Trust deficit

A leader, who has his group's support, tends to defend the collective interest of his group, says a new book

Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?

It will come as no surprise that the manner in which we relate to each other is largely determined by levels of mutual trust. If people trust each other, it is possible to speak of a constructive atmosphere, in which information is shared and positive expectations can develop. In relationships characterised by a high degree of trust, people will not feel threatened by the possibility of exploitation. It is, therefore, with good reason that trust is often referred to as the social glue of relationships. The presence of trust helps people to 'click', allowing them to form lasting and meaningful associations. Of course, the reverse is also true. As soon as something goes wrong, for whatever reason, levels of trust begin to fall. The presence of trust therefore implies that it can be damaged or lost altogether. Situations with low levels of trust are not supportive and often counterproductive. People feel vulnerable and look at each other with suspicion. As a result, they are less open, since they fear that they will not be fairly treated by the other side.

Unfortunately, it is precisely this spirit of uninhibited open-mindedness that is necessary if the relationship between leaders and followers is to run smoothly. By virtue of their exalted position and status, leaders are regarded by many of us as people who can exercise an influence on the things that are important to us. In this sense, they possess a degree of power to shape the future of their followers - both positively and negatively. It is therefore important for leaders that they be seen as trustworthy and reliable, so that they can win the support of others. If leaders feel that they are supported, they will be more strongly motivated to defend the collective interests of the group. In other words, the existence of trust can help to stimulate the taking of the right decisions.

However, the opposite also applies. An absence of trust can have a negative impact on the decisions of leaders. This distrust can take many different forms. Perhaps it is the leader who does not trust the followers. In these circumstances, the leader will not be prepared to risk his/her own position for the sake of others, and so will be inclined to postpone decisions. Why should he/she take a chance? If the decision turns out to be the wrong one, there is little likelihood that the followers will respond constructively and with understanding. Probably quite the reverse. Viewed from this perspective, it is safer to do nothing.

It is also possible, of course, that the followers have no confidence in the leader. It is vitally important for a leader to know whether this is the case or not. If a leader knows that his/her followers have lost their faith in his/her abilities, the leader will once again be reluctant to take risks. If decisions are taken at all, they will only be taken slowly and with great care. In most cases, the decisions that are taken will be viewed with such suspicion by the followers that they will have no real effect. This will be doubly the case if the leader displays any lack of competence. The absence of competence and expertise is a natural determinant of procrastinating behaviour. If the leader has no confidence or no knowledge of the matter in hand, he/she will be much more likely to adopt a defensive posture and play the status quo card. Serious choices will be postponed indefinitely.

The situation is potentially even more disastrous if the leader is not aware that the group has lost confidence in his/her abilities. In these circumstances, the leader is blind to the realities of the situation and therefore risks taking decisions on the basis of incomplete or faulty information, since little or no feedback is forthcoming from the followers. This is a recipe for bad decisions, which can quickly lead to an escalation of frustration and mistrust between the leader and the followers.

Excerpted from David De Cremer: The Proactive Leader: How to Overcome Procrastination and Be a Bold Decision -Maker. Re-printed by permission of Palgrave Macmillan. Copyright David De Cremer 2013. All right reserved.
THE PROACTIVE LEADER: HOW TO OVERCOME PROCRASTINATION AND BE A BOLD DECISION-MAKER
AUTHOR: David De Cremer
PUBLISHER: Palgrave Macmillan
Price: £19.99
ISBN: 9781137290267

There is no ‘best time’ to make the right decision: David De Cremer

One of the major problems underlying procrastination is impulsiveness, Cremer tells Ankita Rai

Procrastination has been termed as one of the greatest challenges leaders face. How should young leaders avoid this?

It is important to note that we all suffer from some degree of procrastination; so, it is impossible to entirely eliminate it. Of course, increasing your awareness about your own procrastination is a first step in tackling it. Being aware of why you procrastinate can help you identify the causes underlying your lack of action and to eliminate each of these causes as much as possible. Many young leaders also face the challenge to prove themselves and try to do as many projects as possible. This is not a good approach as one of the major problems underlying procrastination is impulsiveness. If you are impulsive, you embark on many projects but will hardly finish any. Young leaders, therefore, need to work first on their list of priorities and develop an own decision-making style. At the same time, I suggest they work to establish trust with the ones that work with them and increase transparency wherever possible. These relational features will help in explaining decisions even if they are unfavourable to others.

A major reason for procrastination is a feeling of inadequacy, the lack of confidence. In such cases, procrastination can be good because it gives time to the leader to prepare himself. Do you subscribe to this view?

Taking some time to reflect can be a good thing, but it is important to realise that others judge whether you are an effective and trustworthy leader. Followers always demand to see some action because inaction in their view will be perceived as instability and lack of confidence.

Taking time to make a decision only works in your favour if others perceive that the decision you have to take is close to your heart. It tells followers that the leader cares about everyone’s interest involved. Make sure that there is some explanation for the delay.

The biggest test leaders face is deciding the best time for the right decision. How should leaders address this dilemma?

I do not believe that there is always ‘one best time’ to take the right decision. This is because not all decisions are of the same nature or there may not always be alternative options available or the alternatives may be equally attractive or unattractive. This means that many decisions are quite unique in how they can be approached. This makes it clear that leaders need to work on and develop a clear and consistent vision on how they tackle challenges.

Of course, there are conditions under which the best moment is pretty clear. For example, when an organisation is under threat, followers and citizens require some action quickly. In such cases, it is best not to take too ‘big’ a decision, but rather a quick and small decision. A small but successful decision will induce trust and reduce uncertainties.