Why is it a system?

Because alignment on expectations cannot run on positive or negative feedback alone.

I know that there are cultures that avoid negative feedback at all costs, and it often creates a very strong reaction in the people receiving it. So when someone has to be fired and they weren’t getting any corrective feedback - how is it being explained? A lay-off every single time? Or “we just need to let you go”? Or how do people learn to do better? Isn’t telling someone what needs to change actually a form of care?

I know there are people who take feedback very personally - negative feedback is being perceived as a doubt of their overall capacity to do the job, an unfortunate consequence of associating one’s self-worth with the job they are doing. But unfortunately giving positive feedback only with hope that a person understands it as “do more of that” and “do other things not listed differently” - is not exactly a clear type of communication. It’s more of a mind-reading exercise.

Providing only negative feedback, on the other hand, with time would create a problem even for those employees that don’t need validation. There’s a bias our minds have: when we consistently receive only one type of signal, our minds begin to interpret it as the complete picture. So if a person during their job experience only receives negative feedback they would start thinking that they are not being appreciated in an environment, or they are just being tolerated, or feel unsupported, or even feel targeted. There should be a reason why they are not receiving positive feedback at all, right? And sometimes there’s a reason. Sometimes the reason is that someone doesn’t want to acknowledge the contribution as a part of toxic power play. Sometimes people are just forgetful and are not paying attention to the fact that their feedback has no balance. Regardless, it damages morale, trust, and increases turnover.

Subscribe now

The balance

Ideally, employees should receive more positive feedback than negative feedback to maintain transparency, effectiveness, and productive relationship with the company and their manager.

It is crucial for managers to keep track of the quantity and type of feedback they are giving to maintain an engaged environment and avoid the negative impact of an unbalanced approach.

A lack of balance is a problem I have seen the most during my career. Managers are usually too busy with their own and their teams’ KPIs, politics, delivery, etc., to keep an eye on the feedback balance. This is why it is so vital to bring attention to it first.

Feedback Checklist

1. Fact-check. Make sure you have enough concrete examples, not hearsay or interpretation.

2. Timing. Give feedback close to the event. If it’s corrective feedback it’s best to avoid giving feedback in the heat of the moment.

3. Privacy. Choose the right setting: criticism should be given exclusively in private, recognition can be given publicly or privately.

4. Clarity over comfort. Don’t dilute the feedback just to avoid discomfort.

5. Separate, don’t sandwich. Keep positive and developmental feedback separate.

6. Mind the dynamics. Be aware of your own mindset and relational roles.

7. Aim for growth. Feedback is not punishment - it’s an investment in someone’s development.

Self-check before giving feedback:

• Am I fact-based and specific?

• Is this the right time and place?

• Do I separate behavior from identity?

• Have I been giving regular positive feedback too?

• Am I calm, confident, and in “coach” mode?

Underwater currents:

1. Confidence

Low confidence on the manager’s end can produce avoidance, sugar-coating, or apologizing too much.

High confidence (if unchecked) can lead to harsh delivery, lack of empathy and awareness.

2. Friendship vs. Friendly

Friendship can blur professional clarity. Risks: avoiding feedback to “keep the peace” or delivering harsher criticism because emotions are involved, taking advantage of the relationship by both sides.

A friendly attitude, on the other hand, remains respectful and warm while maintaining professional boundaries. It allows honest yet kind feedback.

3. Karpman drama triangle

Roles:

• Persecutor (“You’re always wrong, I’ll punish you”)

• Victim (“I’m powerless, you’re unfair”)

• Rescuer (“I’ll save you, don’t worry about your responsibility”)

The goal is to stay outside the triangle in a Coach/Observer role: “I see this behavior; here’s how it impacts; how can we solve it together?”

Subscribe now

Corrective (negative) feedback

There are several frameworks I use that are perfectly stackable and have served me best: SBI, Non-violent communication, Radical candor.

SBI (Situation, Behavior, Impact)

The principle is literally: Situation → Behavior → Impact

It works because it’s factual, specific, and focuses on action or behavior with clarity about why they have a negative impact on the other people or organization.

Example:

Non-violent communication

This method came to work environments from psychotherapy practice and, similarly to SBI, also avoids commenting on the character or personality using the following framework instead:

Observation → Impact → Request

Example:

Radical Candor

The principle of this framework is to care personally and challenge directly:

• Show that you genuinely care about the person’s growth.

