Federation University ResearchOnline

https://researchonline.federation.edu.au
Copyright Notice

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Issues in Mental
Health Nursing on 5 October 2020 available at:

https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2020.1822480

See this record in Federation ResearchOnline at:

http://researchonline.federation.edu.au/vital/access/HandleResolver/1959.17/180604

CRICOS 00103D RTO 4909 Page 1 of 1

‘High trust’ and ‘low trust’ workplace settings: Implications for our
mental health and wellbeing.

C HUNGERFORD (Federation University) & M CLEARY (Central Queensland

University)

Introduction

Trust is “an essential condition of human society” (Steinacker, 2019, p. 1), unifying
families, communities, groups, and countries. Without trust, governments, businesses,
and institutions (e.g. healthcare, educational, religious, media and research) would be
unable to function effectively (Gustafsson, Gillespie, Searle, Hope Hailey, & Dietz,
2020). Yet, in the twenty-first century, there has been an erosion of trust in the
organizations or groups that previously served as the cornerstones of societies (Agley,
2020; Calnan & Sanford, 2004; Camporesi, Vaccarella, & Davis, 2017; Hutchinson,
2018; Kaltenborn, Krange, & Tangeland, 2017; Lauret, 2018). This erosion has
filtered down into workplaces, with cynicism now characteristic of the way in which
many employees view those in authority (Petitta & Jiang, 2019). Of particular concern
are reports of the cynicism many employees feel towards their leaders or managers;
and increases in disengagement and sick leave, attrition, and higher levels of stress
and other mental health issues (Bourgault, 2019; Nicholson, Leiter, & Laschinger,
2014; Sungur, Özer, Saygili, & Uğurluoğlu, 2019).

This column discusses the notions of trust in the workplace and the effects of low-
trust workplaces on the mental health and wellbeing of employees. In the first part of
the column, consideration is given to, first, the terms ‘high-trust’ and ‘low-trust’ in
the context of the work of nurses; second, the stages by which trust is developed in
workplace settings; and third, the important role of leaders and managers in supporting
the process of trust development. Following this, the essential characteristics of trust
in the workplace are explained: benevolence, competence, reliability, honesty,
vulnerability and openness (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). Examples from the
workplace are provided to illustrate salient points. Finally, the impact on the mental
health and wellbeing of those who work in low-trust environments is discussed,

1
including suggestions for how nurses can overcome the challenges inherent in such
workplaces.

Trust in the workplace

Trust is both a noun and a verb – a feeling and action that is a crucial means by which
individuals or groups interact (Gold, 2017; Kerasidou, 2017). Trust is based on the
knowledge and understanding that the other person is reliable and upholds the best
interests of the individual or group, supporting them according to their needs and
preferences (Cambridge English Dictionary, 2020).

Trust in the workplace is an essential component of teamwork (Fulmer & Gelfand,

2012). For example, it is trust that enables the development of organizational
capability; and trust that provides a means of mediating, moderating and overcoming
challenges so that complex outcomes and strategic goals can be realized (Hernandez,
Long, & Sitkin, 2014; Owens & Johnson, 2009).

Trust between and amongst people is vertical, horizontal and forward looking – it
involves relationships between leaders or managers (‘leaders’), leaders and team-
members, and within and across teams (Cleary, Horsfall, Deacon, & Jackson, 2011;
Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012; Legood, Thomas, & Sacramento, 2016; Rowe & Calnan,
2006). Each trusting relationship has mutual obligations, such as goodwill and
reciprocity in interpersonal communication (Hernandez et al., 2014; Hungerford,
Sayers, & Cleary, 2016). Trust is especially important during times of disruption,
where it plays a key role in supporting people and teams to respond, navigate, adapt
and change as required (Gustafsson et al., 2020). In addition to providing a means to
an end, then, trust is also an end in itself, with leaders and team-members who
demonstrate trustworthiness over long periods of time, engendering higher levels of
trust in their colleagues (Owens & Johnson, 2009).

High-trust workplaces are those where the workplace culture supports and engenders
trust between colleagues: leaders and team-members alike. High-trust workplaces are
led by those who are committed to demonstrating and encouraging the characteristics
of trustworthiness in their workforce (Lamertz & Bhave, 2017; Möllering, 2017).
Contemporary human resource bloggers suggest such trusting environments
characteristically “inspire” employees and “foster creativity, autonomy and
motivation” (e.g., Mitchell, 2019). Conversely, low-trust workplaces do not support
2
or engender trust between and amongst colleagues, and are characterized by low
morale, high turn-over rates, and lower quality outcomes (Kirya, 2020).

The stages of trust

Generally, new employees move into a workplace with a willingness to trust. This
willingness is based on expectations that, first, leaders have achieved their position or
role because they are competent, organized, and fair-minded; and second, colleagues
will exhibit an acceptable level of good-will towards them (Calnan & Sanford, 2004).
Moreover, new employees have an expectation that levels of trust in a workplace will
continue to develop over time, as colleagues interact with and interdepend upon one
another, building and developing dynamic relationships that allow them to feel safe
enough to take risks and innovate (Owens & Johnson, 2009).

Owens and Johnson (2009) name three stages of trust by which people establish co-
operative relationships – Calculation, Courtship and Contribution. These stages are
applicable to all relationships, personal or professional. For example, ‘Calculation’
involves a weighing up of the level(s) of risk of those involved, in terms of how much
they are prepared to open themselves to hurt or exploitation, when co-operating with
others (Owens & Johnson, 2009). In the workplace, this type of calculation will
include consideration of the attitudes and behaviors that an individual or team will
tolerate in others, to meet the requirements of their position, with each person’s level
of tolerance influenced by three factors. First, it will depend upon the individual’s
personal ethics, including their work ethic. Second, a person’s tolerance levels will be
influenced by his or her drive or ambition to climb the career ladder, succeed
professionally or achieve personal gain (e.g. commendations, promotional
opportunities, enhanced reputation, increases in salary). Third, tolerance for taking
risks is influenced by an individual’s personal needs and preferences, such as the
person’s family and living/lifestyle expenses.

In addition to these factors, the stage of Calculation is guided by a person’s trusting

disposition and behaviors, which are heavily influenced by the nature of the person’s
past relationships and the way in which the person generalizes these relational
experiences into the present (Owens & Johnson, 2009). Other influences on a person’s
trusting disposition and behaviors are their socio-cultural background and workplace
expectations (Booth, Shantz, Glomb, Duffy, & Stillwell, 2020). For example, different
3
societies and cultures will have different ideas, including expectations, of how much
trust is appropriate to extend to those they meet or with whom they collaborate at
work.

‘Courtship’ is the period when trust is established, with each person, firstly, signalling
to the other(s) that they are trustworthy; and secondly, establishing the level of
personal risk they are willing to take, particularly in situations where they could
possibly be exploited, undermined or hurt (Owens & Johnson, 2009). For example, in
the workplace, the Courtship stage may involve leaders or team-members
demonstrating their trustworthiness by making statements about their passion,
commitment, levels of expertise, reputation, networks, and past achievements (Getrich
et al., 2013). Likewise, in these early stages, many leaders and team-members will
seek out some ‘low lying fruit’ to generate ‘quick wins’, with a view to proving their
mettle and thereby inspiring trust (McCarthy et al., 2019). On-lookers may observe
these behaviors and decide the person is trustworthy, based on the claims made and
‘quick wins’ achieved; while others who have been exploited, undermined or hurt in
the past, may reserve judgement for a further period of time.

The final stage of establishing trust, ‘Contribution’, is the most important stage
because it is tested by the rigour of time (Owens & Johnson, 2009). Generally, people
are unable to sustain out-of-character behaviours, such as those exhibited during the
Courtship stage, for long periods. The Contribution stage will test out-of-character
behaviours because it requires people to work together, often under difficult
circumstances, to overcome challenges and achieve common goals. The way in which
leaders and team-members behave in the long-term, then, will inevitably demonstrate
whether (or not) they are trustworthy.

At its best, the ‘Contribution’ stage of trust development can be characterised as a

time of deepening trust that nurtures creativity and supports the risk-taking that is
inherent in innovation. Trust grows when leaders and team-members authentically co-
operate to achieve results, over time (Cleary, Lees, & Sayers, 2018; Owens & Johnson,
2009). Conversely, erosion of trust during this stage occurs when a person is unable
to sustain trustworthy behaviours in the long-term.

4
The crucial role of leaders in building trust

While there is a need for all employees to trust one another in the course of their work,
it is the leaders of an organization – at the executive, senior, middle and front-line
levels of leadership – who enable or facilitate the development of high-trust
workplaces (Cleary et al., 2011; Lamertz & Bhave, 2017; Mach & Lvina, 2017;
Möllering, 2017). This is because it is the leaders who establish the structures that
support workplace operations; interpret and communicate messages about these
structures, including the processes involved and outcomes required; and support teams
to achieve the goals identified (Legood et al., 2016). Moreover, trustworthy leaders
have the confidence of team-members to do the work required to achieve goals; and
team-members who have confidence and trust in their leaders will be more likely to
follow these leader(s) and reflect the behaviours being modelled (Hernandez et al.,
2014).

According to Hernandez et al. (2014), there are three factors that influence the level
of a team-member’s trust in a leader. The first factor is the leader’s capabilities as a
leader; the second factor is the relationship between the leader and team-members;
and the third factor is the context of the workplace. Each of these factors is now
considered, in turn.

The first factor, the capabilities of the leader, includes the leader’s personal and
professional ethics, together with their leadership attributes and behaviors (Hernandez
et al., 2014). Interestingly, many leaders – including long-term leaders – lack the
capabilities necessary to lead effectively and will therefore struggle to build trust in
their workplaces.

One possible reason for this lack of capability, is the premature promotion of some
leaders, whose skill-set may lie with talking-the-talk or ‘managing up’, rather than
generating measurable outcomes (Brody, 2015; Godsey, Perrott, & Hayes, 2020).
Others may secure a leadership position because they have personal and professional
relationships with ‘people in high places’ and/or they are members of key networks
(Kirya, 2020). A lack of capability is particularly evident in those who move from
leadership-role to leadership-role, unable or unwilling to shift from the Courtship to
Contribution stage of trust, which would require them to embed or substantially
develop the quick-wins they may have achieved (McCarthy et al., 2019). In the same

5
way, there are leaders who disguise their lack of ability by moving from project-to-
project, relying on new ideas to keep team-members interested; or leaders who depend
on the high turn-over of staff, which often occurs in low-trust settings, to explain the
feelings of disenchantment, poor levels of morale, division, and mediocrity that
characterises their workplace (Booth et al., 2020; Hungerford et al., 2016).

The second factor to influence team-members’ trust in a leader is the quality of the
relationships between the leader and team-members (Hernandez et al., 2014). This
includes the leader’s ability (or not) to build individualized knowledge of each team-
member’s aspirations, needs and challenges; and then support the team-members to
move forward constructively (Hernandez et al., 2014). For example, to develop trust,
leaders must invest the time necessary to develop authentic and supportive
relationships with all team-members, without favouritism. When a leader lacks the
required relational abilities, trust will not flourish.

The third factor to influence team-members’ trust in a leader is the contextual setting
of the workplace (Hernandez et al., 2014), including the way in which leaders set the
scene or establish the macro-meso- and micro-level contexts of the organization for
team-members (Day et al., 2018). The contextual setting of the workplace also
comprises the type of work undertaken by the organization (e.g. health, education,
policy); together with the way(s) in which leaders reflect the characteristics of the
organization itself. For example, organizations that are open to new ideas will
generally attract leaders who are similarly open to new ideas.

