Should I trust you again?

One popular myth in company is that never collaborate with your friends. To some degrees, it is true, since cooperation can do harm to trust among friends. However, there are skills for us to work with friends effectively and efficiently. In the following context, I will share one failure of working with my friends and I will summarize what I have learned from this lesson.

I. Collaborating with friends → broken heart

In 2012, when I worked as a management trainee, I got a chance to

form my own team and finish the annual report. After asking some of my friends whether they were willing to work with me, I formed the team of 6 persons, all were my friends. I thought that I could work well with my friends, unfortunately, however, during the collaboration, I have found that they were not trustworthy since they could not walk the talk. Besides finishing my task independently, I had to finish their task. Finally, I chose to never trust them anymore, since I believed that they gave me low scores in peer evaluation. As for my friends, yet, they thought I treated them unfairly, since they did not get enough bonus.  

II. My model of trust

A. Evaluation of myself

Generally speaking, I tend to take an overly rosy view, assuming that most people are decent and would never harm me (Kramer, 2009).

a. Risk tolerance (high level)  

Naturally, I have high level risk tolerance. In this case, I thought that though the project was crucial, it was simple, since all data and information were available. Without finding any obvious problem, I was sure that my team would finish the project perfectly (Hurly, 2006). Confidant could motivate us. However, without taking potential troubles into account could lead me to trouble without preparation.



b. Level of adjustment (high level)

I see the world are full of people with a beautiful mind and I also believe that nobody will do harm to me if I treat them well. Since I prone to trust other easily, I should get better at interpreting the cues when I choose to trust others (Kramer, 2009).

c. Relative power (medium-low level)

Though I am the team leader, in the office, we are peers. In this team, I had limited power to sanction a team member. With communal norms in mind, I had to be sensitive to the needs of my friends (Thompson, 2009). Therefore, when they could not finish their task, I had to undertake the burden instead of punishing them.

B. Peers evaluation

a. Job security (high level)



No worry about losing jobs

At that time, I formed a task force. When the annual report finished, our team disbanded. If we did a good job, our manager would give us extra bonus, whereas, if not, I would be criticized, but we all could keep our job. Therefore, in that situation, we all had high level of job security.


b. Physical similarity (high level)

As the saying goes that
people tend to more easily trust those who
appear similar to themselves (Hurly,2006). Affect-based trust also influenced my judgment, since we worked and lived in the same circumstance and gave support to each other in our work (Thompson, 2009).  Yet, trust depends on physical similarity is weak. In building trust, everyone should share the same vision (Thompson, 2009).


Based on these factors mentioned above, I made the decision to trust my team, however, the result was unexpectedly terrible. The root of the problem is that I rely mostly on my affective route to build trust while ignore the cognitive route. In further analyze, I have found that the following factors totally destroyed our trust.


c. Alignment of interest (low level)

Though we are physically similar, I ignored mental factors.  In particular, our tendency to judge trustworthiness on the basis
of physical similarities and other surface cues can prove disastrous (Kramer, 2009).

We did not have the same interest. At that time, my duty was to finish the annual report on time and in good quality, yet, my friends, they did not care much about the report, what they cared most was the coming holiday. Meanwhile, my friends prefer doing administrative work to data analyze. While I would rather do numeric analyze than paper work. Without same interest, I cannot trust their work. Besides revising their work, I had to undertake more since I believed that the more they did, the more I had to redo.

d. Predictability and integrity (low level)

Unfortunately, I had not realize the problem that my friends had a

fame of delay and unqualified job until we worked in the team. Failing to note such characters brought me frustration and also broke our trustworthy. Yet, this also reminds me that I should collect as much information as I can in avoidance of boundary decision and keep vigilant in collaboration.

e. Open communication (low level)

If the factors about no common interests or unpredictable behavior does harm to our trust, then no open communication was the last straw.

At the time of selecting team members, I should have open communication with my supervisors, friends and other colleagues. From these communication, I could find someone who has the same interest as mine. Based on cognitive route, I can make my decision smarter.

