A brave new Workplace, part 2: Cross-Cultural Communication

Nowadays, with immigration rising, trade barriers falling, and the good old Internet stirring it all up, we are really becoming to live – and work - in a global village. Our “brave new multicultural workplace” has become a mosaic of people from different ethnic and linguistic background. Culture provides us with ways of thinking—ways of seeing, hearing, and interpreting the world. For instance, when we converse with a colleague from a different culture, words or gestures may mean different things… Or, perhaps the person we’re communicating with is from a different class from us, or has a very different lifestyle… All of these subtleties can hinder our ability to get our message across effectively.

Let’s look at “a few” of the (many) aspects of cross-cultural communication that relate to the Message, to the Tone and Non-Verbal Cues, and to other Diverse or Intangible elements, and let’s see how these may influence the way people of different cultures perceive what’s being communicated.

The Message…

Before looking at the conversation “message” itself, it is useful to first understand the concept of Low- and High-Context culture. Low-context cultures – like Anglos, Germanics and Scandinavians – rely more on content rather than on context, which make them value the written word over spoken statements. Conversely, high-context cultures – like Japanese, Arabs and the French – infer information from the context of a message rather than from its content, thus making them rely heavily on nonverbal signs while preferring indirectness, politeness and ambiguity.

For example, Japanese may find Westerners to be offensively blunt while Westerners find Japanese to be secretive and unforthcoming with information. Similarly, French can feel that Germans insult their intelligence by explaining the obvious, while Germans can feel that French provide no clear sense of direction when discussion contentious topics.

The Non-Verbal…

In terms of non-verbal communication, its importance is not only huge for interpersonal interaction, but it’s multiplied across cultures, especially when different languages are involved in the conversation. Because behavior is a strong manifestation of our cultural background, non-verbal elements of a conversation will be interpreted very differently by people from diverse cultures. Some of these non-verbal dimensions that we should pay attention to include:

1. General appearance and dress code,
2. Posture, gesture and touch,
3. Facial expression, eye contact, and
4. Tone.

For example: bowing shows rank in Japan, slouching is impolite in most Northern European countries, having his hands in pocket is disrespectful in Turkey, and sitting with our legs crossed is insulting in Ghana and Turkey. A brief and firm handshake is the “acceptable, self-confident way of doing it” for North-Americans whereas the correct manner for most Africans countries is a “limp and much longer-lasting” handshake. As per facial expressions and eye contact, we note that whereas most Mediterranean Latinos and Arabs exaggerate sadness or grief, most Asians will, on the other hand, suppress facial expression as much as possible and avoid eye contact as a sign of respect.

Other intangible factors…

There are several other less tangible factors that may also affect how people from different culture perceive and interpret what’s being communicated to them. These may include:

1. The perception of time and personal space,
2. The authority and power distance,
3. The relative importance of individualism versus collectivism, and
4. The disclosure and uncertainty avoidance, etc. 

For example, in some countries like China and Japan, being on time is important and being late is considered an insult, whereas punctuality isn’t as significant or imperative for South-Americans, for Indians and for people from the Middle-East. In “high power distance” countries such as India, bypassing a superior is considered insubordination, whereas, in “lower power distance” countries like in North America and Northern Europe, differences in people’s status is less important and bypassing a superior is usually not such a big deal. And in individualist cultures, self-determination is valued and demonstrating initiative or being a “self-made man” is admirable, whereas collectivist cultures expect people to identify with and to work well in groups, to be loyal and compliant. While Anglo cultures tend to be individualist, many of the Asian cultures are collectivist.

So What?

Finally, one of the biggest and most obvious barriers to written and spoken communication is language itself. The people communicating may speak different languages; The language being used is not the first language for one or more people involved in the communication; Or the people communicating speak the same language, but are from different regions and therefore have different dialects and/or unique subtleties.

