Talking HR Show #011 (Trust at Work)

 

Listen to the show

(Sorry about the quality of my line!)

Show notes:

 

02:45 mins	Krishna: introducing trust and work, the Edelman Trust Barometer.
03:50	Jon: other recent debate, eg at Davos.  recent violations in trust.
07:00	Krishna / Jon: defining trust as an outcome, an element of social capital.  Ken Blanchard Companies' model of trust.  Emotional currency.
10:50	Krishna: people who don't trust anyone or anything and the need to meet expectations.
14:10	Caller from Guatemala: question on role of trust in a new business venture - trust depends on motives and the problem is that people are often selfishly motivated.
18:00	Krishna: issue of differences in trust in different countries.
18:30	Caller: people use trust as a strategy.
21:00	Jon: trust in personal relationships as an analogy for trust in business; trust and its relationship to employee engagement (referring to Richard Edelman's  on FIR podcast).
25:20	Krishna: summary of Edelman Trust Barometer, including results for different countries.  Edelman's advise to use social media to enhance engagement.  How trust is influenced by other' peoples conversations (comments on ecademy and one of Krishna's clients.
33:30	Jon: linking this point on influence to Edelman's findings that people need to hear something several times.
35:45	Krishna: also need to connect the story to the bigger picture; and to deliver on what is being communicated.
37:30	Jon: how important is the lack of / fall in the level of trust? - is it a short-term blip or a fundamental breach will which require very different thinking?  Do we need to develop tighter bonds to ensure the future performance of the organisation?
41:50	Krishna: the need to build trust one conversation at a time.  Some organisations and leaders realise this is important, include in surveys and reports etc.  We need to understand whether our people trust us.  McKinsey research - we tend to research people who are closer to hand - we need to be visible.
47:45	Jon: a possible psychological explanation for this.  Trust in local HR people vs perceived credibility of function.  The role of social media in building trust - do people need to meet face-to-face?
51:40	Krishna: experience of building trust at a distance (without face-to-face or even voice-to-voice contact) - but social media isn't for everyone.
55:45	Jon: other evidence for the opportunities for using social media to develop trust: dating sites etc,
56:45	Krishna: a personal perspective - do we feel we trust others, are we projecting our feelings about trust onto them?

 

Check out the resources we referred to on the show:

 

• Edelman Trust Barometer (or - in the UK)
• Ken Blanchard Companies model of trust
• Krishna's Biz Growth Live podcasts
• For Immediate Release (FIR) live podcasts              
• McKinsey research on trust in international / local / our own company (let us know if you find a link)
• Recent post on the need to develop trust by getting people together face-to-face (rather than replying purely on social media)
• Cyburbia

 

Get involved with the show:

• Subscribe to the show (RSS)
• Subscribe (itunes) - visit the Blogtalkradio site

 

• Join us for future shows (check Blogtalkradio for schedule): +1 347 202 0722
• Email us at talkinghrpodcast [at] gmail [dot] com
• Contact my co-presenter: Krishna De
• Follow us on Twitter: joningham, krishnade

 

Technorati Tags: Talking HR,podcast,show notes,trust,Edelman,Edelman Trust Barometer

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
• Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

  .

WELCOM to the world's leaders Facebook

 

   A few of the world's leaders (the auditorium doesn't look particularly packed) have gathered in Davos this morning to learn more about the World Economic Forum's new Sharepoint based social networking system, WELCOM.

It's been designed to help the participants connect and collaborate after the event and to help them give the world 'a fundamental reboot'.

I agree with the BT speaker that it sounds 'pretty darn exciting' and I wish I could use it... but the question has to be whether any of those gathered together in Davos will actually do so.

This article from the BBC business editor, Tim Weber, suggests probably not:

"The discussions here suggest that many companies are still struggling to move beyond having a colourful website towards really using the internet to their advantage.

And to make things worse, hardly any company knows how to cope with the rise of social media - the Facebooks, Twitters, blogs and YouTubes of the digital world."

 

Perhaps Barack Obama's influence will help here?

 

Technorati Tags: WELCOM,World Economic Forum,Davos,social network

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training - Writing
• Human Capital - Social Capital  - Organisation Capital
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

  .

