Leadership – “Trust” A General Discussion
How Trust Engenders a Leader
Patrick D. Huff
Pepperdine University
EDOL 714.20
Dr. June Schmieder-Ramirez, PhD
September 18, 2011
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2
List of Tables 3
Abstract 4
CHAPTER 1 6
Introduction 6
Leadership – “Trust” A General Discussion 6
CHAPTER 2 7
The Problem Statement 7
Definition of Terms and Relative Assumptions 7
Emerson’s Thoughts on Trust 7
Key Definitions and Terms 8
CHAPTER 3 10
Conveyance of Trust to Organizational Leadership 10
The Purpose of Trust 10
CHAPTER 4 11
Exploring the Problem 11
How does the issue of trust relate to organizational behavior? 11
CHAPTER 5 13
How Trust is Engendered as a Leader - Conclusion 13
Table 1: U.S. Army (TRADOC): Core Values 13
CHAPTER 6 15
Conclusion 15
References 16
Appendix 20
Table 2: EDOL 714.20 Rubric: Trust Paper 20
Table 3: EDOL 714.20 Rubric: Engaged Learning 21
Other Questions of Interest Pertaining to the Influence of Trust on Organizational Behavior. 22
List of Tables
Table 1: U.S. Army (TRADOC): Core Values 13
Table 2: EDOL 714.20 Rubric: Trust Paper…………………………………………………… ..29
Table 3: EDOL 714.20 Rubric: Engaged Learning………………………………………………30
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to review individual trust and its relationship and effect on leadership; and subsequently the effect of trust on leadership and organizational behavior (OB).
The project was assigned by Dr. June Schmieder-Ramirez, PhD for the students in EDOL 714.20 to complete in accordance with Forum 3. Per Dr. Schmieder-Ramirez’s guidance, (17 September 2011; 4:55PM) the paper is not required to utilize outside material, however, she did not indicate that students would not be allowed to exercise creativity and innovation as pertaining to the use and incorporation of outside reference materials and unique presentation methods in support of their work (paper & presentation).
The total length of the paper is not to exceed six pages. In conjunction with the paper Dr. Schmieder-Ramirez has included the requirement of a six page PowerPoint document and related oral presentation to the class. The paper will be assessed (as all will) using the rubrics in the Sakai section of the Student Services Support Window within the Pepperdine University Website. The Sakai section can be located under the Resource section within the EDOL class tabs. Dr. Schmieder-Ramirez suggests the rubric on the leadership “Trust” paper should be reviewed by all students as it forms for the guide for those measurements she intends to use in her review and evaluation of all student work in this course. The Leadership -“Trust” A General Discussion paper shall address the following criteria: 1. Purpose of trust as you see it; What is its purpose according to your opinion? 2. Is the body of the paper clear and supportive of your premise? 3. Is the context of the paper clear? Have you included the necessary context to the discussion of trust in your opinion? 4. How does the issue of trust relate to organizational behavior? This is described in the rubric. 5. What is the conclusion? This is described in the rubric.
In conjunction with the discussion of each of the above criteria, the paper shall additional focus on a central problem statement.
Finally, the Discussion section of this paper will cover “How do I engender trust as a leader in an organization”.
Each activity assigned is given a rubric and the rubric is contained in the Resource section of the Sakai. Dr. Schmieder-Ramirez suggests each student meet with Ms. Gina Meister, the Pepperdine University, WLA, Writing Support Director on the fifth floor of the building for any assistance needed in writing this paper.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Leadership – “Trust” A General Discussion
This paper discusses the effect of trust in relationship and effect on leadership and subsequently organizational behavior. Imposed on the discussion are certain limitations and controls. These include limits and controls on method, use of outside research and information sources, to include limits of discussion to generally only those questions posed for inquiry and response by Dr. Schmieder-Ramirez.
Specific questions this paper is intended to explore and address are summarized as follows:
1. What is the purpose of trust as you see it?
2. How does the issue of trust relate to organizational behavior?
3. What can be concluded about the relationship between trust, leadership and organizational behavior?
Responses to the above questions are to be framed in the context of a central assumption or problem statement.