We should keep in mind that this “brave new global workplace” brings a wide spectrum of cultural and linguistic nuances, all of which affect the way we communicate. In case of doubt, we should thread carefully… perhaps ask about the differences that we notice, and encourage questions about the culture of our counterpart. It’s also useful to make sure that our questions are curious, not judgmental, resentful or otherwise negative. And let’s always keep an open-minded and be patient, repeating what we understand and confirming meanings, providing suggestions and acknowledging a mutual understanding.

What do you think?

- Patrick

A brave new Workplace, part 1: Cross-Generational Communication

A few years ago, I was facilitating a management workshop at one of my clients – a large multinational manufacturer with tens of thousands of employees. And more than once did I come across groups where, in the same session, some participants had over 25 years of experience working for this company while other participants – their day-to-day colleagues – were merely 25 years old! This broad “employee generational spectrum” - present in several organisations – can be explained in part because many older workers often remain on the job longer, and because younger workers are entering the workplace right out of college.

This results in a more “eclectic environment” fragmented into as many as four distinct generations, namely:  the Traditionalist, the Baby Boomers, the Generation X and the Generation Y – also known as the generation of the millennials.

This “brave new workplace” presents many additional communication challenges. And if our goal is to enhance the interpersonal communication efficiency with our colleagues – employees, peers and bosses –then it’s crucial that we first understand this multi-generational environment and consider the different values, attitudes and work styles of each generation prior to engaging with our younger or older counterparts. Let’s briefly look at these four very distinct groups of workers…

The Traditionalist generation…

The Traditionalist generation represents people who were born before 1946. What we can say about the Traditionalists is that they had to deal with pretty severe social, economical and political issues stemming from the world wars and the great economic depression. Being brought up during “tough times” where the military was in vogue certainly helps explain why this generation is very loyal and extremely respectful of authority. Traditionalists are generally good team players, respond well to command-and-control work style and are inherently resistant to change. They value safety, security, consistency & commitment. Hard workers – most likely because they grew up during a time when jobs were not abundant – but often technically challenged, the Traditionalists prefer face-to-face interactions over telephone or email conversations. Since most of them are retired, they correspond to less than five percent of today’s working population. As a consequence of near retirement (for those who remain in the workforce), they tend to be satisfied with their personal/professional situation and do not see advancement or achievement as important as their younger colleagues.

The Baby Boomers generation…

The Baby Boomers Generation characterizes people born between 1946 and 1961. For the most part, they are the product of post-war efforts to absorb soldiers returning home from battle, which resulted in a childbirth boom – hence the name “baby boomers”. In North-America, they grew up in an era of prosperity and growth, which also contributed to an increase in immigration from the old continent. More educated and with more financial resources than their parents, Boomers are nonetheless disciplined, hard workers and essentially defined by their careers. Being exposed to a changing world, they are known to be confident, independent and willing to confront others and challenge the status quo. Baby Boomers define themselves by their careers and professions – they are very competitive, they equate their worth by their work status and position. Often tagged as “career-focused workaholics”, they naturally believe that everyone should work long hours in order to advance in their careers. They prefer hierarchal work structure over flatter and more flexible workplace, and are often characterized as “command-and-control” types of leaders. Although television was a large element of the Baby Boomers’ upbringing, they prefer real-time human communication over digital interactions. Up until recently, they constituted the greater part of the workforce…. but their numbers are diminishing rapidly as thousands leave for retirement every week.

The generation X…

Generation X describes the people born between 1962 and 1980 (this is my generation!). As they witnessed a shift from a manufacturing economy to one focused on services, the “Gen-X” also grew up with technology – personal computers, video games, cell phones, email, etc. In comparison to the Boomers’ booming labour market, Xers experienced difficult times in the eighties when jobs were scarce and unemployment high. They were often raised in two-income or single-parent homes with a good dose of daycare. Individualists in nature, flexible and independent-minded, people from this generation are usually more educated, very change-savvy and are generally more ethnically diverse as a demographic group. Autonomous, they despise micro-management. They crave responsibility but will politely reject authority. All of this makes them less loyal to their employers as they equate job changes with a faster way of moving up the corporate latter. In contrast with their work-focused parents, they do however favor flexibility and a more “optimal” work-life balance.

