As part of our ongoing Culture of Trust project, we and our partners at the Association of Science and Technology Centers (ASTC) and the Association of Children's Museums (ACM) are developing strategies for building, maintaining, and repairing trust between leaders and staff in the workplace. Having previously identified the components of trust that come into play during leader-staff disputes and summarized key trust-building strategies detailed in the literature, in this blog post, we share findings from the project's third component: a study of leader experiences of (and perspectives on) workplace trust.

To learn about these experiences, we interviewed children's museum leaders from across the US. Our results provide a more in-depth understanding of how leader-staff interactions impact internal organizational trust, and point to strategies and practices leaders can use to build cultures of trust in the workplace.

Sources of Workplace Disputes

We interviewed 14 museum leaders about how they work to build, maintain, and repair trust with employees. During these interviews, leaders were asked to describe two scenarios: one where a contentious issue was quickly resolved, and another where an issue took a long time to resolve. We asked leaders to describe the actions they took in response to these situations — and how these actions impacted organizational trust.

Some of the scenarios leaders described aligned with what we found in our analysis of media coverage of leader-staff disputes. Tensions related to funding sources surfaced occasionally, and leaders also noted instances of contention over how to respond to broader social issues. But for the most part, what most threatened leader-staff trust were disputes related to things like:

• Leadership Styles & Behaviors
• Organizational Structures & Hierarchies
• Organizational Changes & Transitions
• Workplace Policies & Cultures
• Generational Differences

In what follows, we share examples of contentious workplace issues tied to each of these factors, incorporating statements from the leaders we interviewed.

Leadership Styles & Behaviors

When speaking about their general workplace experiences (including those in which they did not hold executive positions), leaders frequently drew attention to specific leadership styles and behaviors that can undermine organizational trust. Many reported conflicts stemming from top-down, command-and-control styles that often leave staff feeling confused, conflicted, unsafe, and overly cautious. One spoke of the difficulties of working in a department where a leader single-handedly reviewed staff members' performance, noting that this "very top-down" approach made employees "very scared to give input." Another mentioned the difficulties middle managers confront when forced to take a "'leadership said so' approach" to communicating decisions, noting that the disconnect between leadership and staff creates "an us versus them mentality." Such an approach, they added, often leads to staff "not feeling empowered and safe enough" to ask questions. When employees feel it is unsafe to raise concerns, another said, issues may "fester" until they escalate into severe trust breakdowns. These situations are worse in cases where leaders abuse their power or otherwise "treat people poorly." As one person said, when leaders abuse their power, it can "take a long time to create any sort of change."

Organizational Structures & Hierarchies

Leaders cited a number of cases in which hierarchical structures within the workplace factored into trust-related disputes. Several remarked on how structures that discourage direct leader-staff interaction can build tension and resentment. In some cases, one said, this disconnect can engender a feeling that leaders "don't really know what's going on" — or that "no one's listening to [staff]." This may also contribute to a sense that leaders "don't know how hard it is" for staff to effectively do their jobs, and a feeling of being unacknowledged or disrespected. It may even promote a sense of being discriminated against — that leaders are promoting an "upstairs versus downstairs class divide" that makes staff feel like a "minoritized class." In these situations, one leader said, staff may hesitate to voice concerns, assuming that leaders are either disinterested or too busy to make time for them. This assumption also contributes to a sense that formal channels are the only available mechanism for addressing grievances. Even though staff may be "fuming about something," they may refrain from speaking up — particularly when a leader's past actions make them "feel like they're going to be reprimanded."

Organizational Changes & Transitions

Leaders cited organizational change as another key driver of workplace conflicts. This was particularly the case in connection with leadership transitions. One leader said it was a "huge point of contention" when they decided to hire new staff soon after joining their organization, highlighting the resentment experienced by existing staff who "felt they should have been promoted as soon as I walked in the door." Another talked about their efforts to revise an existing organizational chart after taking up a leadership position, saying that this decision made some staff feel that "things were being taken away from them."

