You’re working in an office building when a fire alarm goes off. You look outside and see smoke rising from somewhere inside the building but in another wing--away from any of the exits you will have to pass through, you hope. Together with your colleagues, you march out the room as calmly and as quickly as possible, and in the hallway, you discover the company android, saying, “Follow me!” in a static-infused version of his usually smooth voice.
You and your colleagues follow him down the hall, all the way to the back of the building. In several places you see doors marked EXIT, but since the android did not go through there, you decide to ignore it, too. At the dead end, the android shuts down….
The story above is true; but the emergency isn’t. This situation was created by researchers at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, to see how much people put their trust in robots. One of the surprising outcomes, as I just creatively narrated earlier, turns out to be: in emergency situations, people see robots as authority figures and are likelier to assume that a robot would never make mistakes.
Something similar happens in the local workplace. Employees would have placed their trust on managers, even without meeting them yet or working under them. The expectation is that bosses must know what they are doing or they would not be in their positions at all. Moreover, in societal cultures with high performance orientation, the people tend to trust immediately a manager on the basis of the huge effort he has expended to reach that position, like finishing a college degree, gaining expertise in his job or deepening his experience in the organization or the industry. Although this is only one dimension of trust at the cognitive level, it already saves a lot of steps when people are moved around to collaborate in different teams or committees and work for different managers. Cognitive trust already facilitates a great deal of communication, knowledge exchange, and positive atmosphere at work.
The expectation is that bosses must know what they are doing or they would not be in their positions at all.
At the deeper level, there is affective trust that goes beyond a general expectation that the managers are competent, responsible or reliable. For instance, working with my boss regularly even for just some days, I can already prove that he is really capable (or on the contrary, his behavior has betrayed my trust). I can trust him much more if I perceive that his managerial decisions are beneficial, or at the minimum not detrimental, to my professional and personal wellbeing. If I have perfect knowledge of his motives in asking me to undertake a task, trust is not needed. The reality is that I have limited knowledge and hence, trust is needed to sustain an effective working relationship.
My study on manager-subordinate trust in the Philippines as part of a global research on trust proved that the presence of affective trust makes the subordinates more motivated and persistent at work, willing to work extra hours, or take initiative to do needed tasks without being asked. They will also be willing to learn new skills, feel greater security at work, and value the company as their second home and care for it. At the very least, they would not do anything that can destroy the company. In the vernacular, “hindi ka gagawa ng anumang makakasira sa kumpanya.” The lack of trust will sooner or later produce conflicts. Thus, we can say that trust is so crucial that to have it misplaced (as in the case of the robot story), misled, misinterpreted, misconstrued, or simply, missed, leads to a different flow of social interactions, one that is not conducive to harmony and peace.
Affective trust makes the subordinates more motivated and persistent at work, willing to work extra hours, or take initiative to do needed tasks without being asked.
But it does not always happen that the most competent, benevolent and honest managers win the trust of their subordinates. To trust is to choose to make oneself vulnerable to another because of positive expectations about that other person’s motives. An employee may not choose to trust, knowingly or unknowingly, because of a past experience of being deceived or rejected. And this past experience could go way back the time of childhood.
To trust is to choose to make oneself vulnerable to another because of positive expectations about that other person’s motives.
Studies that tested the attachment theory revealed that children who have formed secure attachments (i.e. their caregivers have responded to their needs and demonstrated emotional availability in difficult times) are likely to see others as trusting and relationships as worthwhile and important. Children who are not securely attached will tend to engage in interpersonal conflicts and manipulation of others. Although attachment theory has been largely used to explain adult romantic relationships, research has found the framework also useful to explain the willingness to trust in a leader-member exchange. I personally believe that any adult who comes into the workplace brings with him or her a history of experiences and reciprocity that may influence, to a greater or lesser degree, their perceptions of others as worthy of trust or their ability to trust others in interpersonal relationships at work.
I personally believe that any adult who comes into the workplace brings with him or her a history of experiences and reciprocity that may influence, to a greater or lesser degree, their perceptions of others as worthy of trust or their ability to trust others in interpersonal relationships at work.
In this regard, crafting management development programs is not sufficient to create workplaces hinged on trusting and positive relationships. Companies must invest in future recruits with secure attachment relationships by helping their employees become better parents who are competent in managing their family finances, emotionally available for their children, and mature in making decisions. They must think that their employees are parenting the future workforce and hence, they must be supported as providers in the supply chain of trusting and trustworthy employees.
Dr. Avic Caparas is an Associate Professor at the University of Asia and the Pacific, Ortigas Business Center, Pasig City. For comments, questions, or feedback, you may email her at victoria.caparas@uap.asia.