• Be clear and direct about the issue without softening to the point of vagueness.

• Avoid falling into ruinous empathy (too kind, not honest) or obnoxious aggression (brutally honest, no care).

Example:

“Alex, your analysis in these reports is really strong - the team notices the insights you bring. The last two reports, though, had formatting mistakes that I had to correct before sending. That takes extra time and risks making our work look less polished. I don’t want formatting to overshadow the quality of your analysis. Could you double-check before submitting, or would it help to have a checklist/template to make it easier?”

Impact:

• Alex feels respected for their strengths.

• The issue is named clearly and directly.

• They are invited to collaborate on a solution.

The Reflection Step (as I call it)

Another approach I have found useful is to ask a question before (or sometimes instead of) feedback. If a behavior or action in question occurred in a social situation or someone made a wrong call in general - I find it useful to open with a question about this situation or decision without judgement: “Why do you think X happened? What do you think about situation X? Why was X your decision at the time?”

Oftentimes people have already reflected on what went wrong and can already articulate the lesson they’ve learned. Sometimes you need to guide them towards the conclusion, sometimes the conclusion is already there. This small solution can make the conversation easier for all participants if both are open to discuss their actions.

Outdated Approach: The Sandwich

The framework here is to start with a compliment, then insert negative feedback, and then finish with another compliment.

Why it doesn’t work:

• People anticipate the “meat” (criticism) → the compliments lose meaning.

• The real message may get lost (“Was it serious, or just a small thing? Do other things I do well balance it out? Do I need to act on it?”) → lack of clarity.

• Feels manipulative → erodes trust.

I recently heard an argument in its favor that this approach helps you give feedback without blowing up the relationship. I think it’s a good point if the person you need to give feedback to is very new and you don’t have a relationship yet, and in this case - it’s literally the first feedback you need to give.

In other cases, however, you already have a relationship. And if you tend to the balance of the feedback system - normally you would have already had exchanges containing positive feedback. Additionally, people on your team quickly learn who you are: they see what you say and what you do, what examples you set, and if you are a caring and congruent leader - people on your team would value this relationship, being fully aware that in a professional environment the existence of both types of feedback is normal and expected.

Being challenged during feedback

People may resist, deny, or get emotional. It’s normal.

What to do:

• Stay calm: Don’t match their emotional intensity.

• Acknowledge feelings: “I hear this is frustrating for you.”

• Re-center on facts/impact: bring it back to SBI/NVC.

• Collaborate: “What can we do differently going forward?”

Subscribe now

Positive feedback

I like to think of positive feedback as watering a garden. If you want it to grow and bloom, you need to nurture it regularly. Positive feedback works much the same way - it is a part of communication people genuinely love and feel motivated by.

Key rules here:

• Make positive feedback specific: “You did great” is nice, but “Your clear structure in the presentation really helped the team follow the argument” is far more effective.

• Reinforce desired behaviors: people repeat what gets recognized.

• Zero feedback is not an option.

• Balance the flow: don’t pair positive and negative feedback.

• Close the loop: When someone corrects their behavior, acknowledge it - it prevents lingering self-doubt or stress. People don’t need/have to wonder “Am I still in trouble?”

P.S. I’ve heard it somewhere and liked it immediately: “if someone is having a difficult conversation with you - it means that they value you enough to fight for you”. And I think it might be useful to hear for those leaders who feel very uncomfortable giving negative feedback and having difficult conversations. Yes, by all means, negative feedback is unpleasant on both ends, but a difficult conversation creates a learning opportunity for both - to be able to sit there with tension and do your best for the situation, for another person, or for an organization. It ultimately creates stronger leaders and healthier teams. It’s a skill, like any other.

Subscribe now

I don’t think there’s a lot to say about volatile leaders that many don’t know yet. Nowadays their model of operation has turned unproductive while at some point it might have been perceived as “strong” or “passionate” or “assertive”.