The Millennial generation…

Finally, Generation Y – also known as the Millennial Generation, the Net Generation, or the Echo Boomers – corresponds to people born between the early eighties and the mid nineties. Born with technology – the Web, SMS, Facebook – they are the latest generation to enter the workplace. Not so long ago, they were still marginal in terms of numbers, but with the current demographics (boomers retiring fast, Gen X being less numerous), the Millennials have just become the largest generational group in the workplace… Gen Y’s live, learn and shop online, thrive on electronic communication and prefer it over face-to-face conversation. Natural multi-taskers and very collegial, they are inundated by information, music and media from all around. Although confident and seeking a meaningful role in the workplace, they value flexible employment schedules and will systematically pick family over work. Money is less important than purpose, learning opportunities and job flexibility. The Millennials will also challenge authority and won’t hesitate to push back if their values are not respected. (Given their personal and professional values, their work styles, their inherent diversity and openness to the to world, this is by far my favorite generation… subjectively speaking, of course!)

So What?

What does this multigenerational workplace mean from an interpersonal communication point of view? Put simply, when groups have the same values and attitudes, interactions with colleagues typically go smoother.  However, when background, values and attitudes of people differ, it may yield interpersonal tension, misunderstanding and other communication issues if we are not paying attention. Furthermore, the way each generation handles confrontation may also be a point of friction.

Adapting our communication style, finding common grounds and focusing on affinity zones are techniques that will make this cross-generational communication more productive. And if else fails, we should always revert back to “good old empathy”. In other words, let’s just try to put ourselves in the other person's shoes – adopting our counterpart’s perspective will always help the fluidity of our interaction with them.

What do you think?

- Patrick

The need for 360 feedback in coaching and leadership development

Coaching and Leadership Development have one thing in common: they usually both begin with the employee’s best intentions. Whether it’s following an annual performance evaluation, or when planning a career transition, or simply as part of an ongoing learning and development effort, an employee will typically establish his/her “skill gaps”, also known as “development areas” or “growth opportunities”, and then lay out a plan to address them – either alone or with the help of a coach. So far, so good…

But what if the “self-assessment” of the competency(ies) to be developed is flawed? In other words, what if the employee has mis-evaluated his/her strengths and weaknesses? Then the entire coaching and development effort that ensue is ill-fated from the get go. This may lead to waste of time and money, de-motivation, missed professional opportunities, and sometimes more drastic consequences such as career stalling, employee resignation or dismissal.

With such important organisational consequences, it is useful to understand the reasons behind this “misalignment” and to consider a development approach that minimizes occurrence of this happening in the first place.

Blindspots and Johari’s window:

One practical way to look this situation is by using a popular tool called Johari's window(1). This 2x2 matrix (see diagram below) is a nice and simple way of conceptualizing and classifying someone's self-awareness and self-development areas. Johari’s model is composed of the following four quadrants: #1. Open Zone (Top-Left), also called the “Arena”, consists of what is known by the employee about him/herself and is also known by others; Quadrant #2. Hidden Area (Bottom-Left) what the person knows about him/herself that others do not know - hidden area, hidden self, avoided area, avoided self or “Facade”; Quadrant #3. Blindspot Zone (Top-Right), consists of what is unknown by the person about him/herself but which others know or are aware of; and Quadrant #4. Unknown Area (Bottom-Right) is what's unknown by the person about him/herself and is also unknown by others.

Obviously, an employee’s competency deficiencies that fall in quadrants #3 and #4 will certainly lead to an ill-designed development plan. In other words, the employee’s self-awareness is inaccurate such that “blind spots” remain, which lead to the employee not focusing on some of the leadership skills that do in fact require improvements. But what about using a coach to palliate for this imprecise self-assessment? One could argue that coaching - through its powerful questioning, feedback and support approach - is optimal when dealing with a "competency blindspot" (quadrant #3). The coach acts as an objective party to help the employee take a step back and "see the forest" so to speak...

