trust & teams - california state polytechnic university...

20

Click here to load reader

Upload: trinhphuc

Post on 29-Aug-2018

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

Trust &Teams

Steve Iman, MHRCollege of BusinessCal Poly Pomona

Trust Summary

Trust & Relationship Development

Not! -- What we don’t want from people

Mixed feelings about Relating

Cultural Differences

Trust & Team Development

Page 2: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

What trusting ourselves andothers does:• it provides a forward vs. defensive thrust to

interaction• increases the strength & focus of motivation• reinforces proactivity on the part of partici-

pants• clarifies perceptions, generates authentic

curiosity• allows emergence of common vision and

caring• legitimates having feelings, geing different,

being candid, honest, and personal• allows for change, flexibility, reasonable

commitment• reduces conformity pressures and self-

stereotyping• increases resourcefulness and creativity• expands awareness and commitment to life

What distrusting ourselves andothers does:• encourages safe role-taking, moralizing,

defending, rationalizing, punishment avoid-ance

• distancing, masking, surpressing, inhibiting,confusing, de-personalizing, formalizing,observing

• strategizing, planning, segmenting, per-suading, coercing, manipulating, parenting

• controlling, projecting, submitting, depend-ing, leading, dominating, rebelling, manag-ing

Page 3: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

On Trust and RelationshipDevelopmentTrust, unhappily, is not a part of the American,or global, political way of life. In fact ourpresent culture is inhospitable to trust. Weplay roles; we manage and manipulate. Wesee organizations as depersonalized systemsin our power-, fear-, and defense orientation.

Fortunately, trust can exist, and even thriveamong individuals and in small groups. Wehope for it in families, try to create it in ourrelationships and miss it in our communities.We want to be close and cared for, find our-selves to be and be thought to be important,part of something. We wish we were open toone another and more often felt that internalsense of freedom to just be ourselves withothers and not play games. Trust makes itpossible to get along without judging oneanother, without needing to have everything inwriting, without having to play ogre, moralist,policeman or bureaucrat.

When we don’t trust one another we are lesshonest, less willing to work together, we avoiddeep and meaningful communications of anykind and protect ourselves instead. Our feardrives us to enforce rules, construct normsand contracts and tie each other down. Rather

than be persons, we become ‘managers’;setting ourselves at a distance, becomingobservers rather than co-participants in life,thinking strategically, generating plans. Weresort to withholding, withdrawal, or persua-sion. Trust is the measure of our health; ourability to live without such defensiveness, togo about learning and observing ourselvesand others change in joy and without effort.

Fear stops the flow and arouses the de-fenses. Then we don’t know who we are; weget momentarily lost. We cover-up and put onprotective masks, put on and take off roles toplease others and to “get ahead” or “getalong” — whatever those mean.

Page 4: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

Fear creates the danger. We over perceiverisk, trigger defensiveness in others andproduce just the outcomes we expected tofind. We expect the worst and replicate it forourselves and others. We narrow our focusand get all stressed out. Thinking, problem-solving, and action become unclear, random,jerky, irrelevant. Progress is not made whenwe immobilize ourselves with fruitless worry orallow others to immobilize us through theirdefensive strategies and techniques.

Trust begets trust. Fear begets fear. Trust andfear are the keys to understanding personsand all social systems. They are the primaryfactors in all human living. Your trust level atany given moment determines how personal,open, allowing, and interdependent you andthose around you will be. It’s all very simple.Here we go:

• It all starts with self-acceptance. Beingyourself means caring and pride and allow-ing yourself to feel unique and special. Ithas to do with giving up guilt and any ideasabout inadequacy. Observing, knowing,nurturing yourself leads to a strong senseof identity., spending a life working hard tofit into other people’s games does not. Self-acceptance allows you to release yourselfinto the world and experience excitementwith challenges and questions. Self-accep-tance facilitates identification with the work,and not the roles of life; it allows for the

release into curiosity and creative contribu-tion — quite a different state of motivationthan the common grasping for roles andsecurity.

• Self-acceptance involves opening oneselfto experience, deciding to trust and takerisks; swallowing congesting fears orputting them aside as one can. Being openand transparent — being honest withoneself and open with others where youcan are the ways of coming to “knowyourself” — experience feelings of free-dom to be and do. It happens in the pro-cess of living through trusting relationships

Page 5: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

as an equal co-creator. This is the courageunderlying Steve Covey’s habit of pro-activity, and the well-spring for finding agenuine sense of purpose and contributionto the human community. The need forsupport which all of us now require as weface the challenge of creating our ownlives — finding a “home” in our futures —only magnifies the importance of our

capacity to love — starting first with our-selves.