As I love Spiral Dynamics as a very elegant principle of a collective mind and values evolution, let’s look where this leader persona sits:

Within this model a volatile leader usually lives in individual Red and communal Blue. Before today these leaders were the ones that were “making” people work and doing sacrifices for individual power or collective results. At the times when work was less governed and structured, and a prevailing management belief was that “others” don’t work enough, or just want the money, or are lazy, or need to be made to do more for less - was a regular work culture, these leaders were the “doers”. If we step outside ordinary white-collar and blue-collar workplaces - think religious or cultist structures, the military, gangs - we find environments where strong discipline is required, hierarchy is rigid, only one “truth” can exist, and the operating principle is “might makes right”.

The economic miracle in a post-war Japan was achieved in a Blue culture according to D.Beck and C.Graves, so obviously not everything is simply black or white, and elements of cultures that we might be judgmental about today - were necessary at some points of prior ideological evolution.

Now that the corporate culture mostly moved into competition/success fueled values or social rights/networks ideology (Orange and Green groups) - volatile leader’s modus operandi is mostly irrelevant. Those motivated by achievements and competitive spirit will be chasing success without a person holding a whip, those who thrive for equality and a better shared future are driven by the ideology itself. A strong and scary type is mostly disruptive in these environments.

Characteristics of volatile leadership and culture it produces:

• The leader is explosive, unpredictable, and emotionally intimidating.

• People spend more energy avoiding their anger than doing good work.

• Culture is fear-driven or disrespect-driven.

• People stop speaking up because it’s dangerous.

• People optimize for self-protection.

• The flow of information stops.

• Decision quality deteriorates.

• Low engagement and quiet quitting.

• Psychological safety is absent.

Trust cannot live here, however there are those who would still play a losing game and try to win this leader’s trust.

Subscribe now

Why am I talking about people-pleasing leaders here? These are probably the biggest group I came across in my experience - which is one reason. Another reason is that people-pleasers and volatile people are players on the same field which enables the behaviors of both groups.

Yes, I am talking about the Karpman’s drama triangle:

• One is an obvious villain, the other is a victim proving themselves sometimes with no avail.

• Then the victim brings out the rescuer in yesterday’s persecutor. And then they switch places.

• Participants in the triangle usually play two roles depending on the circumstance - a victim can become a persecutor very quickly, a persecutor can act as a victim, persecutor becomes a rescuer, or a victim becomes a rescuer - round and round we go (well, they go).

What I am saying is that usually volatile people and people-pleasers are deeply rooted into the triangle dynamic. So if one sees both types in one organization having strong interpersonal relationships, and one doesn’t like to play inside the triangle - then exit is the best solution.

When talking about people-pleasers in corporate environments I think it’s important to at least separate them into two groups: anxious people-pleasers, and strategic (political) people-pleasers. Anxious ones usually aren’t malicious by nature, while the strategic ones can get very intentionally manipulative and therefore uninteresting for this conversation. Just not enough contrast with volatile leaders for me to write about (joking-joking… but not enough to keep on about them).

So, anxious people-pleasers… I know many think that they are simply nice people, and I don’t disagree. What does it do to a company culture - is another question entirely.

This is the person who tries to avoid conflict or any unpleasant situation that may lead to a conflict.

This is the person that avoids giving negative (corrective) feedback.

This is the person that instead of direct collaborative communication chooses to rather leave an indirect comment that can be perceived as a complaint and potentially derail someone’s career.

This is the manager that is always nice to you and then you get fired.

The tradeoff of an anxious people-pleaser is short-term comfort over long-term outcomes - comfort usually wins.

Characteristics of people-pleasing leadership and culture it produces:

• Avoids conflict and difficult decisions (Forbes article getting further into it).

• Says “yes” to everyone, creating impossible expectations.

• Accountability disappears because nobody wants to upset anyone.

• Creates ambiguity.

• People stop speaking up because with time they see that speaking changes nothing (thecenterforconsciousleadership.com talks more about it).

• Difficult conversations never happen.

• Conversations that could lead to a disagreement are avoided.

• Small issues remain unaddressed until they blow up into an organizational scale problem.

• Due to a lack of corrective feedback teams get blindsided with negative consequences.

• Psychological safety and trust also disappears because no one functionally knows what is going on.

In the end, avoiding discomfort doesn’t eliminate conflict. It simply transfers its cost onto someone else.