CHAPTER 2
The Problem Statement
Absent the development and sustainment of a sufficient level of trust in a relationship between an individual and a leader (or leadership) of a group or organization, the individual’s interest in participating in the support of such a group or organization will be low, yielding relatively little or no output, productivity or positive social interaction.
Definition of Terms and Relative Assumptions
An initial assumption pertaining to human trust is the nature and basis for those conditions that enable individuals to develop trust.
Research information sited in this paper support that human trust originates from a complicated mixture of internal biological functions, preceptors or neuroscience dynamics and external experiences or learned social drivers. Once the perception of trust is formed and developed internally humans commence in a process of continued development to externalize and transfer trust to relationships to other individuals. Ultimately, an individual develops an understanding of trust internally that is acceptable and sufficient to allow a transfer of trust to others. This transfer of trust to others varies as to a level of trust in others that is unique to each individual. The amount of trust that is conveyed to another individual, group or organization include conditions that are situationally unique to each trust conveyance.
Emerson’s Thoughts on Trust
Ralph Waldo Emerson suggested that prior understanding “trust” as related to leadership it is appropriate to first understand the order and relationship of internal (self-trust) as a precedent to placing or developing trust externally or in a other individual (leader) as an actor in a leadership role.
Emerson states that “…self-trust is the first secret of success…and for cause, or with some task strictly appointed you in your constitution, and so long as you work at that you are well and successful.” Emerson also observed a relationship between trust and mankind stating, “Trust men and they will be true to you; treat them greatly, and they will show themselves great…” (Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1841)
Summarized, Emerson is suggesting that once an individual has defined and developed an internal self-trust then it is possible to infer transfer of a certain level of trust to others.
Key Definitions and Terms
In the context of this paper and in accordance with the limiting stipulations it is appropriate to start with a few generally accepted definitions of terms and synonyms that are used in connection with this discussion, e.g. leadership, leader, and trust.
The definition of leadership is: “…the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs a group: He managed to maintain his leadership of the party despite heavy opposition. Synonyms: administration, management, directorship, control, governorship, stewardship, hegemony, ability to lead: Synonyms: authoritativeness, influence, command, effectiveness; sway, clout; an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction: They prospered under his strong leadership. The leaders of a group: The union leadership agreed to arbitrate.” (Dictionary.com, personal communication, 1815–25; leader + -ship)
Next the generally accepted definition of leader is: “…a person or thing that leads. A guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group. (Music) A conductor or director, as of an orchestra, band, or chorus. The player at the head of the first violins in an orchestra, the principal cornetist in a band, or the principal soprano in a chorus, to whom any incidental solos are usually assigned. (Journalism) A featured article of trade, especially one offered at a low price to attract customers. (Dictionary.com, 1250–1300; Middle English leader)
Additionally, the generally accepted definition of trust is: “…reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence; a confident expectation of something; hope; confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust; a person on whom or a thing on which one relies: God is my trust. The condition of one to whom something has been entrusted. (Dictionary.com, 1175-1225)
As an expansion to the above definition of trust can also be defined as the following: “confidence in and reliance on good qualities, especially fairness, truth, honor, or ability; the position of somebody who is expected by others to behave responsibly or honorably; hopeful reliance on what will happen in the future; responsibility for taking good care of somebody or something; U.S. something entrusted to somebody to be responsible for; accepted responsibilities as a sacred trust; to place confidence in somebody or in somebody's good qualities, especially fairness, truth, honor, or ability. (Encarta Dictionary: English (North America), 2011)
CHAPTER 3
Conveyance of Trust to Organizational Leadership
Studies pertaining to trust conveyance to organizational leadership sited in this paper pertain to individuals, small groups or effective teams. Teams or groups this paper focuses on are those formed for the purpose of competing in professional level athletic sports.