Coaching may certainly help an employee with skill gaps that fall in Quadrant #1 (open area), but I would say that it is less necessary because of the heightened self-awareness by the learner of his/her development needs. Quadrant #2 (Hidden Area) poses some difficulties to the coach because of the perhaps very conscious effort from the employee to not reveal certain areas of his/her personality/competencies. But my take on this “façade quadrant (#2) is that, as a coach, you do your best (poking, digging, powerful questioning) to uncover what's hidden and may feel painful or difficult to deal with by coachee. But, in the end, "you can bring a horse to the water, but you can't force it to drink..." What I do find truly challenging from a coaching point of view are quadrants #3 (blindspots) and #4. (the complete unknown). To illustrate my point, let me tell you a "coaching" story...

Real-life situation:

A good friend of mine - an experienced and qualified HR VP (MBA, CHRP, ICF ACC) - had been coaching this colleague of hers (a newly-promoted director working at another office within the company) for around 6 months. Everything seemed to be going well – they had identified some important development areas and progress seemed to be materializing… until a point (annual performance evaluation period) where the employee’s superior – upon reviewing the employee’s dismal 360 assessment feedback – demoted him back to a manager position within the division. My friend was shocked! By no means was her coachee a superstar employee, she thought. But, based on their mutual coaching conversations, he was making legitimate progress (at least she thought so… and so did he!). What had just happened? Perhaps the employee kept a bit of a facade with his coach – hiding weaknesses or misreporting progress… But, based on my friend’s (the coach) assessment, the employee was truly convinced that he was making progress.

What we’re dealing with here is a Quadrant #3/#4 situation. Clearly, some of the competency deficiencies that my friend’s colleague was struggling with were unknown to him. But his peers/staff seemed quite aware of these (as reported in his annual performance review). This is a classic blindspot situation (unknown to self, but known by others). However, because my friends – the employee’s coach – did not have the opportunity to “see the employee in action” (which is typical of most employee-coach relationship), she was also “blinded” by the feedback she received throughout the coaching engagement. In other words, neither the coach (my friend, the HR VP), nor the coachee (my friend’s colleague) were fully aware of the competency gaps and the developmental challenges that the employee faced (quadrant #4 – unknown to self to the coach).

Multi-rater competency assessments: After discussing this with my friend (who was still upset about failing her coachee), she told me that the superior’s decision to demote the coachee was most likely the good one. As an HR VP, she was allowed to review the employee’s 360 results and, low and behold, the feedbacks were numerous and pretty bad (I’ll spare you the details here). But as she debriefed with the employee, she realized that he was truly clueless and, although well intentioned, he simply wasn’t aware of his destructive interpersonal patterns at work.

The morale of the story here is that – based on my friend’s feedback and my personal interpretation of the situation – “you don’t know what you don’t know”. And if the coachee doesn’t know either, then you’re essentially paddling down the St.Lawrence… and the Niagara Falls are just around the corner!

So, as a coach, you have two options: 1. Shadow the employee on the job, and interview his peers, his direct reports, and anyone else who can provide a valuable and actionable feedback or 2. Obtain a solid 360º assessment of some sort prior to getting too far in the coaching situation. Option #1 is probably to best one in terms of “data input and coachable observations”… However, for most “external coaching” situations, it’s logistically impractical/unfeasible or extremely costly! Even for my friend’s “internal coaching” context, the fact the both her and her colleague/coachee worked three time zones apart made this shadowing unrealistic.

So What...

The net of it is that, although imperfect and sometimes biased, a 360º Assessment may be the only helpful and efficient way for a coach to find critical information hidden in Quadrant #3/#4 – the blindspots and the unknown areas… Hence the need for a multi-rater competency feedback prior to embarking on a coaching relationship and/or initiating a substantial leadership development effort.

FOOTNOTES:

1. Reference for Johari’s window: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window

What do you think?