I think I struggled the most with this type of leader. Even on the same level of hierarchy I was blindsided so many times it’s hard to count. And many times I thought “omg why can’t you just talk to me…” that there’s an issue. But as they say:

Seriously though, I can’t put blame here. Anxious people-pleasing is often a survival mechanism. My humble beginnings in leadership started exactly as an anxious leader. I know how it feels. It’s like you are doing something good but at the same time you are constantly stressed, and bracing. I know what I was doing wrong even though I thought that I was doing the best I could. I definitely learned my lessons.

Subscribe now

So what changed?

It started in a very unconventional company about which I will probably write a separate article at some point. In short we all were very confused, stressed and uncomfortable there as the company was intentionally creating operational ambiguity and assigning to us very peculiar intellectual challenges all the time. It was also very cold there all the time due to productive-male-brain-required temperatures :-/. We thought it was a social experiment of some kind. The comfort zone was impossible to reenter. And I think this experience fried me so hard that I didn’t have the energy or capacity for people-pleasing. I did burn out there. And yet this is the place that I remember with immense love. I have never learned this much in such a short time in my life. After working in that company I felt I could do anything at all - the structure of thinking and the number of frameworks this place hotwired into my head was incomparable with what I had before while already having a 10-year career tenure. The professional self-confidence it created was chef’s kiss (finally). Easily one of the best places I have ever worked in, although I wouldn’t recreate the same experience for anyone else xD.

And then there was another experience in a different company where I stayed for a long while. Shortly after joining the company I got a very big scope and a very fair org capacity to manage it. I was an innate problem solver and the clarity of my communication was very high after the previous experience I had. I was highlighting problems and risks and the company was giving me resources to solve them. I had a carte blanche to hire people and with time I had a very strong team. Some of the people I chose already worked with me in my previous roles, I knew their level of work ethics and output quality. I liked the management and the freedom they were giving us and like this it became a place where I deeply cared about business outcomes, relationships with the top management, and of course happiness of my new team.

In this setup a people-pleaser in me could not play a “comfort hide-and-seek”. The mission became more important than my discomfort.

I was rebuilding someone’s reputation in the eyes of leadership, I was advocating for salaries, I was arguing for better work conditions, I was working on team performance and having difficult conversations with them, I had to fire some of the people that I personally invited to the team.

At times I was very uncomfortable for both sides I am sure - I was saying things that they wouldn’t want to hear. But the communication was always honest and open, the company as a whole made a very good effort to support that culture. My team mates could grab me at any time and use me as a shoulder to cry on or as a witness to scream at a situation, almost the same was happening on the other end. There were problems as anywhere else, but trust - trust and psychological safety were present, and it meant so much.

Thinking back on it I can’t say that I made a conscious decision from people-pleasing anxiety towards psychological safety. It was more of a knee-jerk reaction at the time to go into the direction of transparency and integrity - it felt right. And maybe then for the first time - it felt right for the right reasons. The feeling of peace and calm I was having by not executing in the old people-pleasing pattern was creating a very different quality of life and work for me. It’s like you are hearing some sort of static all the time that makes you brace, makes you annoyed, and then it just stops and you start experiencing life differently - you can see colors and hear music you know. Anyway...

I also did a lot of therapy and had organizational psychology counseling at the time, so things were certainly not happening “just” or “by themselves” but rather an accumulated effort that has gotten me to a right place.

The path to integrity is easy - when the conditions are right.

In overall conclusion to this reflection I’d say this:

People-pleasing leaders and volatile ones couldn’t seem more different.

One leads through fear; the other through avoidance.

With time their teams start exhibiting the same behaviors.

Why?

Because psychological safety isn’t about kindness. It’s about whether people can take interpersonal risks.

Both leaders make those risks feel unsafe - just for different reasons.

Truth becomes expensive.

Risks get hidden. Decisions degrade. Performance follows.

I’m not an arrogant person, I don’t think there’s anyone who would call me that. But I struggle with humility.

When I think of humility - I see an image of a monk, smiling and bowing lightly. I am far from being a monk. Maybe this association is too rigid for an embodiment of humility. Anyway, this article is not about the term itself, but about the way workplace cultures often use the language of humility. So here it goes…

I find it difficult to be proud of my work and my achievements in the culture of humility. I find it difficult to embody the competence and confidence that I possess. I strongly feel that in this context pride and humility cannot coexist.

