A new Australian consulting company, veyter, recently published the first of its Trust-In-Action discussion papers. It provides an excellent summary of Trust in the popular business management literature, but it feels like it is stating the bleeding obvious. This is not to denigrate the importance of Trust, only to question whether Trust, like Respect, needs detailed examination. veyter is tapping a rich vein of management, social and philosophical thinking that many others have accessed.
Veyter intends to challenge the myth that cultural change is complex and time-consuming. It says:
“One of the most powerful ways to operationalise Trust-in-Action is to embed worker-led problem-solving methods into your organisation’s DNA……
… worker-led problem-solving doesn’t just solve problems. It creates a practical, repeatable “impact wave” that ripples through the organisation, establishing a self-reinforcing trust loop and unleashing productivity from the ground up.” (page 8)
I can’t help interpreting this as the equivalent in the occupational health and safety (OHS) world of Consultation – allowing workers to have a voice, actively listening to that voice, and building a relationship.
Dr Matthew Hallowell told this blog in 2015 that:
“I think trust can be developed more easily in the context of safety (rather than productivity, for example) because safety involves altruism. I think trust is most dependent on the extent to which the various organizations on a project are willing, able, and encouraged to work together to solve a problem regardless of the contract structure.”
From this, I extracted his support for effective consultation and collaboration, as well as the understanding that trust and safety can be achieved only when employers genuinely care about their workers, not just about what their workers do for the business and its profits.
A recent Australian collection of essays and interviews, titled “Age of Doubt“, extensively explores the corporate approach to trust. One chapter is written by Michael Smith, the former chairman of 7-Eleven in Australia. Smith discusses the rebuilding of trust in a company that had been exposed for “running a business model that forced
franchisees to underpay their workers”. His chapter is a combination of public relations, damage control, and leadership advice. In fact, the book offers numerous suggestions for enhancing trust. Smith advocated three promises after the wagetheft scandal:
- Take responsibility
- Look after those who have been hurt
- Make sure it doesn’t happen again. (page 185)
However, it is helpful to follow the lead of Australian researchers in identifying stress and psychosocial hazards in the workplace. Tony Lamontagne and others examined the causes and advocated for changes to those hazards that were causing injury and harm. They should now be becoming familiar with unclear job demands, excessive working hours, poor job design, and more. Several chapters in Age of Doubt (written by Michael Smith, Subramanian Rangan, Louise Mahler, Simon Longstaff) relate closely to workplace factors and highlight the following factors that resulted in employees losing trust in their bosses and leaders:
- Moral Blindness: Corporate leaders often prioritised profit maximisation over ethical considerations, leading to compromises that alienated workers. Examples include ignoring whistleblower reports, failing to address known ethical breaches, and turning a blind eye to misconduct. This created a culture where unethical practices flourished unchecked, eroding trust. I would argue that employers were well aware of the financial advantages of this approach, one that was supported politically and institutionally by neoliberal ideology and practices.
- Economic Distrust: Workers grew increasingly disillusioned with companies that appeared overly motivated by profit, while people struggled with basic needs such as housing and food. This disconnect between corporate priorities and worker realities fueled distrust.
- Scandals and Ethical Breaches: High-profile incidents, such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal involving Facebook or the wage underpayment issues at 7-Eleven, showcased systemic failures in governance and ethics. These events highlighted a lack of accountability and transparency, further damaging trust.
- Failure to Empower Employees: Workers often felt unheard and undervalued. Leaders who failed to listen to their employees or provide opportunities for meaningful engagement contributed to a lack of loyalty and trust. This coincides with the neutering of trade unions in most industries. No alternative method of influence or representation has emerged, allowing the trade union movement to spin its wheels.
- Cultural Disconnect: Employers sometimes failed to understand or respect the diverse backgrounds and needs of their workforce, as illustrated by 7-Eleven’s efforts to rebuild trust by engaging with franchisees’ families and cultures.
- Lack of Transparency and Accountability: When companies failed to act decisively or transparently in the face of crises, workers perceived them as untrustworthy. For example, 7-Eleven’s initial response to wage underpayment issues was seen as inadequate until significant corrective actions were taken.
Australia has several wagetheft cases that parallel the 7-Eleven experience, but one could also reference the Robodebt scandal, Australia’s version of the UK’s Post Office scandal.
A future Code of Practice or Conduct on trust in workplaces may include these suggested controls for employers to address:
- Reprioritise (and/or enforce) ethical business practices
- Pivot to stakeholder capitalism rather than the shareholder version
- Increase (and/or enforce) accountability and transparency
- Value and understand workers, and undertake genuine consultation
- Act decisively or transparently but always fairly, in the face of crises
Several of these potential control measures require significant political, corporate, and social changes, but that is no reason not to start working on them. Some are already happening regardless of employer effort, so it is possible to just ride the waves of change.
veyter’s advice significantly overlaps with that from Age of Doubt. The veyter authors say that trust can be rebuilt by attending to
- Transparency: Share real-time updates, explain the “why” behind decisions, and acknowledge mistakes publicly. This fosters authenticity and clarity.
- Integrity: Uphold principles, apply consistent rules, and follow through on commitments visibly. Accountability and ethical behaviour are essential.
- Empathy: Actively listen, recognise emotional cues, and adjust leadership styles to demonstrate care and respect. Address disrespect or exclusion immediately.
- Empowerment: Grant teams authority and resources to solve problems, push decision-making closer to the front line, and reward initiative over compliance.
- Belonging: Create safe spaces for diverse voices, model vulnerability, and encourage full participation without fear of penalty.
- Competency: Invest in leadership development, prioritise capability in promotions, and admit limitations while seeking solutions.
For those who prefer evidence-based decision-making, I would say that the changes needed to rebuild or strengthen trust at work are pretty straightforward. Like the controls for psychosocial hazards, the evidence is clear. The challenge is to apply them.