MLab Management 2.0 conference

 

 

I've posted previously on management 2.0 and this week had an opportunity to attend a Management Innovation Lab event on the subject.

The video shows LBS Professor Julian Birkinshaw opening the event, and I'll be posting on some of the other sessions shortly.  It was a great event, so I've got a lot to reflect and then post upon.

My only criticism would be that the conference was delivered in a very 1.0 way, but then I suppose that suited the audience.  Even though these 200 people were there to learn about management 2.0 (which as Julian describes, is emerging as a result of changing workforce expectations, supported by Gen Y, and changing technological capabilities, ie web 2.0), only one other person other than me was tweating on the event.

 

Technorati Tags: Julian Birkinshaw,MLab,Management 2.0

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training - Writing
• Human Capital - Social Capital  - Organisation Capital
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

  .

Trust and Social Capital

 

   Just before Christmas, I reviewed David Thompson's new book, Trust Unwrapped.  Having a bit of time over the break, and seeing the growing importance of trust at the moment, I have also been reading another book on trust that I've been meaning to read for a few years: Francis Fukuyama, Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity.

The book is really about national economies and cultures, but it makes some insightful points about trust and social capital which apply to organisational performance as well.

Fukuyama defines trust as the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behaviour, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members of that community.  And it needs to be two-way, as explained here:

“Western managers try to appeal to their unions using the Japanese language of common interest between workers and management to convince the latter to loosen work rules or take wage concessions. But if Japanese-style reciprocal obligation is to work, the obligation and trust must flow in both directions. A Western trade unionist would argue, with considerable justification, that it would be naïve to trust management to seek the good of workers as well as management: the company would exploit any concessions made by the union while giving back as little as possible in terms of job security or other benefits.”

 

In Fukuyama's view, trust is the basis for social capital:

"In addition to skills and knowledge, a distinct portion of human capital has to do with people’s ability to associate with each other, that is critical not only to economic life but to virtually every other aspect of social existence as well. The ability to associate depends, in turn, on the degree to which communities share norms and values and are able to subordinate individual interests to those of larger groups. Out of such shared values comes trust, and trust has a large and measurable economic value."

 

He explains:

"Social capital differences from other forms of human capital in so far as it is usually created and transmitted through cultural mechanisms like religion, tradition, or historical habit… The accumulation of social capital, however, is a complicated and in many ways mysterious cultural process. While governments [and organisations!] enact policies that have the effect of depleting social capital, they have great difficulties understanding how to build it up again."

 

I think this is right, and is one of the reasons that it currently receives so little attention.  However, I don't think lack of focus is sustainable - the benefits of developing it are just too great,  As Fukuyama notes:

“If people who have to work together in an enterprise trust one another because they are all operating according to a common set of ethical norms, doing business costs less. By contrast, people who do not trust one another will end up cooperating only under a system of formal rules and regulations, which have to be negotiated, agreed to, litigated, and enforced, sometimes by coercive means. This legal apparatus, serving as a substitute for trust,entails what economists call ‘transaction costs'.”

 

Actually, I don't think this provides a particularly strong business case (it's about value for money in terms of the value triangle, whereas the real opportunities are to add or create value through social capital).

And in any case, the benefits of trust and social capital are not just economic, they're also human:

“That connectedness is not just the means to the end of earning a paycheck but an important end of human life itself… a side of human personality craves being part of larger communities. Human beings feel an acute sense of unease - what Emile Durkeim labelled anomie – in the absence of norms and rules binding them to others.”

 

As business starts to become more people-centric (something which will need to happen if we're going to avoid repeating the mistakes that brought on the current global recession), we will need to take account of this further benefit as well.

 

Technorati Tags: Francis Fukuyama,Trust

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training - Writing
• Human Capital - Social Capital  - Organisation Capital
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

  .

Collaboration in 2018

 

   Happy New Year.

You'll have seen many sets of predictions for the new year / following decade.  I'm not going to make any others, although I still think work will develop in the direction described by this, and my HCM blog.

