At the Speed of Trust

Casey Wilson is the practice leader for the leadership and professional skills practices at Management Concepts (www.managementconcepts.com), Vienna, Virginia. He also serves as an adjunct faculty member for Montgomery College in Maryland, teaching a variety of classes on performance and human resource management. In this interview, Wilson discusses the importance of building trusting relationships with employees as a foundation for developing and maintaining employee engagement—one of the concepts addressed in his book The Cornerstones of Engaging Leadership (Management Concepts, 2007). E-mail: cwilson@managementconcepts.com

Casey Wilson

In your book you talk about engaging leaders and engaged employees. How do you define these?

An engaging leader is someone who intentionally tries to understand what motivates employees and uses that information in ways that draw out their excitement and positions them to be successful. The underlying principle here is the intentionality by which a leader takes responsibility to bring out the best in employees.

An engaged employee is someone who feels connected to his or her work and to the organization and who allows those things that drive and excite him or her to lead to action in the workplace. Engaged employees choose to contribute the full measure of their discretionary effort every day to help their organizations, their teams, and themselves.

And what do you mean by discretionary effort?

All employees have a certain level of gas in the tank when they show up to work—their daily allotment of discretionary effort. Employees can choose to fully contribute their discretionary effort, or they can dial back based on any number of factors, including their relationship with their boss or other coworkers, workplace dynamics, or even what is taking place in their personal lives that may determine how much they choose to give. Engaging leaders work to tap into that discretionary effort.

You also talk about non-engaged and disengaged employees and how leaders might work to increase the level of engagement of both groups.

I'll start with disengaged employees. These are people who don't exhibit any real connection to the organization. In extreme cases, disengaged employees can actually work against the mission and goals of the organization by choosing to use their discretionary effort to sabotage workplace productivity for themselves or others. Disengaged employees are noticeably frustrated, bored, or disgruntled and are often outspoken about their unhappiness.

By contrast, non-engaged employees are those who are sitting on the fence. On good days or for certain time periods they may feel connected to the organization and show interest in their work. At other times, things don't seem to click. While they might get their work done and on time, they lack real energy and enthusiasm. It's with this group that I believe there is greatest opportunity to move the organization forward.

How so?

This middle group, those who are sitting on the fence, is actually where the majority of employees reside—about 55 percent of most employee populations, compared to roughly 20 percent of disengaged and 25 percent of engaged employees. I base these percentages on my own meta-level analysis of the data from a number of different organizations that routinely conduct employee engagement surveys, including Gallup, DDI, and Hewitt Associates.

Interestingly, many managers and leaders are tempted to spend 80 percent of their time working to improve the performance and level of engagement of their disengaged employees. I would argue that leaders should instead focus 80 percent of their time and energy on this middle group of non-engaged employees—those who have much greater potential for tipping in the direction of becoming truly engaged. With time so limited, a leader has to ask where he or she can gain the most leverage. Obviously you have to expend some energy to keep your engaged employees motivated. Yet, if you can get even half of your non-engaged employees to become engaged then you can achieve a critical mass of truly committed employees.

So as a leader, how should you respond to disengaged employees?

Well, if I spend 80 percent of my time trying to engage my non-engaged employees and 10 percent keeping my engaged employees motivated, then I have about 10 percent to devote to my actively disengaged employees. That may not sound like much or even enough, but it's important for leaders to recognize that the path toward engagement for those who are actively disengaged may take a very long time to travel. And, because of the variety of reasons employees become disengaged—some of which may be completely outside of a leader's control—you have to look where your efforts as a leader will make the most difference.

You also say that to engage employees, leaders must build trust. Why is trust so essential to employee engagement and productivity?

Engaging in any activity or relationship involves some level of risk. In the workplace, if I try my best and fail, I may risk my reputation or embarrass myself. But, if I have a trusting relationship with a supervisor or leader who is willing to stand by me even when I fail, then I am much more likely to remain engaged and continue giving my best effort.

Trust also allows leaders to get important input from employees. For instance, in performance evaluations, if you ask employees what motivates them or how they feel about their job, most won't be fully transparent if they are suspicious about what their supervisor may do with the information. On the other hand, if employees know they won't face repercussions for being honest or asking for help, then they are less likely to hold back. Simply put, if you don't have the trust of employees, you can't get the information you need to help your employees succeed.

Is there a way to quantify the bottom-line impact of trust and of distrust?

Absolutely. A huge business case can be made for how trust directly impacts productivity and accomplishment of mission. In short, trust allows you to move much more quickly than you otherwise might. Increase trust, and you increase the speed and efficiency of your work processes.

I'll give you an example. If a work team is composed of members who don't trust one another, it will likely take multiple meetings to reach consensus on a goal or conclusion of a task that would take half the time or less for a group whose members already trust each other. When trust is present, you don't have to go through each detail for fear of overstepping boundaries or stepping on personalities or whatever it is that keeps individual members of a team from trusting one another.

I've actually helped a client calculate lost productivity resulting from lack of trust. We assessed an hourly wage to employees of a particular work group that was having difficulty moving forward in their decision making. We estimated that for this one work group the company was losing about $600,000 per year. By extending this calculation to all the groups in the company that might similarly be stalled in their progress, we estimated that the company was potentially losing millions of dollars annually. Trust has a high correlation to speed and productivity. The more trust you foster, the faster you can move forward. (Editor's note: See "Trust = Productivity" sidebar at the end of this article for another example of how to quantify trust.)

