Selected posts by Robert Porter Lynch on the architecture of trust and collaborative innovation:
The Most Important Thing You Didn’t Learn in Business School (originally posted Aug. 18, 2010)
As an entrepreneur, I’ve been a student of the school of hard knocks, and learned a lot of things I didn’t learn in business school. Comparing the real world with the academic experience, one major thing stands out that was absolutely untouched by the curriculum, unexplored in books, and vaguely hinted at in discussions that was so important to my success, or failure.
In fact, the mysterious thing was almost a taboo subject; something of a quandary that no course in finance, marketing, procurement, entrepreneurship, or organizational behavior even discussed. Professors didn’t lecture about this thing, either because they knew nothing about it, or perhaps it was never part of their training. Apparently the professors that preceded them never were illuminated about the thing, even though it was so important that it could spell the difference between success or failure, happiness or misery, expansion or contraction.
What was this almighty yet elusive thing you never explored? TRUST! The academic experts and the seasoned practitioners all agreed it was the essential ingredient to success, but when you asked them to elaborate, all we heard was a bunch of platitudes: Overly simplistic words of advice that were misleading at best.
“Trust but verify,”
“Trust must be earned,”
“Build an escape clause,”
“Start small, then expand,”
“Speak softly but carry a big stick,”
“Be ever vigilant,”
“Don’t trust, just be sure you have a great lawyer and a tight contract,” or
“Focus on interests”
To me these comments were all but useless in creating sustainable trust. Often the platitudes were contradictory, irrelevant, inapplicable, or downright inappropriate, irritating, and counter-productive.
And, as I went through life in business I found I still got screwed too much. No number of lawyers or armor-plated contracts made me safe. I lost a lot of time, money, and idealism. It stung. I got ripped off by customers, vendors, and employees.
When employees stole from me, I’d find ways to catch them. I even had two different employees arrested, hand-cuffed, and hauled off to jail, thinking that such a display of my terror would stop anyone from even thinking about doing something distrustful.
I tried what every major corporation was doing: plastering the walls with the “Values Statements.” Well, the walls looked pretty, but still nothing changed.
When I asked other entrepreneurs about their experience, they told me similar stories. In short, no one had a good strategy for dealing with the trust issue. Guess the professors avoided the issue because no one seemed to have a clue.
For this reason I embarked on a journey to find out what causes of distrust were and what to do about it. Stay tuned for more blogs that will show you how to “crack the trust code.”
The One Big Cause of Distrust and its Effects (originally posted Aug. 25, 2010)
To understand how to create real trust, you first have to understand what causes distrust.
In one word: fear.
Test this yourself by reflecting on your own experience. When you distrusted someone, what fear did you have?
Some of the types of fear that are particular lethal to trust include:
- Fear of being taken advantage of
- Fear of physical harm
- Fear of being put in a disadvantageous position,
- Fear of being hurt financially, emotionally or physically
- Fear of insecurity,
- Fear of loss – control, territory, possessions.
- Fear of betrayal
- Fear of failure
- Fear of Rejection, Exclusion, or Reputational Damage
Trust and fear do not mutually co-exist, because fear rapidly drives out trust.
Fear is a dangerous force for any leader. Focused outward on a common threat, it can rally people together, such as when there is a destructive enemy threatening. But focused inward, fear will certainly destroy trust and teamwork from within.
Fear may engender certain standoffish respect, as one respects a rattlesnake, but begets not trust. The human species’ brain is not wired to trust what it fears.
Fear is dangerous, because it has a boomerang effect, returning, usually behind our backs, to hit us when we are least expecting it. In other words, triggering fear in one person usually reverberates as anger or revenge in some, and withdrawal and dejection in others. None of these are effective as a motivational or inspirational strategy. Stomping around, cussing, throwing temper tantrums, and threatening people is not an effective way to produce extraordinary and sustainable results.
While there are times when we, as business leaders, must use fear (such as in response to real threats, both internal and external), a great leader will, in the vast majority of cases, want to replace fear with trust.
The first thing I had to learn is that, at its most basic level, creating trust is first and foremost, about safety and security:
Trust is the confidence that I will not be harmed or diminished interacting with another person or group. It’s relying on the dependability, character, integrity or capability of some else or something.
If we don’t feel safe and secure, we will not trust. This is a good place to start our understanding of trust, but there’s much more to it, as we will see in the next blogs.
Building Trust with Honor (originally posted Aug. 31, 2010)
While doing the research for my latest book Trusted to Lead, I was fascinated to find leaders in business, sports, and the military most closely associated the word ‘trust’ with one other word: ‘respect’.