Assume that even if I had chosen the wrong persons, when I found these friends are not dependable, I should have open communication with them instead of keeping silent and undertaking extra burden. Poor communication created information asymmetry and suspicion (Kramer, 2009). As no open communication among us, I had complaints that my friends could not complete their task while my friends tended to perceive that they had finished their task successfully.


Miscommunication causes us to feel betrayed, which leads to a

greater breakdown in communication and, eventually, outright distrust (Hurly,2006). During the process of peer evaluation, I did not inform my friends, that I would implemented exchange norms in allocating welfare. Yet, I guessed that they thought I would make judgment on communal norm, taking their needs and our relationship into consideration (Thompson, 2009). With information asymmetry, they felt furious about the result, in return, they gave me low scores without taking my effort into consideration.



Illustration of My Trust Model

III. What did I learn?

After the horrible experience, I became quite vigilant. In the future, if I can have chances to collaborate with my friends, I will do the following things.

A. Know myself

Human beings change their behavior in term with the environment. In my case, I tend to be good at trusting others. Yet, in the future, in different occasions, I will alter my disposition towards trust. However, no matter what change will be, the key solution is to know myself clearly. If I still easily trust others, I will be vigilant and collect more information before I make a decision. If I become good at recognizing cues but have difficulty forging trusting relationships, then I will note to expand my repertoire of behaviors so that I will not lose a chance (Kramer, 2009).

B. Negotiating with friends

 

To negotiate with friends is inevitable though we will be faced

with internal value conflicts between personal relationships and needs for achievement. In accordance with the win-win negotiation skills, I think the following ways can improve our negotiation.

a. Send strong signal when team formed

In order to keep the trust relations on an even keel, and the playing field level, I have to be willing not only to take chances by initially trusting a bit (signaling the willingness to cooperate) but also to retaliate strongly, quickly, and proportionately (signaling
that you will strike back when your trust is abused) (Kramer, 2009). Thus, when my team built, I will illustrate that I am willing to trust them and I have confidance in our collaboration. However, if someone cannot walk the talk, then, severe punishment will also come.  

b. Open communication when trouble comes

Without efficient communication, my team disintegrated at last. Thus, when troubles such as when we have found that someone does not have the same vision with us or someone does not own the capability of undertaking specific tasks, then, go ahead to communicate with them.

Besides, the key agenda for open communication should not limit to sanction others. Show empathy in communication can not only help solve problem, but also enhance trust. In the process of preparation, taking others' dilemma into consideration. Keep it in mind, that, sacrifice a little now can bring us more in long-term!

c. Path to win-win negotiation

When we talk about win-win negotiation, we should take the point

that, each person has different interest. In avoidance of O. Henry effect, knowing needs of the other party, get to know the needs at first. Then, in the second step, offer multiple choices with equal value to the other pary. With these two steps, I think, lose-lose negotiation will be avoid at least and each member can get what they really needs.

d. Procedural justice

The last problem is inequity feeling which leads to distrust. My recommendation here is to listen to them, show respect and explanation. When team members feel unfairly treated, tell them what factors are taken into account. Do not hold the assumption of illusion of transparency since miscommunication can destroy trust (Thompson, 2009).  Also, if objective data about performance and evaluation are available, procudrual justice can be further improved (Posthuma & Campion, 2008).
 
As a conclusion, cooperating and negotiating with friends is tougher than collaborating with business people, since more factors and conflicts will happen. However, if we can get more information, consider more about others and talk more, our trust can remain and we can collaborate well.

Reference:

Thompson,L.L.(2009).The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. (4th ed.). Prentice Hall (NJ).

Hurley, R.F. (2006). The Decision to Trust. Hardvard Business Review, 84(9), 55-62.

Kramer, R.M. (2009). Rethinking Trust. Hardvard Business Review, 87 (6), 69-77.

Posthuma, R.A., Campion, M.A. (2008). Twenty Best Practices for Just Employee Performance Reviews. Compensation & Benefits Review, 40(1),47-55.