Ten ways how leadership can influence and promote interpersonal trust in knowledge management behavior and processes

In: definitions| nurturing knowledge behavior

28 Jun 2009

Introduction

Knowledge sharing can be a demanding and uncertain process. At the individual level, it may evoke perceptions of conflict of interest or vulnerability (e.g. Argote et al., 2001). For example, Ardichvili et al. (2003) found that ‘fear of criticism’ and ‘fear of [inadvertently] misleading others’ can inhibit knowledge sharing.

trust

Previous research has connected knowledge sharing to a variety of managerial and organizational factors and to transient, situation-specific attitudes and motives including specifically interpersonal trust, which is the evaluation of the trustworthiness of specific others (such as managers and peers; Dirks and Ferrin, 2001; Levin and Cross, 2004).

Defining Trust

Interpersonal trust can be defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable.” In the context of knowledge creation and sharing in informal networks, research suggests two dimensions of trust that promote knowledge creation and sharing:

  • Benevolence - ”You care about me and take an interest in my well-being and goals”)
  • Competence - ”You have relevant expertise and can be depended  upon to know what you are talking about”)

Trust is caused by a combination of all kind of variables. One of these is the earlier discussed earlier when looking at the Big Five: agreeableness. While such a personality factor is hard to change, there are some ways that leadership can promote and influence the level of trust within the department or organization. They follow here below.

Influencing and promoting interpersonal trust

Trustworthy Behaviors

1. Act with discretion Keeping a secret means not exposing another person’s vulnerability; thus, divulging a confidence makes a person seem malevolent and/or unprofessional.

  • Be clear about what information you are expected to keep confidential.
  • Don’t reveal information you have said you would not . . . and hold others accountable for this.

Promotes: benevolence trust

2. Be consistent between word and deed When people do not say one thing and do another, they are perceived as both caring about others (i.e., they do not mislead) and as being competent enough to follow through.

  • Be clear about what you have committed to do, so there is no misunderstanding.
  • Set realistic expectations when committing to do something, and then deliver.

Promotes: benevolence and competence trust

3. Ensure frequent and rich communication Frequent, close interactions typically lead to positive feelings of caring about each other and better understandings of each other’s expertise.

  • Make interactions meaningful and memorable.
  • Consider having some face-to-face (or at least telephone) contact.
  • Develop close relationships.

Promotes: benevolence and competence trust

4. Engage in collaborative communication People are more willing to trust someone who shows a willingness to listen and share; i.e., to get involved and talk things through. In contrast, people are wary of someone who seems closed and will only answer clear-cut questions or discuss complete solutions.

  • Avoid being overly critical or judgmental of ideas still in their infancy.
  • Don’t always demand complete solutions from people trying to solve a problem.
  • Be willing to work with people to improve jointly on their partially formed ideas.

Promotes: benevolence and competence trust

5. Ensure that decisions are fair and transparent People take their cues from the larger environment. As a result, there is a “trickle down” effect for trust, where the way management treats people leads to a situation where employees treat one another similarly. Thus, fair and transparent decisions on personnel matters translate into a more trusting environment among everyone.

  • Make sure that people know how and why personnel rules are applied and that the rules are applied equally.
  • Make promotion and rewards criteria clear-cut, so people don’t waste time developing a hidden agenda (or trying to decode everyone else’s).

Promotes: benevolence trust

Organizational Factors

6. Establish and ensure shared vision and language People who have similar goals and who think alike find it easier to form a closer bond and to understand one another’s communications and expertise.

  • Set common goals early on.
  • Look for opportunities to create common terminology and ways of thinking.
  • Be on the lookout for misunderstandings due to differences in jargon or thought processes.

Promotes: benevolence and competence trust

7. Hold people accountable for trust To make trustworthy behavior become “how we do things here,” managers need to measure and reward it. Even if the measures are subjective, evaluating people’s trustworthiness sends a strong signal to everyone that trust is critical.

  • Explicitly include measures of trustworthiness in performance evaluations.
  • Resist the urge to reward high performers who are not trustworthy.
  • Keep publicizing key values such as trust-highlighting both rewarded good examples and punished violations-in multiple forums.

Promotes: benevolence and competence trust

Relational Factors

8. Create personal connections When two people share information about their personal lives, especially about similarities, then a stronger bond and greater trust develop. Non-work connections make a person seem more “real” and human, and thus more trustworthy.

