How do we increase trust and open communication in an organization?

By Rosa Antonia Carrillo

Most of what we have learned about change management does not apply to creating change. It only applies after change has begun. Change is initiated in a moment of interaction or enactment. The next social interaction either maintains or changes the direction.

Such was the case when a client asked me to do an assessment of their organizational culture. When the time came to share the results, I was certain my client and I shared a common understanding of the cereal and how it would be presented to her team. After the presentation she expressed doubts about both the information and presentation. She felt that she had lost credibility with her team.

I could have reminded her that she had approved the material and how it would be presented. Instead, I reflected on how hard it is to understand and be understood when you come from different professions and life experiences. The same words can have completely different meanings. And, the most careful communication can trigger someone’s fears.

You cannot help a client unless you share a common understanding of the problem and potential solution.

This wasn’t the only time I had this experience during this particular project. These past few months have tested my beliefs about how to create productive relationships to solve organizational dilemmas. I know that successful change efforts come from partnering with clients, and from helping them have insights to solve their own problems. Schein calls this type of consulting “a helping relationship.” It is a necessary condition for any help or learning to take place (Schein, 1999).

Relationships are the key to organizational success

In my book, The Relationship Factor In Safety Leadership, I explain why organizational change is relationship change. I reframed “culture change” as a realignment of shared understanding (Weick, 1995) and relationship building (Gergen, 1994).

The example I’m going to use is typical in many manufacturing organizations. Whenever there is poor performance in safety or any other area it is typical to find a we / they division between union or nonexempt employees and management or individual contributors. Through interviews one quickly finds out that there is a lack of trust and communication between some subcultures of the organization. The lowest levels of trust or feeling valued are usually found in the lower ranks. Are use the term lower ranks purposefully. In a high functioning organization there are no “lower ranks,” only groups of people who contribute to the success of the organization in different ways.

It is not common for a leadership team to decide to address this issue in a substantial manner for several reasons I have observed. One is the belief that it is quite normal for a lack of trust to exist between certain employees and managers. This is the way it’s always been and it will never change. Another is that the profitability of the organization comes from a different part of the organization, and those people feel well treated. Another reason is that past attempts have failed to change this relationship.

If the leadership team decides to address the lack of trust

Let’s say a leadership team decides it is not acceptable to have a large percent of their employees feel they are not respected, and do not trust management. How exactly should they proceed to change these relationships? The first step is to let go of the notion that changing these relationships is an organizational design, structural or procedure-based problem. Little is accomplished by moving from decentralization to centralization or to a matrix structure. What is needed is a positive shift in the way people treat each other.

Changing an organization is relational work (Hosking, 2004). Change happens in the interactions between people and not as some kind of output or result of it. It happens in the here-and-now by what we do to each other and how we talk to each other. Change is a quality of this reciprocal interaction. This is one of the primary reasons psychological safety has become so prominent in the literature of high-performance teams. The feeling of acceptance and belonging generates creative thanking and the desire to contribute more to the work group.

This research on psychological safety is recent, however we saw the positive dynamics long ago with McGregor’s famous Theory Y at Proctor and Gamble (1960). If people who make dog food can be motivated to create the most efficient, profitable and safe organization why shouldn’t every organization be able to do it? The sad answer is that not every individual with authority is able or willing to embrace Theory Y: every individual is willing and able to contribute to the success of the organization.

Could I have said or done something different to get a different result?

Going back to the beginning of this article, I know how important it is to not threaten people’s self-esteem when describing a complex problem such as entrenched lack of trust. I found out how much I overestimated that the team leader and I had a common understanding of the problem and potential solution.

As I reflect on this relational breakdown I am reminded of the gap between knowing and doing. Even if we agree that most individuals can and want to contribute to success, it is a challenge to always act on this belief. When things go south or we meet an individual who cannot trust or feel included regardless of our best efforts, it is tough to keep extending oneself. This creates self-doubt. Is there something I could have done differently to maintain trust and open communication? I am tempted to say, “Yes.” But, I did my best in that moment and that is all we have. Will the positive interactions that came before be enough to reopen dialogue? From experience I know sometimes it is and sometimes it is not.

Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Harvard University Press.

Hosking, D. M. (2004). Change Works: a Critical Construction.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.