• The notion that one should love oneself isdifficult for many, and smacks of selfish-ness — not unlike the offensive presump-tions of “enlightened self-interest” whichremains the dominant organizing principleof our socio-economic and political system.The healthy person takes care of him orherself first. Increasingly the imperative isless materialistic and calls for self-nurturance from personal life, choice atfinding human partners to make deep andpersonal commitments to, taking personalresponsibility for one’s physical and mentalhealth, and exercising discretion at whereone allows their resources to be deployedin the increasingly complex and difficulty tolearn about or understand socio-economic-political system of occupations and institu-tions. In all areas, however, the thrust isaway from dependency and security asunderstood in traditional terms.

• Trusting and accepting yourself get mir-rored in your capacity to support, show

appreciation wonder and enthusiasm, andallow others to be themselves. Letting thembe involves accepting their emotionality andtheir uniqueness more than their ideas.People who think in terms of categoriesand roles put people in ‘boxes’ and don’ttreasure or nurture them. People who can’tsee past words do not care and are not tobe trusted. People who ‘just think’, setdistance, make objects of others, resort toself-interest, ‘shirk’ or don’t understandinterpersonal responsibilities common tomost ethnicities are usually spotted withinthe first three minutes of meeting them.

• Personal behavior and the display of feel-ings produce trust. Withholding, takingroles, depersonalizing, rationalization,covert-seeming behaviors (‘Why are theydoing what they’re doing? Do the wordsmatch the non-verbal evidence of feelings?Is the sound with the music?’) feed fear,cynicism, and distrust. It all happens veryquickly and can often be quite conclusive inimpact. Type A people have difficulty findingfriends.

Page 6: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

• As relationships develop, the same ques-tions pertain. Only those open with informa-tion about their thoughts, feelings, ideas,and sharing of facts earn high levels of trustin relationships from loving to managing.Being open earns commitments from oth-ers to integrate with your thoughts, feelingsand the problems you see. Transparency isthe first step in earning leadership creden-tials. Covert strategies, holding back, re-maining private, non-disclosiveness —intended or not — culturally inspired or

not — produce counter-strategies, circum-vention, and resentment at the relationshipresponsibilities born by the more open andvulnerable. This is one ofthe key battlegrounds between Anglos andAsians, as it is between males and females.

• Most of what we think we ‘know’ aboutmotivation is wrong; the presumptionscome from autocratic and archaic forms offamily and social organization. Motivationrelevant to our age and the future is not amatter of manipulation through use of fearor punishment, obligation and guilt, arrang-ing contingencies for extrinsic reinforcers,or persuasive manipulations appealing topart-logics of personal interest. Only on avery short-term and dysfunctional basis isanyone able to get someone to do some-thing they don’t want to do. Motivation is nota technique; it emerges from within theindividual involved in constructive flows oftrusting living. Motivation is the experience

of alignment between personal growth andtask challenges of the situation.

• Constructive flows of trusting living arenon-hierarchical and presume a modicumof equality of status and interpersonalrespect. The freedom to do and be in-volves the experience, during personalgrowth episodes, of minimal constraint andinterpersonal obligation. Status differ-ences, attempts at control and influence

Page 7: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

often produce resistance; dependency andpassive aggressiveness, or rebellion. It’sonly when people feel truly free that theygive freely. The differences between build-ing obligations and free-will sharing aresmall, subtle, widely ignored, and abso-lutely critical. Synergy is the goal — un-constrained creative involvement at solv-ing the problem, getting the job done,building something new. It requires fullyengaged participants; free as well tomanage and protect themselves fromover-involvement at the cusp of burnoutepisodes.

• We have little language with which to talkabout or define this emerging criterion for

excited human engagement. The term“inter-dependence” is used by most, thoughit implies reciprocal obligations for involve-ment (‘strings of attachment’) of exactly theorder most want to avoid. Major theories ofsociology have focused on definition of ‘roledynamics’ (reciprocal obligations), while the‘gestalt’ of the age would seem to be toexplore being “role-free”. The author of thispaper thinks in terms of “inter-indepen-dence” (see paper below). Autonomy, ratherthan obligation seems essential if we’re towin from our relationships not only satisfac-tion but the true creativity involved in syn-ergy. (See “Winning Ways” — also a shortpaper below).