The Purpose of Trust
Trust when viewed in the framework of leadership in organizational behavior is pivotal to the overall functionality and effectiveness of team performance in athletic sports. Research into this subject had indicated a positive correlation between members of effective teams and the level of trust each team member has for the other. Teams displaying a high level of trust between each player also exhibit a positive corollary of trust conveyance to their leaders or team captains and coaches (managers). (Dirks, 2000, pp. 1004-1012) (Williams, 2001, pp. 377-396)
Interpersonal trust among team members facilities cooperation, reduces the need to monitor each others’ behavior, and bonds members around the belief that others on the team won’t take advantage of them. Team members are most likely to take risks and expose vulnerabilities when they believe they can trust others on their team…It allows a team to accept and commit to its leader’s goals and decisions. (Robbins & Judge, 2011, p. p320)
Although this paper did not research similar trust based associations or effects in other groups (generally those outside of professional sports) the preliminary assumption taken from Dirks and Williams study is that it is probable that all groups or organizational interactions will demonstrate similar trust conveyances with similar outcomes or affects.
CHAPTER 4
Exploring the Problem
How does the issue of trust relate to organizational behavior?
The influence of trust on organizational behavior has been the subject of focused study by a number of researchers. In could be concluded that the corollary between trust, leadership and organizational behavior have been studied since the beginning of social groups, if not at the time human beings commenced to form groups of teams to hunt and collect food. For certain, historical archives indicate the study of trust in relationships goes back to the creation of social defense forces or armies.
Recently, two researchers have added to this body of work through additional contributions to corollaries between individual personality traits (characteristics), leadership and organizational behavior. These researchers confirmed a positive corollary between (individual) trust and behavioral patterns that underpin leadership and organization behavior. Robbins & Judge’s The Big Five Personality Model as defined by the following Big Five factors:
1. Extraversion. The extraversion dimension captures our comfort level with relationships. Extraverts tend to be gregarious, assertive, and sociable. Introverts tend to be reserved, timid, and quiet.
2. Agreeableness. The agreeableness dimension refers to an individual’s propensity to defer to others. Highly agreeable people are cooperative, warm, and trusting. People who score low on agreeableness are cold, disagreeable, and antagonistic.
3. Conscientiousness. The conscientiousness dimension is a measure of reliability. A highly conscientious person is responsive, organized, dependable, and persistent. Those who score low on this dimension are easily distracted, dis-organized, and unreliable.
4. Emotional stability. The emotional stability dimension often labeled by its converse, neuroticism taps a person’s ability to withstand stress. People with positive emotional stability tend to be calm, self-confident, and secure. Those with high negative scores tend to be nervous, anxious, depressed, and insecure.
5. Openness to experience. The openness to experience dimension addresses range of interests and fascination with novelty. Extremely open people are creative, curious, and artistically sensitive. Those at the other end of the openness category are conventional and find comfort in the familiar.
People who score high on emotional stability are happier that those who score low. Of the Big Five traits, emotional stability is most strongly related to life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and low stress levels. (Robbins & Judge, 2011, p. p138)
The lack of trust developed between individuals would clearly undermine any one if not all of Robbins & Judge’s Big Five factors of leadership.
CHAPTER 5
How Trust is Engendered as a Leader - Conclusion
I have attempted to incorporate the core values I learned and developed as a member of the United States Army into my life. Since being drafted into military service in roughly 1969 I was introduced in basic training to what the Army called its service member core values. These values are listed in the following table.
Table 1: U.S. Army (TRADOC): Core Values
Key Concept Characteristics
1. Loyalty Bear true faith and allegiance to the US Constitution, the US Army, your unit, and other soldiers.
2. Duty Fulfill your obligations.
3. Respect Treat people as they should be treated.
4. Selfless Service Put the welfare of the nation, the US Army, and your subordinates before your own.
5. Honor Live up to US Army values.
6. Integrity Do what's right, legally and morally
7. Personal Courage Face fear, danger, or adversity (physical or moral)
(TRADOC, 2011) http://www.army.com/info/what-to-memorize
In researching the meanings of selected key concepts used in the U.S. Army’s Core Values, the terms loyalty, duty, honor, trustworthiness and integrity are commonly associated with “trust” as synonyms. (Dictionary, Encarta, and Engish (North Amercia), 2011)
These core values have a certain level of meaning to each individual when he/she is first introduced to them. However, the significance and priority of the values increase over a service members years of service and subsequent involvement in (or exposure to) complicated and harsh circumstances the average service member is confronted with during his tenure with the armed forces. This is especially true when he/she is exposed to enemy combatants in a theater of war.