  • Create a “human connection” with someone based on non-work things you have in common.
  • Maintain a quality connection when you do occasionally run into acquaintances, including discussing non-work topics.
  • Don’t divulge personal information shared in confidence.

Promotes: benevolence trust

9. Give away something of value Giving trust and good faith to someone makes that person want to be trusting, loyal, and generous in return.

  • When appropriate, take risks in sharing your expertise with people.
  • Be willing to offer others your personal network of contacts when appropriate.

Promotes: benevolence trust

Individual Factors

10. Disclose your expertise and limitations Being candid about your limitations gives people confidence that they can trust what you say are your strengths. If you claim to know everything, then no one is sure when to believe you.

  • Make clear both what you do and don’t know.
  • Admit it when you don’t know something rather than posture to avoid embarrassment.
  • Defer to people who know more than you do about a topic.

Promotes: competence trust

Conclusion

Without trust effective knowledge management is extremely difficult if not impossible. Leadership should be up to the task of nurturing trust in their departments or organizations in order to ensure effective communication between their staff. The ten points listed in this article provide a concrete framework of doing so.

This blogpost is partly an adaptation of the following article. We strongly advice you to read this whole article, since it goes more into depth than this post:

Abrams L., Cross R., Lesser E., and Levin D.Z. (2003) Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks Academy of Management Executive, 2003, Vol. 17, No. 4

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

5 Responses to Ten ways how leadership can influence and promote interpersonal trust in knowledge management behavior and processes

Avatar

השיטוטים של השבוע: 28 ליוני – 4 ליולי 2009 : ארבעה כיווני מידע

July 4th, 2009 at 18:35

[...] ובטחון. השאלה היא כיצד בונים סביבה בה שורר אמון. הפוסט weknowmore.com ממליץ על עשרה דרכים לבניית סביבה [...]

Avatar

For what it’s worth … ASK at weknowmore.org « Don’t Compromise!

September 8th, 2009 at 15:44

[...] Ten ways how leadership can influence and promote interpersonal trust in knowledge management behavi… [...]

Avatar

David Gurteen

September 19th, 2009 at 04:33

Measure and reward trust! What nonsense!

Avatar

Johan Lammers

September 19th, 2009 at 17:36

I must say I found this hard to believe too. But the people who wrote the article did have a good supporting story. I don’t believe that it is possible to have a 10 punt scale from trustworthy to untrustworthy is and let that be scored by the staff is a valid and good idea, but I do believe that making it a ‘formal issue’ within the organization could have valuable effects.

For the sake of the discussion I’ll post the story of the above mentioned authors here below, to share the exact words of the authors. If someone has copyright issues please contact us, and we will take it down immediately.

Hold People Accountable for Trust

“The well-known finding that you get what you reinforce and reward can be applied to trust as well. In many of the companies we interviewed, we heard a common lament: that you cannot measure or assess something as intangible as trust. But several of the organizations we observed were attempting to evaluate and recognize trust through either formal or informal organizational processes. On an informal basis, one organization had for several years addressed this issue from a cultural perspective. This organization had invested substantially in clarifying a set of values that the organization stood for. But rather than making this an executive exercise that did not permeate the inner workings of the organization, the leaders invested heavily in holding one another and the entire organization accountable for these values. The effect was felt very deep in the organization, as exemplified by one employee: We have values: service/solutions; personal excellence; integrity; respect and trust; innovation: teamwork. The how you do something is just as important as what you do. Performing well but not acting with integrity or as a good team player will not get you the kudos you might get in a firm that is more “star” oriented. Some people prefer to take shortcuts with honesty, respect, and teamwork, but in the longer term these folks end up discrediting their projects and [the company].

This company was willing to spend the time and energy to train everyone in the importance of these values and to work out a comprehensive evaluation process for assessing employee behavior in relation to these values. Many companies can say that they value integrity; not as many will put their employees through training; and few will formulate a working evaluation system and tie in compensation.

This organization did all of these things. As a result of the extensive “values training,” for example, all employees held one another accountable to the stated values. According to our interviews, both the training and the formalized statements facilitated turning these abstract values into concrete norms of behavior.

Many companies can say that they value integrity; not as many will put their employees through training; and few will formulate a working evaluation system and tie in compensation.