However, I will reference Workforce magazine's predictions for 2018 (NASA's target date to return to the moon) which suggest that collaboration will be key by 2018.

"The top ranked prediction was that 'there will be an increased focus on infrastructures - such as social networks and wikis - to support strong relationships and collaboration'.

The second-most popular choice predicted novel work arrangements: 'the structure of work will become more adaptive, more informal and less focused on formal structure and static design solutions'.

Gurjar, of Infosys, envisions expanded use of virtual teams of employees who communicate extensively through videoconferencing, e-mail and text messaging,  Gurjar said people are learning to work well together without much, if any, face-to-face interaction.  At Infosys, workers text message despite sitting just a few feet away from each other'."

 

I don't argue against any of this, although I also think that we need to think more about what outcomes organisations are trying to achieve, before we worry too much about the infrastructures and work arrangements that will support these outcomes.

This was the focus of my survey conducted during 2008, and I'll be reporting on the outcomes of this over the next few days or so.

 

Technorati Tags: Workforce Management,HR,2018,Future View,Ed Frauenheim

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training - Writing
• Human Capital - Social Capital  - Organisation Capital
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

  .

Lies, Trust and Chocolate

 

    Human Resources magazine / Hirescores report that more than eight out of 10 (82%) of office workers lie for their manager on a daily basis, saying that their managers are on the phone or away from their desk, to avoid unwanted conversations.

Lisette Howlett, managing director of www.hirescores.com notes:

"Companies spend so much time, money and rhetoric on treating customers fairly and yet there is a high level of institutionalised dishonesty. It appears to be part of the normal fabric of doing business."

 

It's not going to do much for trust within an organisation either.

This is one of the lessons in David Thompson's new book, Trust Unwrapped.  Amongst many other facts and illustrations, this includes a story from 'Thank God it's Monday' in which a PA refuses to tell a caller his boss is out:

" 'I cant do that, you are here' came the response from the new secretary.  After a pause she continued, 'If I lie for you now, you won't know when I'm lying to you'."

 

The main story is set in a chocolate manufacturer and other businesses, and uses these to show the benefits of allowing people to set their own hours, holidays and workload (eg ROWE) and even prices to develop trust.

My favourite paragraph is this one:

"Business isn't about products and services and stuff a lot of the time.  It's all about feelings, emotions and relationships."

 

I think if more organisations understood this, there would be a lot less corporate lying than Hirescores' survey suggests there is.

 

Technorati Tags: David Thompson,Dan Collins,Trust Unwrapped,Lying for the boss

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training - Writing
• Human Capital - Social Capital  - Organisation Capital
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

  .

Carnival of Trust

 

   My post 'Social Connections and Social Intelligence' was selected as one of ten articles on trust included in the December 2008 Carnival of Trust (originally launched by Charles Green's Trust Matters) which this month was held at Idealawg.

There are some other great posts there too.  I was particularly pleased to see this comment on BrainBlogger:

"As individuals, we strive to improve our human capital, or our economic value. We earn college degrees, take continuing education courses, attempt to expand our knowledge and master our respective fields. The more we know, the more we’re worth and it makes perfect sense (and boosts our pay!).

Yet, perhaps more attention should be paid to the value of social capital."

 

Which is of course exactly what this blog is about!

 

Technorati Tags: Carnival of Trust

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training - Writing
• Human Capital - Social Capital  - Organisation Capital
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

  .

Sociability and Solidarity

 

   I've been reading some of Rob Goffee's and Gareth Jones' Harvard Business review articles and their book, 'Why should anyone be led by you?', following a presentation by Jones recently.

in 'What holds the modern company together?', they make the point that culture is community:

"It is an outcome of how people relate to one another... Businesses rest on patterns of social interaction that sustain them over time or are their undoing.  They are built on shared interests and mutual obligations and thrive on cooperation and friendships."

 

I like this definition - and I'm increasingly finding that social (plus human and organisational) capital provides a more useful, granular way of looking at organisations than 'culture'.

I also agree with the author's perspective that culture can therefore be examined through the 'lens of sociology, which divides community into two types of distinct human relations: sociability and solidarity".