During my professional career as a lieutenant colonel in U.S. Army I found on two occasions my core values were put to a test. The first was when I accepted the Command of a battalion and the second was when I was subject to a common unified organizational struggle to prevail in a theater of war.
In both cases, I was confronted with the reality that I needed to either fully accept into my life a set of core values or be compromised forever. The thought of being comprised was unacceptable to me when viewed against the trust and confidence the U.S. Army Command had placed on me and my training in my assignment to the post of Commander. On the other hand, I fully realized the overwhelming commitment or obligation involved in “living the core values”. After a few weeks of deliberation and discussion with my family, peers and mentors I elected to throw myself into living the core values and upholding them in my thoughts and everything it do and believe in.
After that day, I took those values which I believe embody the concept and practice of trust based relationships into my daily life and state of mind as I continue to join with other individuals in the service of others for a common good. That service includes the incorporation of these ethos in any role I assume within an organization and its leadership.
CHAPTER 6
Conclusion
Trust could be considered the glue that binds relationships between individuals together. This glue acts in such a way that individuals chose to act as one in support of each other (as with a common purpose). When learned and conveyed to another individual or to an organizations leadership it carries with it strong implications to the relationship. Implications include the individual conveying trust and those that are in receipt of it. This includes individuals receiving trust in roles associated with leadership; whether informal, as in casual family relationships; or formal, as in professional sports teams (as referenced) groups and large organizations.
This focus of interest and study has been going on since the beginning of social order. When groups were formed to hunt, gather food and form a defense for small family tribes trust was a critical part of what bound individuals together to act and perform as a single unit. As humans continue to evolve and develop, and their social networks & semiotic domains become ever more complex and diverse, trust will continue to be an essential common ingredient in the mixture of human learning and socialization that will keep the human social engine running in a productive and uniform way. Absent the critical component of trust, the human endeavor will be lost to a single focus and effort, the power of any social network, leadership, and organizational behavior will wane.
References
Dictionary, Encarta, and Engish (North Amercia). (2011, September). Definitions of loyalty [Online forum comment]. Encarta Dictionary.com
Dictionary.com. (1175-1225; (noun) Middle English < Old Norse traust trust (cognate with German Trost comfort); (v.) Middle English trusten < Old Norse treysta, derivative of traust). Definition of trust [Web log post].
Dictionary.com. (1250–1300; Middle English leder ( e ). See lead1 , -er). Definition of a leader [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leader
Dirks, K.T. (2000). Trusr in Leadership and Team Performance: Evidence from NCAA Basketball (pp. 1004-1012). Pepperdine University Library: Journal of Applied Psychology.
Encarta Dictionary:English (North America). (2011, September). Definition of trust [Online forum comment]. Encarta Dictionary.com
Leadership. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leader
Ralph Waldo Emerson. (n.d.). Leadership. Retrieved from http://dictionary.quotes.com/browse/trust
Raplh Waldo Emerson. (1841). Dictionay.com [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://quotes.dictionary.com/Trust_men_and_they_will_be_true_to
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational Behavior (p. p320). Pepperdine University Library: Prentice Hall.
Schmieder-Ramirez, June. (2011, September 17). Forum #3 9/22 Trust Paper & PowerPoint Presentation [Online forum comment]. ED https://courses.pepperdine.edu/xsl-portal/site/edol714.20_2116/page/c7b23bc5-f560-4cbd-b913-1d4503f9b4a6
Schmieder-Ramirez, June. (2011, September 17). Forum #3 9/22 Trust Paper & PowerPoint Presentation [Online forum comment]. ED https://courses.pepperdine.edu/xsl-portal/site/edol714.20_2116/page/c7b23bc5-f560-4cbd-b913-1d4503f9b4a6
TRADOC, U.S. Army. (2011, September). U.S. Army Core Values [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.army.com/info/what-to-memorize
Williams, M. (2001). In Whom We Trust Development (pp. 377-396). Pepperdine University Library: Academy of Management Review.
