion is supported by a theory and model that explain how work passion is formed. We believe employee work passion is better understood by considering the influence of research on social cognition, appraisal theory, job commitment and organizational commitment. Therefore, it is a different and more expansive concept than engagement.

Second, the combination of relationship, organizational, and job factors influence an individual’s level of work passion. Whereas engagement is often linked to job satisfaction, employee work passion considers the cognitive and affective appraisals people make when assessing their environment and the meaning they ascribe to their thoughts and feelings.

Third, the literature on engagement usually describes three states of engagement: engaged, disengaged, and actively disengaged. This three-part description lacks a positive upper range of active engagement — distinguished by the concept of employee work passion, this passionate commitment comes from repeated involvement in self-defining activities. Employee work passion goes beyond simple engagement in various work activities to the incorporation of self-defining activities that become a central feature in an employee’s identity.

Creating Employee Work Passion

To understand how employee work passion occurs, one must consider the process an individual goes through when deciding to employ a specific behavior. As stated earlier, much of the research on engagement does not take the full scope of this process into account. Through deeper exploration of the literature, we began to incorporate significant ideas found in cognitive psychology.

Employee choices are driven by the understanding of how the experience or event being appraised impacts well-being. Since people are meaning-oriented and meaning-creating, they are constantly reacting (cognitively and affectively) to their environment to form judgments (appraisals) about how their well-being is affected by environmental events.

Cognition and affect go hand in hand, happening almost simultaneously, over and over, as individuals make sense of a situation. The conclusions they reach about what is happening, what it means to them, how it will affect them, how they feel about that, what they intend to do, and — finally — what they actually do, are all filtered through the lens of who they are.

The model suggests that the appraisal process begins with an assessment of the organizational, job and relationship factors. During the appraisal process, an employee makes sense of how they feel about the extent to which the 12 factors are present in the work environment.

There are multiple steps in the appraisal process. First, individuals make cognitive (thinking) and affective (feeling) judgments of their environment: What do I think about what’s happening around me and how does it make me feel.

Next, an employee’s passion moderates, or shapes, those appraisals into intended behaviors. Passion can be categorized in two ways: obsessive and harmonious.

Obsessive passion can be described as activity individuals engage in because they “have to,” “must do,” or “needs to,” often to their own detriment (such as addiction, compulsiveness, etc.).

Harmonious passion are those activities that could be described as “gets to,” “wants to,” or “can’t wait to” perform. Harmonious passion is exhibited when people lose themselves in the flow of an activity. The final step of the appraisal process occurs when individuals form conscious intentions to behave in certain ways, as measured through the five intentions. These intentions ultimately lead to either positive or negative job and organizational behaviors.

Trust’s Role in Employee Work Passion

High levels of trust between leaders and employees foster engagement and vitality in an organization’s culture. The 2017 “Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement” report from the Society for Human Resource Management showed the top two contributors to employee satisfaction were respectful treatment of all employees at all levels (65 percent) and trust between employees and senior management (61 percent).

Studies have shown that committed and engaged employees who trust their leaders perform 20 percent better and are 87 percent less likely to leave the organization, and that high-trust organizations experience 50 percent less turnover than low-trust organizations. Despite the amount of evidence pointing to the personal and organizational benefits of having a high-trust culture, however, many organizations lack an intentional approach to building trust.

Trust doesn’t come easy and it doesn’t happen by accident. One challenge in building trust is that it is based on perceptions — one person’s idea of what trust looks like in a relationship can be different from another’s. So, it is critically important for leaders and organizations to establish a shared definition for and understanding of trust.

A leader’s trustworthiness is composed of four elements that we’ve captured in the ABCD Trust Model. Leaders are trustworthy when they are:

Able: Able leaders have the expertise, training, and qualifications to perform well in their roles. They also have a track record of success as they demonstrate the ability to consistently achieve goals. Able leaders are skilled at facilitating work getting done in the organization. They develop credible project plans, systems and processes that help team members accomplish their goals.

Believable: A believable leader acts with integrity by dealing with people in an honest fashion; e.g., keeping promises, not lying or stretching the truth, not gossiping, etc. Believable leaders have a clear set of values. They communicate these values to their direct reports and use them consistently as a model for their behavior: They walk the talk. Finally, treating people fairly and equitably is a key characteristic of a believable leader. They are attuned to the dynamics of distributive and procedural fairness (see sidebar) and uphold those principles in the workplace.

Connected: Connected leaders show care and concern for people, which builds trust and helps create an engaging work environment. Leaders can create a sense of connection by openly sharing information about themselves, the organization and by trusting employees to use that information responsibly. Taking an interest in people as individuals, not nameless workers, shows that these leaders value and respect their team members. Recognition is a vital component of being a connected leader and praising and rewarding employees’ contributions builds trust and goodwill.

Dependable: Being dependable and maintaining reliability is the fourth element of trustworthiness. One of the quickest ways leaders erode trust is by not following through on commitments. Conversely, leaders who do what they say they are going to do earn a reputation of being consistent and trustworthy. Maintaining reliability requires leaders to be organized so that they can follow through on commitments, be on time for appointments and meetings, and get back to people in a timely fashion. Dependable leaders also hold themselves and others accountable for following through on commitments and taking responsibility for their work.

The trust one places in a leader comes in two forms: cognitive trust and affective trust. In relation to the ABCD Trust Model, cognitive trust is based on the confidence one has that a leader is able and dependable. This is trust from the head, where rational thought and experience rule. Affective trust, or trust from the heart, is formed by emotional closeness, empathy or friendship. It aligns with “Believable” and “Connected” in the ABCD Trust Model. Our research has shown a large degree of correlation between trust (cognitive and affective combined) and all five work intentions.

Next Step for Leaders

When looking to create a culture where trust flourishes and employees are passionately committed to their work, leaders should examine how the ABCDs of trust are modeled in everyday behaviors, and the extent to which the 12 factors of employee work passion are present. Leaders should ask themselves the following questions:

Does our culture allow individuals to find meaning in their work, their roles and our organization’s purpose?

Are policies, procedures, benefits and compensation transparent and equitably applied to all?

Does our organization provide growth opportunities? Do our feedback mechanisms allow individuals to improve?

Do individuals understand what is expected of them and have a reasonable amount of autonomy when engaging in projects and tasks? Does our organization provide opportunities for individuals to collaborate with others?

Are job roles balanced and reasonable, with enough variety to challenge people perform at optimal levels?

Does our organization have an intentional approach to building trust? And do leaders exhibit the ABCDs of trust in their relationships?

While it may seem daunting to address and incorporate the ABCDs of trust and the 12 factors of employee work passion into the workplace, organizations that do so will be rewarded by trustworthy and passionate employees dedicated to creating devoted customers, achieving sustainable growth and increasing profits for the organization.