Page 8: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

Not! — What we don’t likefrom other people?

• People don’t like feeling disconnected,lonely, out of touch, and separate. Eachwants to feel unique and special, butrelated to others in some “real” way.

• People resent being talked into things,manipulated, “sold a bill of good”, orpersuaded.

• Most people don’t like relationships thatare programmed or routinized — rolebound; relationships patterned to preser-vation rather than growth. Status-quoseekers are generally frightened anddefensive.

• Most people hate being treated as an“object” — a segmented person (beautifulbody, brilliant mind, specialist, etc.), or asa non-person. They don’t want to be puton a pedestal or to be put down — but tobe treated as “human”.

• Most don’t like to be looked on as a mem-ber of a class or category, even one

associated with prestige. Each wants to seethemselves as special and unique; no onewants to be “typical” of anything.

• Most people don’t like to feel defensive,evaluated, or compared with others. Theydon’t like being assessed, graded, or ap-praised unless they think they can ‘win thegame’. Trust and most forms of competitive-ness are antithetical.

• We’re uncomfortable when others aredependent on us; cloying, demanding, orasking for more than the other is willing togive. The dependent person as well findsrelationships unsatisfying; most don’t likebeing dependent, clutching, hungry, asking.

• Nobody’s interested in paying for a relation-ship or being paid for it in any form of mon-etary or unmonetary obligation. Mostpeople feel uncomfortable either feelingobligated to others or having others feelobligated to them.

Page 9: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

Our Mixed Feel-ings about Inter-personal Relation-shipsA primary reason that interpersonal relation-ships are dynamic, changeful and sometimesturbulent can be found in the fundamentalambivalences felt by most people in all on-going relationships. That most of us live in aninterpersonal world is testament to our desirefor relatedness, though rarely do people lookon interpersonal commitments and entangle-ments as unequivocally positive.

With each relationship we simultaneously loseand gain freedom. In each relationship webecome greater and lesser. We are enhancedthrough opportunities for dialog, cooperationand need satisfaction — though relationshipsinvolve risk of hurt or loss, and take time,effort, commitments and sacrifices not easilygiven.

Relationships are rarely stable — they involveboth centripetal and centrifugal forces burieddeeply in the human condition. Resolvingambivalences on both sides of relationshipstakes time; the process and history is unique

to each relationship we have. We are often notconscious of the processed involved, and atdifferent stages at resolving personal con-cerns.

Researchers on relationship dynamics haveshown that the degree of agreement betweenindividuals across a variety of issues regard-ing the relationship are often so low that it hasbeen suggested that there are really tworelationships. Even more intriguing is thefinding indicating that interpersonal pairsexhibiting a direct style of communicationsabout “what’s going on” within the relationshipshow no greater mutual understanding of oneanother than do people who display evasiveor nondisclosive communications styles.

With time, some relationships approach stabil-ity and coherence, while in other settings,often for environmental or external reasons,relationships are “pasted up” or “played out”without significant alignment at deeply per-sonal levels.

Page 10: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

Researchers have identified four dimensionsof relationship ambivalence which commonlyrequire dialectical resolution. Sometimespeople find themselves in accord on theseissues and can continue toward meaningfulrelationship; in other cases cyclical alterationssubstitute for progress, as where people getcloser, then farther apart, then closer. Othersavoid or turn away from potential relation-ships, or move hesitantly toward interdepen-dence — as with a conscious determination to“give it a shot” in the face of fears.

The first dimension of emotional ambivalencein most relationships is variously character-ized as “autonomy/connection” (Baxter, 1988),“individualism/collectivism” (Lustig & Ander-son, 1990), and the “freedom to be indepen-dent/freedom to be dependent” (Rawlins,1983). The fundamental contradiction underly-ing the dimension points to the approach/avoidance conflict people feel about sacrific-ing their autonomy. It is not simply a matterthat some prefer to be lonely cowgirls off ontheir own, while others have learned that theycan get what they want through fawningdependency on people “better” than them-selves; each feels some pull in both directionsand needs at least some temporary rationalefor the risks to be taken, and they all under-take reciprocal obligations as they understandthem (often cultural and unexplored until theyare violated) with trepidation.