 

Solidarity (mind)

Solidarity measures a community's ability to pursue shared objectives quickly and effectively, regardless of personal ties.  It is about relationships which are build on common tasks, mutual interests, or shared goals that will benefit all involved parties.

 

Sociability (heart)

Sociability measures sincere friendliness and non-instrumental relations (in which people don't see others simply as means of satisfying their own ends) among members of a community, associating with each other on equal terms.  It is based on shared ideas, attitudes, interests and values and is sustained through continuing face-to-face relations.

Sociability leads to enjoyable work environments, morale, teamwork, sharing of information, openness to new ideas, creativity and engagement.  However, reinforcing the recent Demos report, and like solidarity, sociability also comes with certain drawbacks:

"The prevalence of friendships may allow poor performance to be tolerated.  No one wants to rebuke or fire a friend.  It's more comfortable to accept - and excuse - subpar performance in light of an employee's personal problems.

In addition, high sociability environments are often characterised by an exaggerated concern for consensus.  That is to say, friends are often reluctant to disagree with or criticise one another...  The result: the best compromise gets applied to problems, not the best solution.

In addition, high sociability communities often develop cliques and informal, behind-the-scenes networks that can circumvent or, worse, undermine due process in an organisation...  Friendships and unofficial networks of friendships allow people to pull an end run around the hierarchy...  In other words, networks can function well if you are insider - you know the right people, hear the right gossip.  Those on the outside often feel lost in the organisation, mistreated by it, or simply unable to affect processes or products in any real way."

 

To me, these aren't so much problems with sociability, as with poor execution or sociable approaches.  I think increasingly, organisations do need to be sociable, and organisations need to find ways to avoid the drawbacks outlined by Goffee & Jones / Demos.

 

Two dimensions, four cultures

Goffee and Jones plot solidarity and sociability against each other to provide the two by two shown in the graphic.  The authors emphasise that "none of the cultures is the best" but when discussing a fragmented culture (low solidarity, low sociability), they note "Few managers would volunteer to work for or, perhaps harder still, run a fragmented organisation."

They also have a few concerns about a communal culture (high solidarity, high sociability) too:

"The communal culture may be an inappropriate and unobtainable ideal in many business contexts...

First, high levels of sociability and high solidarity are often around particular founders or leaders whose departure may weaken either or both forms of social relationship.

Second, the high-sociability half of the communal culture is often antithetical to what goes on inside and organisation during periods of growth, diversification , or internationalisation.  These massive and complex change efforts require focus, urgency and performance - the stuff of solidarity in its undiluted form.

More profoundly though, there may be a built-in tension between relationships of sociability and solidarity that makes the communal business enterprise an inherently unstable form.  The sincere geniality of sociability doesn't usually exist - it can't - with solidarity's dispassionate, sometimes ruthless focus on achievement of goals."

 

So I think what Goffee and Jones are really saying is that organisations need high solidarity and high sociability, but not both (ie that the ideal culture is either networked or mercenary).

And I'd add to this, that solidarity is becoming more difficult to achieve, and therefore sociability is becoming increasingly important.  So if you have to choose between the two, choose this (ie networked vs mercenary).

However, I still struggle to see how both solidarity or sociability, executed well, can be a bad thing.  I'd respond to Goffee's and Jones' challenges by saying that organisations need to find ways of building sustainable cultures, which can support efficient achievement of goals, and that maybe if we did this, success rates in growth, diversification and internationalisation may be a lot higher than they generally are now!

 

Building sociability

Goffee and Jones also note that to build sociability, managers can:

• Promote the sharing of ideas, interests, and emotions by recruiting compatible people - people who naturally seem likely to become friends
• Increase social interaction among employees by arranging causal gatherings inside and outside the office, such as parties, excursions - even book clubs
• Reduce formality between employees
• Limit hierarchical differences
• Act like a friend yourself, and set the example for geniality and kindness by caring for those in trouble.

 

I think there are some great suggestions here.

 

Technorati Tags: Rob Goffee,Gareth Jones,What Holds the Modern Company Together,Why Should Anyone be Led by You

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training - Writing
• Human Capital - Social Capital  - Organisation Capital
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

  .