On many occasions, I have referred to communication as the lubricant that enables organizations to function smoothly. However, trust in organizations is even more fundamental. Without trust, effective communication is impeded and organizational performance suffers.

Stephen Covey refers to trust as the lifeblood of organizations, and there is little doubt that success is strongly influenced by the level of an organizations trust quotient. Taking this analogy one step further, I contend that trust is to organizations as hemoglobin is to the human body. It carries the essential life-giving oxygen necessary for survival and if it is compromised, the organizational body will suffer varying degrees of distress. In terms of quality of work life, trust is enormously important.

When public resources are severely constrained as they are today, strengthening the trust dynamic becomes even more crucial as a means of improving performance and efficiency. Nearly everyone who has worked in an organizational setting understands how lack of trust hinders effectiveness. When trust is absent among those involved in an organizational transaction, there will be a natural tendency to question motives, cast doubt on anothers expertise, or constantly double-check the validity of what is being communicated. All of these actions affect efficiency and have the potential to compromise the effectiveness of relationships.

Trust and Communication

In public organizations, the public-political-administrative trichotomy produces an environment that is not always conducive to building trust. Competing interest groups, political agendas, and bureaucratic inertia may all undermine trust. Politicians sometimes adjust their posture on a particular issue in a manner that raises the ire of certain constituents.

I recall the sentiments of the chairman of a nonprofit organization years ago who, in reference to a certain elected official, said, I want to be the last person she speaks with before the vote is taken. In other instances, no amount of reasoning will convince certain ideologues to change their opinions on core issues. This brand of obduracy is often characterized as the Dont confuse me with the facts mentality.

Statutes and operating procedures can drag on the bureaucratic system, leading stakeholders who depend on timely action to conclude that administrators are either stone-walling the process or incompetent.

Unfortunately, some administrators will use statutory or procedural requirements as a convenient excuse for an unwillingness to take expedient action. All of the above tend to weaken trust in public organizations, sometimes to the point of demoralizing stakeholders and often in a manner that reduces efficiency.

There is a high degree of interdependence between trust and communication, and it is difficult to productively communicate when trust is absent. It is equally difficult to build trust without clear and open communication that is understood by all parties.

Recently, I encountered unexpected difficulty in executing what seemed to be an imminently logical course of action because I failed to communicate in advance with all the parties that might be remotely affected by the decision. Despite the fact that the parties questioning the decision had little by way of substantive counter arguments, I ultimately realized that I had failed to sustain a foundation of trust in my relationship with this group.

While it isnt easy to devote time to what might be perceived by some as massaging egos, the reward can be better mutual understanding and the opportunity to advance future activities smoothly.

Public Trust and Legitimacy

In government, it is imperative to maintain a high degree of objectivity and predictability when it comes to things such as public safety. Unfortunately, where you stand depends on where you sit, and different people can hold legitimate positions on issues that are diametrically opposed to one another.

Each of us holds a certain set of beliefs that has been influenced by our education, experience, cultural background, and peer groups. As public administrators, however, it is vital that we not allow predispositions to direct our actions. For example, even issues such as public safety are subject to interpretation.

In rapidly growing Gallatin County, Montana, we have many conflicts between developers and the County Road Department. Standards have been established for subdivision roads and improvements to connectors, but developers arent always enthusiastic about meeting these standards because of the added project cost.

The primary focus of the road department is to maintain safe roadways and minimize congestion, but the goal of the developers is to complete projects as cost effectively as possible. County Commissioners may also ascribe to the importance of effective subdivision planning and economic development.

A case can be made for the legitimacy of the public good in association with all of these perspectives, and maintaining a balanced viewpoint when confronted by competing interests is essential to maintaining the public trust. Public officials will be accountable for how they deal with these complex issues.

When the legitimacy of the governmental body is regularly questioned, public trust deteriorates, which may lead to increased costs and frequent litigation. When government officials are trusted, stakeholders will have greater confidence in the legitimacy of decisions made.

Authority and Trust

By virtue of their elected or appointed positions, government officials exercise authority over certain things. In civilian organizations, applying legitimate authority in an effective way can be elusive.

After assuming my current appointment as county administrator, I recognized that my effectiveness would depend on the degree to which I could nurture trust among a large number of department heads and elected officials. Because of the structure of county government in Montana, my formal authority has limitations since, by statute, certain departments are directed by independently elected officials.

