Trust
in Teams - And Why it Matters
by
Tracy Gibbons & Randi Brenowitz
This
chapter appeared in Understanding Teams by Michael Welbourn,
Prentice Hall 2001.
Trust
is the willingness to believe that others will behave in reliable,
predictable, non-hurtful ways. It is one of the most important
conditions for healthy and productive relationships. It contributes
to the sense of safety that allows us to let ourselves be known
to others and to try new things. Without trust, we are more guarded
in our interactions with others, less willing to share information
or other resources, and reluctant to work collaboratively with
others.
Now
more than ever, organizations require collaboration in order to
succeed. The complexities of technology, increased competition,
and interdependence, have created a work environment that requires
the knowledge and expertise of many, interacting synergistically.
It's too much for any one individual to do alone.
And
so, increasingly, we have come to rely on teams as the best arrangement
for solving difficult problems under demanding conditions. Presumably,
a team is comprised of a manageable number of people, each of
whom has a contribution to make. But that's not all that's required
for a team to be successful.
Research
identifies three essential components of team success: (1) a goal
that is clear, significant, and embraced by all members; (2) members
who are competent in the technical aspects of the project; and
(3) the ability of the members to work together effectively and
collaboratively. This third factor is so fundamental to high functioning
teams that it can make or break their ability to succeed. In our
experience, teams often have the most difficulty with this element.
It is frequently overlooked with the hope that if a group of talented
people work really hard, they will be able to "pull it out."
At
the heart of collaborative work relationships is trust. Paradoxically,
the same conditions that characterize today's work environment--faster,
cheaper, geographic dispersion, competition for scarce resources,
downsizing, mergers and acquisitions--also create conditions that
contribute to mistrust and the feelings of betrayal that come
with it.
So
if trust is critical for success but hard to create and sustain,
the important question is, "How can trust be developed and
maintained in teams?"
*
Where It All Starts: It is important to understand that different
people come to work with different assumptions about trust and
how it is built. These beliefs are typically formed and reinforced
in early life experiences, including cultural differences. This
takes two forms that can be summarized as the "half empty/half
full" model. Some approach relationships based on the belief
that others are fundamentally trustworthy. They start from a position
of trust, holding and building on this assumption until the other
person does something that is perceived as untrustworthy. These
are the "the glass is half full" people. Those who see
the glass as "half empty" start from the position that
it is better not to trust others until the others have demonstrated
that they are worthy of that trust. They have a wait-and-see approach.
The potential for collision between these two points of view is
high and can, ironically, contribute to a difficult beginning
for everyone, increasing the likelihood of misunderstanding. As
part of the team formation and start-up process, it's a good idea
to find out where each of the members is starting from and to
discuss what will help them develop a foundation of trust.
*
The Dynamics of Trust and Risk: The lifeblood of thriving organizations
is the ability to innovate. Whether innovations are tangible,
patentable inventions, intellectual property, or new processes
that improve how work is done and customers are served, companies
can't compete successfully without them Creating and innovating
new products and process entails taking risks and the possibility
of failure. Our survival instinct, however, leads us to avoid
or minimize risk when we are feeling unsafe. Employees who experience
their work environment as risky put a lot of energy into *avoiding
or managing* those risks rather than *taking* risks. Situations
or cultures of low trust contribute to this experience or perception
of riskiness. High trust is the condition that supports and enables
high risk-taking.
*
The Importance of Team Start-up and Formal Agreements: Perhaps
the greatest investment that can be made to foster a climate of
trust among team members is to engage in a formal team start-up
process. During this process, team members come together to discuss
the team's charter, align and buy in to the goals and deliverables,
clarify roles and responsibilities, and work out important details
and expectations with stakeholders. The creation of a clear set
of team agreements is equally important. These agreements are
the basis for setting realistic expectations and the rules of
engagement for how members will work together. They must also
include a process for how issues will get surfaced, conflicts
will get resolved, and problems will get escalated when the team
cannot come to agreement. Since unmet expectations--whether articulated
or assumed--and the inability to resolve conflict are the chief
causes of feelings of disappointment and betrayal, these agreements
are extremely important.
*
Disappointment and Betrayal: Disappointment and betrayal are the
feelings that result from a perceived breach of trust. This happens,
for example, when a commitment is not delivered or an agreement
is not kept, or so it seems. When this occurs, the level of trust
of the person feeling betrayed drops. The amount that it drops
depends on several factors, including that person's position on
the "half-full/half-empty" continuum and the significance
of the unmet expectation to him/her. If care is taken to discuss
and work out the issues in a timely way, trust can be recovered--though
it will not return to the original level immediately. If little
or nothing is done to deal with the breach, then the trust and
the relationship may be permanently damaged. When successive breaches
occur, these cycles repeat themselves until they become patterns
or norms in the team, the relationships are characterized by mistrust
and suspicion, and the style of work becomes increasingly dysfunctional.
Distrustful relationships between or among even a few members
of a team are enough to affect the entire group. Once this occurs,
it is virtually impossible for the team to recover without assistance
from someone outside the team who has expertise in rebuilding
damaged relationships. So the best approach is to get off to a
good start with clear agreements and to make sure that the team
has the necessary support early in its life to help members work
within their newly created arrangements until they become the
accepted norm.
*
An Additional Caution: With many more options available for how
to communicate with each other as well as increased geographic
dispersion of people who need to collaborate, we have become increasingly
reliant on technical communications media at the expense of face-to-face
(f-t-f) interaction. But when it comes to developing trust, there
is no substitute for f-t-f engagement. How much is enough? It
depends on the team, its work, and other environmental and organizational
circumstances. Both research and our experience show that the
initial start up work needs to be done f-t-f. People frequently
avoid conflict therefore and conflict resolution by phone or on-line
for fear of being misunderstood and making things worse. So periodic
meetings for check-in and team maintenance are an absolute necessity,
as are agreements that call for the surfacing of any issues that
could affect the relationships among the team members as soon
as they see them.
It
is our observation that teams more often fail because of relationship
issues than for lack of technical ability. This component is often
neglected because it requires hard, uncomfortable work and an
investment of time and energy by *everyone* involved. The price
that is paid every day--in costs to people, organizations, and
customers--is staggering.