The health of an organization's bottom line correlates to the amount of trust displayed in its interconnected relationships. A colleague says "Trust begins and ends with the truth." Being truthful, caring, and skillful play significant roles in creating a trustworthy interaction. William Easum, an organization development consultant, says that "quantum" businesses contain trust as a major characteristic of their conduct at all levels. Trust begins with the leader of the organization and permeates into all levels of employee ranks, teams and divisions, and outward to vendors, suppliers, external customers, and the general public. Within such an environment, people can learn from mistakes and take appropriate risks to create innovation in processes, products, and services.
Years ago the Tylenol corporation gained the trust of the public when it apologized in the media for deaths associated with its products. Tylenol removed all its products from shelves and went on to develop tamper-proof containers. Those gestures demonstrated a commitment to the health and safety of their customers. To this day, the Tylenol company remains financially viable with trusted products and a large market share.
Sprint has had a harder time gaining the trust of the public. As a front leader in telecommunications, Sprint could have nurtured a loyal clientele with excellent customer service. It chose instead to go after contracts. As contracts expired, customers left Sprint for more responsive cell phone carriers. Sprint's bottom line has fluxuated like a flag in a hurricane, and its workforce never knows when the next storm will hit and they'll be dismissed again. Customer service can solidify trust or it can cancel it.
Best-Buy has learned a similar trust lesson. Its managers confessed to a consultant a few years back that they diffeentiated themselves by the best price for electronic products and accessories; they did not care about the sale after the product left the store, unless the customer purchased an extended waranty. Now Best-Buy has the Geek Squad to serve its customers--a big shift in thinking.
Internal customer service is often seen as teambuilding. Teams with little or no trust are really groups of individuals working under the same roof or though a virtual system. Without trust, employees do work for benefits and paychecks only. They are susceptible to better benefits and bigger paychecks elsewhere. Talent and skill retention become difficult to maintain and will impact performanace and productivity--both of which will affect the bottom line within time.
Micro-management and broken triangles are two relationship saboteurs that destroy trust. A competent employee who has to have each step of a task challenged or approved will begin looking for a less-hassled or non-hostile environment in which to work. An employee who constantly has to watch his or her back so that others are not talking behind his or her back will begin to feel alienated and disliked, as employees are encouraged, and perhaps rewarded, for not communicating directly with one another. Distrust will spread like black mold in that kind of environment. The resulting turnover will show itself in the bottom line.
Trust or distrust can be corporate currency. What is encouraged and rewarded will blossom or fester, respectively. Finding and telling the truth, being responsible, and being accountable build trustworthiness. Choose trust in cultivating your business relationships; it pays off in the long run.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Conflict's Surprises
In a recent presentation of "Productive Conflict: Conversation to Collaboration," participants listed the positive outcomes of conflict. Among them were clarification of misunderstandings, innovation in seeking solutions, and trust in working relationships that could withstand disagreement.
By definition, conflict means a dispute or a disagreement, and by experience it means an opportunity has presented itself. Conflict is neither good nor bad, it simply is inevitable. This realization suggests each of us must be accountable to ensure that conflict becomes productive. We must stay in conversation to find our way out of the tangle of disputes arising from shared resources and goals, limited time and money, differing values and priorities, and changing skill sets and technology. Recently, several small groups struggled with some of the sources of conflict in a puzzle game designed to simulate real expectations and dilemmas. Each table team was given a packet of pieces of playing cards and the following instruction from the facilitator, "Put as many whole cards together as you can. I'll check in with you in 15 minutes."
Assumptions circulated: (1)we must put our cards together and get as many as possible to beat the other teams; (2) we have a deadine; (3) we have all the pieces we need to make whole cards; (4) each team must work independently from the others; and (5) whole cards are accomplished when the faces of the cards are complete as the original cards looked in the new deck.