- Patrick

EI and Self-Talk: What are you telling yourself?

Imagine this situation for a moment...

You wake up one morning half-asleep because the neighbours were loud last night; you realize there is no more coffee in the house; the kids are frantic because it’s the last week before Christmas; as you drive them to school on your way to work, you notice that the fuel tank is on empty; you make a detour to the gas station and realize that it now costs you $75 to fill up your car; as you head back on the highway after dropping off your kids, you get stuck in massive traffic; at last, you arrive at work, 1 hour late; you’re car is at the backend of the parking and it’s pouring rain; just as you run in to print your report for the staff meeting that started 15 minutes ago, you pour coffee on your shirt; you finally make it to the copy room across the hall to find out that the only printer on the floor is offline and a technician is there trying to fix it...

What’s going on through your mind at that very moment? How do you suppose this internal dialogue affects your mood? Is there any chance all of this may impact your behavior at work?

Emotional Intelligence is at the center of this situation...

Emotional Intelligence, aka EI, can be defined as “…one’s ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups…” In other words, being Emotionally Intelligent is to be able to sense, understand and work productively with one’s own and others’ emotions. Building on the work of several researchers, Daniel Goleman and his collaborators developed a quadrant-shaped framework to further look at EI from a capabilities point of view. The statistically-validated model describes EI in terms of four competency dimensions, namely: Self Awareness, Self Management, Social Awareness and Relationship Management.

Obviously, in our situation above, we’re faced with “Self-Awareness” and “Self-Management” dimensions of EI, aka Personal Competence (as opposed to Social Competence). What is happening here exactly?

EI and Self-Talk...

Emotions are sometimes “self-induced”. It starts with our values and beliefs – beliefs about something, about someone, or even about ourselves. These influence what goes through our mind – our thoughts – which in turn, strongly impact our emotions. This can be seen as the “neural conversation” constantly happening between our brain’s pre-frontal lobes and the amygdala. Ultimately, it impacts our actions, either in the form of productive or negative behavior. This feedback mechanism – often referred to as “self talk”, may act alone or in conjunction with an emotional response to an external situation. Self–talk is the dialogue that goes on inside our head when facing conflict, life challenges or even simple day-to-day concerns.

From time to time, what might happen is that this ‘internal dialogue” goes rogue. Psychologists call this “Cognitive Distortions” - ways that our brain, through inaccurate thoughts, manages to convince us that something isn’t true. These exaggerated or irrational thoughts typically result in reinforcing negative thinking or emotions, which ultimately keep us feeling bad about ourselves. Because Cognitive Distortions are often at the center of our “negative internal dialogue”, they may have potentially a lasting harmful impact on our overall emotional state.

Why does EI matter?

Since EI strongly determines how we handle ourselves and how we interact with others, an emotionally intelligent individual is therefore more likely to live a happy life and to be successful in the workplace. EI simply means that we can control ourselves better when faced with adversity; we can overcome challenges by remaining flexible and motivated, and by focusing on the opportunity rather than on the problem; we are able to recognize the onset of a negative self-talk and prevent it from taking over our mood and our emotional response.

When we lack EI, the likelihood of becoming “hijacked by our emotions” is increased substantially. When we can’t control our emotions, our ability to use our “rational brain” becomes dramatically reduced: we can no longer think calmly and clearly. When we are “emotionally out of control”, we can’t react flexibly to crisis, can’t perform under stress, and can’t lead others to success. Lack of EI often leads to personal and professional disaster.

What can sometimes be more detrimental to long-term personal performance and well being is the “low-intensity negative self talk” that we may subconsciously have with ourselves all the time. A quasi-permanent pessimistic internal dialogue has the same erosion effect on our mood that river flow has on a sandy bank. Hence the need to be acutely aware of this internal dialogue, to be conscious of its potential impact on our emotional competence, and to be able to efficiently shift it to a more positive and optimist state when pessimism has taken over.

What can we do about it?

