Bridging the Credibility Gap
by Sarita Bhakuni and Michelle Johnston | Human Resource Executive Online
To retain top talent, organizations need to start talking to their
employees. When left in the dark, people draw conclusions which tend to
be worse than reality. HR leaders should also be aware of
uncharacteristic behavior by their managers, which often indicates high
levels of stress.
As the economy begins to show signs of life, companies across the board report a new challenge: Top talent is becoming slippery.
Top-tier employees are suddenly finding notes in their in-boxes and
LinkedIn profiles from headhunters. For many companies, this problem of
a rebounding job market is compounded by a lack of revenue, leaving few
financial incentives available to induce these employees to stay put.
So if you're sweating over the possibility of losing the very
employees that top management made a point not to let go during
workforce cuts, you're not alone.
While there's no doubt that lack of financial incentive plays a
role in the willingness of employees to jump ship, there are deeper
issues that companies must address. Stress, burnout, disengagement and a
host of other problems are symptomatic of one core issue that needs to
be addressed above all: Trust.
The Credibility Gap
Trust issues are often elusive because they largely go unspoken.
However, keep in mind that, over the past two years, valued employees
have seen co-workers let go right and left, saw unfulfilled promises,
observed inconsistent behavior and been forced to deal with the effects
of short-sighted decision-making.
It should come as no surprise that many no longer trust leadership.
Employers who want to hang on to these workers must address this
credibility gap.
Numerous studies have shown a correlation between trust and a host of performance indicators, including retention.
In a 2008 study, Work Engagement and its Relationship with State
and Trait Trust: A Conceptual Analysis, Aamir Ali Chughtai and Finian
Buckley suggested that trust positively correlates with workplace
engagement and cited evidence for the notion that trust positively
affects turnover intentions.
And if, as is suggested, lack of engagement is an indicator of a
breakdown in trust, the problem may be widespread, as a 2010 study by
Right Management entitled Employee Engagement: Maximizing Organizational
Performance found that 50 percent of employees in organizations with 50
plus workers identify themselves as completely disengaged.
Rebuilding Trust with Candid Communication
The studies by both Chughtai and Buckley and Right Management
assert that, among other factors, forthright communication is key to
building trust.
Put simply, organizations need to start talking to their employees.
When left in the dark, people draw conclusions that tend to be worse
than reality. Leaders, therefore, need to candidly explain the current
state of affairs and the strategy for weathering the next few years.
Recently we've seen companies achieve success by holding "summits"
to explain to every level of talent strategic plans, realistic
expectations, goals and reasons behind actions. However, as talking is
only a portion of the communication spectrum, it's equally important to
behave in ways that open the lines of communication and therefore build
trust. Surprisingly, we've found that many behaviors commonly exhibited
by leaders tend to break down trust.
Utilizing constructs based on the Fundamental Interpersonal
Relations Orientation model, which identifies fundamental interpersonal
needs that drive behavior, we've found that it's not uncommon for senior
managers to possess high "expressed" needs for inclusion, but low
"wanted" needs.
According to the theory, the extent to which a person will initiate
certain behaviors is termed as expressed, while the extent to which
they prefer to be a recipient of those behaviors is wanted. For example,
if someone craves affection, yet is fairly unaffectionate themselves,
they could be termed as having a low expressed and high wanted need for
affection.
So managers may, for example, very actively invite their employees
to meetings or social gatherings. However, when asked by their employees
to attend such gatherings, they often don't show up. Even worse,
sometimes they don't show up for their own events. Such behavior
strongly tends to break down trust -- particularly in this economy. As
simple as it may sound, just showing up to meetings and company parties
goes a long way toward building trust because it shows that you care.
Additionally, managers possessing a low expressed and high wanted
need for "affection" often prompt employees to open up about personal or
work-related things, but fail to reciprocate. Getting someone to open
up and then failing to demonstrate openness in return tends to break
down trust, ironically making it less likely that they'll open up again.
While there are boundaries when it comes to managers opening up to
employees, expressing openness on a personal level -- and therefore
willingness toward a degree of mutual vulnerability -- is a highly
effective way to build trust.