Other leaders similarly talked about staff being generally resistant to actions that shifted their organization's culture. At times, this resistance can be encouraged by departing leadership, who may engage in "sabotaging" behavior by spreading misinformation about new leaders. But resistance to change can also result from leaders' own behaviors. In one case, a leader said that when staff articulated personal concerns about planned changes, a senior employee felt "insulted": instead of recognizing staff concerns or explaining how changes were in line with the organization's mission, they simply made "assumptions about people's intentions."

Workplace Policies & Cultures

Tensions around workplace cultures were often mentioned as something that can negatively impact leader-staff trust. As one leader saw it, the chief difficulty here pertains to organizations not "understanding our own bias," which limits the ability to "create safe spaces" for all employees. Illustrating this point, another noted that when most staff have "similar worldviews and curiosities," those with differing viewpoints or experiences may have difficulties finding "traction" within an organization. One leader mentioned how "working in a children's museum is not great for those with sensory sensitivities," noting the difficulties these staff members had in receiving accommodations such as "extra breaks" or noise-cancelling headphones. In these cases, having people who "make assumptions" about disabilities can exacerbate pre-existing tensions. This can also be the case with topics such as racial justice. In connection with this, one leader spoke of staff needing a space to "just share their thoughts" after events like the murder of George Floyd.

Generational Differences

Leaders noted occasions in which generational differences gave rise to workplace disputes. One highlighted the existence of a "clear generational divide" in discussions about pay, observing that members of Gen Z openly share what they're earning, while older staff are more guarded. Another leader highlighted perceived generational differences in commitment levels as a source of tension, noting that when younger staff decline extra shifts or projects, older staff sometimes see this as evidence of them not being invested in their jobs. This perception created "a rift between people that [our organization is] struggling to figure out," they noted. A third leader described instances where younger staff members sometimes share their personal beliefs or social roles in ways that are "not appropriate for work conversations." This reflects what has been said elsewhere about Gen Z's preference for work roles that align with their personal values, identities, and goals — along with broader shifts in norms around what constitutes an "appropriate" work conversation.

Leaders' Responses

In addition to asking leaders to talk about workplace disputes, we also asked how they responded to these disputes — and what impact their actions had on organizational trust. In most cases, they were able to resolve problems to everyone's satisfaction. In other words, the examples they shared constitute best-case scenarios. Instead of spilling into public view (as was the case with the media stories we analyzed), these disputes were resolved in ways that improved perceptions of leader and staff trustworthiness.

Given that, the actions described below can be treated as a set of best practices for preventing or solving contentious issues in the workplace. As with the discussion above, we've structured these examples along the lines of the five categories noted above.

Leadership Styles & Behaviors

All the leaders we spoke to agreed on the importance of creating mechanisms that empower employees to ask questions, voice concerns, and be part of decision-making processes. One said they advise staff to "question everything" they don't understand, adding that their general message is "please ask and don't just accept it." Along with this, another stressed the importance of explaining "the significance of having their input" — that is, specifying how exactly staff feedback will be incorporated into decision-making processes. Establishing a system for doing this is beneficial in a variety of ways, leaders agreed. For one, it "goes a long way" to making people feel heard and validated. It also instills a sense of safety, helping staff understand that "they're not going to be reprimanded or retaliated against for asking a question." And, in pivoting away from "blame culture," it gives leaders and staff momentum for becoming "solutions-based organizations" — that is, places where staff are rewarded for "talking and speaking up in a positive way."

In addition to encouraging employees to raise issues as soon as they emerge, leaders identified being authentic" as a key component of trustworthy leadership. This includes things like "being willing to apologize" and "acknowledging that we're human and we make mistakes," one leader explained. Demonstrating their own vulnerability in these ways, this leader added, is an effective way to destigmatize mistakes in the workplace. Along with that, another leader found it useful to continually stress that organizations are evolving, organic entities — that decisions are "not static" and need to be periodically reassessed and undone if it becomes clear that another path may "lead to better results."