Recall Aretha Franklin’s classic song: “All I’m askin’ for is a little respect!”
Respecting others is one of the most important things we can do to earn their respect. Respect is a form of honor.
There are two kinds of respect – one comes from fear, the other comes from honor.
In the first kind, we give someone respect because we fear what they might do if we are disrespectful. When walking down a country road in Arizona, if we meet a rattlesnake, we respect the reptile for fear of being struck. A leader who strikes venomously, injecting fear may also find venom returned in the form of subterfuge, as any leader has experienced when they have trouble with unions. Fear begets anger, which begets revenge.
The other form of respect is derived from honor. A leader who respects others wins their respect; it must be given before it’s received.
For, if we can’t honor someone, even with their faults, we, by default, dishonor them. To give someone respect means we value their contributions.
Colleen Barrett, President Emeritus, of Southwest Airlines said it really well: “We want our employees to be themselves – this is a great freedom – we don’t want them to fall into cookie-cutter molds, we hire them as individuals, we want them to be themselves, and share that personality with their teammates and customers, not play a role, to be like they are at home.”
For many, honor means respecting the value of others, and more, treasuring honorable differences among others as a never-ending source of creative energy – the energy that keeps people feeling like they are important and can make a difference.
If you are a leader aspiring to build trust, simply do not tolerate dishonorable actions, not so much for ethical or philosophical reasons, but because dishonor is a poison that kills people’s energy. By respecting others, we earn their respect.
The very most important thing we can honor is actually not other people, but our own word.
I asked scores of people about the meaning of trust. Many commented that they trusted someone if they did what they said they would do – they walked the talk. That’s the meaning of integrity – integrating words and actions.
Integrity is not easy because it often means forsaking the expediency of perhaps lying a little here, cheating a bit there, deceiving by creating an illusion or implication, or avoiding the truth to hide under the disguise of silence. However, the consequences of twisting the truth, failing to keep one’s word, or pushing the blame onto others will be, in the long run, devastating, no matter what the short term advantage.
Integrity is more than just being honest or trustworthy. Integrity means being true to oneself, true to one’s deepest values, true to one’s conscience, dedicated to telling the truth. The benefits of integrity are ultimately both a liberating freedom and a divine blessing.
Was Machiavelli Right? (originally published Sept. 7, 2010)
At the end of the Middle Ages, a masterful advisor to the royalty of the day named Niccolo Machiavelli wrote extensively about how to survive in a world filled with connivers and deceivers. Machiavelli is considered by many authorities as one of the most influential writers on the thinking of the modern era.
I’m going to quote Machiavelli here, and let you assess whether his advice is worth taking:
“A leader must not mind incurring the charge of being cruel if it is for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and faithful.”
“It is much better to be feared than loved.”
“Man is semi-animal, semi-beast. The leader is thus obliged to know how to act as a beast, and must imitate the fox and the lion, for the fox can recognize traps, and the lion can intimidate. If all men were good, this would be poor advice; but as they are bad and will not be loyal to you, you are not bound to be loyal to them.”
“A leader must take great care to say only the words of mercy, faith, humanity, and morality, for men in general judge more by what they hear and see, than by what they experience. Everybody sees what you appear to be, few know who you really are. And the few who know who you really are will seldom dare to oppose you in light of the many who support you. In the actions of leaders, the end justifies the means.”
What do you think Larry Elison and Mark Hurd would say about these statements?
Does anything appear to be out of balance? How many people take Machiavelli’s words as their “gospel”?
Notice that there are some “mind traps” in his argument, such as the “either/or” question. This is an age-old “dialectic” dualistic approach you’ve heard innumerable times before: “Are you a communist or a capitalist?” “Are you a liberal or a conservative?” This mind trap locks you into two dimensional approaches to life. What if Machiavelli took a “trialectic” approach and posited: “It is much better to be trusted than to be feared or loved?” Machiavelli did not ask this question, but I will.
Vince Lombardi, the renowned football coach said: “Leadership is based on the spiritual power to inspire others to follow. This spiritual quality may be used for good or evil. When devoted toward personal ends, it is partly or wholly evil. Leadership which is evil, while it may temporarily succeed, always carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction.”
I’ll give you one more point to ponder: that great leaders do three things really well….
Strategic Vision: They set an Inspirational Vision, then chart an Innovative Course that generates a Significant Advantage or Improvement over ordinary alternatives.
Culture of Trust: They create a System of Trust that Unleashes and Focuses Human Energy and Co-creativity on achieving the Strategic Vision.
