How do you build trust in a leadership team?

What is trust in a leadership team?

Researchers define trust as a willingness to be vulnerable to another person's actions, when you cannot monitor or control them (Mayer et al., 1995). In a leadership team, that means relying on a colleague's judgement, figures or promises without checking them yourself.

Mayer et al. (1995) argued that this willingness rests on three judgements about the other person:

McAllister (1995) drew a second distinction, in a field study of 194 managers and professionals. Cognition-based trust rests on beliefs about a colleague's reliability and dependability. Affect-based trust rests on care and concern that runs both ways.

In his data, managers felt more affect-based trust in peers who showed care beyond their role, and in peers they met often. Cognition-based trust was strongly related to affect-based trust, and he argued that some reliability has to come first (McAllister, 1995).

Why does trust matter in a leadership team?

Across 112 studies covering 7,763 teams, trust within a team was positively related to team performance (De Jong et al., 2016). The link held for both cognitive and affective trust, and after accounting for trust in the leader and past performance.

It mattered more where members depended on each other's work, and less where they could work alone (De Jong et al., 2016). These are correlations, so they do not show which comes first. A leadership team that shares real decisions is the kind of team where trust should matter most.

Trust also shapes how disagreement plays out. In a study of 70 top management teams, trust weakened the link between task conflict and relationship conflict (Simons and Peterson, 2000).

Their reading was that people in low-trust teams tend to take a challenge to their idea as an attack on themselves. With trust, a team can get the benefits of debate with less of the cost. For more, see task conflict and relationship conflict.

Trust is also the base of Lencioni's popular model of team problems (Lencioni, 2002). The research on that model is reviewed in five dysfunctions of a team.

Why is trust harder at the top?

Members of a leadership team each run their own part of the organisation. Senior executives often focus more on their own roles than on the top team's shared work (Wageman et al., 2008).

That leaves colleagues few chances to see each other's ability and goodwill at close range. Affect-based trust went with frequent contact (McAllister, 1995), and a team that meets once a month has little of it. So trust at the top has to be built on purpose, in the meetings and the work the team does share. Trust is one part of a high-performing leadership team; its set-up and meetings are others.

Is trust the same as psychological safety?

No, though they overlap. Edmondson (1999) defined psychological safety as a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. She described it as involving trust but going further, to a climate of trust and mutual respect where people can be themselves.

A practical way to hold the difference follows from those definitions. Trust is your judgement of a particular colleague: will they act in my interest? Psychological safety is the team's shared sense of how it treats someone who speaks up.

You need both. Edmondson (1999) suggested that trust may help a team build psychological safety. The companion article covers the second: psychological safety in leadership teams.

What builds trust in a leadership team?

Trust rests on what colleagues see each other do, so it grows mainly through ordinary work. Four kinds of act give colleagues the evidence the research describes.

Follow through on what you said

Integrity is judged partly by whether actions match words and stay consistent over time (Mayer et al., 1995). Each kept commitment adds evidence, and each quietly dropped one takes some away. Say what you will do and by when, and say so early when it slips.

Share the information others need

Across 72 studies, information sharing was positively related to team performance, cohesion and satisfaction with decisions (Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009). In the terms of Mayer et al. (1995), sharing is also evidence of benevolence: you are helping a colleague succeed.

Admit your mistakes and limits

Admitting an error makes you vulnerable to how colleagues respond. In the research definition, that willingness is trust itself (Mayer et al., 1995). So admitting a mistake is an act of trust, not only a way to earn it. If you lead the team, go first.

Make decisions in a way people see as fair

Korsgaard et al. (1995) ran an experiment with intact management teams. When members' input was considered and they had some influence, they saw the process as fairer.

That went with more trust in the leader, more attachment to the team and stronger commitment to the decision (Korsgaard et al., 1995). Before you close an item, say what you heard and how it shaped the decision.

How do you repair trust after a breach?

Breaches happen in any team under pressure. For example, a forecast is missed, a decision is taken without a colleague who owned the area, or a promise is broken.

Kim et al. (2004) ran two studies of responses to an alleged violation of trust. Trust recovered more after an apology when the issue was competence. When the issue was integrity, a denial repaired more than an apology.

But the facts mattered. Apologising worked better when later evidence showed guilt, and denying worked better when later evidence showed innocence (Kim et al., 2004). For a leadership team, the lesson is to tell the truth, not to pick a tactic.

What should you avoid when building trust?

• Exercises that replace the work. Time together can help, since frequent contact went with affect-based trust (McAllister, 1995). But an off-site exercise shows little about ability or follow-through, which colleagues judge from the work.
• Asking for trust. Saying "trust me" adds no evidence. Colleagues decide from what they observe, so show reliability instead (Mayer et al., 1995).
• Treating trust as openness alone. Personal disclosure without delivery wears thin. Ability and integrity count too (Mayer et al., 1995).
• Holding back information. Keeping a colleague in the dark, even with good intentions, can read as a lack of goodwill.

What can you do this month?

1. Make commitments visible. End each meeting by reading back who will do what by when. Open the next one by checking.
2. Ask for one piece of information. Have each member name the one thing from a colleague that would most help their work, and agree how it will flow.
3. Go first on a mistake. Share one call you got wrong this quarter and what you learned from it.
4. Close decisions fairly. Before you decide, summarise the views you heard and say how they shaped the outcome.
5. Repair one open breach. If something is unresolved between members, address it this month with the people involved.