How Trust Engenders a Leader
Patrick D. Huff
Pepperdine University
EDOL 714.20
Dr. June Schmieder-Ramirez, PhD
September 18, 2011
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2
List of Tables 3
Abstract 4
CHAPTER 1 6
Introduction 6
Leadership – “Trust” A General Discussion 6
CHAPTER 2 7
The Problem Statement 7
Definition of Terms and Relative Assumptions 7
Emerson’s Thoughts on Trust 7
Key Definitions and Terms 8
CHAPTER 3 10
Conveyance of Trust to Organizational Leadership 10
The Purpose of Trust 10
CHAPTER 4 11
Exploring the Problem 11
How does the issue of trust relate to organizational behavior? 11
CHAPTER 5 13
How Trust is Engendered as a Leader - Conclusion 13
Table 1: U.S. Army (TRADOC): Core Values 13
CHAPTER 6 15
Conclusion 15
References 16
Appendix 20
Table 2: EDOL 714.20 Rubric: Trust Paper 20
Table 3: EDOL 714.20 Rubric: Engaged Learning 21
Other Questions of Interest Pertaining to the Influence of Trust on Organizational Behavior. 22
List of Tables
Table 1: U.S. Army (TRADOC): Core Values 13
Table 2: EDOL 714.20 Rubric: Trust Paper…………………………………………………… ..29
Table 3: EDOL 714.20 Rubric: Engaged Learning………………………………………………30
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to review individual trust and its relationship and effect on leadership; and subsequently the effect of trust on leadership and organizational behavior (OB).
The project was assigned by Dr. June Schmieder-Ramirez, PhD for the students in EDOL 714.20 to complete in accordance with Forum 3. Per Dr. Schmieder-Ramirez’s guidance, (17 September 2011; 4:55PM) the paper is not required to utilize outside material, however, she did not indicate that students would not be allowed to exercise creativity and innovation as pertaining to the use and incorporation of outside reference materials and unique presentation methods in support of their work (paper & presentation).
The total length of the paper is not to exceed six pages. In conjunction with the paper Dr. Schmieder-Ramirez has included the requirement of a six page PowerPoint document and related oral presentation to the class. The paper will be assessed (as all will) using the rubrics in the Sakai section of the Student Services Support Window within the Pepperdine University Website. The Sakai section can be located under the Resource section within the EDOL class tabs. Dr. Schmieder-Ramirez suggests the rubric on the leadership “Trust” paper should be reviewed by all students as it forms for the guide for those measurements she intends to use in her review and evaluation of all student work in this course. The Leadership -“Trust” A General Discussion paper shall address the following criteria: 1. Purpose of trust as you see it; What is its purpose according to your opinion? 2. Is the body of the paper clear and supportive of your premise? 3. Is the context of the paper clear? Have you included the necessary context to the discussion of trust in your opinion? 4. How does the issue of trust relate to organizational behavior? This is described in the rubric. 5. What is the conclusion? This is described in the rubric.
In conjunction with the discussion of each of the above criteria, the paper shall additional focus on a central problem statement.
Finally, the Discussion section of this paper will cover “How do I engender trust as a leader in an organization”.
Each activity assigned is given a rubric and the rubric is contained in the Resource section of the Sakai. Dr. Schmieder-Ramirez suggests each student meet with Ms. Gina Meister, the Pepperdine University, WLA, Writing Support Director on the fifth floor of the building for any assistance needed in writing this paper.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Leadership – “Trust” A General Discussion
This paper discusses the effect of trust in relationship and effect on leadership and subsequently organizational behavior. Imposed on the discussion are certain limitations and controls. These include limits and controls on method, use of outside research and information sources, to include limits of discussion to generally only those questions posed for inquiry and response by Dr. Schmieder-Ramirez.
Specific questions this paper is intended to explore and address are summarized as follows:
1. What is the purpose of trust as you see it?
2. How does the issue of trust relate to organizational behavior?
3. What can be concluded about the relationship between trust, leadership and organizational behavior?
Responses to the above questions are to be framed in the context of a central assumption or problem statement.