Moreover, the county commissioners have statutory authority for a number of things and only some of these can be readily delegated. In the past, relationships between certain officials and departments were characterized more by grudging tolerance than by positive and open communication. Regardless of your level of authority, I have found that it is impossible to force people to trust you or one another.

The importance of building trust in the role of county administratorwhich had a spotty history in Gallatin County and in me personallywas apparent. Indeed, I subsequently discovered there was considerable speculation in some quarters that my tenure would be brief because of the unresolved problems tormenting the organization at the time of my arrival.

It would be disingenuous to say that I had the forethought to lay out a well-sequenced plan to deal with these issues. In essence, I took it one step at a time and used the following approaches to garner the trust of those I serve:

  • I scheduled one-on-one meetings with all department heads and elected officials to listen to their concerns and solicit their perspectives on the state of the organization. People were, for the most part, remarkably candid with me then. This process laid the foundation for the open dialogue and problem-solving sessions I continue to have on a frequent basis.
  • In my early months with the county, I found time to develop a management training program. Most appointed and elected department heads attended these sessions, which provided an excellent opportunity for networking. This highly interactive program allowed the department heads to get better acquainted with me and other key people in county government.
  • I established monthly department head meetings, which provided a forum for dealing with common problems, sharing ideas, and disseminating information. We are more likely to trust those with whom we are better acquainted.
  • As time went on and the trust level began to increase, I was sometimes called on to mediate disputes. Many came to realize that a safe forum was available to deal with disputes and that often led to a restoration of interpersonal trust.

None of these actions were particularly innovative nor did they require arcane skills. The most important preconditions to successfully implementing a trust-building strategy are a willingness to accept some risk and actively listen to others, create a degree of comfort with self-disclosure and vulnerability, and build an unwavering respect for confidentiality. These traits allow trust to develop at the interpersonal level. In my experience, a climate of trust is created one relationship at a time until it becomes engrained organizationally.

Reciprocal Trust

Earlier in my career, I observed the marginalization of a colleague due to the gradual erosion of trust in his abilities. As a senior executive with the organization, he had seen it grow and change in many ways. Moreover, the management environment changed and young staff members expected to have greater autonomy and opportunities to apply ever-changing methods and technologies in creative ways.

However, the executive was uncomfortable with this higher-order delegation and lacked the technical expertise to provide meaningful direction in cutting-edge approaches that were favored by younger knowledge workers. Attempts by the executive to micromanage work were met with passive resistance. This, in turn, led to a growing belief that he was irrelevant and that his expertise could not be trusted.

Managers in complex organizations do not need to convince people that they are expert in all technical areas. They arent expected to be expert in all the specialties of a diverse set of operations if they contribute to organizational vitality and advancement.

Their role is to manage and demonstrate a willingness to delegate responsibility to those with the technical expertise while providing adequate resources to employees as a means of assuring the success of their efforts. This willingness to delegate is preconditioned by trust, however.

Had this particular executive placed sufficient confidence in his employees instead of micromanaging, there is a high probability that they would have rewarded his actions by trusting his leadership. As it was, his ability to lead gradually diminished until he was relegated to a marginalized role. The significance of this anecdote is that trust is reciprocal.

Decision Making and Trust

At this time, state and local governments are confronted with exceptionally vexing challenges as we attempt to make deep budget cuts, often involving personnel. Although budget shortfalls in Gallatin County have been less severe than in many jurisdictions, the rapid growth of recent years has ground to a rapid halt.

To balance our budget, I was forced to closely scrutinize all hiring and reduce numbers through attrition and isolated layoffs. Several months ago, I was asked by the county commissioners to fill in as planning director in addition to maintaining my responsibilities as county administrator.

This occurred immediately after I had imposed personnel cuts on the planning department. Because I am not a professional planner by training, I had to deal with skepticism within the department concerning my technical expertise and my ability to devote adequate attention to the demands of my second job.

Building the trust of my planning department is a work in process, and I am attempting to do so by regular communication, accessibility, being candid about what I can and cannot accomplish, and reassigning some management responsibilities that were formerly the purview of the director to two of our lead planners.

This has been done with considerable input from staff, which is the point of this segmentcommunicating with the people affected by difficult decisions is essential in order to gain and preserve their trust.

Interdependence and Trust

I value motivated people and have sought to hire and develop the most competent employees available. High performers are often ambitious, however, and they yearn for advancement, which in American society, is most often rewarded by individual achievement.

Some years ago, an exceptionally bright and ambitious young executive on my team created almost perpetual upheaval in the organization we served by undermining the trust of his peers and subordinates, primarily due to his insatiable desire for rapid advancement. By contrast, another equally talented young executive a few years later contributed immeasurably to the success of our team by freely sharing his impressive talent with others in a manner that improved the image of all.

The primary difference between these two young executives was in their ability to inspire trust. While the former was viewed with great suspicion despite his estimable skills, the latter was readily accepted because of his openness and willingness to assist others without the expectation of getting something in return.

Basically, the difference can be summarized as selfishness versus selflessness. In public organizations, a willingness to cultivate relationships of interdependence as opposed to seeking the gratification of independent glory can make all the difference in terms of long-term success.

The success of the individual will ultimately be enhanced by embracing interdependence and putting organizational benefits ahead of short-term personal gains. The organizations trust quotient will climb as a result of the success of interdependent relationships.

Trustworthiness

To foster trust within an organization, you must first establish yourself as trustworthy. There are many ways that this can be accomplished, and building trust generally takes time, so be patient. Experience suggests that it frequently takes a year or more for an executive to establish a sufficient number of trusting relationships in a mid-sized organization. The following are several personal and professional attributes that are likely to inspire trust:

Predictability and Consistency. It is important to be dependable and predictable. Fulfilling promises made and walking the talk make a favorable impression that will be noticed, particularly for those in leadership roles. People need to have some notion of what to expect when they approach you.

Authenticity. It is great to be clever, witty, and full of great ideas. But, to gain the trust of others, it is far more important to be real.

Ethics. Though the need to apply ethics to gain trust is obvious, ethical dilemmas arise frequently in government and the media is full of stories of government officials that fail the test. Be vigilant in applying ethical considerations as a means of promoting trust.

Accessibility and Openness. Although some people are more naturally charismatic than others, everyone can be approachable. Being open and non-judgmental provides people with the confidence they need to freely present their ideas and concerns to you.

Responsiveness. Actively listening and responding appropriately are communication skills that help to promote trust. Expressing empathy, understanding, or concern is also important. It is critical that you follow through in accordance with any commitments that are made.

Service-Oriented. When leaders dispel the notion that they are above others by demonstrating a genuine willingness to serve, their followers will begin to identify with them.

Vulnerability. By exposing your frailties to others, you show that you are human and not afraid to take a risk. This allows the rest of the world to see your humanity. People are not especially trusting of indestructible automatons. Even Superman has a human side.

Emotional Maturity. While allowing others to recognize your humanity is good, displaying emotional maturity is essential and includes keeping emotions in check as well as avoiding a variety of indiscretions. Developing emotional maturity requires discipline and isnt necessarily correlated with age.

Overreacting emotionally to events is disconcerting to people and may create confusion or hostility. Anger not only drives people away, but it and creates a climate of fear in which productive communication is impossible.

Confidentiality. There are innumerable occasions in organizational life when confidentiality is an ethical or even a legal imperative. At other times it is merely offering a colleague a safe outlet in which to vent their problems.

Excellence. People trust competence and they generally respond well to those who display a good work ethic. Striving for excellence can be contagious.

Accountability. If you dont make a few mistakes along the way you arent really trying. People respond well to those who take ownership of mistakes. Practicing the blame game is one of the surest ways of undermining trust.

Courage. There are times when doing the right thing will hurt you personally, at least in the short term. People will trust you more if they know you are willing to sacrifice personally by getting some skin in the game.

Sustaining Trust

Trust is an essential and fragile commodity in organizations. Developing trust takes time, and it can easily be damaged. Local government officials are under constant scrutiny and most are astute enough to realize that their actions will be second guessed and dissected by the media and the public. Developing a reputation for integrity and maintaining a balanced perspective in public life is of great benefit in terms of avoiding that brand of scrutiny that is driven by suspicion. Building trust within the organization allows for internal processes to operate in a manner that leads to greater expediency and broader ownership of results.

While vibrant internal debate and idea sharing are constructive, public displays of dissension among government officials undermine confidence and damage relationships. If the level of trust within the organization is high, policy making and administrative actions can be carried out in a manner that engenders public trust and provides a sense of mutual accomplishment. My experience suggests that developing and sustaining trust must be a priority for public managersyour success depends on it.