Novelty vs. predictability constitutes a seconddimension of tension in many relationship.While at the beginning stages of relationshipwe seek to reduce uncertainty by resorting tostructure in relationships, these same patternscan come to be sources of boredom and feellike a “straight-jacket”. There is a fine linebetween enhancing predictability throughresort to relationship rules and the develop-ment of mundane sterility.

Research has evidenced that the primaryreason people terminate relationships if for alack of spontaneity and adventure. Ironically, itseems that in relationships not grounded intask interdependence, at the moment whenobstacles to productive relationships areremoved, interest often seems to dissipate.Both in their career and professional lives,people struggle with this contradiction. Oftensegmentation is used as a strategy for copingwith the dilemma; striving for stability in de-fined areas and making heroic efforts atspontaneity in others. Voluntary temporaryseparations are often experimented with inpersonal spheres.

Joint commitments to engage in interactionand efforts at creativity themselves do not fullyaddress underlying issues of trust vs. skepti-cism. Having decided to “give it a shot”, thereare ongoing assessments of risks and re-wards. Violations of trust cause rapid de-escalations of interpersonal commitment.

Page 11: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

While people’s generalized trust capacityseems to have little bearing on relationshipquality, both the hopes and fears of eachperson evolve and interact to produce a rela-tionship-specific level of faith between partiesto a relationship or team. While there arereward for joint involvement, there is alwaysthe fear of false commitment on the part ofothers and anxiety about dashed hopes. Eachis looking to the behavior of others to gaugehow much risk to take — how deeply to investthemselves in mutuality.

Assessments of the predictability of the be-havior of others influence trust decisions earlyin the relationship — as when a manager isdeciding to whom to give the key for earlyopening of the store. Far more subtle judg-ments about loyalty take place after baselinethresholds have been established. Talkingabout these issues can help, but often testi-monials are paid less attention than ongoingbehaviors and relationship history.

Amidst the streams of action emitted by oth-ers, people are especially acute at inferringthe goals and the plans being used to pursuethose goals by others. The meaning that isattributed to a sequence of actions and wordsderives partly from one’s own goal-plan orien-tation and has strong implications for levels ofcommitment to relationship. Trust is oftenassessed non-verbally or through semi-con-scious strategies involving secret tests andthird party discussions.

A final dilemma for many people involvesopenness vs. privacy. Though the legacy ofthe humanistic and pop psychology have longbeen biased toward openness and full disclo-sure, individuals usually strive for areas ofinaccessibility even in their most valued rela-tionships. While a degree of openness isessential, and while most relationships andteams show increases in disclosure duringearly stages, many contemporary perspec-tives on human relations characterize disclo-sure as strategic and exchange behaviorsrelated to power position in the relationshipand assessments of future relationship gains.Telling all of one’s secrets is avoided bymost — often with an expectation that theconsequence would be a sense of total vul-nerability and loss of self. Perhaps the com-mon resolution arrived at most places is to “letthere be space” — to negotiate safe topicswhile declaring others taboo.

Page 12: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

CulturalDifferencesCulture is often thought about in terms oflanguage, religion, family patterns, and pot-tery. Elements of culture of many and varied,providing much basis for misunderstandingand confusion. More important, perhaps arethe emotional reactions —generally negative — when people hold todifferent expectations of interpersonal behav-ior. Participants usually misunderstand thesources of difference and defend themselvesfrom acknowledging reality through maneu-vers of blaming and evaluation.

Uneasiness with people who are “different” —distrust — is the common attitude prescribed

by most cultures. The uneasiness often arisesless from general attitudes acquired throughsocialization than from personal experiencesof having one’s expectations violated in en-counters with people we’re trying to get toknow. It’s often the minuscule norms aboutwhat people at different levels of knowing oneanother are supposed to do and say, etc.which pose the barriers with the longest rangeconsequences for one-on-one relationships.

Cultural ideas about how long one should talkbefore involving the other in reciprocal interac-tion, or whether others should say anything ornot; smiling, physical distance, and a host of

other communication behaviors are deeplyingrained. So deep are these cultural ideaswithin the individual that they are invisible tomost members of a culture and can be trans-mitted unwittingly through generations ofcultural assimilation; indeed they are part ofus.