CHAPTER 2
The Problem Statement
Absent the development and sustainment of a sufficient level of trust in a relationship between an individual and a leader (or leadership) of a group or organization, the individual’s interest in participating in the support of such a group or organization will be low, yielding relatively little or no output, productivity or positive social interaction.
Definition of Terms and Relative Assumptions
An initial assumption pertaining to human trust is the nature and basis for those conditions that enable individuals to develop trust.
Research information sited in this paper support that human trust originates from a complicated mixture of internal biological functions, preceptors or neuroscience dynamics and external experiences or learned social drivers. Once the perception of trust is formed and developed internally humans commence in a process of continued development to externalize and transfer trust to relationships to other individuals. Ultimately, an individual develops an understanding of trust internally that is acceptable and sufficient to allow a transfer of trust to others. This transfer of trust to others varies as to a level of trust in others that is unique to each individual. The amount of trust that is conveyed to another individual, group or organization include conditions that are situationally unique to each trust conveyance.
Emerson’s Thoughts on Trust
Ralph Waldo Emerson suggested that prior understanding “trust” as related to leadership it is appropriate to first understand the order and relationship of internal (self-trust) as a precedent to placing or developing trust externally or in a other individual (leader) as an actor in a leadership role.
Emerson states that “…self-trust is the first secret of success…and for cause, or with some task strictly appointed you in your constitution, and so long as you work at that you are well and successful.” Emerson also observed a relationship between trust and mankind stating, “Trust men and they will be true to you; treat them greatly, and they will show themselves great…” (Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1841)
Summarized, Emerson is suggesting that once an individual has defined and developed an internal self-trust then it is possible to infer transfer of a certain level of trust to others.
Key Definitions and Terms
In the context of this paper and in accordance with the limiting stipulations it is appropriate to start with a few generally accepted definitions of terms and synonyms that are used in connection with this discussion, e.g. leadership, leader, and trust.
The definition of leadership is: “…the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs a group: He managed to maintain his leadership of the party despite heavy opposition. Synonyms: administration, management, directorship, control, governorship, stewardship, hegemony, ability to lead: Synonyms: authoritativeness, influence, command, effectiveness; sway, clout; an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction: They prospered under his strong leadership. The leaders of a group: The union leadership agreed to arbitrate.” (Dictionary.com, personal communication, 1815–25; leader + -ship)
Next the generally accepted definition of leader is: “…a person or thing that leads. A guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group. (Music) A conductor or director, as of an orchestra, band, or chorus. The player at the head of the first violins in an orchestra, the principal cornetist in a band, or the principal soprano in a chorus, to whom any incidental solos are usually assigned. (Journalism) A featured article of trade, especially one offered at a low price to attract customers. (Dictionary.com, 1250–1300; Middle English leader)
Additionally, the generally accepted definition of trust is: “…reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence; a confident expectation of something; hope; confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust; a person on whom or a thing on which one relies: God is my trust. The condition of one to whom something has been entrusted. (Dictionary.com, 1175-1225)
As an expansion to the above definition of trust can also be defined as the following: “confidence in and reliance on good qualities, especially fairness, truth, honor, or ability; the position of somebody who is expected by others to behave responsibly or honorably; hopeful reliance on what will happen in the future; responsibility for taking good care of somebody or something; U.S. something entrusted to somebody to be responsible for; accepted responsibilities as a sacred trust; to place confidence in somebody or in somebody's good qualities, especially fairness, truth, honor, or ability. (Encarta Dictionary: English (North America), 2011)
CHAPTER 3
Conveyance of Trust to Organizational Leadership
Studies pertaining to trust conveyance to organizational leadership sited in this paper pertain to individuals, small groups or effective teams. Teams or groups this paper focuses on are those formed for the purpose of competing in professional level athletic sports.