Leadership styles versus behaviors / attitudes

High-trust and low-trust workplaces are not necessarily the result of particular
leadership styles. To exemplify, some researchers have suggested that leaders who
take an authoritarian or paternalistic approach to their work, are more likely to build
low-trust workplaces (Bedi, 2020). However, this suggestion is not always correct,
with some occupations or workplaces requiring a hierarchical approach to operate
effectively (e.g. military settings, emergency services) (Hershkovich, Gilad,
Zimlichman, & Kreiss, 2016). For instance, regardless of leadership style, a leader
who is trustworthy will engender trust in team-members, who look to leaders able to
adapt according to the requirements of each situation and context, rather than leaders
who take a one-size-fits-all approach to their work and responsibilities.
6
A different example relates to those who describe themselves as democratic and
collaborative in their approach to leadership, but whose positive, supportive and
respectful demeanor disguises underlying inadequacy. Over time, such leaders will
exhibit indecisiveness and/or an unwillingness to take responsibility, with the
collaborative approach they advocate giving rise to ongoing circular discussions that
fail to reach a resolution.

A third example of behaviors that undermine trust, is the outwardly benign leader who
has a conflict avoidant personality type and/or passive aggressive tendencies and/or a
low tolerance / capacity to accept alternative points-of-view. This kind of leader will
express their disapproval or displeasure, when they are challenged, in ways that
challenge the confidence of team-members (Patton, 2020).

Finally, if trustworthiness is not demonstrated by leaders at the executive and senior

leadership levels, then it will be almost impossible for leaders at the middle and front-
line levels to build strong, trusting environments. Key to this is the messaging
transmitted from the executive and senior levels of leadership. For example, twenty-
first century leadership is often more concerned with ‘brand’, ‘marketing’,
‘networking’ and ‘leadership presence’, than substance or authenticity (Brody, 2015;
Godsey et al., 2020). As will be suggested in later sections of this column, such
messaging works against the development of trust in the workplace.

How is trust built in the workplace?

Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2015) provide five characteristics that serve to improve
the horizontal and vertical relationships between leaders and team-members and, in so
doing, enhance organizational outcomes. These five characteristics are: benevolence,
vulnerability, competence, reliability, honesty and openness. With a view to raising
awareness in leaders and team-members alike, an overview is now provided of each
of these characteristics. This overview is supported by short examples, provided under
each heading to illustrate common behaviors that occur in the workplace to erode trust.

Benevolence

Maya is called to the manager’s office and informed that a team-member has submitted a
complaint against her. The manager tells Maya that she intimidates others. Maya asks to
see the complaint, in accordance with the organization’s policy. However, the manager

7
 declines. She advises Maya to instead reflect on her behaviors and make the changes
required. Maya feels upset and angry that due process is not being followed and,
potentially, her reputation has been damaged. Maya loses confidence in her manager.

Zoltan is a nurse academic who shares some ideas about a new project with a colleague.
He is still thinking about how best to develop these ideas when he finds out that his
colleague has spoken to a senior nurse academic and they have commenced developing the
ideas without him. Zoltan loses trust in his colleague and the senior nurse academic.

Cassie is an acute care nurse. She and other team-members have been run off their feet for
months now, and are finding it increasingly difficult to manage their feelings of stress and
distress. When they speak to their new manager about the situation, they are told that this
is just the way it is, there are no additional resources, so they just need to stop complaining.
Cassie and her colleagues feel the new manager lacks understanding of their situation.
They begin to feel resentful and less inclined to stay back or take on overtime shifts.

Jennifer, who is an acting-manager, notices that when she meets with her team, there are
several team-members who roll their eyes and grimace at one another when Jennifer speaks.
Jennifer decides to talk to them about her observations, individually, in the privacy of her
office. When she does this, each of the team-members tells Jennifer that she has totally
mis-read the situation – then threatens her with a formal complaint. Jennifer feels
disrespected, undermined, manipulated and unsupported by her team.

Benevolence is a caring-in-action for others (Cambridge English Dictionary, 2020).

Benevolence is closely connected to respect or the acknowledgement of the intrinsic
worth or value of others including their contributions, however large or small, that
they make in/to the workplace (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). In addition to
showing genuine care, concern and kindness for one another (Tschannen-Moran &
Gareis, 2015), benevolence includes a sense of fairness and fair play (Hernandez et
al., 2014; Levin, Whitener, & Cross, 2006; Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006).
For leaders, this includes consistently following policy and procedure, holding people
to account in ways that are reasonable, and ensuring the principles of natural justice
are upheld by leaders and team-members alike (Lee, Lyubovnikova, Tian, & Knight,
2020; Woo, 2018).

Non-benevolent behaviors in workplaces can be both overt and covert. Overt

behaviors include bullying, intimidation, gossip, belittling, blaming others, disrespect,
and/or the ongoing mis-use of power, authority or influence to manipulate others

8
(Cleary, Hunt, & Horsfall, 2010; Rowe & Calnan, 2006). Covert activities that
undermine trust in the workplace include blocking other people’s ideas or using them
without due acknowledgement, inconsistency, undermining others, submitting serial
complaints with no real intention of seeking resolution, capitalizing on opportunities
that enhance personal or professional outcomes at the expense of others, or making no
effort to support and/or enable staff to undertake their work effectively (Bloom, 2019;
Cleary et al., 2010).

The ‘other side’ of professional networks

Professional networking in nursing and tertiary education settings is widely advocated

as a means of sharing resources, generating better and more collaborative outcomes,
and progressing careers (Alfes & Madigan, 2017; Sherman & Cohn, 2008). As noted
by Owens and Johnson (2009), the reputation of a person within and across social
networks are important. This is because a person’s reputation will influence the way
in which they are initially viewed and trusted, with the involvement of someone who
comes highly recommended carrying considerable weight.

It must be recognized, however, that professional networks can also serve to

undermine trust in workplaces. For example, some professional networks become a
‘club’ where those who are ‘in’ the club achieve special status, are awarded positions
or jobs that they are not necessarily equipped to fill, ‘do favors’ for others in the
network, ‘close ranks’ against outside scrutiny if a member of the network is being
challenged and, at worst, join forces to ostracize or expel a member who may have
lost favor. This ‘other side’ of networking is revealed when those who are not part of
a network are overlooked, excluded, ignored or even sabotaged (Brock, 2008). Such
non-benevolent behavior is further discussed under ‘Openness’, including the issues
that arise from nepotism and cronyism.

