I’m about to publish a piece on Trust that focuses on the breaches of trust in professional relationships. I don’t think trust is explored enough in professional and personal relationships and implications when there’s a rupture in the relationship.
I have some questions for you to stimulate a conversation.
What is it that people need to do for them to gain your trust?
What are things you do that show you’re trustworthy?
And, what happens when a friend or someone important to you betrays your trust? How do you proceed in the relationship after that happens?
Let’s start a discussion about these questions. Over to you!
Another critical aspect to trust in an organization is how seriously they take psychological safety at work. Too many times in medicine organizational processes are lacking to deal with workplace safety. The onus for safety resides in the vulnerable, rather than ensuring bad behaviours are addressed early before harms begin to accrue and issues escalate.
Also usually the system structures that make harassment and bullying even possible are not addressed adequately.
When there is no where to turn, good people just leave. And in our current healthcare worker crisis any loss of personnel for human resource management issues is an absolute failure of stewardship.
This is so on point Cheryl. What are healthcare and medical institutions doing to prove they are trustworthy. After medical professionals go through so much to train ti have to endure circumstances that cause moral injury and other trauma leading to physician suicide. So far there’s nothing about medical training and practice environment that promotes trust, except for the professionals themselves, in my opinion.
If psych safety was never present in training and practice such that trust toward the institution never developed, what impact does that have on trainees and professionals?
I am struggling for the word that describes the situation where the abused are expected to manage the behaviour of the abuser all the time....keep them from boiling over ...it's such a sick approach.
But it happens.. In the end the abused modify their behaviour to prevent being abused. That is not a psychologically safe workplace. The fact that an organization would support this as a strategy is indefensible.
Narcissistic organisations don’t know they’re abusive, especially in healthcare when they believe they provide a setting for benevolence. People can end up with Stockholm syndrome after such abuse and show loyalty to the abusive authority. It really is sick.
Thank you Kihbernetics! You've outlined a number of beliefs and actions that can affirm someone's trustworthiness. I think this is sound if you're a manager or someone with influence in an organisation. What happens from your end when the belief doesn't translate into knowledge because the other person didn't demonstrate your key criteria?
I see trust as the "glue" that keeps the organization together and I believe these three criteria can be used everywhere, not only to assess "subordinates". It is not uncommon for highly cohesive and effective teams to have absolutely no trust in their management.
#3 can always be fixed by implementing a better communication process, #2 by getting some more training, but there is not much you can do to fix a lack of character.
I think having a climate welcoming negative #feedback is crucial. Teams with a higher level of trust among members don't need so much positive (reinforcing) feedback.
I could write a book about this...but organizational ethics is an oxymoron if there is no fidelity to an organization's stated values. When actions are not aligned to values, trust is broken. In healthcare, trust is foundational to doing our work in often high risk environments.
I fully agree. I don’t believe any organisation/institution is capable of conducting themselves ethically or guiding an ethical culture if they can't genuinely demonstrate it among their leadership.
Another critical aspect to trust in an organization is how seriously they take psychological safety at work. Too many times in medicine organizational processes are lacking to deal with workplace safety. The onus for safety resides in the vulnerable, rather than ensuring bad behaviours are addressed early before harms begin to accrue and issues escalate.
Also usually the system structures that make harassment and bullying even possible are not addressed adequately.
When there is no where to turn, good people just leave. And in our current healthcare worker crisis any loss of personnel for human resource management issues is an absolute failure of stewardship.
This is so on point Cheryl. What are healthcare and medical institutions doing to prove they are trustworthy. After medical professionals go through so much to train ti have to endure circumstances that cause moral injury and other trauma leading to physician suicide. So far there’s nothing about medical training and practice environment that promotes trust, except for the professionals themselves, in my opinion.
If psych safety was never present in training and practice such that trust toward the institution never developed, what impact does that have on trainees and professionals?
I am struggling for the word that describes the situation where the abused are expected to manage the behaviour of the abuser all the time....keep them from boiling over ...it's such a sick approach.
But it happens.. In the end the abused modify their behaviour to prevent being abused. That is not a psychologically safe workplace. The fact that an organization would support this as a strategy is indefensible.
Narcissistic organisations don’t know they’re abusive, especially in healthcare when they believe they provide a setting for benevolence. People can end up with Stockholm syndrome after such abuse and show loyalty to the abusive authority. It really is sick.
Trust is a mixture of #belief and #knowledge that #people:
1⃣ will "#do what we need them to do" when we need them (#character),
2⃣ will "#know what they are doing" (#capability), and
3⃣ will "tell us what we need to know" to do our job (#communication).
Only #time can solidify the belief into knowledge
Thank you Kihbernetics! You've outlined a number of beliefs and actions that can affirm someone's trustworthiness. I think this is sound if you're a manager or someone with influence in an organisation. What happens from your end when the belief doesn't translate into knowledge because the other person didn't demonstrate your key criteria?
I see trust as the "glue" that keeps the organization together and I believe these three criteria can be used everywhere, not only to assess "subordinates". It is not uncommon for highly cohesive and effective teams to have absolutely no trust in their management.
#3 can always be fixed by implementing a better communication process, #2 by getting some more training, but there is not much you can do to fix a lack of character.
I think having a climate welcoming negative #feedback is crucial. Teams with a higher level of trust among members don't need so much positive (reinforcing) feedback.
Psychological safety in a nutshell. I appreciate your clarity and realistic description. Not much we can do about lack of character. Thank you!
I could write a book about this...but organizational ethics is an oxymoron if there is no fidelity to an organization's stated values. When actions are not aligned to values, trust is broken. In healthcare, trust is foundational to doing our work in often high risk environments.
I fully agree. I don’t believe any organisation/institution is capable of conducting themselves ethically or guiding an ethical culture if they can't genuinely demonstrate it among their leadership.
Question for everyone: Do you need to trust your organisation to be effective in your work there?