Operational Excellence: They establish a coherently aligned system of organizational Processes, Measures, & Rewards that reinforce #1 & #2.
Machiavelli has been the guiding light for many so-called realists who will sacrifice their principles for the sake of expediency. But do people who gamble their values become great leaders? In the next blog, we’re going to explore America’s greatest leader: George Washington, and why he was the most trusted man in America.
Why George Washington was the Most Trusted Man in America (originally posted Sept. 10, 2010)
In world history, George Washington still remains unique among leaders. The pains and frustrations he endured during the American Revolution would be enough to crumble a battalion of normal heroes. His composure under stress is greater than legendary. At the end of the Revolution, the country was deeply divided: A third of the nation supported the new regime, a third was neutral, and a third supported the King. Who could lead a divided country? Only someone whose integrity was impeccable. That was Washington.
While Washington was well known as aloof, almost to the point of seeming cold, his distance was always tempered by humility, never self-righteousness. His unwavering commitment to the principles of a democratic republic and his aversion to tyrannical monarchies always prevailed over his personal interests or gain. In all affairs he always exercised restraint – unlike the typical European monarchs.
The use or abuse of power is the perfect example of how he balanced his own self interest with the greater good of the people. As historian Edmund Morgan has observed:
Washington’s genius lay in his understanding of power, both military power and political power, an understanding unmatched by that of any of his contemporaries … showing itself in the ability to take command … concentrating his forces to strike efficiently when the opportunity presented … always bent on winning.
He understood the political basis of power … which ultimately depended upon public opinion, which was as fickle then as now… Although Washington’s complaints to Congress [for failure to adequately fund his struggling army] were fruitless, he never appealed over the heads of Congress to their constituents. The republic owned much in the end to the wisdom of men who understood the interests of the people better than their elected representatives did.
Washington had none of the range of talents of the brilliant men around him, but in his understanding of power he left them all behind.
While none of us are ever going to be George Washington, the self-discipline he used to achieve this greatness can be practiced by every leader in business, government, or the neighborhood. Lost to most who study our history, Washington was a practicing “stoic.” What does this mean? Perhaps a little historic background will shed some light on this.
The ideals of principled leadership were brought into crystal clarity by the publication in 1776 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Copies were immediately shipped to America and its lessons were readily absorbed by Jefferson, Madison, and Washington.
The author, Edward Gibbon, was a realist well acquainted with Machiavelli, but his primary question centered on how an empire so powerful as Rome could fall into ruin.
He pointed to the deep virtues espoused by Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, whose book “Meditations” had been widely published. After death of this principled leader, the empire spiraled into ever-accelerating decay as civic virtue was replaced by greed, self interest, and corruption that depleted the empire of its values and spirit.
Since his childhood Washington had admired Aurelius’ stoic quest for wisdom, virtue, self-restraint, tolerance, and honor. Practicing the stoicism religiously meant living by a simple premise: What matters most is a man’s behavior, not his ideas. Calmness, tolerance, and the ardent refusal to display hate or rage were essential to prevent the distortion of rationality, morality, and good judgment. That’s what made him the most trusted man.
Great Lessons from Great Sports Coaches & The Greatest Athlete of All Time (originally posted Oct. 20, 2010)
Every one of us in business wants to be successful. While few in business ever want to talk about it, unquestionably our biggest fear is failure. Often we work extraordinary hours to ensure success and ward off that dreaded fear. So what can sports tell us about success?
I’m a sports fan; I confess I often jump to the sports page first when I read the paper to see who’s been successful. But I’m not the normal fan. I look for the stories of how coaches got their teams and star players to do extraordinary things. I love the “worst to first” stories, the comebacks, the less-talented that excel out of sheer grit and determination, and the castaway players that experience resurrection. The best stories for me are often during the Olympics about those who overcome unbelievable adversity – cancer, broken bones, poverty, and physical disabilities – to go on to become the best in the world.
With that in mind, here are some things I’ve found about great coaches that most people often miss: Trust was an essential ingredient in the success formula. Sometimes trust was right out in the open, sometimes imbedded into the “quality of character,” yet most times its woven subtly into the fabric of the thinking of great coaches, but not ostensibly stated.
UCLA & John Wooden: This exemplary coach was probably the best example of how building character and winning went hand-in-hand. Members of his teams had to live to the standards of his 12 point character-building pyramid. “Ability may get you to the top, but character – mental, moral, and physical keeps you there.” Wooden’s teams were fantastic!