And the conflict I see is that in the workplace pride is often equated with ego, while the general concept of “not being an asshole” is tied to humility. And my question is - isn’t it too narrow of a range?

In my opinion, arrogance and humility are somewhere on the opposite ends of the same spectrum. So why do we stick to extremes? I am quite sure there are other points of character/state that are between those two, that are very socially acceptable. Where does even confidence go?

Yes, arrogance isn’t helpful at all in work environments, but humility doesn’t seem like an obvious go-to solution as well.

Subscribe now

Because in corporate and tech environments, people are expected to thrive, to strategize, to innovate, to push forward, to think outside the box, to make bets, to win arguments, to pivot, to make decisions that make money. For all that - Does it help to just move on after completion of something significant? Does it help to not get credit? Does it help to stay quiet rather than speak up? Does it help to be only visible when you are needed? Does it help to not challenge anything? Does it help to… shrink?

How does humility help to own your results and achievements? It looks like there’s also a contradiction with ownership in general.

Where does authenticity go?

Authenticity requires variation. If the application of humility includes conformity and compliance - then humility and authenticity can’t coexist.

Is it humility or…fear, in fact? Impression management? Avoidance of criticism? Self-erasure?

That’s the epitome of my angst.

While working on my previous article I saw something that made the stars shine in the night sky (and made me feel immensely validated). Great Place To Work Institute published a business case where they show Pride in their approach to building high trust & high engagement culture, putting it in quite a central spot of their model.

Exhibit1:

Exhibit 2:

And it looks like they know what they’re talking about, judging by the performance of the companies they have worked with and/or certified:

So should we look at the possible spectrum again? I think we should.

Maybe something like this.

I also find the culture of humility to be connected to the existence of personality-based feedback (obviously not as the main perpetrator, but as an accomplice) that distributes asymmetrically across genders. And quite a lot of leaders recruit, promote, and tolerate only as much capability as their own sense of security allows.

Disclaimer: I actually don’t intend to make this article about gender. I bring it up because women have often been expected to embody the very qualities that humility cultures celebrate very well before they had the right to work, making the consequences easier to observe.

Textio’s research on feedback bias shows exactly that: women receive the most unhelpful and biased feedback around confidence, likability, assertiveness, and authority.

Exhibit 1:

Exhibit 2:

Almost everyone saw Cynthia Nixon’s video “Be a Lady They Said“ - a very accurate stereotypical image of reality. Same-same-but-different in many workplaces… It is always a wonderful journey to discover the extent to which your personality is both too much and not enough depending on the company. With this my gender rant is over.

In conclusion, humility culture creates subjective personality criteria to measure people by which opens the door to judgment of everyone. After all, humility does have a religious subtext in it, and some popular religions rely heavily on judgement and guilt. And with this my “religious” rant is over.

— “If all the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?” - I keep hearing in the back of my mind.

— Mmmmm… depends on how much they’re paying (joking-joking…).

Many parents I know tried to teach their children to think critically for themselves. And ironically it goes against all attempts of conformity most of us have been exposed to during school and higher education years. All that to come to a company that wants you to be just like everybody else - don’t make a mess, don’t be too self-reliant, don’t be selfish, don’t rock the boat. And I get it, I really do. Some status quo’s are that precious.

Do you know someone who wants to do great work and to be able to display their sincere happiness and pride without fear of judgement? I do too.

Interestingly I never built my teams’ culture using humility, frankly I never really needed it. And I love to work with senior ICs and leaders, I love to work with opinionated, vibrant people. Everyone is welcome as they are - as their authentic selves.

Arrogance is never an issue when the culture is built on ethics, empathy, integrity, ability to think critically of yourself, trust, accountability, and psychological safety. As a result, engagement, performance, and sense of camaraderie are usually just… chef’s kiss.

So maybe then there’s no need for oversimplified labels to build and uphold the culture?

What does a culture of humility actually give an organization? Does it truly exist to make everyone comfortable?

Britnei Nicole has an interesting point about that.

Organizations don’t pay for trust directly - they pay for the absence of trust every day through friction, delay, turnover, and lost performance.

But I’m not going to talk about turnover here - everyone knows turnover is expensive.

I’m also not going to talk about engagement - everyone knows that engaged teams perform better and produce better financial outcomes.

I’m going to talk about operational overhead, organizational drag - the painful day-to-day that leads to a decline in engagement and increased turnover.