As teams worked, tension and frustration crept into the interaction. A scarcity of resources eventually led someone to ask the facilitator, "Can we talk with other groups?" Then teams began sending runners out to find the pieces they needed for their dismembered cards: "Do you guys have Diamonds?" and "That group has the other half of the King of Spades!" Then a woman exclaimed, "Someone has pieces in their pocket--I'm convinced of it!"
Teams had different strategies to accomplish the goal. One team abandoned its table with their pieces displayed for others to take. Another team stayed in place around their pieces and observed as others traded pieces, ultimately assembling the observing team's cards through no effort of their own! One individual explained her behavior and ulterior motive, "I've been giving pieces away so we'll get out of here sooner." Still another team accomplished its understanding of the goal by arranging their cards into wholes by working the back of the cards into a congruent design. That really distressed some individuals who could not see the face side of the cards to see if the pieces they neeed were literally face down. One woman suggested, "Let's put all the pieces on one table," but no one moved to do that: later the teams agreed that it was too much trouble to do it.
When conflict arises, ask questions and listen to perspectives. Do you all understand the goal and how to accomplish it in the same way? What assumptions are apparent as the conversation uncovers misunderstandings, misconceptions, and misinformation? When instuctions or goals are vague or confusing, how do you find your way? Does your team work as independent individuals or as a unified front? Does our team process conflict to determine how to ensure performance and productivity?
After lots of laughs and negotiations, the five teams successfully assembled a deck of cards from 200 pieces in approximately 20 minutes. The surprise: push through the conflicts to identify the opportunities presented and to create the successful results worthy of the participants!
By definition, conflict means a dispute or a disagreement, and by experience it means an opportunity has presented itself. Conflict is neither good nor bad, it simply is inevitable. This realization suggests each of us must be accountable to ensure that conflict becomes productive. We must stay in conversation to find our way out of the tangle of disputes arising from shared resources and goals, limited time and money, differing values and priorities, and changing skill sets and technology. Recently, several small groups struggled with some of the sources of conflict in a puzzle game designed to simulate real expectations and dilemmas. Each table team was given a packet of pieces of playing cards and the following instruction from the facilitator, "Put as many whole cards together as you can. I'll check in with you in 15 minutes."
Assumptions circulated: (1)we must put our cards together and get as many as possible to beat the other teams; (2) we have a deadine; (3) we have all the pieces we need to make whole cards; (4) each team must work independently from the others; and (5) whole cards are accomplished when the faces of the cards are complete as the original cards looked in the new deck.
As teams worked, tension and frustration crept into the interaction. A scarcity of resources eventually led someone to ask the facilitator, "Can we talk with other groups?" Then teams began sending runners out to find the pieces they needed for their dismembered cards: "Do you guys have Diamonds?" and "That group has the other half of the King of Spades!" Then a woman exclaimed, "Someone has pieces in their pocket--I'm convinced of it!"
Teams had different strategies to accomplish the goal. One team abandoned its table with their pieces displayed for others to take. Another team stayed in place around their pieces and observed as others traded pieces, ultimately assembling the observing team's cards through no effort of their own! One individual explained her behavior and ulterior motive, "I've been giving pieces away so we'll get out of here sooner." Still another team accomplished its understanding of the goal by arranging their cards into wholes by working the back of the cards into a congruent design. That really distressed some individuals who could not see the face side of the cards to see if the pieces they neeed were literally face down. One woman suggested, "Let's put all the pieces on one table," but no one moved to do that: later the teams agreed that it was too much trouble to do it.
When conflict arises, ask questions and listen to perspectives. Do you all understand the goal and how to accomplish it in the same way? What assumptions are apparent as the conversation uncovers misunderstandings, misconceptions, and misinformation? When instuctions or goals are vague or confusing, how do you find your way? Does your team work as independent individuals or as a unified front? Does our team process conflict to determine how to ensure performance and productivity?
After lots of laughs and negotiations, the five teams successfully assembled a deck of cards from 200 pieces in approximately 20 minutes. The surprise: push through the conflicts to identify the opportunities presented and to create the successful results worthy of the participants!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)