Interaction behavior of people from othercultures tends to be labeled as inappropriate,incompetent, gross, or insulting. Americansdon’t like Near Easterners who stand tooclose; Swedes think French use too much eyecontact; Dutch resent what they see as Ameri-cans’ tendencies to brag about themselves;Japanese think Americans talk altogether toomuch. North Americans have no time to befriends, dislike the smells of the people of

Page 13: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

almost all cultures and take offense atunbrushed teeth.

Unfortunately, violations of unconsciouscultural biases produce negative attributions,and typically these follow the pattern of thefundamental attribution error — to character-ize differences as deficiencies of characterrather than the product of cultural standards.Explanations of others’ behavior tend not tobe attributed to the situation or the relation-ship, but to intrinsic qualities of the otherperson.

Almost universally, people who are enactingdifferent cultures are judged rather than ac-cepted or understood. The ability to rationalizeand forget another person’s flaws is an essen-tial component of interpersonal compe-tence — and it is usually in short supply.People who are “different” are described aspushy, aloof, unclean, loud, aggressive, orstupid. Unacknowledged cultural biases pre-vent relationship development. Even withincultural groups the process is the same.Throughout the U.S. there are remarkablydifferent norms for touch, verbalassertiveness, and openness which impaircommunications between individuals.

Cultural expectations are so habitual, so overlearned and automatic that one or another’ssensibilities in almost any relationship arelikely to be violated in a variety of ways. Reac-tions to these violations are typically bothnegative and unconscious — people may notbe able to put their finger on what is disturbingto them. The handshake that did not happen,the violating touch, the approach too warmand open are all candidates for interculturalmisunderstandings. Only very sensitive com-municators with great cultural sensitivity andconsiderable intercultural contact can avoidemploying their own cultural upbringing in anegative way.

Page 14: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

Trust & TeamDevelopmentLike human beings, each group is unique andemerges as an unfolding of complex pro-cesses. From the first moment of team lifethere are two large issues; What will the teambe like as a performing organization aroundtasks, and what will the team be like as ahuman and interpersonal environment. Eachgroup approaches and resolves these com-plex issues in unique ways.

Each person is an actor co-authoring a story-line which may either work or not work. Eachperson is either open and trusting, willing totake risks and start by being themselves, orthey are on the defending side seeking roles,being guarded, anxious to find “structure” andsecurity. Members who have developed with-holding skills are particularly adept at foulingup the system, for if the group can’t know itsmembers it has no information upon which tocreate an edifice for human accomplishment.

Most groups find a way of growing. With timeand as members get a bit more secure, themagic of small groups and teams is that trustmay grow. Where they do, relationships takeon a life of their own, people can come to feelbetter about themselves, can find both asense of community and challenge, andcreative things can happen.

The first three minutes to an hour are themost important moments in the life of a team.Often, and usually quite unconsciously basicpatterns get set from people’s first anxietiesand fears. Quite often in the first moments aframework is established; whether the teamaccepts or will end-run the manager’s require-ments, the goal they should aim for, howseriously people will take one another and theexperience, etc. Some research on taskteams in the classroom and in industry showthat these basic patterns often don’t shift inany significant way until the group reaches ahalf-way point to where the task is supposedto get completed; then the ‘rush to completion’can sometimes dislodge failed patterns of thepast.

Page 15: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

In human groups, the most important concernat the first stage of group life is that of accep-tance. Some are trusting and genuinely readyto be open to others while others search forroles to answer the question “How should I actin order to be accepted here?” The lack ofstructure, the ambiguity about tasks and thepurpose of the team, what projects willemerge, etc. drive many people toward beingless than their full selves; the search for manyis for the stable and trust-able rather than thechaotic, spontaneous, and impulsive environ-ment of high trust living. All of us in suchcircumstances are uncertain that we’re “o.k.”;we don’t know quite what others want of us (ifanything), or how the facades we put on inorder to “say something” come across. If wecan be easy in the face of all of this, and focuson building trust and getting to know oneanother, there is a possibility that we can builda fine team.

The strongest tendency and most commonproblem with groups and teams everywhere isto want to “skip the preliminaries” and findsecurity in some kind of structure; taking thefirst goal that comes to mind, searching for aleader who will reduce all the uncertaintyabout what we should be doing, etc.

Early stages of most groups are marked bysubtle signs of distrust; persistent defense ofone’s opinions, avoidance of feeling or ofconflict, denial of the importance of the groupand what it might mean to people if they really

showed how much they cared, seeking infor-mation about the status and experience ofothers to determine how dangerous the turf is,suspicion about the motivations of others, put-down of the group, members, the class, oroutsiders, setting up rules, keeping others at adistance, etc. etc. etc.

