It has been found that dispositionally most people can be divided into either of these two broad categories in their leadership/managerial style. While some proactively trust everyone they work with and behave with them with empowerment and involvement approach, others indulge in command and control, suspect their sincerity, and use the carrot and stick approach in people management.
Normally I trust them (my lab assistants) to do the work they should do, but I still check if it has been done, a day beforehand. This is because they could unintentionally forget, but my practical class must go on. Generally I trust their sincerity, but they are also forgetful humans.
I proactively trust any new comer at work, unless s/he acts contrary to the trust.
Trusting is the first quality of a leader unless, as Mahfuz and Kamal opined, they prove themselves unworthy of trust.
In the post-globalizing world, it has got far more attention in research as well.many new concepts in strategic HRM including psychological contract, empowerment, employee involvement, co-partisanship, are based on the presumption of trust between parties. Leading organizations are cherishing trust as one of the key organization values.
Since we have already submitted subordinates to a rigorous interviewing process upon hiring them, we give them our trust when they begin work as a matter of course. Because their contracts usually require reviewing around a year after they start work, the review process in itself serves as a carrot or stick for them to be trustworthy.
Selecting people whom you can trust and have confidence in is a key task of a good manager. Hence, I would in general trust the people I delegate tasks, to. If my expectations a consistently not met, in spite of appropriate coaching, I prefer exchanging people instead of delegating to somebody I don't trust.
Dear Debi
I learned to trust people and let to believe when there is some reason
Nelson: I am really sorry I could not understand you. Could you please make a bit clearer?
I expect them to prove sincerity by their words and actions consistently.
Initially, I neither trust nor distrust. Mutual respect is more important than trust. The climate of my department is of 'doing the best job one can with the resources available,because it is the right thing to do'. I do however focus on big picture ideas rather than details. So everything I ask for is couched in terms of general principles of professionalism. As long as a member of staff can explain how they are meeting those general principles then there is no problem. This does not mean that I may intervene and suggest alternative approaches because I feel that the approach they are adopting is not as effective as it could be or does not match research findings..
For the day to day running procedures, I know that a number of them will NOT do what I ask when I ask. This is not an issue of trust of distrust, The primary job I ask of them is to teach the best that is possible and sometimes the administrative demands is in conflict with that task. My job is then to ensure that they have as little to do that conflicts with their primary job as possible and if they really MUST do something to meet the expectations of the administration, I personally support them to do so.
So, I neither trust nor distrust, but I assume they will do they primary job of teaching the best they can, and intervene in a respectful way, if I think it is necessary. As time goes by, I learn to 'trust' some more than others, but it doesn't change my behaviours towards them.
Another way to say it is that I DO trust my staff, but only their intent to do the best they can of their teaching. not whether they will do a task assigned to them or not. Specific tasks may need my support to be completed to my satisfaction, especially if it conflicts with the time demands of their primary job.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology