Trust is an abstract space of vulnerability.  

It remains one of the strongest driving forces and emotional connections for people to feel secure and attached in their workplaces. 

Nevertheless, trust is not pre-defined in industry jargon and therefore remains a marginalised virtue taking a backseat in the list of priorities for most organisations.

The world has collectively experienced a life-changing event through the pandemic. Individuals and industries have drastically had to readjust their gears in terms of how they work, where they work, when, and with whom they work. These changes while situationally appropriate have transcended boundaries, thereby impacting affective, behavioural, and cognitive dimensions. 

While in the real sense, trust sits centrally amongst these consequences, the fact that virtual offices are gaining prominence, a deeper understanding of how to ameliorate trust barriers in the world of LED screens and high-speed bandwidths is pertinent.

Severed human ties and replacement of high fives with colleagues to the reaction feature of your video conferencing platforms have led to the corrosion of integrity, openness, and the psychological safety to express vulnerability. 

As consultants, we have a box seat view of these changing dynamics in our clients’ workplaces. In our space of work, clients who approach us are often unaware of the underlying disease that manifests as the symptoms they need help with. This is an understandable premise given the sophisticated and complicated nature of people's dynamics at work. 

Inferring down from this trend, we have increasingly observed groups and individuals indulging less and less in unconditional trust & dispositional trust. Conditional trust is becoming more visible because it allows individuals to work together superficially while their work and careers may demand much more.  

When we talk about these types of trusts, conditional trust implies a sense of transaction, economics, and exchange enough to foster familiarity. However,  this interaction is contingent on immediate behaviours, attitudes, and reciprocation from the involved parties and therefore, is temporary or superficial in nature. 

On the other hand, when we speak of unconditional trust, the foundation here lies free of any “provision” or condition for behaviours and attitudes. It is based on the quality of human interaction, history of trust, and mutual vulnerability which proves more sustainable in nature. This type of trust is complemented by Dispositional trust that points out to a sense of trustworthiness from others, a diffusion of expectations. 

How does one develop the latter with a new hire who is essentially a black box with their mic icon switched off on your screen? 

Here, we believe, management is walking into a chasm of wobbly foundations laid for their employees that eventually leads to dissatisfaction, attrition, and islands of people and other symptoms instead of a well-knit organisation. 

To counter this subtle, yet prevalent issue, the first task at hand should be to acknowledge that trust may not be industry compliance, but it still is a full-time leadership job. Modelling what one wants to be instilled in their teams comes second after defining what one wants to be instilled in their teams. 

By experience, we also realise that interpersonal competence must transcend into a character that instigates innovation, vulnerable help-seeking behaviours, and high confidence in others with a tolerance for slips and falls. 

While working virtually, periodic and relevant communication is the key to forging healthy and trusting relationships among employees. In such a setting, it can be easy to tilt the scales and be focused only on work or on teams and people. However, the answer to this issue is setting clear expectations, and maintaining a balance between processes/ work and people.