Competence
Jane is an experienced nurse who commences working in a new ward. She soon notices
that one of the senior members of staff, Simon, does not possess the knowledge or skills
needed to lead / manage the team. This is suggested by the chaotic nature of the ward, most
likely the result of Simon’s habit of asking junior staff members, who are eager to please
but are lacking in experience, to take on the managerial activities that Simon does not
enjoy. Such responsibilities include the development and implementation of rigorous

9
 systems and processes to guide their work. Jane decides that she has a responsibility to
speak to Simon about the challenges and safety issues being faced by the team – however,
she soon realizes that he is not happy with her feedback. Moving forward, Jane feels
increasingly distressed as she tries to cope with working in such a disorganized and, as a
consequence, high-risk work setting, under a boss who has begun targeting her.

Competence includes the knowledge, skills, work habits, and abilities of workers to
negotiate the systems required to effectively perform a task according to the relevant
standards, as appropriate to role, and in a timely way (Arnetz et al., 2019; Han, Harold,
& Cheong, 2019). In clinical practice and education settings, leaders and team-
members depend on one another’s competence, on a daily basis (Meires, 2018). For
leaders of high-trust workplaces, notions of competence include upholding high
standards, supporting staff to achieve meaningful results, consistently problem-
solving, dealing constructively with conflicts , demonstrating a strong work ethic, and
providing a positive role-model (Arnetz et al., 2019; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis,
2015). For team-members of high-trust environments, confidence in the competence
of leaders and colleagues alike provide a sense of security in the quality of outcomes
generated. Competence, then, is central to the development and maintenance of trust
in the workplace (Larsen, Broberger, & Petersson, 2017).

Reliability

Patricia is having a busy day and is feeling very stressed. She asks a colleague to conduct
some observations on one of her patients while she attends to some other high-priority
tasks. Patricia highlights the importance of the observations to her colleague, who is well
liked by the manager and team-members for her bubbly personality. The colleague agrees
to complete the observations. However, later on in the shift when Patricia checks the
records, she finds that her colleague has not completed the observations. Likewise, she did
not inform Patricia that she was unable to complete them. Patricia is distressed that her
patient did not receive the best possible care and feels let-down by her colleague’s lack of
reliability. However, Patricia feels that she cannot share her feeling with others at work
due to her colleague’s popularity with the manager and other team-members.

Liz is a manager. At meetings, she makes a big thing out of telling everyone that she will
undertake particular activities to make things easier for staff; then follows-up with grand
statements about the progress that is being made. But there are no signs of any
improvements occurring in the workplace – and when those with insight mention this to

10
 Liz, she makes excuses, blames others, or stone-walls the person who has spoken up. Staff
decide that Liz cannot be trusted.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, so reliability is a characteristic

that is proved over time (Barton, Bruce, & Schreiber, 2018). Reliability refers to
notions of dependability and predictability, including a sense of confidence that a
person can be counted on to follow through on decisions and promises; or to behave
in ways that are expected, regularly and consistent (Day et al., 2018). In situations
where people work inter-dependently and require the support of other people or
groups, it is the reliable person who will be consistently counted on to help out and
move the team over-the-line to succeed (Wasden, 2017).

Honesty

John is a new Acting Nurse Unit Manager. A senior colleague takes him aside and advises
him to never admit he has made a mistake to his team-members, otherwise they will see
him as weak and stop trusting him. John is not sure he agrees. He believes that staff will
always prefer honesty – however, he feels unable to argue with the senior manager, who
has the power to cut-short his new role.

At a staff meeting in an educational institution, the manager tells everyone about the
fabulous successes achieved by the organization, which is absolutely going from strength-
to-strength. The manager assures staff that they should be very proud of the brand. Team-
members, however, feel that the manager is overlooking the challenges that they are facing
every day, in the course of their work of supporting student nurses in their learning. Team-
members develop a general distrust of the manager, together with the leaders further up
the line, who seem blind to reality and unwilling to authentically examine the issues
involved, to help generate solutions that will actually benefit them all.

After a staff meeting, Peta tells Linda that she was impressed by the way the manager
publicly thanked a staff member for the great job they are doing. Linda, however, tells
Peta to ‘watch this space’ as everyone knows the staff member is being managed out,
behind the scenes, and the manager is hiding behind the words of praise, to make herself
look good. Based on this behavior, Peta begins to wonder if the recent words of
encouragement given to her by the manager were authentic; or if she should be worried
that she, too, is being managed out.

In many countries, nursing is viewed as the most honest and ethical of all the
professions (Housh, 2019). This carries with it a range of expectations and

11
responsibilities in terms of morality, probity, character and standards – sometimes
referred to as ‘honor’. Honesty is a traditional value that is demonstrated by integrity
of character, high ethical standing, authenticity, legitimacy, and being accountable for
one’s actions, regardless of outcome (Brody, 2015; Cleary & Horsfall, 2013; Lamertz
& Bhave, 2017; Möllering, 2017; Ng & Feldman, 2015). Honesty avoids pointing
fingers, shifting blame, and scapegoating – rather, it takes responsibility for its action
and faces up to a situation for what it is.

Honesty also ensures strong alignment between words and actions – saying and doing.
This is because honest people are committed to truth-telling. Specifically, honesty can
sit uncomfortably in contemporary organizations that focus on ‘brand’ and ‘marketing
spin’ at the expense of substance and measurable outcomes (Brody, 2015; Godsey et
al., 2020).

Vulnerability

Jennifer has been working on a ward for three months now. She finds herself feeling
increasingly anxious when rostered on to work with one of the senior nurses who, when in-
charge of a shift, micromanages all members of the team and belittles those who don’t
comply. Jennifer observes that other nurses try to change shifts rather than work with this
nurse. She decides to approach the manager to ask for help to problem-solve the situation.
After opening herself up to the manager to describe the situation and her main concerns,
Jennifer is dismayed by the manager’s response, “That is not my perception of how things
are.” The manager goes on to suggest to Jennifer that it is not helpful to focus on the
negatives in the workplace and, instead, she would prefer to hear about the successes and
good things that are happening. Jennifer is left feeling that her perceptions are faulty and
the problem must be hers. She begins to question herself and feels undermined by her
manager. In the future, Jennifer avoids approaching the manager about other issues she
encounters on the ward, including clinical matters, for fear she will be targeted.

Vulnerability stands alongside openness and refers to the degree to which a person
feels that they can expose themselves to another person (Cambridge English
Dictionary, 2020). In the workplace, this process achieves the best results when it
occurs vertically, between leaders and team-members, as well as horizontally, between
the team-members themselves. Making ourselves vulnerable to others is an iterative
dynamic that involves the person, who is extending their trust to the other person,
recognizing the potential for harm or betrayal from colleagues (Seppala, 2014). If the
12
person who opens themselves to others is supported, trust will grow – alternatively, if
the person feels threatened, unsafe or hurt, the trust diminishes (Ayoola, 2019;
Seppala, 2014).

Openness

Alice and a few of her colleagues notice that their manager and some of their team-members
regularly socialize together. Alice and her colleagues likewise notice that these team-
members receive better workload allocations and other small favors. Alice and her
colleagues begin to feel resentful about the way are they are being treated. Over time,
Alice observes that staff are polarizing in response to the manager’s favoritism, with staff
who form part of the manager’s ‘in-group’ describing her as a great manager, and staff who
do not describing her as a bad manager. The divisions in the team make it more difficult to
produce good quality outcomes.

Lan applies for a promotional position. She is confident in her qualifications, skills and
experience. She is proud of her strong work ethic and the outcomes she has achieved over
time. Under equal opportunity legislation, Lan knows she will have a good chance of
securing the promotion. She prepares well and, after the interview occurred, leaves feeling
satisfied that she has represented herself well. But ultimately, Lan is not offered the
position. When she seeks feedback on the interview, she is informed by her manager that
the interview panel was unanimous that the successful applicant was ‘the better performer
on the day’. Lan accepts this – however, when the new person commences work, staff soon
realize that she is someone with whom the manager is friendly. Not only that, the new
person seems to be out of her depth. Lan decides she can no longer trust her manager and
begins to look for employment elsewhere.

Openness in the workplace involves appropriately sharing information and being open
to different styles, opinions, feedback and change (Hopkinson, Oblea, Napier,
Lasiowski, & Trego, 2019). Openness includes communicating with accuracy and
timeliness, and demonstrating the courage to face the challenges, as well as weigh the
benefits and opportunities of a decision, activity or situation.

When leaders share information, thoughts and ideas with team-members, perceptions
of the leader’s trustworthiness are enhanced; in the same way, with team-members
role-modelling the leader’s behavior, greater openness across the team is encouraged
(Ugurluoglu, Aldogan, Turgut, & Ozatkan, 2018). Trust is developed when leaders

13
demonstrate that they are willing to listen to team-members in a non-judgmental way,
with every idea viewed as valuable, even when it is not suitable.

For example, open communication will give rise to a shared model of problem-solving.
Team-members will feel trusted and valued as their collective knowledge and
expertise is utilized (Sungur et al., 2019). Conversely, when leaders withhold
information from team-members, tell only half the story or, alternatively, frame the
story according to their own agenda, the team-members may interpret this as an
attempt to maintain power and/or manipulate team-members (Bedi, 2020).

Workplaces that lack openness tend to operate in silos, demonstrating limited co-
operation and information-sharing between organizations, settings or professional
groups. Another aspect of a lack of openness, is nepotism and/or cronyism.

Nepotism and cronyism

Favoritism, nepotism and cronyism is a key factor in the undermining of trust in the
workplace (Kirya, 2020). While such behaviors may sometimes be the result of a lack
of competence, they are most evident in leaders who are self-serving (i.e. lacking in
benevolence) and close-minded (i.e. lacking openness).

Nepotism and cronyism occurs when people who are in positions of power or influence
give favors to family members or friends, with these favors including, without being
limited to, jobs and contracts for work or supplies; positions on boards, committees,
teams or groups; access to people of influence; easier workloads; and so on (Nadler,
2006). Both practices are a form of favoritism and lead to corruption.

For example, a nepotistic leader will appoint family members to positions, not because
they are the best qualified people to do the job, but because the leader knows the
family member will be loyal to them and thereby shore-up their position as a leader
(Christodoulou, 2008). For the person who is appointed, the position, money and
security will generate even stronger feelings of loyalty to the leader, thereby
perpetuating the cycle of favoritism.

Another consequence of nepotism and cronyism is that openness to new or ‘other’

ideas is discouraged. Additionally, and in light of the lack of transparency that goes
hand-in-hand with nepotism and cronyism, there is an increased risk of workplace
corruption and suboptimal outcomes (Scott & Wilson, 2011).

14
Mental health and wellbeing in low-trust workplaces

Low-trust workplaces are high-stress environments (Arnetz et al., 2019).

Consequently, low-trust workplaces are likely to affect the mental health and
wellbeing of the leaders and team-members who work in these environments. For
example, low-trust workplaces will undermine a team-member’s feelings of
psychological safety, which poses a risk factor for a range of poor mental health
outcomes, including burn-out, anxiety and depression (Pfeifer & Vessey, 2019).
Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2015) also note that people who work in low-trust
environments tend to expend unnecessary energy worrying about whether their leader
will support them or undermine them, and how they will manage the situation; while
Bloom (2019) suggests such environments cause team-members to feel confused and
anxious. Other researchers have identified the cynicism with which team-members
view the leaders of low-trust workplaces, giving rise to higher levels of disengagement
and sick leave, lower levels of retention, and reductions in patient outcomes
(Nicholson et al., 2014; Sungur et al., 2019).

Of particular concern are team-members who have high expectations in relation to

their own trustworthiness in the workplace, with these team-members holding equally
as high expectations of the trustworthiness of those with whom they work, especially
their leaders (Booth et al., 2020). These staff will be more likely to experience distress,
generated from the cognitive dissonance or moral injury they are experiencing in low-
trust environments. Likewise notable, are health professionals who work in acute or
emergency settings, with such workplaces demanding a particular need for leaders to
be benevolent, competent, reliable and supportive (Bourgault, 2019). This is because
of the high levels of stress the health professional will regularly experience, giving
rise to a need for strong, ongoing and trustworthy support.