The Purpose of Trust
Trust when viewed in the framework of leadership in organizational behavior is pivotal to the overall functionality and effectiveness of team performance in athletic sports. Research into this subject had indicated a positive correlation between members of effective teams and the level of trust each team member has for the other. Teams displaying a high level of trust between each player also exhibit a positive corollary of trust conveyance to their leaders or team captains and coaches (managers). (Dirks, 2000, pp. 1004-1012) (Williams, 2001, pp. 377-396)
Interpersonal trust among team members facilities cooperation, reduces the need to monitor each others’ behavior, and bonds members around the belief that others on the team won’t take advantage of them. Team members are most likely to take risks and expose vulnerabilities when they believe they can trust others on their team…It allows a team to accept and commit to its leader’s goals and decisions. (Robbins & Judge, 2011, p. p320)
Although this paper did not research similar trust based associations or effects in other groups (generally those outside of professional sports) the preliminary assumption taken from Dirks and Williams study is that it is probable that all groups or organizational interactions will demonstrate similar trust conveyances with similar outcomes or affects.
CHAPTER 4
Exploring the Problem
How does the issue of trust relate to organizational behavior?
The influence of trust on organizational behavior has been the subject of focused study by a number of researchers. In could be concluded that the corollary between trust, leadership and organizational behavior have been studied since the beginning of social groups, if not at the time human beings commenced to form groups of teams to hunt and collect food. For certain, historical archives indicate the study of trust in relationships goes back to the creation of social defense forces or armies.
Recently, two researchers have added to this body of work through additional contributions to corollaries between individual personality traits (characteristics), leadership and organizational behavior. These researchers confirmed a positive corollary between (individual) trust and behavioral patterns that underpin leadership and organization behavior. Robbins & Judge’s The Big Five Personality Model as defined by the following Big Five factors:
1. Extraversion. The extraversion dimension captures our comfort level with relationships. Extraverts tend to be gregarious, assertive, and sociable. Introverts tend to be reserved, timid, and quiet.
2. Agreeableness. The agreeableness dimension refers to an individual’s propensity to defer to others. Highly agreeable people are cooperative, warm, and trusting. People who score low on agreeableness are cold, disagreeable, and antagonistic.
3. Conscientiousness. The conscientiousness dimension is a measure of reliability. A highly conscientious person is responsive, organized, dependable, and persistent. Those who score low on this dimension are easily distracted, dis-organized, and unreliable.
4. Emotional stability. The emotional stability dimension often labeled by its converse, neuroticism taps a person’s ability to withstand stress. People with positive emotional stability tend to be calm, self-confident, and secure. Those with high negative scores tend to be nervous, anxious, depressed, and insecure.
5. Openness to experience. The openness to experience dimension addresses range of interests and fascination with novelty. Extremely open people are creative, curious, and artistically sensitive. Those at the other end of the openness category are conventional and find comfort in the familiar.
People who score high on emotional stability are happier that those who score low. Of the Big Five traits, emotional stability is most strongly related to life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and low stress levels. (Robbins & Judge, 2011, p. p138)
The lack of trust developed between individuals would clearly undermine any one if not all of Robbins & Judge’s Big Five factors of leadership.
CHAPTER 5
How Trust is Engendered as a Leader - Conclusion
I have attempted to incorporate the core values I learned and developed as a member of the United States Army into my life. Since being drafted into military service in roughly 1969 I was introduced in basic training to what the Army called its service member core values. These values are listed in the following table.
Table 1: U.S. Army (TRADOC): Core Values
Key Concept Characteristics
1. Loyalty Bear true faith and allegiance to the US Constitution, the US Army, your unit, and other soldiers.
2. Duty Fulfill your obligations.
3. Respect Treat people as they should be treated.
4. Selfless Service Put the welfare of the nation, the US Army, and your subordinates before your own.
5. Honor Live up to US Army values.
6. Integrity Do what's right, legally and morally
7. Personal Courage Face fear, danger, or adversity (physical or moral)
(TRADOC, 2011) http://www.army.com/info/what-to-memorize
In researching the meanings of selected key concepts used in the U.S. Army’s Core Values, the terms loyalty, duty, honor, trustworthiness and integrity are commonly associated with “trust” as synonyms. (Dictionary, Encarta, and Engish (North Amercia), 2011)
These core values have a certain level of meaning to each individual when he/she is first introduced to them. However, the significance and priority of the values increase over a service members years of service and subsequent involvement in (or exposure to) complicated and harsh circumstances the average service member is confronted with during his tenure with the armed forces. This is especially true when he/she is exposed to enemy combatants in a theater of war.
