• It's clear that credibility and staff retention are connected.  An article by Ron Zemke in Training magazine linked them this way: "Customers abandon companies they do not trust, and so do employees."
• Change depends on trust, first in a leader's vision, and then in her ability to actually manage a transition.  Change often fails for lack of initial trust in vision and competence.
• Trust is a fragile asset.  Ron Zemke cautions that trust "develops over time, can be dashed in an instant, and is repaired very slowly." 

   What can leaders do to build trusting relationships?  Here are some ideas inspired by Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace by Dennis and Michelle Reina.

   Expectations: Relationships form and are sustained because people have expectations. In any workplace, these hopes and goals have to be clearly understood and agreed upon.  So, too, do the standards for evaluating progress toward mutual goals.  If expectations are not clear and explicit, the relationship will be equally uncertain.

   A corollary to what you want is what you don't want.  Boundaries of behavior (the so-called "civility" issues) are important foundations for building trust.  Goals and boundaries need to be defined early, clearly and mutually.

   Delegation: Delegating tasks and authority is a powerful expression of trust.  Leaders who haven't learned how to delegate, who interfere or micromanage, are seen as both inefficient and distrustful, a double indictment.  A particularly effective form of delegation is asking others to share in the responsibility for your personal goals.  To openly link your own success to the collaboration of others sends a strong message of trust.  To your colleagues, that message is motivating and bonding.

    Career development: Building competence builds trust; staffers are more likely to trust leaders who help them develop new skills.  That's why training programs that involve the front-line managers (and not just a professional training staff) are high-leverage investments in competence and trust.  This is especially important when training newly appointed managers who one day will themselves be responsible for training others.

   Criticism: One of the many risks of criticism is that it can erode trust.  Learning how to criticize someone "positively," with an eye toward learning instead of flogging, is important if the relationship is to remain durable.  Positive criticism is a learned skill.  So is mastering all those difficult conversations that seem to fill your day.  Criticism is like a fault line in a relationship.  If the movement along that line is sudden, violent or unexpected, the collateral damage will be seen or felt in the trust in the relationship.

Maintaining trust can be a difficult balancing act.  Unpredictability makes people nervous, but so does inflexibility.  To be trusted you need to balance consistency with adaptability.

Trailheads:

Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace by Dennis and Michelle Reina.  Berrett-Koehler, 1999.

"Can You Manage Trust" by Ron Zemke.  Training, February 2000.

   Fight: This strategy tries to control conflict with arrogance and self-deception ("We're above that sort of thing here.") or military-like edicts ("Intemperate behavior will be punished with floggings at dawn.").  Neither approach works very well. 

   Flight: More common are the three flight strategies: Denial ("It's not really hurting anybody.")  Avoidance ("That's someone else's responsibility.")  Accommodation ("Please don't make waves while we're understaffed.")  These don't work very well either. 

   Here are some strategies to think about when trying to resolve conflict in your organization:

   Deal with the impact, not the intentions. You may think you know why someone did something you didn't like, but you may be wrong, so don't attribute motives.  If someone interrupts you a lot, don't try to stop him with character assassination ("Why are you such a selfish lug nut?").  Instead, deal with the consequences of his actions ("When you interrupt frequently, I can't adjust my thinking quickly enough to consider what you need.  Let's talk later about how you can get my full attention when you need it.").

   Anticipate to defuse conflict. Have some "What if...?" agreements, informal understandings between people on how to handle touchy situations before they occur.  Answering "What if...?" questions with someone else will lead to some useful understandings: "What do we do if I make a mistake?"  "What do we do if you make a mistake?"  "How do we tell each other we're disappointed?"  "How can we disagree and then move on?"  Anticipating the potential for conflict before it comes up makes successful resolution more likely.

   Learn to listen. I know you've heard this before, but one of the first casualties of conflict is your ability to shut up and actually listen to what someone is saying.  Letting people explain (and really listening to what they say) is smart management.  It provides information you need, and builds the trust that's essential to resolving conflict.  When I coach people on how to deal with conflict, I listen to their dialogue and then calculate the ratio of a person's questions (a good indicator he's listening) to declarative statements.  If the ratio is any less than 3:1 the conflict will almost certainly persist.

   Watch your language: Profanity is never appropriate; neither is sarcasm.  No less offensive are words like "never" ("You never do this right!") and "always" ("Have you always been a screw-up?").  Even the simple question "Why?" can be too aggressive; it often sounds prosecutorial.  Try probing for information with the more casual "How come?" ("How come what we agreed on yesterday didn't make it into your memo?")  It's not good syntax, but it's smart conflict management.

   Repeat, rephrase, reflect: When someone would rather continue the conflict than resolve it, you need to be patient.  One way to hold on is to repeat what they are saying, rephrase it in your own words to show you have heard and understood, and then invite the other person to join you as you reflect on the facts and circumstances of the case.  Unless anger demands a halt to the conversation (you have to wait for anger to subside before any progress can be made) you can keep the issues in play until resolution is possible.

   Trailheads:

   The Power of Ethical Persuasion by Tom Rusk.  Penguin Books, 1993.

   Designing Conflict Management by Cathy A. Costantino and Christina Sickles Merchant.  Josey-Bass Publishers, 1996.

   What do bosses expect from those who report to them?  Invariably, "performance" tops the list; bosses want you to do your job.

   Appearing loyal through appeasement becomes a safer strategy than candor.  Furthermore, bosses expect deference.  After all, isn't power a perk of being the boss?  When the demand for deference becomes excessive, however,resentment builds among subordinates.  Appeals for candor are seen as inauthentic and manipulative.