For those who find themselves in low-trust environments, with limited options to seek
out a different job in a high-trust setting, there are ways of being proactive to manage
the issues involved (Afsar & Umrani, 2019; Han et al., 2019). Such proactivity can be
divided into two broad categories: first, the individual focuses on building and
maintaining their individual mental health and wellbeing; and second, the individual
does what they can to support improvements in the workplace.

15
Improve individual mental health and wellbeing

The best way to manage a low-trust (and high-stress) environment is for individuals
to ensure that they have a clear balance between their personal and work lives
(Bourgault, 2019). Without this balance, employees are more likely to feel
overwhelmed by a sense of negativity (Pfeifer & Vessey, 2019).

There are various ways in which this balance can be achieved. Working over-time in
such settings is best avoided; instead, it is important to focus on improving lifestyle
choices (e.g. diet, exercise and relaxation) to build resilience (Badu et al., 2020;
Cleary, Schafer, McLean, & Visentin, 2020). Some staff will also find it useful to seek
out counselling, which many workplaces offer to employees free of charge (Jennings
et al., 2017). Counselling provides an opportunity for leaders and team-members alike
to self-examine, in terms of the five factors for developing trust in the workplace, and
consider what they can do to further develop these attributes (Tschannen-Moran &
Gareis, 2015).

Another aspect of improving individual mental health and wellbeing for people who
work in low-trust settings is to explore how to develop open and constructive networks
outside of the immediate workplace and, in so doing, role-mode their openness to new
ideas and more constructive ways of doing (Alfes & Madigan, 2017; Sherman & Cohn,
2008). Very often, low-trust leaders will move on or be moved on (Nicholson et al.,
2014). Being patient and waiting-out this type of stressful work-related situation,
while using the time to enhance skills of coping and other professional attributes, can
be a useful means of managing an otherwise challenging situation.

Support improvements in the workplace

Cynicism in the workplace can be self-perpetuating, with negative feelings tending to

attract further negativity (Nicholson et al., 2014; Sungur et al., 2019). In contrast,
raised awareness of the situational dynamic, including what it is that is causing the
negative feelings, will provide like-minded team-members with a means of taking the
initiative to improve their mental health and wellbeing. Forming small support groups
provides a useful means of taking positive steps forward – for example, by focusing
on practising benevolence and reliability to support individuals in the support group
(Bourgault, 2019).

16
Meires (2018) provides some useful strategies for individuals who are interested in
actively contributing to developing a positive workplace. These strategies have strong
alignment to the five factors that build high-trust workplaces, explained in earlier
sections of this column, and include the following:

• Be respectful to all people, even those whose behaviors are not trustworthy;
• Listen to and value diverse opinions, especially constructive opinions;
• Promote inclusivity and collaboration to work against division and polarization;
• Recognize and then actively decline to participate in practices that encourage
collusion (including complicity and conspiracy) between team-members;
• Stand apart from gossip and slander in the workplace;
• Communicate honestly, respectively and constructively, celebrating authentic
successes.

All people, leaders and team-members alike, appreciate being treated with respect and
kindness (Cleary & Horsfall, 2016). In turn, respect and kindness will support
development of trust. High-trust workplaces support people and facilitate the
achievement of high-quality outcomes. Building trust in a workplace is everyone’s
responsibility.

Conclusion

Trust is an essential component of a high functioning workplace. The erosion of trust

in governments, businesses and institutions more generally may be linked to the loss
of trust in leaders and team-members in workplaces, including health and education
settings. This situation has given rise to feelings of cynicism towards colleagues,
disengagement, low retention rates, and increases in stress and other mental health
problems, in team-members.

Leaders hold a key role in building and maintaining trust in the workplace. Likewise,
team-members can actively assist in supporting the development of trustworthy
environments by practising benevolence, competence, reliability, honesty,
vulnerability and openness. Aspiring to achieve high levels of job satisfaction, morale,
creativity and innovation is an important means of generating meaningful outcomes
that will make a difference in and for workplaces.

17
References

Afsar, B., & Umrani, W. A. (2019). Does thriving and trust in the leader explain the link
between transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour? A cross-
sectional survey. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(1), 37-51.
doi:10.1177/1744987119880583

Agley, J. (2020). Assessing changes in US public trust in science amid the COVID-19
pandemic. Public Health, 183, 122-125. doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.05.004

Alfes, C. M., & Madigan, E. A. (2017). Promoting Simulation Globally: Networking with
Nursing Colleagues Across Five Continents. Nursing Education Perspectives, 38(4),
216-217.

Arnetz, J. E., Sudan, S., Fitzpatrick, L., Cotten, S. R., Jodoin, C., Chang, C.-H., & Arnetz, B.
B. (2019). Organizational determinants of bullying and work disengagement among
hospital nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 75(6), 1229-1238.
doi:10.1111/jan.13915

Ayoola, K. (2019). New legislation to address workplace violence in health care facilities:
HR 7141. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 57(2), 3-4.
doi.org/10.3928/02793695-20190114-01

Badu, E., O’Brien, A. P., Mitchell, R., Rubin, M., James, C., McNeil, K., . . . Giles, M.
(2020). Workplace stress and resilience in the Australian nursing workforce: A
comprehensive integrative review. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing,
29(1), 5-34. doi.org/10.1111/inm.12662

Barton, G., Bruce, A., & Schreiber, R. (2018). Teaching nurses teamwork: Integrative review
of competency-based team training in nursing education. Nurse Education in
Practice, 32, 129-137. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2017.11.019

Bedi, A. (2020). A Meta-Analytic Review of Paternalistic Leadership. Applied Psychology,

69(3), 960-1008. doi:10.1111/apps.12186

Bloom, E. M. (2019). Horizontal violence among nurses: Experiences, responses, and job
performance. Nursing Forum, 54(1), 77-83. doi:10.1111/nuf.12300

Booth, J. E., Shantz, A., Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., & Stillwell, E. E. (2020). Bad bosses
and self-verification: The moderating role of core self-evaluations with trust in
18
 workplace management. Human Resource Management, 59(2), 135-152.
doi:10.1002/hrm.21982

Bourgault, A. M. (2019). Take Control of Your Work Environment and Personal Well-being.
Critical Care Nurse, 39(6), 10-13. doi:10.4037/ccn2019408

Brock, B. L. (2008). When sisterly support changes to sabotage. Journal of Women in

Educational Leadership, 6(3), 211-226.