The following are some “Tips and Tricks” – “Do’s and Don’ts” so to speak – to help us implement an efficient emotional transition from “negativity and failure” towards “positivity and success”:

1. Keep a journal
2. Slow down and breathe
3. Detect our triggers and patterns, and modify our negative statements
4. Put ourselves in someone else’s “emotional shoes
5. Reframe, Rationalize and/or Ignore
6. Use positive affirmations to reprogram your mind and implement positive attitudes
7. Take time to celebrate both success and "plain old" happy moments
8. Focus on our strengths rather than our weaknesses
9. Avoid toxic surroundings
10. Maintain a sense of purpose in everything we do

For more information on the subject…

• Wikipedia, www.wikipedia.org. Excellent source of information and definitions for EI, Self-Talk and Cognitive Distortion
• Working with Emotional Intelligence (2000). Goleman, D., Bantam, 400pp
• The Feeling Good Handbook (1999). Burns, D.D., Penguin Books, 705pp
• Stress Free for Good (2005). Luskin, F., and Pelletier, K., HarperCollins e-books. (on iTunes)

What do you think?

- Patrick

The Role of Trust in Team Effectiveness

What about Trust?

Trust is one of those “catch-all / rhetorical” term that is often used (and abused), but rarely understood or pragmatically dealt with in the workplace. Everyone knows what happens to a relationship with a loved one (child or spouse) when trust is broken. But although the same dire consequences resulting from lack of trust afflict workplace climate, rarely does one see “improve team members’ trust” as a business improvement initiative.

What is Trust anyway? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com), trust is “a belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective, etc.” Being trustworthy is “the ability to be relied on to do or provide what is needed or right... to be deserving of trust, worthy of confidence, dependable”.

Author and founding CEO of Trusted Advisor Associates (www.trustedadvisor.com), Charles H. Green explains what trust is in terms of four (4) dimensions that are combined into a “Trust Equation”. According to Green, trustworthiness – often referred by Green as the Trust Quotient (TQ) – is simply defined as Trust = (Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy)  / Self-Orientation.

In other words, the more credibly, reliably and/or intimately, one behaves... and/or the less self-oriented one appears, the more trustworthy one is. With Green’s formula, it becomes quite obvious which quality a leader must embody in order to inspire trust with his/her employees and colleagues.

Why does Trust Matter?

Put simply, for anyone to care about the “state of trust” in a group, a team, or an entire organization, one has to see a link between trust and team effectiveness and business performance. And the good news is: there is such a relationship! In fact, if one dares to “google” the word trust, aside from finding thousands of relevant search results, one would find that it is often associated with team effectiveness and organizational performance.

In his book “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team”, business author Patrick Lencioni (www.tablegroup.com/pat/), proposes a 5-dimension model of team effectiveness in which Trust is the foundation. According to Lencioni, effective teams are characterized by, amongst other things, team members trusting one another. But, more importantly, a team where trust is lacking will: “Conceal their weaknesses and mistakes from others; Hesitate to provide constructive feedback and to offer help outside of their area of expertise; Fail to tap into the skills of others in the team; Waste time and energy managing their behaviours for effect; and Hold grudges”. This lack of trust, Lencioni says, is the cornerstone of the 5 dysfunctions that afflict so many ineffective teams.

The way these five team issues are interrelated is as follow: “1. If the members of the team do not trust each other, then they cannot be totally honest with each other. 2; Without trust, people will not have the healthy debates that are necessary to arrive at better decisions. 3; If the team have not aligned behind a decision, then the individual members who did not agree with the final decision will ultimately be less committed to that decision; 4. If they are not committed to the course of action, then they are less likely to feel accountable and/or to hold other people accountable; and 5. Consequently, the team members are less likely to care about the group results (and instead focus on achieving their own goals).” As we can see from Lencioni’s model, Trust amongst team members is the basic ingredient that leaders need to have if they want their employees work effectively with one another.