Subscribe now

Stephen M. R. Covey introduced a simple equation:

Low trust = low speed + high cost

High trust = high speed + low cost

It means that when there’s a lack of trust - everything becomes expensive:

• communication becomes expensive,

• coordination becomes expensive,

• hiring becomes expensive,

• management becomes expensive,

• change becomes expensive,

• execution becomes expensive.

What does it look like?

Downward distrust (leadership → employees) shows up as slower decision-making and increased monitoring overhead:

• More approvals

• More coordination

• More bureaucracy

• Additional reporting systems

• Control mechanisms (Nordic journal of working life studies, 2017)

• Additional managerial layers

Upward distrust (employees → leadership) shows up as reduced willingness to share information and a lower capacity for organizational learning:

• Problems hidden

• Mistakes repeated

• Less innovation

• Worse decision making

• Reduced engagement

• More absenteeism

• Reduction of employer attractiveness for new hires

And across the organization, this results in increased political behaviour, promotion bias, duplicated work, and growing resentment between teams. Decision quality deteriorates, financial risks increase, potential returns decrease, engagement drops, inefficiency grows, and trust erodes even further (well backed by CIPD report and Watson Wyatt HCI Report).

Low Trust

↓

Information Withholding

↓

Poor Decisions

↓

More Controls

↓

Lower Autonomy

↓

Lower Ownership

↓

Worse Outcomes

↓

Even Less Trust

The bottom line: People create additional processes to compensate for mistrust.

Those processes require supporting processes at lower levels of the organization, additional reports, and additional meetings.

Those meetings often create the need for even more meetings... and...

Each movement triggers a ripple effect throughout the organization, adding operational costs at every level and creating friction.

After all, absence of trust sits at the foundation of the “Five Dysfunctions of a Team” model.

Subscribe now

Research appendix for those curious about the external evidence supporting these observations →

1) The Watson Wyatt Human Capital Index (HCI) ® and Company Performance: a Definite Impact on Shareholder Wealth

(Paper presented at the 2002 International Management Conference, Society for Advancement of Management, McLean, Virginia, April 5 – 8, 2002)

“... Items measuring human resource practices in five areas--recruiting excellence; clear rewards and accountability; a collegial, flexible workplace; communications integrity; and prudent use of resources--were combined into a set of factor scores to be used to estimate the effect of HR practices and policies on overall firm performance… Watson Wyatt found that High HCI firms (those with HCI scores above the mean) continued to outperform Low HCI firms over the two years following the administration of the HCI questionnaire.”

Figure 1: 1999 HCI Scores and Subsequent Firm Performance

“... The result is a complete respondent base of more than 750 companies in the United States, Canada, and Europe with at least three years of shareholder returns, 1,000 or more employees, and a minimum of $100 million in revenues or market value. The results of this research are remarkably congruent with those obtained in the previous two. That is, the better an organization performs in managing its human capital (as measured by the HCI), the better its returns for shareholders. Figure 2 shows that those companies that scored in the low HCI group averaged a 21% five-year return. The medium group averaged 39%. Those with high HCI scores returned 64% over five years.”

Figure 2: Five -Year Total Returns to Shareholders (April 1996-April 2001)

“...Also, similar to the previous findings, the five HR practice areas continued to positively impact a company’s market value. Figure 3 specifies the exact relationship demonstrated by the collected data (Watson Wyatt Worldwide, 2001)...”

Figure 3: Key Links Between Human Capital and Shareholder Value Creation

“... The analysis was interpreted to demonstrate that HR practices are not only associated with business outcomes, but also create them, rather than merely being created by them. A conclusion was that human capital practices were seen as a leading - rather than a lagging - indicator of business success.”

“In summary, then, Watson Wyatt has suggested, “It pays to manage people right” (Watson Wyatt Worldwide, 2001, p. 11)... The reviewed literature taken together with the Watson Wyatt research results presented here have clearly demonstrated the sizable, financial advantage contributed by the effective management of human resource management systems, thereby questioning an often “knee-jerk” response by business to challenging economic times. That is, it seems that a strategic decision that could be contemplated if not adopted is that organizations be more deliberate about considering alternatives that balance the impact on human and technical resources rather than leaping to the conventional approach to dealing with downturns, which may reduce costs in the short-run but lead to increased costs or lost opportunities in the long-run.”