What is it that most often breaks trust between employees and employers or between a leader and his or her employees?

Our workplace culture is so fast-paced today that we no longer place as high a priority on conversation, which is essential to building trust. The reason most people leave an organization is because they don't think the employer is a good fit or that their supervisor understands them. In our frenetic pace to meet the needs of clients, we fail to meet the needs of the employees who are the foundation of the work that gets done. When we are outcome-driven only—solely focused on the what—we don't think about how we are going to engage others in the work. When it comes to employee engagement, how the work gets done is as much or more important than what the work is.

Does it take longer to build trust, or to rebuild it once broken?

Rebuilding trust is more difficult, in part because leaders might not always know what caused a trust to be broken. Even little things can erode trust, including a perceived lack of interest or a lack of transparency. For instance, if you know of a change that will take effect in the organization and choose not to tell employees, but they find out in some roundabout way, they may begin to wonder what else you aren't telling them. Not asking employees for their input can also damage an established trust because employees may think you no longer value their perspective.

While it takes longer to rebuild a broken trust, I do think there is a misconception that it takes a long time to build trust in the first place. We can start building trust through our very first interactions by the way we ask questions, listen, and react. This is why conversation is so important to engagement because it kick-starts a foundation for building trust.

You mention that in building trust leaders should probably share twice the information as they think may be necessary. Is there a time-efficient way to do this?

What I mean is communicating wholly, which is practicing transparency in communicating the why as well as the what. I'm not suggesting twice as many meetings or meetings that are twice as long, but rather, taking the few extra minutes to provide the full picture, to tell what you think and why, and to ask others what they think or how they feel about the assignment.

Wondering on the part of the employee erodes trust. It's one thing if employees don't agree with a decision, but another if they don't understand the context behind it. The most effective leaders ensure employees are not left to guess or make assumptions, which can lead to distrust.

You note that micromanagement as a leader can actually promote distrust and become a source of employee disengagement. Can you elaborate?

From the time we are 15 or 16 and earn the right to drive, or to vote at age 18, or to go to a bar at 21, we continue to have these life moments that are symbols of freedom and autonomy and maturation into adulthood. If we then get into a workplace situation where a manager is essentially taking away our decision-making capacity, this can be very jarring. It goes against what has been engrained in us about responsibility. When people are micromanaged, it doesn't allow them to grow and learn and accept greater responsibility or to have a mature relationship with their boss. Micromanagement sends a message of distrust, which is then met with distrust on the part of the employee.

There is a difference in the workplace between compliance and commitment. A great micromanager may get compliance but won't get commitment and engagement. Employees will cope by simply putting their discretionary effort elsewhere. Simply put, distrust leads to disengagement.

So, what attribute in particular is most important for an engaging leader to practice?

Engaging leaders exhibit benevolence—that sense for employees that someone cares about them and the work that they do. I recently spoke to a group where I conducted an informal survey. I asked a group of 150 people how many would be willing to give their best effort to someone they didn't think cared about them. Two people responded they would do so. Now, that doesn't mean the majority don't plan to do their jobs, but they won't be invested to give their very best for someone they don't believe cares about them. Why would they want to make the boss look good if the boss doesn't in turn want to help them succeed?

The message for leaders is that the first step to getting employees to become engaged is to show you care about them. In performance planning, find out what energizes and motivates particular employees. Sometimes it's participation in an activity, or the opportunity to take on a creative project, or the chance to serve on a committee. Knowing that allows a leader to put employees in those situations whenever possible. This goes back to the conversational skills that enable trust-building, the cornerstone of employee engagement.

You talk about emotional engagement versus rational engagement. What's the difference?

In the context of the workplace, rational engagement suggests: "I'm employed here, so I should do this or care about this." But, if I actually do care, that emotional connection is much stronger than any rational connection I could have. The reality is that even for highly analytical people—perhaps those who work all day with data—the thing that makes their job better is how they feel when they solve a problem. Because emotional engagement can be so much more powerful than rational engagement, leaders should want to tap into the emotional connection of their employees whenever and wherever possible.

Finally, following such a tough year of budget and staffing cuts, pay freezes, and heavier workloads for employees who remain, what can employers do to reengage a burned-out, nervous, and perhaps somewhat skeptical workforce?

What has become evident with so much transition going on in the workplace is the strong need to communicate openly about what's going on, what needs to happen, and the implications for employees and the work of the organization. When employees are left to guess, they often generate stories and rumors about what they think is true. Because employees can feel helpless, sharing information and involving them in decisions that affect them can go a long way in maintaining their trust even through tough times.

As far as doing more work with fewer people, this is the time for revisiting how we do work and collaborating with employees to help figure out how to reallocate work in ways that play to the strengths of all involved. In fact, a great way to nurture employee trust not only of their leaders but also among coworkers is to encourage employees to engage one another in conversation about what motivates or interests them so they can rally behind each other to get the work done. Employee engagement is about more than simply providing an environment where people like to come to work. It's about helping people play to their strengths and finding what motivates them to use their full discretionary effort. Leaders who find ways to truly engage others and foster trust in work relationships create a win for employees, for their unit, and for the organization as a whole.

Karla Hignite, principal of KH Communication, is editor of NACUBO's HR Horizons. E-mail: karlahignite@msn.com.