Restoring Trust

How to Restore Trust

Graphics courtesy of Vocal MediaOpens in new window

As emphasized earlierOpens in new window, trust is necessary for all organizations as trust is a “crucial ingredient of organizational effectiveness.”

A lack of trust often increases ethical infractions and corruption as well as undercuts all constructive efforts and projects. At an organizational level, the destruction of trust is “profoundly unsettling.”

As trust is especially important during times of crisis, organizational upheaval, or serious challenge, trust must be rebuilt by leaders after a scandal to continue making decisions. Therefore, the restoration of trust is vital if leaders are going to get the organization to move forward.

This emphasizes the importance of leaders focusing on partnering and getting buy-in from employees and other stakeholders in order to restore trust.

It has been argued that there are conditions and situations where trust cannot be repaired. However, in cases where trust restoration is possible, organizations will require remarkably different strategies to rebuild trust than those used to create trust.

Others have suggested that organizations have two distinct responses to trust violations.

• An apology is a public acknowledgment of responsibility for the trust violation as well as an expression of remorse, guilt, and repentance for the damage.
• The other response is to explicitly disavow that the trust violation actually occurred, declaring it false. However, the result of the two tactics will have substantially different results for the new leader and his or her organization depending on the type and severity of the infraction.

It has been suggested that to initiate trust, we must be worthy of it and that restoring corporate trust is not rocket science, but companies must earn it by finding a blend of ability, kindness and integrity. Trustworthiness, in turn, consists of three main characteristics:

1. technical competence to perform a task reliably (ability),
2. having benign motives (benevolence), and
3. acting according to acceptable principles such as fairness and honesty (integrity).

Violations of trust from competence and integrity infractions are important to immediately correct. Organizations are much more likely to admit competence violations as they are considered more likely to admit competence violations as they are considered more controllable through training, hiring, firing, or simple error correction. However, integrity violations are quite problematic, as “a single act of dishonesty will cause trustors to conclude that the trustee is inherently dishonest.”

Even a trivial or inconsequential act can bring the entire character of the organization or individual into question. For example, though most integrity violations are usually perpetrated by a single individual or small group of individuals colluding in an organization, the potential exists for the entire organization to be blamed for the damage. When leaders or organizations take on the responsibility of repairing or restoring trust, they must

• be willing to invest time and energy into the repair process,
• perceive that the short- and/or long-term benefits to be derived from the relationship are highly valued—that is, the payoff is “worth” the investment of additional energy, and
• perceive that the benefits to be derived are preferred relative to options for having those needs satisfied in an alternative manner.

Once both parties have determined that the relationship is worth saving, either at the individual or organizational level, the parties must engage in reciprocal trust repair.

• The first step is to recognize the trust violation has occurred, acknowledging it so both parties are operating with the same information. As a trust violation might have occurred inadvertently, by mutually recognizing that the damage was done, the parties can make the choice to move forwards.

• The second step is to determine what actions caused the destruction of trust and take blame for the action. Because the victim is already aware of the ethical misconduct or data breach, the challenge is for the perpetrator to own the blame. Once blame is accepted,
• the third step is to “admit that the event was ‘destructive’ of trust” is necessary. If the guilty party admits the action destroyed trust, he or she demonstrates to the victim(s) that their experiences and losses matter. This process usually demands full disclosure as well as a discussion of the events and the cognitive and emotional results of the betrayal.
• The fourth and final step is for the offender to accept full responsibility for their actions as well as the consequences of the breach of trust. Whether intentional or not, if the victim believes to have been wronged, then, trust has been broken. During this process, the victim also engages in the same discussion and works with the perpetrator to find common ground to rebuild trust. The victim can then allow the offender to begin to repair the trust by offering some element of forgiveness to the apologetic guilty party.

Apologizing for a mistake is a clear behavioral correction but is often rather difficult to execute. When making an apology for wrongdoing, leaders and their organization, for example, are admitting its failure and making the implicit promise that the violation of trust will not be repeated.

Apologizing is the most important step to reconciliation as it demonstrates an understanding of the perspective and plight of the victim and a willingness to remedy the damage caused by the offending party.

Others have also outlined a process that begins with acknowledging the violation, determining the cause of the violation while admitting guilt, admitting and agreeing that the act was indeed destructive, and accepting the responsibility for the consequences of the violation.

This strategy provides no intent to correct behavior and raises serious subsequent concerns about ethics and trustworthiness. By denying the infraction, the perpetrators is concealing the original transgression and committing a supplementary trust violation.

This strategy likely causes added harm, reputational damage, and financial loss to the organization because it indicates the full intent of the individual or organization to further deceive the injured party and possibly the public.

To substantiate organizational trustworthiness, new leaders must ensure their organizations exhibit competence, quality assurance, interactional courtesy, procedural fairness, responsibility to inform, legal compliance.

Organizations must maintain a high level of competence to achieve sufficient results that adhere to the mission and maintain clear standards of quality to assure that competence is publicly and continually achieved.

Stakeholders cannot be assured or trust that the entity is fulfilling its obligations to its employees, creditors, or stakeholders without organizational proficiency and quality controls. Procedural fairness demands that all relevant stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in the organization with all matters of impartiality and openness.

Adhering to the responsibility to inform, leaders should make sure their organizations provide all relevant information about organizational performance and expectations. New leaders and their organizations also must express confidence and trustworthiness by operating with financial balance to fulfill their missions and commitments without waste while adhering to all rules, regulations, and laws governing the organization at the local, state, and federal level.