Credit: freefoto.com

It’s the start of the last month of year filled with flux.  In 2011, tall trees of our society and economy continued to fall in the forest, while others swayed weakly in the wind. Change is in the hands of the people. In late June, I wrote about “unfortressing,” the concept that defines the change we are seeing in our country’s systems, industries, ways and expectations. We had just witnessed the Arab spring, were on the cusp of the Minnesota state government shutdown and Wisconsin was reeling from its own political turmoil.

Was this year’s change usual, perhaps fueled by the new powers of social media? It’s clear that people are in the midst of change and are the faces and voices of the new economic, generational, resource-limited realities. Political leaders like to talk about reform, but these realities call for tough decisions – the kinds that foil smooth re-elections. So, despite the work of Super Committees and Simpson-Bowles: The National Committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform,  gridlock persists at the federal and state levels about how to balance budgets while serving the public good.  Once the gridlock breaks, there will be change in the way government delivers its services.

One can trace this “chaos” stage back to 2007 with the burst of the housing bubble, or in 2008, when finance houses “Too Big to Fail” did, or were bailed out. Duct tape fixes of a few years ago aren’t strong enough to hold the bricks in place, as industry and banking adopt new ways of generating revenue, cutting expenses and serving customers. It’s a new day on both sides of the transaction, while overall industries like manufacturing struggle in a fully exposed shell of the old fortress.

Culturally, we’re quicker than ever to jump on institutions that have failed to uphold ethical, moral or legal rules that govern the rest of society. As financial empires verged on collapse, we viewed the devastatingly toxic sides of Bernie Madoff, Denny Hecker and Tom Petters to name a few. Three years later, as we focus on the high costs of higher ed and major gaps in workforce readiness, we learn college coaches turned blind eyes to sexual predators on their staffs.  Via Occupy Wall Street, fortresses clearly in the queue: college loans and higher education.

My year-end conclusion on “unfortressing” remains this: If leaders or communities have tended their houses through process or product improvement, ethical leadership and fiscal management focused on long term performance, they are by this very behavior removing a few old bricks and re-assessing the shape and durability of the structure.

During this time of change and chaos, we can be certain the diverse and proud American people are helping sort out the new criteria for success in our next economy.

In a perfect world, a leader who regularly works the garden of trust with her followers uses similar habits, traits and energies with her personal relationships. We can only hope this is the case, but that’s a different conversation.

I have found two resources that capably illustrate the basic components of trust. The first is the Edelman Trust Barometer, a comprehensive, international poll conducted annually for the past decade that asks questions about factors and degrees of trust that folks have in the private sector and governments. Edelman is one of the world’s largest PR firms and its website is rich with summaries of polls past.

It’s important that in the analysis, Americans are usually broken out from other country’s respondents. Simply, questions about the sort of actions organizations should take to restore the public’s trust should generate answers that reflect the incidents of broken trust. The responses are wonderful reminders, at an organizational level, of trust’s great value and fragility.  Edelman’s interviews for the 2011 are just starting. Will the responses somehow reflect trust in our nation’s public health system (H1N1 handled so well), or will the BP oil disaster overshadow a lot of good leadership taking place in the public and private sectors?

Good leaders in the public and private sector can find great resource in R. Galford’s 2002 book, The Trusted Leader: Bringing out the Best in Your People and Your Company. The title understates the potential audience for this book, as I recommend it to anyone leading a group of people, regardless of the setting or profit nature. Galford offers up skills to build and a strong list of “overt and covert enemies of trust.” This is more than a how-to book.  The author underscores that trust is borne out of self-knowledge and self-awareness.  As a leader, knowing one’s own strengths and weaknesses generates a reliable consistency that can and should be shared with one’s team.

Throughout the book, he weaves and re-weaves the role of personal trust and organizational trust, asserting that the latter is achieved through comprehensive existence of personal trust at work with readily apparent processes and traditions. Galford occasionally uses formulas to depict how trust is reliant on a dynamic set of behaviors and traits. Some readers, no doubt, find those formulas useful.