Another way to link Trust to Team Effectiveness is by looking at its culture and its work climate. Research from the Hay Group (www.haygroup.com) has shown that improvement in the climate of an organization can result in as much as 30% increase in bottom line performance. Another research done by the 6Seconds International Consortium (www.6Seconds.org) showed that the climate of an organization could explain up to 60% of a company’s performance. To measure the climate of a team and evaluate its impact on performance, researchers at 6Seconds devised an assessment tool called Vital Signs. This survey instrument relies on a Team Climate model that measures five (5) important drivers of effectiveness (trust, engagement, teamwork, agility and productivity) in relation to two major team dimensions: the “Operational-Strategic” axis and the “Individual-Organizational” spectrum (see chart below).

Based on research and experience, it was concluded that the climate of a group strongly influences critical employee behaviors such as communication, problem-solving, and accountability – factors intimately linked to the effectiveness of a team and that affect key performance indicators related to customers, employees, quality and profitability. Trust being the overlay dimension in 6Seconds’ Team Climate model, it plays a critical role in establishing the required levels of confidence, faith, and surety that engenders a willingness to risk and facilitates success in the other climate factors.

What can you do about it?

Clearly, the question is not whether Trust matters but how can you, as a leader, improve it? The first step towards this goal is to be a role a role model – to demonstrate trust in your attitude and behavior at work. This requires from the leader to be credible, reliable, intimate and authentic, and selfless. Inspiring trust by being trustworthy is essential. But it’s not sufficient.

As in most situations, a leader can’t manage what he/she doesn’t measure. Assessing the confidence level within your team is also crucial in enhancing trust and improving team effectiveness as a whole. To assess trust, keep your eyes open; review past mistakes from team members and ask yourself whether they came forward immediately after committing the “faux pas” or was their first instinct to bury or deny the mistake; Interview people – within and outside the team – and ask them whether the team members openly admit their mistakes and willingly apologize to one another, whether they acknowledge their weaknesses to one another and ask for help without hesitation, whether they recognize and tap into one another’s skills and expertise, etc.

To go beyond this baseline “qualitative” evaluation of team trust and effectiveness, you should consider conducting a more thorough and systematic assessment using a known survey instrument. As an appendix to Lencioni’s book (The Five Dysfunctions of a Team), a 38-question Team Assessment is provided. The goal of this survey is to provide you (the team leader) with a sense of your team’s unique strengths and areas for improvement along the five dimensions of Lencioni’s team model: Trust, Conflict, Commitment, Accountability, and Results. Another thorough analysis of a team’s ability to work effectively and drive successful business outcomes is 6Second’s Team Climate assessment (Team Vital Signs). For a more accurate and holistic analysis, it is recommended to have your entire team complete the assessment. While the results themselves provide an interesting perspective, the most important benefit of such assessment is the discussion that it is likely to provoke around specific team issues.

As a leader, you play a key role in influencing the mood and attitude of your team members. This ultimately impacts the trust level within the team. As such, you should always be open with your employees – not only do transparency and humility help improve your credibility, but debriefing your findings (qualitative or quantitative) with your team members and involving them in the solution will go a long way in boosting their trust and improving their engagement. As you debrief the results of the team assessment, ask your employees to come up with practical solutions that you can collectively implement. If you’re uncertain as to how to go about this, follow the simple “Start-Stop-Continue” approach. Keeping in mind the assessment results, have the team answer the following three (3) questions:

• START: What would you like the team to start to do (or do more)?
• STOP: What would you like the team to stop doing (or do less)?
• CONTINUE: What would you like the team to continue to do (that’s working well)?

Based on the outcome of this group discussion, prioritize and implement the top suggestions, regularly monitor and evaluate the progress that you and your team make on these improvement initiatives, and readjust accordingly. Finally, keep in mind that trust is, for the most part, associated with the emotional aspects of people’s perceptions and reactions (behaviors). As such, strive to be an emotionally intelligent leader, i.e.: sense, understand and work productively with your own emotions and those of your employees.

What do you think?

- Patrick