If you work at Front, a collaboration software provider, you can anytime scan CEO Mathilde Collin's calendar. This kind of transparency goes a long way in building and sustaining a culture of trust. It gives her the kind of integrity, accessibility and humility she expects and depends on from her leaders and everyone else. She is clear that actions speak volumes words only allude to. We Need more leaders like this.
Trust based feedback
This sounds like an oxymoron. In so many situations, feedback makes giver and receiver tense. It threatens, weakens or diminishes trust. It's not a function of having and giving feedback. It's a function of choice. When someone offers us a choice, about anythjng, we trust them.
In trust based feedback, we genuinely ask people of they want specific kinds of feedback and deliver on their affirmation. We genuinely ask others if they want to give us specific kinds of feedback. Both build and deepen trust.
With trust we are receptive and open. Without it we are defensive and protective. Trust becomes the difference between growth and fixed mindsets.
Low trust (slow) teams
Slow teams are slow to everything. In contrast to nimble teams, slow teams are slow to share vision, questions, strengths and learning.
People on slow teams do whatever they think is their work and expect everyone else to do the same. When things don't get done, people expect those who usually take care of them to take care of them. Sharing happens when people feel like it, are expected to, or not at all. Trust is low, meaning minimal or worse.
This is in direct contrast to nimble teams where people share everything because they have shared expectations that this is how work gets done. Trust is high. Work is great.
Nimble teams and cultures of trust
Nimble teams grow and flourish in cultures of trust.
Trust is pivotal In three ways:
- Teams move at the speed of trust
- Trust accelerates collaborative creativity
- Trust turns uncertainty into an asset
There are many genres of trust that weave the cultural fabric of nimble teams:
- Trust in shared direction & plans
- Trust in shared expectations & decisions
- Trust in shared learning & strengths
Team trust through agreements
The importance of working by agreement as a team is based on the simple observation that we are either working from the tension of assumptions or from team constructed agreements. Agreements are shared commitments to what will work for all based on the realities that we work within.
Agreements build trust and trust is important because performance and creativity move at the speed of trust.
We can create some agreements as a whole team, as subgroup members of the team, or in one-to-one contexts. It is a good practice to keep these documented somewhere for reference so that we can work from the actual language that we create for our agreement. It's okay that several agreements do not get recorded because they're more on the basis of an understanding between and among us as a team.
The agreements grid demonstrates that there are four kinds of agreements that we can create as teams. There are general and specific agreements as well as immediate and tested. These four categories create a grid of four possibilities.
In this grid we can create general immediate agreements, specific immediate agreements, general tested agreements and specific test agreements.
A general immediate agreement is one in which we can just simply implemented without any testing because we have enough consensus in the team to go ahead with it. An example is that we agreed to use a certain kind of software app to update each other every day but it doesn't specify how we are going to do that, that it's up to each one of us to decide how we will do that, but we will according to agreement update each other in a daily basis.
A specific immediate agreement is one which again we can just simply implement without testing and it's one in which we specifically detail what the agreement is about. So and example would be that we not only agree to use the specific software app but we also agree to update each other first thing in the morning and at the end of business.
The general tested agreement is one which is flexible but is one that we actually go through testing, after which we critiqued the test in which we can or concerns and finally craft a general agreement that the team will implement.
The specific tested agreement is flexible and one in which we implement after testing and critiquing as a team.
The process for creating tested agreements whether general or specific is very simple. We talk about what matters to us as we work together considering things like communication and coordination, points of tension and disconnects, where things can get bogged down or where people can get overwhelmed.
We choose one that we want to start with and we together craft proposal which is a proposed agreement that we can test as a team for specific periods of time. It's important to ask people to voice any concerns, considerations or exceptions as we consider proposals. This makes proposals highly realistic and more engaging and more supported. We then test our proposals and get together for the critique. The critique is simply the questions of what went well and why and what might want to change based on our experience. We then tweak and if necessary retest the new proposal and then as a team implement what works.
The creativity-trust magic
Creativity in teams requires trust. When we can depend on each other to help grow ideas we are less apt to self-filter unfamiliar, different and essentially untested and unproven ideas. We have more space to listen and inquire, discover and explore.
When we don't have to fear ridicule for raw and undeveloped ideas, we have the patience of courage. When we don't have to compete to win over others, what we create together is richer than what we could create in isolation or opposition. We experiment with those we trust.
Trust grows as we share understanding, promises, agreements, storytelling, connecting conversations and growing together.
When it comes to being more creative together, we don't need training as much as a growing culture of trust.
The neuroscience basis of the growth imperative
Neuroeconomist Paul Zak in HBR reports that high organizational performance is a function of engagement. Engagement is a function of trust. Trust is a function of freedom in our work, recognition of progress and continous growth.
Nimble teams know this because we daily live it. In sync with the rest of the team and without permissions, everyone has freedom to do their best in whatever needs to be done. We define together the good we seek in all we do and move towards it in iterations of progress. We are always working from growing questions, expanding clarity in new ways.
Trust builds in this kind of culture. We enjoy high levels of performance.