Developing team trust ... for real (and safely)

When you Google for "team trust", you very likely come across this image or a variation on it. Of course, team trust is all about falling down blindfolded and having your "trusting team mates" catch you safely. Duh ... ?

Team trust is about challenging each other, building on others' ideas, clarifying disagreements, finding the best solutions. You kind of know when trust exists in a team, and you know (from the sidebar conversations and after-the-meeting discussions) when it doesn't. But how do you develop trust in a team ?

I ran an interesting experiment with a team in a manufacturing organization. 7 Thai professionals worked together to solve a cross-functional issue, by using the Action Learning principles of asking questions to deeply understand the issue before to come up with solutions. The team worked each time for nearly 3 hours, for 4 sessions each time with 2 weeks in between. Only asking questions. And listening to each other. And building on ideas. Before the first session, and after the last, I measured the level of "team psychological safety" (look up Amy Edmondson from Harvard University for more on this topic). Team psychological safety is similar to team trust, "a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking". Research has shown that this positively impacts how a team learns and performs.

The difference before and after was significant. There was a 20% positive jump in two areas that team psychological safety looks at: appreciation for each others' competencies and skills, and the absence of negative impact of making a mistake. This was after only 4 sessions. And in addition to the assessment, it was confirmed through a debriefing session with the team members. Definitely a solid foundation on which to continue to build trust.

Trust does not happen over night. But it can be accelerated by leaving your team to work together, and sticking to the Action Learning principles. And you can actually measure the change in trust levels.

What's in it for them ?

Khun Y had joined the manufacturing section of the organization 2 years ago. He was fresh out of university, but his management was impressed quickly by his ability to learn, to correctly analyse performance issues, and to carry out improvement plans.

One day Khun Y applied for an internal job at the engineering section. The company promotes internal mobility so all vacancies are circulated openly. The engineering manager was very excited, and convinced that Khun Y was the right person for this engineering job. The manufacturing manager saw this potential move as a loss for his department and tried to convince the engineering manager to change his mind. When that didn't work, the manufacturing manager offered a promotion with significant salary increase to Khun Y. Since the move to the engineering department entailed a promotion, the manufacturing manager reasoned that giving a promotion to stay would work. Khun Y decided to stay in the manufacturing department.


Situation: win (manufacturing) and win (Khun Y) versus lose (engineering).

Three months later, Khun Y resigned from the company and joined an equipment design and construction company. He received a salary even higher than his just-increased salary in the manufacturing department. His exit interview form stated as reason for leaving "found another job" (like nearly all exit interview forms).

Situation: double win (Khun Y with 2 salary increases in 3 months) versus double lose (manufacturing and engineering).

The organization will never know the real reason for Khun Y's departure ... Was it because he wanted more money (that is what they actually think) ? Or because he in fact looking for another manager after 2 years with the manufacturing manager ? Or because he was looking for a job with more variation (engineering versus production) ?

Morale of the (real) story: if you don't know your people and what they are looking for, you will - now or in the near future - end up losing them.