Building Trust That Works: How Clarity, Communication, & Community Provide the Pathway
“Do you really want the truth?”
As soon as the question was in the air, time seemed to stand still. I couldn’t help but calculate the cost of the information that was to come.
“Yes, of course,” I relented, as I braced for the blunt truth that I had now cleared for landing.
In the moments immediately before, I had asked my spouse for her opinion about how I cut my hair. I expected to receive a simple, straightforward response, such as, “I like it longer,” or “I prefer it shorter,” but, as the old saying goes, I was about to get a lot more than I had bargained for.
“It’s starting to look like you’re covering something up.”
I winced.
But, at the same time, I instinctively knew that the opinion, no matter how hard it was for me to hear, was delivered with care and with the intent to help me.
In this instance, my trust in the person and the shared outcome enabled me to trust the process. My confidence In the messenger’s care for me and the faith I had in a positive destination became terra firma on which a bridge could be constructed over otherwise perilous waters of defensiveness, doubt, and insecurity.
The clarity of our common goal, the courage of vulnerable communication, and confidence in our shared relationship empowered me to receive constructive feedback with an assumption of the giver’s positive intent. Clarity, communication, and community provided a pathway through a potentially tumultuous moment.
With that, I made the decision to maintain a shorter style in order to avoid any possibility of sporting a “comb over.”
Day in and day out, whether we are working in our home, organizations, or workplaces, do we really want the truth?
More than that, is the truth something we are willing to work for?
Or do defensiveness, doubts, and insecurities stand in our way?
This is not an easy time to be a leader, to be sure, as circumstances beyond our control have forced our organizations and teams to operate in a constantly changing, highly ambiguous world, both at work and at home.
On July 17, 2020, Ben Wigert and Ryan Pendell revealed “the big myth about micromanagers.” They revealed that the stereotype of the overly involved manager is not necessarily true. Instead, the “modern micromanager” is one who provides little context, support, help, or advice. Modern micromanagers, their research showed, are characterized by “confusing expectations, wasted time, and unnecessary stress and shame,” or a lack of clarity, communication, and community.
“Micromanaging occurs when there is no relationship of trust and support between a manager and an employee. Managers don't trust employees because, frankly, they don't know them. And vice versa. You can't flip a switch and turn on trust -- it must be nurtured over time through conversations and actions. Managers must show they care, and they have to prove to their team that they have the team's back.”
The result of a modern micromanager’s style is a “gotcha” environment that is hypersensitive to failures, mistakes, and weaknesses, thereby draining the organization of the benefits of innovation and performance.
This is not some sort of new age, warm and fuzzy management fad, either. Former Green Beret commander Jason Van Camp shared, “You have to be vulnerable and authentic and expose your heart. If you do that first, it makes it safe for others to do the same. The vast majority of people can detect when you’re full of it and not being real, authentic, or truthful. That destroys the relationship, the culture, and your credibility as a leader.”
Although clarity, communication, and community must be priorities for all relationships at work, it is essential for organizations who seek to strengthen themselves in the areas of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
In the absence of true inclusion and inclusive leadership, the “I” in an organization’s DEI strategies represents incompleteness, ineffectiveness, and insincerity.
On top of that, the absence of inclusion is not only destructive to organizations, it is anti-human, as well.
Timothy R. Clark, in his 2020 book, “The 4 stages of psychological safety,” said, “Inclusion safety is not earned but owed. Every human has title to it as a nonnegotiable right,” (p. 26).
Bureaucracies and hierarchical structures become easily manipulated systems of disempowerment and oppression in the hands of autocratic, inept, and insecure authority figures.
Extreme, and unfortunately all-too-common, examples of such structures are staples of white supremacy culture, which insulates and protects hierarchical and power-based systems. As authors Kenneth Jones and Tema Okun state, these characteristics are prevalent in all of us, including people of color and white people, and although they were designed to disadvantage people of color, they possess the potential to cause harm to people irrespective of their backgrounds and identities.
In power-based systems such as these, fear, mistrust, separation, and silence come together to create an anti-human, oppressive system in which the truth withers in darkness, while employee engagement and wellbeing plummet.
On the other hand, as challenging and even painful as it may seem, when leaders consistently, deliberately, and reliably shine a bright light on the truth, they create courageous cultures that empower their people, tackle toxicity, and transform their teams.
When a group of current and former employees of ”The Ellen DeGeneres Show” spoke out anonymously about a culture filled with fear, intimidation, and even racist behaviors by the executive producers and senior managers, it would have been easy for Ellen and others to dismiss those anonymous reports as baseless attacks by disgruntled former employees.
In response, Ellen has seized the news coverage as an opportunity to shine a spotlight on the truth and take forward steps to address the concerns in a public, transparent way.
“We all have to be more mindful about the way our words and actions affect others, and I'm glad the issues at our show were brought to my attention," she said.
What are some strategies that all of us can use to challenge groupthink and anti-human modus operandi in our organizations?
Adam Grant, in his article, “Kids, Would You Please Start Fighting?” provided four daily strategies that all of us can use, offering that “disagreement is the antidote to groupthink.”
Frame it as a debate, rather than a conflict.
Argue as if you’re right but listen as if you’re wrong.
Make the most respectful interpretation of the other person’s perspective.
Acknowledge where you agree with your critics and what you’ve learned from them.
When we commit to our common ground as colleagues and as humans, we are best able to confront the cold, inhuman systems that disengage employees, disrupt innovation, and destroy wellbeing. When we lead with clarity, communication, and inclusion, we empower ourselves and all of the people around us to be our best.
If you have your own story of a toxic workplace you are comfortable sharing, you can do so anonymously or confidentially (if you choose to share your name) here: https://bit.ly/ToxicCulturesAtWork