Brody, M. (2015). Want to Develop Leadership Presence? Three Ways to Begin. Brody
Professional Development. Accessed at: https://blog.brodypro.com/leadership-
presence_three-ways-to-develop

Calnan, M. W., & Sanford, E. (2004). Public trust in health care: the system or the doctor?
Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(2), 92. doi:10.1136/qshc.2003.009001

Calnan, M. W., & Sanford, E. (2004). Public trust in health care: the system or the doctor?
BMJ Quality & Safety, 13(2), 92-97.

Cambridge English Dictionary. (2020). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Accessed

at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trust.

Camporesi, S., Vaccarella, M., & Davis, M. (2017). Investigating Public trust in Expert
Knowledge: Narrative, Ethics, and Engagement. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 14(1),
23-30. doi:10.1007/s11673-016-9767-4

Christodoulou, I. (2008). Nepotism in medicine and the concept of franchising. The

International Journal of Medicine, 1(2), 58-61.

Cleary, M., & Horsfall, J. (2013). Integrity and mental health nursing: factors to consider.
Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 34(9), 673-677. doi:10.3109/01612840.2013.794179

Cleary, M., & Horsfall, J. (2016). Kindness and Its Relevance to Everyday Life: Some
Considerations for Mental Health Nurses. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 37(3),
206-208. doi:10.3109/01612840.2016.1140546

Cleary, M., Horsfall, J., Deacon, M., & Jackson, D. (2011). Leadership and mental health
nursing. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 32(10), 632-639.
doi:10.3109/01612840.2011.584362

Cleary, M., Hunt, G. E., & Horsfall, J. (2010). Identifying and addressing bullying in nursing.
Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 31(5), 331-335. doi:10.3109/01612840903308531

19
Cleary, M., Lees, D., & Sayers, J. (2018). Loyalty in the Workplace: Some Considerations
for Mental Health Nurses. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 39(4), 366-368.
doi:10.1080/01612840.2018.1458470

Cleary, M., Schafer, C., McLean, L., & Visentin, D. C. (2020). Mental Health and Well-
Being in the Health Workplace. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 41(2), 172-175.
doi:10.1080/01612840.2019.1701937

Day, R. M., Demski, R. J., Pronovost, P. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., Kasda, E. M., Maragakis, L.
L., . . . Winner, L. (2018). Operating management system for high reliability:
Leadership, accountability, learning and innovation in healthcare. Journal of Patient
Safety and Risk Management, 23(4), 155-166. doi:10.1177/2516043518790720

Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust
Across Multiple Organizational Levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167-1230.
doi:10.1177/0149206312439327

Getrich, C. M., Sussman, A. L., Campbell-Voytal, K., Tsoh, J. Y., Williams, R. L., Brown,
A. E., . . . Neale, A. V. (2013). Cultivating a cycle of trust with diverse communities
in practice-based research: a report from PRIME Net. Annals of Family Medicine,
11(6), 550-558. doi:10.1370/afm.1543

Godsey, J., Perrott, B., & Hayes, T. (2020). Can brand theory help re-position the brand
image of nursing? Journal of Nursing Management, 28(4), 968-975.
doi:10.1111/jonm.13003

Gold, T. (2017). My second opinion on patient compliance. RDH, 37(2), 54-79 Accessed at:
https://www.rdhmag.com/patient-care/article/16409853/my-second-opinion-on-
patient-compliance-winning-over-the-patients-who-withhold-their-trust-in-you.

Gustafsson, S., Gillespie, N., Searle, R., Hope Hailey, V., & Dietz, G. (2020). Preserving
Organizational Trust During Disruption. Organization Studies, 0170840620912705.
doi:10.1177/0170840620912705

Han, S., Harold, C. M., & Cheong, M. (2019). Examining why employee proactive
personality influences empowering leadership: The roles of cognition- and affect-
based trust. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(2), 352-383.
doi:10.1111/joop.12252

20
Hernandez, M., Long, C. P., & Sitkin, S. B. (2014). Cultivating Follower Trust: Are All
Leader Behaviors Equally Influential? Organization Studies, 35(12), 1867-1892.
doi:10.1177/0170840614546152

Hershkovich, O., Gilad, D., Zimlichman, E., & Kreiss, Y. (2016). Effective medical
leadership in times of emergency: a perspective. Disaster and Military Medicine, 2, 4.
doi:10.1186/s40696-016-0013-8

Hopkinson, S. G., Oblea, P., Napier, C., Lasiowski, J., & Trego, L. L. (2019). Identifying the
constructs of empowering nurse leader communication through an instrument
development process. Journal of Nursing Management, 27(4), 722-731.
doi:10.1111/jonm.12729

Housh, R. (2019). Most honest and ethic profession, again. ASBN Update, 23(1), 6-7.

Hungerford, C., Sayers, J., & Cleary, M. (2016). Facilitating Goodwill in Workplace
Relationships: The Benefits and Challenges. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 37(7),
530-532. doi:10.1080/01612840.2016.1187503

Hutchinson, M. (2018). The crisis of public trust in governance and institutions: Implications
for nursing leadership. Journal of Nursing Management, 26(2), 83-85.
doi:10.1111/jonm.12625

Jennings, T., Flaxman, P., Egdell, K., Pestell, S., Whipday, E., & Herbert, A. (2017). A
resilience training programme to improve nurses' mental health. Nursing Times,
113(10), 22-26.