The problem is compounded because neitherwe nor others are aware that what’s behind allof the busy-work is a plea for acceptance ofself and others. Not knowing what the problemis, the group casts around in a desperatesearch to feel that it’s done “something”. We’renot happy with others, and we’re not happywith ourselves. Some seek membership byevidencing decisiveness or pretending sophis-tication; by showing previous group experi-ences and trying to suggest that they wouldbe willing to provide leadership for others.Some pair or “handclasp” with other membersthey know or who seem influential. Othersshow apathy and call it “listening skills”,though more often it results from the ‘quietone’ having said something which wasn’tunderstood or results from pressures of per-suasion toward false goals, or resistance from“charismatic” or “dynamic” types who aretrying to lead the group.

It’s only as trust has room to grow and wrongturns aren’t taken in the early stage thatmembers can start feeling more comfortableand less compulsive about structure andachievement. If a supportive environment can

Page 16: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

be created bypoints of listeningand evidence oftruly hearing whatothers are sayingabout themselves;if we can findthings to startrespecting andliking in one an-other, individualsfind more room onthe team to bethemselves andthey can startopening up; theycan start acceptingnot only them-selves, but theattitudes andfeelings expressedby others — with-out feeling threat-ened. Where trust

flourishes, people can crawl out of their “so-ciological selves” (roles and identities), andsafelybecome more personal and psychological.They can show their vulnerabilities with mini-mal concern for hurt; they can treat eachother more like friends and less like potentialadversaries; watching the team develop canbecome exciting drama and not human trag-edy. Every act of trust, of openness, ofpersonalness, of honest expression of wants

helps. Every implication of distrust, every bit ofwithholding and not sharing of ones ideas andfeelings stands in the way and has impact.

The issue of how structured (rational, predict-able, organized) the group should be emergesat a variety of points in the life of a team.Often it gets introduced early around the issueof how the team will handle authority andleadership. Does it need a leader? Couldleadership be rotated? Could leadership bedone without? The issue often gets raised farbefore the team even knows what it will bedoing; before it can assess the kind of struc-turing which might be relevant to whatevertasks, purposes, and goals emerge.

Often the issue is raised by those who wantthe experience or status implied by leadershiproles; too often the requests are granted bythose only too happy to give up co-responsi-bilities for leadership. Though groups oftendon’t understand it, their decisions aboutleadership involve decisions about how influ-ence will be shared, the flow and directions ofcommunications, how priorities will be coordi-nated, and especially, the depth of commit-ment and responsibility to be called for fromeach participant.

Genuine teamwork, especially where the workof the group is personal development ratherthan the development of some rational prod-uct, calls for strong commitments to contribu-tion from all members and is usually facilitated

Page 17: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

when leadership decisions are postponed,and minimal leadership differentiationemerges based primarily on contribution tothe specific task as hand. Tasks vary over thelife of a group and so should leadership.

Proactive teamwork requires unified purposeand pretty uniform contributions. It takes anattitude of willingness to take full responsibilityfor creating fully shared and collaborativeprocesses where every element and aspect ofdecisions is open to challenge and question.Anything less than full responsibility and feltaccountability for the overall purpose andaccomplishment of the group on the part ofeach team member is a cop-out and allowsparticipants to blame any existing grouplimitation (as they see them) on those mem-bers who seem to like things the way they are.

The kind of accountability we’re talking abouthere is largely one of taking responsibility foroneself, not taking responsibility for others.You don’t take responsibility away from any-body by doing things for them; you clearlyexpress your own feelings, showing who youare, making visible your wants, and takingpart in any problem-solving or creative ap-proach the group can generate out of it’scommon understanding of the needs of theinterpersonal and task situation.

Teamwork requires a great deal of willingnesson the part of people to “tell their truth” — notabout past sins or inadequacies at all, but

about what they are thinking and feeling aboutwhat’s happening inside the team. The lack ofopen data about feelings and perceptions innatural work groups is frightening and confus-ing. People who are trying to ‘go along’ inorder to ‘get along’ usually make messes ofthings since decisions get made that nobodyhas any investment in.