Also, consider a manager with high expressed and low wanted needs
for "control," which may be exhibited in a tendency to hoard work.
Failure to delegate often sends a message to employees that you don't
trust them. Delegation, on the other hand, is, in and of itself, an
expression of trust -- a necessary step in building mutual trust.
Building Trust by Showing Appreciation
Both studies also identified employee appreciation as key to
building trust. Beyond praise, however, find out what actually motivates
your employees and let them work on the kinds of things they enjoy.
Additionally, we've found that small, yet meaningful, perks such as
paying for dinner and cab rides for employees who work late, half days,
summer Fridays, professional-development opportunities and time off for
personal development go a long way.
A perhaps even more meaningful way to show appreciation involves
identifying your employees' core needs/issues and figuring out ways to
meet those needs.
In very few areas is this more impactful than stress management.
Identify employee stressors and, on an individual basis, do what you can
to relieve them, and your employees will begin to see reason to trust
you.
Using what is known as "Grip" theory -- a construct for addressing
stress responses based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument --
we've learned that both signs of stress and stressors vary greatly by
personality type, and aren't always obvious.
When we're "in the grip" of stress -- a phrase coined by clinical
psychologist Naomi L. Quenk to describe the feeling of being "beside
ourselves" -- we're not operating from the aspects of our personality
that are most practiced and familiar to us.
As such, our behavior can be clumsy and unpredictable. Furthermore,
grip-level stress can lead to sub-par performance, as we tend to work
harder and work longer hours but are less effective because we're using
preferences and functions where we are less fluent.
For example, someone with a preference for "extroversion" and
"thinking" might deal with the stress of company upheaval with what may
be perceived as cool detachment and efficient determination.
Such unusual calmness in the midst of the storm, however, may be
the sign of tremendous inner turmoil, and an employee close to their
breaking point. For such an individual, stressors may include lack of
control over time and tasks, a disorganized environment and frequent
interruptions.
Alternatively, someone with a preference for"introversion" and
"thinking" may react to criticism or hostility with paranoia. An
otherwise self-assured employee may begin to believe that no one likes
them, and even express these feelings to co-workers.
However -- particularly if this is not usual behavior for this
person -- it may once again be a sign that he or she is stressed to
their breaking point. For such an individual, typical stressors may
include working under strict regulations, being dependent on others for
work results, and too little time alone.
By taking care to identify these stressors and offering workplace
concessions that relieve them, leaders may demonstrate true appreciation
for the employee's contribution and make great strides toward building
trust.
By the same token, leaders need to be aware of how the "grip"
phenomenon may affect their own behavior in ways that break down their
teams' trust in them.
For example, an executive normally heralded for an open
communication style may become withdrawn; a manager who is consistently
reasonable may seem irrational or overly emotional; or an executive who
provides autonomy for employees may become a micromanager.
When this happens, the team becomes confused by this
uncharacteristic behavior and trust breaks down. By addressing their own
stress reactions, leaders can offer a more consistent presentation,
increasing their teams' trust in their judgment.
These varied tactics have one thing in common: they demonstrate
that the employer is dedicated to the well-being of the employee -- an
indispensable component in rebuilding trust.
Barring extraordinary circumstances, it's safe to assume that your
company can't take for granted that its employees believe their best
interests are a top concern for management. If you want to retain these
valued workers, you need to show them why they should believe it.
For many organizations, this will only be accomplished when
leaders quit worrying about whether time and money spent on employees
yields direct ROI -- at this point, the ROI is that top-tier employees
don't quit.
[About the Authors: Dr. Sarita Bhakuni, a psychologist, trainer,
senior organizational development consultant and assessment expert for
CCP Inc., holds master's and doctorate degrees in clinical psychology.
Michelle Johnston, consultant for CCP, is an experienced industrial and
organizational consultant. She holds a master's degree in clinical
psychology and is currently completing her PhD in industrial and
organizational psychology.]
No comments:
Post a Comment