Kaltenborn, B. P., Krange, O., & Tangeland, T. (2017). Cultural resources and public trust
shape attitudes toward climate change and preferred futures—A case study among the
Norwegian public. Futures, 89, 1-13.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.04.005

Kerasidou, A. (2017). Trust me, I'm a researcher!: The role of trust in biomedical research.
Medicine, Health care, and Philosophy, 20(1), 43-50. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9721-
6

Kirya, M. T. (2020). Promoting anti-corruption, transparency and accountability in the

recruitment and promotion of health workers to safeguard health outcomes. Global
Health Action, 13(sup1), 1701326. doi:10.1080/16549716.2019.1701326

21
Lamertz, K., & Bhave, D. P. (2017). Employee perceptions of organisational legitimacy as
impersonal bases of organisational trustworthiness and trust. Journal of Trust
Research, 7(2), 129-149. doi:10.1080/21515581.2017.1304220

Larsen, A., Broberger, E., & Petersson, P. (2017). Complex caring needs without simple
solutions: the experience of interprofessional collaboration among staff caring for
older persons with multimorbidity at home care settings. Scandinavian Journal
of Caring Sciences, 31(2), 342-350. doi:10.1111/scs.12352

Lauret, P. (2018). Why (and how to) trust Institutions? Hospitals, Schools, and liberal Trust.
Rivista di estetica, 68, 41-68. doi:https://doi.org/10.4000/estetica.3455

Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W., & Knight, C. (2020). Servant leadership: A meta-
analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1), 1-44. doi:10.1111/joop.12265

Legood, A., Thomas, G., & Sacramento, C. (2016). Leader trustworthy behavior and
organizational trust: the role of the immediate manager for cultivating trust. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 46(12), 673-686. doi:10.1111/jasp.12394

Levin, D. Z., Whitener, E. M., & Cross, R. (2006). Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge
sources: The moderating impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(5), 1163-1171. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1163

Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of Interpersonal Trust
Development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions.
Journal of Management, 32(6), 991-1022. doi:10.1177/0149206306294405

Mach, M., & Lvina, E. (2017). When Trust in the Leader Matters: The Moderated-Mediation
Model of Team Performance and Trust. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 29(2),
134-149. doi:10.1080/10413200.2016.1196765

McCarthy, A., McMeekin, P., Haining, S., Bainbridge, L., Laing, C., & Gray, J. (2019).
Rapid evaluation for health and social care innovations: challenges for “quick wins”
using interrupted time series. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 964.
doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4821-7

Meires, J. (2018). The Essentials: Nursing Faculty Who Bully Students and Colleagues.
Urology Nursing, 38(6), 303-306.

22
Mitchell, A. (31 July, 2019). 5 practical ways leaders can build a high-trust culture in the
cyber-physical age. Inside HR: Driving return on investment through people.
Accessed at: https://www.insidehr.com.au/leaders-build-high-trust-culture

Möllering, G. (2017). Cultivating the field of trust research. Journal of Trust Research, 7(2),
107-114. doi:10.1080/21515581.2017.1380912

Nadler, J. (2006). Favoritism, Cronyism and Nepotism. Markkular Centre for Applied Ethics:
Santa Clara University. Accessed at: https://www.scu.edu/government-
ethics/resources/what-is-government-ethics/favoritism-cronyism-and-nepotism.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2015). Ethical leadership: Meta-analytic evidence of

criterion-related and incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3),
948-965. doi:10.1037/a0038246

Nicholson, R. M., Leiter, M. P., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2014). Predicting cynicism as a

function of trust and civility: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Nursing Management,
22(8), 974-983. doi:10.1111/jonm.12073

Owens, M. A., & Johnson, B. L. (2009). from calculation through courtship to contribution:
cultivating trust among urban youth in an academic intervention program.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 312-347.
doi:10.1177/0013161X08330570

Patton Cheryl, M. (2020). Breaking the health-care workplace conflict perpetuation cycle.
Leadership in Health Services, 33(2), 147-162. doi:10.1108/LHS-06-2019-0036

Petitta, L., & Jiang, L. (2019). Burning out? Watch your own incivility and the emotions you
spread. Work, 64, 671-683. doi:10.3233/WOR-193029

Pfeifer, L. E., & Vessey, J. A. (2019). Psychological safety on the healthcare team. Nursing
Management, 50(8), 32-38. doi:10.1097/01.NUMA.0000558490.12760.08

Rowe, R., & Calnan, M. (2006). Trust relations in health care—the new agenda. European
Journal of Public Health, 16(1), 4-6. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckl004

Scott, A., & Wilson, R. F. (2011). Social determinants of health among African Americans in
a rural community in the Deep South: an ecological exploration. Rural and Remote
Health 11.

Seppala, E. (2014). What bosses gain by being vulnerable. Harvard Business Review.
Accessed at: https://hbr.org/2014/12/what-bosses-gain-by-being-vulnerable.
23
Sherman, R. O., & Cohn, T. M. (2008). Why your nursing networks matter. American Nurse
Today, 13, 9-11.

Steinacker, K. (2019). Trust is the current of the 21st Century. Geneva: UNHCR, The UN
Refugee Agency. Accessed at: https://www.unhcr.org/blogs/trust-currency-21st-
century.

Sungur, C., Özer, Ö., Saygili, M., & Uğurluoğlu, Ö. (2019). Paternalistic Leadership,
Organizational Cynicism, and Intention to Quit One’s Job in Nursing. Hospital
Topics, 97(4), 139-147. doi:10.1080/00185868.2019.1655509

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2015). Principals, trust, and cultivating vibrant
schools. Societies, 5(2), 256-276.

Ugurluoglu, O., Aldogan, E. U., Turgut, M., & Ozatkan, Y. (2018). The Effect of
Paternalistic Leadership on Job Performance and Intention to Leave the Job. Journal
of Health Management, 20(1), 46-55. doi:10.1177/0972063417747700

Wasden, M. L. (2017). High-Reliability Principles Must Be Tied to Value-Based Outcomes.

Frontiers of Health Services Management, 33(4). Retrieved from
https://journals.lww.com/frontiersonline/Fulltext/2017/04000/High_Reliability_Princi
ples_Must_Be_Tied_to.4.aspx

Woo, B. (2018). Relationship between Servant Leadership Attributes and Trust in Leaders: A
Case of Sport Instructors in South Korea. The Sport Journal. Accessed at:
https://thesportjournal.org/article/relationship-between-servant-leadership-attributes-
and-trust-in-leaders/

24