During my professional career as a lieutenant colonel in U.S. Army I found on two occasions my core values were put to a test. The first was when I accepted the Command of a battalion and the second was when I was subject to a common unified organizational struggle to prevail in a theater of war.
In both cases, I was confronted with the reality that I needed to either fully accept into my life a set of core values or be compromised forever. The thought of being comprised was unacceptable to me when viewed against the trust and confidence the U.S. Army Command had placed on me and my training in my assignment to the post of Commander. On the other hand, I fully realized the overwhelming commitment or obligation involved in “living the core values”. After a few weeks of deliberation and discussion with my family, peers and mentors I elected to throw myself into living the core values and upholding them in my thoughts and everything it do and believe in.
After that day, I took those values which I believe embody the concept and practice of trust based relationships into my daily life and state of mind as I continue to join with other individuals in the service of others for a common good. That service includes the incorporation of these ethos in any role I assume within an organization and its leadership.
CHAPTER 6
Conclusion
Trust could be considered the glue that binds relationships between individuals together. This glue acts in such a way that individuals chose to act as one in support of each other (as with a common purpose). When learned and conveyed to another individual or to an organizations leadership it carries with it strong implications to the relationship. Implications include the individual conveying trust and those that are in receipt of it. This includes individuals receiving trust in roles associated with leadership; whether informal, as in casual family relationships; or formal, as in professional sports teams (as referenced) groups and large organizations.
This focus of interest and study has been going on since the beginning of social order. When groups were formed to hunt, gather food and form a defense for small family tribes trust was a critical part of what bound individuals together to act and perform as a single unit. As humans continue to evolve and develop, and their social networks & semiotic domains become ever more complex and diverse, trust will continue to be an essential common ingredient in the mixture of human learning and socialization that will keep the human social engine running in a productive and uniform way. Absent the critical component of trust, the human endeavor will be lost to a single focus and effort, the power of any social network, leadership, and organizational behavior will wane.
References
Dictionary, Encarta, and Engish (North Amercia). (2011, September). Definitions of loyalty [Online forum comment]. Encarta Dictionary.com
Dictionary.com. (1175-1225; (noun) Middle English < Old Norse traust trust (cognate with German Trost comfort); (v.) Middle English trusten < Old Norse treysta, derivative of traust). Definition of trust [Web log post].
Dictionary.com. (1250–1300; Middle English leder ( e ). See lead1 , -er). Definition of a leader [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leader
Dirks, K.T. (2000). Trusr in Leadership and Team Performance: Evidence from NCAA Basketball (pp. 1004-1012). Pepperdine University Library: Journal of Applied Psychology.
Encarta Dictionary:English (North America). (2011, September). Definition of trust [Online forum comment]. Encarta Dictionary.com
Leadership. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leader
Ralph Waldo Emerson. (n.d.). Leadership. Retrieved from http://dictionary.quotes.com/browse/trust
Raplh Waldo Emerson. (1841). Dictionay.com [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://quotes.dictionary.com/Trust_men_and_they_will_be_true_to
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational Behavior (p. p320). Pepperdine University Library: Prentice Hall.
Schmieder-Ramirez, June. (2011, September 17). Forum #3 9/22 Trust Paper & PowerPoint Presentation [Online forum comment]. ED https://courses.pepperdine.edu/xsl-portal/site/edol714.20_2116/page/c7b23bc5-f560-4cbd-b913-1d4503f9b4a6
Schmieder-Ramirez, June. (2011, September 17). Forum #3 9/22 Trust Paper & PowerPoint Presentation [Online forum comment]. ED https://courses.pepperdine.edu/xsl-portal/site/edol714.20_2116/page/c7b23bc5-f560-4cbd-b913-1d4503f9b4a6
TRADOC, U.S. Army. (2011, September). U.S. Army Core Values [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.army.com/info/what-to-memorize
Williams, M. (2001). In Whom We Trust Development (pp. 377-396). Pepperdine University Library: Academy of Management Review.
No comments:
Post a Comment