Organizational Structures & Hierarchies

Leaders mentioned a number of different strategies for breaking down some of the organizational barriers that factor into workplace disputes. Being visible is especially important. Whether it be actively participating in staff duties, opening up their calendars for unscheduled, non-performance-related meetings, or simply walking around the building and saying hello to people, leaders found that by establishing a presence in employees' work lives, they were able to discourage the formation of "us versus them" mentalities. As an example of this, one leader shared how "if I'm cleaning the toilet and picking up toys on a regular basis, and I'm seen by people doing that, it feels like there's less tension among staff." Another said that by "listening and being present," they were able to help foster a culture "where people feel comfortable raising things…and asking things." Making themselves generally accessible shows staff that if there's something they want to discuss, they "don't have to wait…for that one moment to happen. You can bring it up whenever, and we'll try to work on it."

Leaders also said they encouraged staff to build relationships with their managers. When employees "reach out and [are] inquisitive" about the workplace and their roles early on, one leader said, it helps managers learn "how that person works well in advance of a burning emotional issue." With this knowledge, managers can more easily establish relationships with those under their supervision. Even when unable to satisfactorily address all of their concerns, having this relationship reminds staff that "probably you're not on a different side than the administrators," one leader said. This type of "social lubrication" increases leader-staff camaraderie and contributes to the sense that people are "sharing the load." To prevent situations where employees feel unappreciated, another leader talked about how they implemented a "staff shout-out board" in front of their office, where people can post anonymous notes celebrating others' achievements. Initiatives like this had "really improved morale," they said.

Organizational Changes & Transitions

The leaders we spoke with agreed that transparency is essential for working through conflicts related to organizational change. A critical first step is having "very candid conversations" about "why these changes are necessary." When having these conversations, one leader stated, it's important to let staff voice their concerns — and to explain that just because people have concerns, it "doesn't mean they're not great employees." The key thing, this leader continued, is to create a space where "we're all going to be vulnerable and curious…to learn more about each other." In addition to promoting dialogue, one leader said that bringing in team-building coaches for workshops "specifically designed to improve trust in the organization" can be helpful. Doing this, they added, gives staff a forum for better understanding each other-and how planned changes can benefit everyone.

Workplace Policies & Cultures

In response to disputes tied to workplace cultures and policies, leaders said the best approach is the one that begins at the top. To address concerns in ways that lead to "genuine change," one explained, leaders "have to be open to hearing and listening without judgment." One way to do this is to "create an open door" for difficult conversations — for example, scheduling regular drop-in times when an employee can meet with leaders "just to share how you're feeling" in the aftermath of significant local, national, or global events. Leaders can also convene semi-formal advisory teams composed of staff with specific accommodation needs, and meet with them periodically to get "a better understanding of what accommodation means" in different situations.

Another effective practice is to highlight the benefits that come along with being part of a "diverse workforce" that is "as inclusive as possible." Training can be valuable here. One leader mentioned having staff participate in restorative justice training to "help elevate people's comfort level to open up with what they want to talk about." Another said that trainings around identity bias and anti-discrimination practices helped increase staff alignment on the organization's approach to sensitive topics. A third talked about how training sessions helped staff "do some of that pretty hard work" around inclusion and diversity. Regardless of the approach taken, one leader noted, a key goal is to encourage people to see contention not as something to be avoided but as something that can expand horizons, improve organizational performance, and promote employee wellbeing.

Generational Differences

When responding to disputes rooted in generational differences, leaders found they were often able to diffuse tensions by contextualizing people's statements. For example, by explaining that discussions around pay are "actually kind of a generational thing," one leader was able to help older staff members see that there was "no ill intention" behind younger co-workers' statements on this topic. Another leader said that they encouraged staff to be "more curious and have less assumptions about people's intentions." In certain cases, leaders found that a one-on-one approach was best. For example, when a younger employee made comments about another's religion, one leader found it most effective to "sit them down individually" and explain that certain topics are off-limits in the workplace. This leader also met with the aggrieved party to assure them that such behavior was "not professional" and had been addressed — something they were "very thankful" for.