The importance of trust can also be demonstrated through a firm’s human resources practices, such as holding people accountable for past trustworthy behaviors at previous jobs—before deciding to hire them. For example, one professional services organization uses an extremely thorough recruiting process that involves a host of interviews and psychological tests. The firm invests in this extensive process to evaluate not only an individual’s capability, but also his or her ability to work in the firm’s collaborative environment. On more than one occasion, the firm has decided against hiring senior candidates with proven track records because the hiring managers felt that the persons would not be an effective fit with the firm’s culture.

In our interviews we heard of several types of evaluation systems that addressed trust. In one organization, managers wrote paragraphs about different aspects of an employee’s performance and rated employees on trust-related dimensions.

Having several distinct questions gave people ample opportunity to think about their own behavior and evaluate the behavior of others. This approach was a signal that interpersonal trust is important to the company and deserves serious consideration. In another firm, trust was simply measured as part of a quantitative assessment that managers completed for their direct reports. While not everyone weighted it equally on the evaluation form (some thought it more important, others less), everyone thought it significant that trust was mentioned explicitly. There were four sections to the performance appraisal document: external focus, innovation, people, and performance. Trust was explicitly assessed in the “people” section, which itself had four categories of performance (leadership, empowerment/accountability, candor/trust/ integrity, and communication). For candor/trust/integrity, the supporting values and behaviors were: (a) is realistic; (b) is discreet; (c) establishes mutual respect and trust in dealing with others; (d) acts and behaves in accordance with his/her words; (e) assumes responsibility for own mistakes; (f) commits to honesty/truth in every facet of behavior; (g) demonstrates ethical conduct.”

Excerpt from:

Abrams L., Cross R., Lesser E., and Levin D.Z. (2003) Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks Academy of Management Executive, 2003, Vol. 17, No. 4

Avatar

rema

September 29th, 2009 at 03:22

Leaders need to win the trust of those whom they lead. If they have to “win” trust of their employees – it means trust is a reward in itself – the highest reward. In the organizational chain, everyone has to win the trust of their peers as well as those above and below them. The reward for trust is therefore “returned trust” and “opportunities for showing trustworthiness”.

Trust is the glue that binds teams together through this invisible but palpable “team spirit” that depends on the currentness of the trust among the members. How a leader rewards a team or an individual in the team can be similar – giving them a sense of belonging,
We reward trust all the time in our private and business lives, but not enough. Trust does not have to have a $ next to it. If it does, that is nice (not necessarily better).

A smile, a nod, an acknowledgement, recognition (privately, in front of peers, colleagues and publicly), time to listen, an opportunity to take it up a notch, an opportunity to learn something – a good leader will find a way.

Comment Form

Related Posts

What is “knowledge”? And what are its characteristics?

weknowmore.org is a young, innovative organization active in the wide spectrum of knowledge management and learning for organizations in non-profit sectors

Connecting people and knowledge.
Together: we know more!

You can still join our research!

Contact us!

We can be reached by e-mail: research@weknowmore.org

If you want to receive site updates in your mailbox, you can submit your e-mailaddress here

wordpress counter

You can follow weknowmore.org on Twitter!

You can translate this site here:

Support the weknowmore.org library!



weknowmore.org recommends these amazing books. They helped in shaping the weknowmore.org methodology and philosophy.

If you buy one of these books using this link, we get a small percentage of the total price as a reference fee. The total price will not increase for you this way. We use this percentage to receive amazon.com gift certificates with which we want to buy books for our library. We aren't connected to amazon in any other way.

Support our language!




As you might have noticed, we are non-native English speakers, and we cannot afford an editor just yet.

If you come across a mistake, please let us know and we will correct it immediately. In return you'll get our eternal gratitude, and if you contribute significantly (if you corrected more than 10 mistakes) you will be mentioned as guest editor on our site.

You can sent your remarks to research@weknowmore.org
We apologize for the inconvenience.

Guest Editors

weknowmore.org is grateful to

Trevor Modeste

for being a guest editor on our site

Internet Explorer 6 users




This site does not look good in Internet Explorer 6. It's difficult to fix, since this browser is antiquated, and doesn’t support key web standards. If you want to make optimal use of this site, we advise to upgrade to a newer version, Firefox or Chrome.

weknowmore.org visits

Site design by: DesignDisease