Readers will find helpful his tested, though somewhat dated, suggestions for navigating sticky situations with an eye toward trustworthiness and retained trust. Galford’s work includes sections on trust during change, incidents when an employee leaves the organization of his own will, is relieved of duty or is laid off. He briefly focuses on trust during a crisis and the great cost of rebuilding trust if it is lost.  For a leader, he orients this in the context of the leadership brand – one’s reputation for how one handled situations, treated people and communicated.

Broken trust makes headlines.  Solid, trusted leaders are needed more than ever. I have yet to research whether BP Oil is an Edelman PR client, though I wonder if someone at BP HQ has the 2010 Trust Barometer on a shelf.  In it, 83% of those interviewed answered transparent and honest practices and company I can trust as important factors in corporate reputation.  Following 2008, one would have thought this lesson had already been learned.

History and to some degree, the American Way, are filled with moments in time when people banded together to ensure their ability to perform quality work in safe conditions, for decent pay or died trying. In 2001 and today, the nurses’ union is using a powerful, rarely-used tool to make a dent in this larger discussion.

There are 1,000 angles to the conditions and drama leading up to a nursing strike. In 2010, both sides feel they have good reason to hold firm.  Negotiation sticking points, reported to be staffing levels that ensure safe care for patients and compensation for this highly skilled workforce have been negotiated to conclusion in the past.  I am confident they will again.

Nurses, alongside physicians, therapists, pharmacists and technicians comprise tireless teams that really do strive for the most innovative and effective approaches to health care. These professionals care for us and our community every day.  Perhaps we don’t do enough to recognize their unique roles in our lives… or do so only when touched.

Hospital administrators care deeply about patients, the quality of care and their duties to be prudent financial stewards of their hospitals.

Communities need to trust their hospitals, just as they trust the local police force or bridge inspectors.  Members of high performing teams need to trust one another.  This will be a lasting side effect of the current labor issue. While the negotiations around compensation and patient safety will ultimately get settled, we watch unfold the confluence of American values: quality, service and compassion delivered to us and our loved ones when we need it most.  I want to be cared for or operated on in a setting that is devoid of tension, distrust and bitterness.

I send an open request to both sides from the community: Compromise, find common ground and return to the mission of health care, serving patients.

~ Cynthia Bemis Abrams is a guest contributor.

In order to accomplish something significant, you can’t do it alone.  Often times this means you are part of a team.  Being on a successful team can be an extremely invigorating and exciting experience – everyone working together and accomplishing something that would have been unattainable as an individual.  The whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts.  Nirvana.  Utopia.  High-five!

Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work this way.  We have all experienced being part of a dysfunctional team.  It may have been a department at work, a church committee, a Board of Directors, a volunteer group or maybe even within your family.  There are community issues needing to be addressed, yet, dysfunctional teams are alive and well within our society.  But, why does this matter?

Having a dysfunctional team, at best, limits a team’s ability to optimally achieve their goals; at worst, it cripples a team from accomplishing anything.  Patrick Lencioni has written an entire book on dysfunctional teams.  It can be extremely frustrating to be part of a team that is not accomplishing its goals.  Your time is being wasted.  Your energy is drained.  When this is happening, it is essential to take a step back and ask yourself, “Why is this happening?”

You may be a team participant.  You may be the team leader.  Either way, it is important to assess your team’s capability to work effectively together.  There are three things to look for when initially assessing your team:

• Trust – Team members trust one another.  They believe each team member is a good person and each team member is willing to show their vulnerability and mistakes.

• On the same page – Everyone is trying to accomplish the same goal(s).

• Open communication – Each team member engages in the discussion.  No one is afraid to share their ideas and opinions.

When building a team, it is absolutely critical to only add team members that will meet these criteria.  Time and time again people are added to teams because of their talents and skills to do the job/task.  The interviewers think they could work with them.  But a good team member, in addition to having the talents and skills necessary to do the job/task, also earns trust, trusts others, listens, and shares thoughts and opinions.  Also, the team member’s goals and objectives align with the goals and objectives of the team.  You can easily build a very talented team, but that doesn’t equate to success.  This philosophy not only applies to building a team, but also to when considering joining a team.

Of course, the million dollar question, “What if I am already on a dysfunctional team? What do I do?”  I have my opinions and thoughts, but I want to hear yours.  What do you do?