Integrity and candor are among the mostdifficult challenges of leadership and personaldevelopment — and the most important prizesof a strong commitment to personal growth.They are also the most difficult habits todevelop since ‘white lies’, avoidance, subtlemanipulation and hidden strategies seemnatural and inevitable, in addition to being sowidely taught. The reality, however, is thatwithout authenticity (honesty of thoughts andfeelings conveyed), synergistic progress islargely impossible.

When groups lack data about their members,they obviously can’t help frame projects withappropriate assumptions about intrinsic moti-vation. Where a kind of unconscious con-spiracy exists to hide relevant feelings andopinions, groups are paralyzed and teams geta cynical reputation; problems can’t be solved,railroads can’t be run, bottom lines won’t bemade.

In order to be effective, groups need a greatdeal of information about both their tasks andabout their members. The critical issue is that

Page 18: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

the team work to maintain and continuouslyenhance levels of trust as the team deals withincreasingly challenging differences.

As people become more open, they needsupport for doing so. They spot conflicts andraise confrontations as caringly as they can,opening doors of communications relevant tothe problem-solving needs of the group. Theydo not necessarily become more open tosharing personal issues of little relevance togroup tasks, but they take risks on behalf ofthe overall good of the team. Congestion andblocking are reduced. Caution is less neces-sary. As trust grows, fear-barriers that preventcandor and openness drop away. Peoplebecome more expressive, energetic, frank,impulsive, and spontaneous. Even people whofear that they don’t “communicate very well”have little difficulty in trusting environmentsmaking their inputs clear, direct, to the point,and powerfully.

Everything in a good group “speeds up”;throwing unnecessary caution to the winds,the team can get to “real problems” morequickly, more confidently, and with less fuss.Good groups learn to gather data quickly —about themselves and whatever projects

they’re interested in — and they learn to makefar better and wiser decisions about a broaderrange of things than their members couldalone.

Having a true understanding of the people inthe team, their wants, strengths, anddreams — is especially important where theteam has some discretion in formulating pur-pose, developing goals, or figuring out the bestuse of member resources in order to get thejob done. Developing acceptance and highlevel of trust makes it possible to know moreabout members and their feelings at a deeperlevel. The open flow of information is particu-larly important in generating a project whichwill truly integrate the interests and needs ofteam members.

Page 19: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

Teams need much more than tactical goals;they need a sense of ennobling purpose ifthey are to call out the best energies of mem-bers. Hasty acceptance of the first goal orproject proposal in the wind in a major down-fall of many teams. It isn’t until the teamknows or can trust its members to share howintrinsically interesting alternative projectswould be that the group has a basis for con-structing truly satisfying projects.

Quality goal-formation is a distinguishingmark of effective group action. It results frommembers having genuine interests in things,from a sharing and deep assessment be-tween people about what they want, openprocessing of relevant data, and a creativesynthesis toward something do-able; not tooabstract, not too impossible to operationalizethrough a plan.

Early, high-fear, or compromise goal-settingleads to feelings that members are doingthings less satisfying than they might doalone; members ‘go along’ so as to ‘cooper-ate’, satisfy others, seem flexible, avoidbeing seen as a rebel, etc. Considerableresearch on groups using depth interviewsshow that members at an early stage whoare seen by their peers as only consentingto go along with projects usually wind upwith the most unverbalized secret reserva-tions and lowest level of satisfaction withgroup involvement.

Several issues of “structure” (authority, goalformation) have been outlined above. We’veused the term structure to refer to ‘recogniz-able patterns, rules, roles, understandings,norms, stability of status designations, agree-ments about accountability, etc. Teams set upsuch regularities [and others, such as seatingarrangements, friendship patterns, ‘who-talks-to (or through) whom’] in order to satisfy needsfor predictability, order, security, efficiency,fairness, etc.

These structures can help in a limited way, andcan also get very much in the way of teamdevelopment. The problem is that without trust,structure produces rule-beating and rule-avoidance risk-taking, unfairness, doing thingsthe ‘long’ rather than ‘short’ way, etc. Goodteams learn that the higher their level of trust,the lower and more temporary are their needs

Page 20: Trust & Teams - California State Polytechnic University ...sciman/steve/articles/trustnteams.pdf · Trust & Teams Steve Iman, MHR ... without needing to have everything in writing,

for structure. This is generally true for smallgroups in size from two to twenty whereprogress in trust development over time is thegeneral rule barring outside interference andconsiderations.

finis!