   There is no single strategy for managing up; successful relationships can be built in many ways.  But one question will get you started: How well do you know the boss?  People have individual styles, preferences, goals, standards and fears.  You need to understand them all.

   Here are 10 questions (using the feminine form to simplify syntax) that will help identify a person's style of management.  Jot down the letters and see if there's a pattern.

   1. What does the boss like to focus on most: a) getting the job done, b) mending relationships, c) exploring the ideas of journalism and management, d) understanding the details and procedures?

   2. Does she prefer: a) taking charge himself, b) coordinating others, c) solving problems, d) monitoring and analyzing progress?

   3. What does she value most: a) practicality, b) teamwork, c) innovation, d) documentation?

   4. What is her preferred management style: a) authoritative, b) democratic, c) self-directed, d) systematic?

   5. Does she want to be valued for being: a) productive, b) flexible, c) self-reliant, d) accountable?

   6. What does she value in other people: a) successful experience, b) group participation, c) questioning, d) compliance?

   7. When the boss is a follower or subordinate, she respects: a) strong leadership, b) group consensus and focus, c) personal relevance and sound reasoning, d) clear policies and procedures?

   8. She works best when given: a) clear goals, b) broad or generalized goals, c) ideas and input, d) systems to follow?

   9. Her management focus is on: a) achieving goals, b)involving people, c) expanding input, d) following procedures?

   10. She learns best by: a) doing, b) observing and participating, c) listening and self-study, d) repetition and following instructions?

   If your answers tended to be "a" your boss is a"Focuser," someone who likes and uses authority to get the job done.  The "b" group describes a "Relater," someone who values relationships and encourages participation.  The "c" group is an "Integrator," the idea person who wants to know why, and loves to brainstorm and challenge ideas.  The "d" group is the"Operator," the engineer concerned with details and procedures.

   These questions and categories, found in Michael Dobson's Exploring Personality Styles, are, like any classification system, crude instruments to measure complex people.  But they can be useful.  If you can identify patterns of preferences, you can manage more effectively.  For example, if you are a relationship-oriented "Relater" working for a goal-oriented "Focuser," there could be friction.  Similarly, two detail-driven "Operators" might clash continually over routines and procedures.

   In both cases, by understanding the preferences, people can make them complementary strengths instead of barriers.

• You underestimate your resourcefulness.
• You overestimate your preparedness.

   Resourcefulness: Most journalists received a full dose of this at birth.  A requisite for journalism is the ability to balance limitations (like deadlines and poorly trained editors) with opportunities.  Most of us can recall hundreds of examples of "Hey-kid-we-need-this-in-an-hour."  We always delivered, often with distinction.  You don't survive in journalism without being resourceful.

   But as I continue my coaching of journalists looking for a Plan B, I am surprised how many undervalue this skill.  Perhaps they take it for granted, or perhaps they can't see how accomplished they really are.

   When I lived in New Jersey I was a passionate offshore sailor.  The first thing you learn 100 miles offshore is that there are always three ways to solve the inevitable problems, and if those three fail, you can find a fourth.  We called it survival, resourcefulness at it most intense.  Sailors need to learn it, but to most journalists it comes naturally.

   Here's an exercise to reinforce the point: Recall a time when you were exceptionally resourceful solving a problem or resolving a difficult situation.  It might have been at home, at work, out in the wilderness facing brown bears.  The revelation will be simple: Your are more resourceful than you know.

   Preparedness: No passenger on the Titanic spent the voyage in his stateroom building a lifeboat.  After all, the vessel was "unsinkable."  So was the newspaper industry, and very few of us built lifeboats.  But here again, you're good at this. 

   Preparedness implies the ability to anticipate and respond to the unexpected.  But just because something is unexpected doesn't mean it's unanticipated.  You don't have to wait for the unemployment shoe to drop; you can anticipate the permanently changed economic conditions in the media and begin your preparation for whatever comes next, even a continued stay in journalism.  You can do more than think about the unthinkable; you can do something to prepare for that next career that has been hitherto unimaginable.

   Here's another exercise: What do you need to do to prepare for whatever is coming next?  It's tough question not because there are too few answers, but because there are too many.

   Over the last few years, my coaching work has shifted from teaching editors how to manage newsroom to helping journalists (and more than a few editors) understand how to put their resourcefulness to work strengthening their preparedness. 

   Over the years, I've encountered two myths that need debunking:

• "All I'm qualified for outside journalism is PR or freelancing."
• "I was a good performer in a newsroom, but those skills are not transportable."

   Nonsense to both. 

   Regarding the first: There's nothing wrong with PR or freelancing, but those are not the only choices.  Pick up any recent issue of "Fast Company" magazine and witness the energy and entrepreneurship through the world.  The blast furnaces and truck-assembly plants in my old hometown may be shut down and rusting, but hundreds of modern and profitable ventures have taken their place and are attracting innovative and energetic people. 

   On the second myth, consider the skills of experienced journalists, especially those with management experience.  You have mastered:

• Problem solving
• Project planning
• Decision making on deadline
• Reacting quickly and effectively to surprises in the news
• Initiating creative presentations
• Budget management
• Conflict resolution
• Coaching and teaching others
• Collaboration with other disciplines and departments
• Writing and editing the English language with competence

   When a coaching client tells me she's not really qualified to do anything outside journalism, I recite that list and more.  Journalism is superb training for whatever is coming next, but first you must get over the myths and fears holding your back.

   Here's an exercise that will help.  Take your resume, which is probably a chronology of activities, and rewrite it based on skills.  Itemize what you do well and make the case to support each skill.  You'll be pleasantly surprised how well equipped you are for you next career.

   If you want some coaching on that resume, send me an e-mail.  I'd be happy to help.  If you're ready to begin making a Plan B for your career, I can help there, too.