Boston Celtics & Red Auerbach: His dynasty of the 1960’s was based on choosing players for three overriding qualities – talent, character, and teamwork. The best singular example was the matchup between the Celtics’ Bill Russell and the giant Wilt Chamberlain. Statistically Chamberlain was overwhelming, but no match for the smaller Russell whose character beat his opponent every time. When Doc Rivers took over the Celtics in 2007, they were wallowing in the cellar. He brought together three players – Pierce, Garnett, and Allen – who’d never played together. Rivers focused on one powerful thing: TRUST. By the end of the season they’d devoured the league and won the championship.
Green Bay Packers & Vince Lombardi. Stories about Lombardi are legendary. He took the Packers from losers at the bottom to the championship in two years. What most people don’t realize is the focus he had on building trust. Here are a few examples: He quoted Lord Byron, “Adversity is the first path to the truth.” And Herbert Spencer: “Character, rather than education, is a man’s greatest safeguard, because character is higher than the intellect.” “Every player must first place the team ahead of his personal glory. The man who plays must make personal sacrifices – victory means team glory for everyone – personal glory means little if a team loses.” “To be a leader, you must be honest.” “Leadership is based on truth and character. It must have truth in its purpose and willpower in its character.” “Two main things on a new job are Personality Analysis (Character) and Talent Analysis (Competence).”
So… Who was the Greatest Athlete of the Twentieth Century? Every sports fan has an opinion. My choice is Wayne Gretzky. They didn’t call him the Great One for nothing. When Sports Illustrated named Mohammad Ali the greatest athlete of the 20th Century, I was stunned. Gretzky not only dominated the game, but he did something no one else in sports had ever done—the National Hockey League’s scoring leader with the most goals scored and the most assists. In fact, he had 2 ½ times more assists than goals. No one else is even close. He was the ultimate team player. His teammates trusted him not to hog the puck; they trusted him to win with the team, not as a lone ranger superstar; they trusted him to do the right thing for the team, and put his own glory on the back burner. Who is your choice?
The Biggest Mistake in Business (originally posted Oct. 26, 2010)
I’ve made a lot of mistakes in business….marketing mistakes, operations mistakes, financial mistakes. One of my mentors, who was a fine gentleman named Royal Little and who founded Textron, wrote a book “How to Lose a $100 million, and other Valuable Advice.” (That amount of money would be over $½ billion in today’s dollars). I read the book, cover-to-cover. Royal gave me and other entrepreneurs lots of insights about business. But he left out one important point, and it was that one thing that really bit me hard.
The biggest mistake I made, over and over again, was doing business with people I could not trust. This is not just with suppliers or customers, but with people who I hired.
Like most people, I was indoctrinated to look for competence in people I hired and companies that supplied me or gave me advice. All this sounds pretty smart on paper, but the outcome was not very good at all. I hired managers and staff that stole money, sometimes lots of it. Looking back at those naïve times, I’ve hired a very competent embezzler, several very competent con-artists, a couple of highly competent antagonizers, many very competent liars, and more than my share of highly competent ego-maniacs.
The problem with these people is that they didn’t just fade into the sunset when I realized my mistake and needed to get rid of them. Revenge and law suits followed, unless I caught them with their hands in the till (which marked the ending of several of them).
What I learned from this was the same as what my dear friend and lawyer, Rob Edwards, taught me: There is no legal contract in the world that can protect you from someone who is not trustworthy. Who you do business with is just as important as what you do in business.
Certainly one of the most important decisions you will ever make in your business is who you put on your team.
Southwest Airlines is widely considered the most successful airline in the industry, an industry that has had a net cumulative loss for a decade. Southwest continues to be profitable year after year. They attribute it more to the people they hire than anything else. So what are their hiring secrets? Most people think it’s bringing aboard people with a positive attitude. Yes, that’s true, but attitude masks the real strategy.
Just as the great sports coaches have learned that not all talented athletes are created equal; so too, not all competent job candidates are created equal. Southwest employees must be competent, but two other qualities are essential: Character and Collaboration.
As a result, Southwest is very particular about who they chose, hiring less than 1% of those people who apply for jobs. As one pilot said: “What we get from the hiring selection process is mutual respect.” Southwest employees are trustworthy – honest and hard working, and they are team players – collaborative and caring.
Senior VP Matt Ridley put it simply: We look for people with integrity, because it is the “most critical leadership quality.” Paraphrasing, he added, we need people with a strong work ethic, who don’t ask for anything that they wouldn’t do themselves. They’ve got to treat people right, beyond following the rules. They care about others.
At Southwest, having employees you can trust to do the right thing, every day, every time is one of the most valuable assets (unlike some of their competitors, who see their employees as a liability). These employees are the ones that will make you either a success or a failure.