Let's Put it to Work

In analyzing the interview data, we discovered a key reason leaders were so often able to resolve workplace disputes in a successful, mutually appreciated manner: their actions generally aligned with the components of trust incorporated into our trustworthiness framework. When attempting to build, maintain, or repair trust during discussion of contentious issues, leaders often behaved in ways designed to demonstrate affinity, competence, reliability, sincerity, integrity, and benevolence.

To transform the examples leaders shared into actionable recommendations, in what follows, we list specific leadership actions that can increase these different components of organizational trust.

Affinity

To head off or resolve workplace disputes, leaders often undertook actions aimed at enhancing feelings of belongingness, connection, and shared humanity within their organizations. Examples of these actions included:

• Promoting leadership visibility
• Undertaking comprehensive racial justice initiatives
• Conducting confidential belonging surveys
• Implementing a 360-degree appraisal system
• Providing executive coaching and team-building workshops

Efforts like these were beneficial in fostering open communication channels and encouraging staff to voice concerns-both of which can increase feelings of organizational attachment.

Competence

Displays of competence were a critical part of how leaders dealt with contentious issues. To demonstrate their trust-building abilities, leaders undertook actions such as:

• Instituting training programs
• Restructuring decision-making for shared responsibility
• Enhancing HR compliance
• Interviewing staff to identify contentious issues
• Implementing accommodations

By taking advantage of their knowledge and skills, leaders found they were able to solve the various trust-related problems encountered in the workplace.

Reliability

Instead of implementing quick fixes, leaders talked about the importance of committing to regular, ongoing practices aimed at building internal trust. Examples of actions undertaken as part of a long-term approach to trust-building included:

• Fostering a "working in draft" culture (i.e., a process for ongoing evaluation and revision of decisions)
• Conducting salary studies to proactively manage labor relations
• Proactively monitoring legislation
• Developing written position papers for tense issues
• Creating and using mechanisms for safe and prompt conflict resolution

By making practices such as these a predictable part of their obligations to employees, leaders were able to build organizational trust.

Sincerity

Honesty and transparency were two of the overarching values leaders sought to convey in anticipation of or in response to workplace disputes. To communicate these values, they undertook the following actions:

• Revising hiring practices and clarifying job descriptions in response to staff feedback
• Involving staff in strategic planning
• Implementing proactive workload and capacity management

Through practices designed to enhance transparency and clarity in internal operations, leaders found they were able to enhance accountability and openness — both of which increase organizational trust.

Integrity

Acting in a fair, principled manner was a core part of how leaders sought to build trust while working through contentious issues. Examples of actions undertaken to demonstrate integrity included:

• Establishing foundational values with an anti-racism commitment
• Crafting mission-aligned communications to navigate external political and social issues
• Practicing transparent budgeting and implementing comprehensive compensation initiatives (that is, a top-to-bottom structuring of compensation to assure that everyone is treated more fairly)

All of these practices were beneficial in working through sensitive situations, leaders found. They also helped cultivate a culture of shared humanity and trust.

Benevolence

Actions that enhance staff wellbeing are essential for building and maintaining trust in tense situations, leaders agreed. To help resolve these situations in mutually beneficial ways, they made use of the following practices:

• Implementing paid internship programs to support aspiring professionals
• Undertaking comprehensive compensation and benefit adjustments to ensure competitive pay and financial security
• Adapting work structures to accommodate individual needs
• Revising internal mobility practices to promote fairness and clear development paths

Demonstrations of benevolence such as these are a key way to maintain high levels of organizational trust when contentious issues enter the workplace.

About This Article

Culture of Trust is supported by a grant from the Innovation Resource Center for Human Resources. Since launching this project, we've analyzed news media coverage of leader-staff disputes to identify the components of trust that most often come into play when contentious issues arise in museum workplaces, and reviewed the existing academic literature on leadership-staff trust in nonprofit organizations to identify key strategies for fostering employee trust.All of this work was based on the framework we developed for building, maintaining, and repairing trust.

To learn more about our work on trust and trustworthiness, see our "Trust 101" explainer along with blog posts on partnerships and trust-building, public trust in zoos and aquariums, and our moral motives conference.

Photo courtesy of Vitaly Gariev @ Unsplash