2) CIPD Report: Where Has All the Trust Gone, 2012

(link to the original source)

“...The headline reasons for building trust include that it:

• promotes successful socialisation, co-operation and teamwork

• promotes and facilitates partnerships, joint ventures and cross-team working

• reduces risk and decreases operating and transaction costs

• reduces distractions or amount of time spent on self-preservation

• builds the foundations of a social order and the basis for civil society.”

“From an HR perspective (see Searle and Skinner 2011), the case for building trust includes the following benefits:

• improved employee performance

• higher levels of motivation and positive attitudes (including employees putting more effort in performing and developing their roles)

• reduced cost due to higher productivity, less wastage, lower staff turnover, fewer stoppages, and so on

• enhanced pro-social behaviour at work including desirable work-related behaviour and appropriate discretionary behaviour

• enhanced knowledge-sharing and increased innovation

• improved co-operative working.”

“The evidence from existing research suggests that organisations need to invest in trust-building or trustrepairing activities to minimise the negative results of a breakdown of trust. Such negative consequences include:

• growth in feelings of vulnerability among staff – this may be a cost to the organisation because of energy devoted to activities which they think will protect their jobs

• unwillingness to invest in relationship-building, leading to an introverted, silo mentality within an organisation with the resultant benefit of cross-functional knowledge-sharing or co-operation lost

• reluctance to engage in innovation due to feelings of inadequate psychological safety

• lack of horizontal and upward communication, so important information is lost, especially for senior team

• reduction in discretionary effort or engagement by individuals and teams

• reduced willingness to take risks

• defensiveness and/or disruptive behaviour

• shift to a command and control management mentality, which can constrain performance and innovation in certain sectors

• increased monitoring and bureaucracy, checking indicators of performance, takes resources in terms of management time

• increased anxiety/high stress levels among staff in low-trust climates may reduce performance

• low morale and loss of commitment and engagement at all levels

• higher staff turnover as employees seek out more trusted employers.”

Subscribe now

3) Significance of Monitoring and Control for Employees’ Felt Trust, Motivation, and Mastery by Vilde Hoff Bernstrøm and Helge Svare

(Nordic journal of working life studies Volume 7 | Number 4 | December 2017 - source)

“Monitoring is a pervasive part of modern information systems and work environments, allowing management to monitor employee activities and productivity without the need of direct supervisory observation. The importance of monitoring is also of particular interest in the Nordic countries due to how it might conflict with traditional Nordic work culture. While work culture in the Nordic countries is known for its high levels of employee autonomy and discretion (Eurofound, 2013), monitoring forms such as electronic registration of time use can be seen as an attempt by employers to control how employees prioritize their time and thus reduce their autonomy. Nonetheless, monitoring is increasingly being introduced also here, for instance along with new information technologies (Fornyingsog administrasjonsdepartementet, 2009). A number of studies exist, demonstrating a negative impact on the psychosocial work environment from certain forms of monitoring and employer control under certain conditions (Alge & Hansen, 2014). Negative factors associated with such monitoring and employer control include stress and emotional exhaustion (Baer et al., 2014; Westin, 1992) and counterproductive work behaviors and job performance (Douthitt & Aiello, 2001; Martin et al., 2016). It may also lead to reduced trust in management (Bråten, 2010; Holland et al., 2015) and reduced team-trust (Piccoli & Ives, 2003)...”

Sample and procedure: “The web-based questionnaire was sent to a stratified random sample of the Norwegian working population between the ages of 18 and 66 years.The sample was stratified by age, gender, sex, education, geography, industry, and company size… A total of 3015 respondents completed the questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 47.8%.”

“As we have previously argued, management’s trust in employees, and employees’ feeling of being trusted by their management should be distinguished. It is therefore important to know which factors in the workplace that actually influence employees’ felt trust. Our results support the idea that management can actively influence employees’ feeling of being trusted by assigning control over decisions and by refraining from implementing monitoring schemes, and moreover, that by implementing monitoring schemes employers may, inadvertently, make employees feel they are not trusted.”

“... Our results show that employees are more motivated, and feel a higher sense of mastery, in a work situation where they feel trusted and where they are granted the freedom to exercise control over their own work...”