Efficacy through trust and intimacy

Columnist Javed Iqbal Shah analyses why these are good team qualities.

We frequently hear about such assertions that competition among people leads to higher levels of efficiency and productivity. That is why we often come across billboards in many organisations like 'man of the month', or 'woman of the year'. The main purpose of such 'advertisements' is stated to motivate other people to follow the suit. But, I usually wonder, "How many people are motivated by such naked campaigns and how many are de-motivated due to humiliation they feel when they see someone else's name on the honour board?" Similarly, advocates of open competition tend to dilly dally the question, "What happens to group productivity when people are competing with each other instead of co-operating?" Sometimes, they assert that group productivity essentially stems from individual productivity, therefore, if substantial improvements are ensured in individual productivity, they almost automatically accrue to higher group productivity. But the equation is not so simple. Since most of the organisational tasks are group jobs, and not individual chores in isolation, therefore, their effective accomplishment requires elements of co-ordination, co-operation and above all, trust among group members rather than free-for-all competition. Competition among personnel often leads to such work environment as, leg-pulling, hindrance-creating to slowdown the work of the competing colleague, procrastination and other unethical practices to gain influence, grandeur and recognition. On the other hand, mutual trust among corporate personnel asks for co-operation and understanding, and not competition. In such conditions, individual productivity may seem to be slower, but group productivity is usually enviable. On significance of trust in organizational setting, Ouchi says:-

"Productivity and trust go hand in hand. To understand that assertion, observe the development of the British economy this century. It is a history of mutual distrust between union, government, and management; a distrust that has paralysed the economy and lowered the English standard of living to dismal level."
(Ouchi, 1981)

"With trust, anything is possible", remarked the project directors of General Motors when they were able to initiate and implement a project to increase worker participation in the corporate decision-making process in General Motors assembly plant in Brookhaven, Mississippi. The company was so pleased with the results that it undertook 160 organisational changes at its plants throughout the country with the full support of the United Automobile Workers. Afterwards, workers of the whole auto industry of the United States of America have been given the authority to shut down the assembly line if they think that for whatever reason; the standards of the quality are not being met. This changing character in boss-worker relations has mainly emerged due to increased trust between management and employees. Increased level of trust in workers' abilities and attitudes toward work has substantially improved the quality and quantity of goods and services of many US companies.
In Pakistan, there is a need to make efforts to induce mutual trust between managers and workers. The age-old perceptions of workers being lazy, dishonest and cheaters ought to be changed to give them much needed respect in the organisations and have a faith in their abilities and devotion toward work. Mutual trust is certainly going to develop intimacy and mutually productive relationships in the organizations. In order to educate myself about the level of intimacy among corporate personnel in our organisations,I usually ask the following questions from people working at managerial levels:-

If answers to most of the above-mentioned questions are in affirmative, I could figure out that the level of morale, motivation and productivity is likely to be considerably high in their work centres. The role of the institution of family cannot be ignored in instilling intimacy in corporate organizations. The reason being that the common thread in the life of a typical family in Pakistan is intimacy. The caring, the support, the sacrifice of one's own desires and aspirations for the overall up-gradation of the family makes life fascinating in good times and bearable in depressing conditions. In case an individual encounters frequent shocks, his family and the faith comes to his rescue and prepares him afresh for the future ventures. This kind of dynamic outlook and behaviour is the root cause of the high degree of stability and cohesion of a family in Pakistan. On the other extreme, regarding the overall instability of typical American home, Ouchi comments:-

"The loss of closeness in modern life concerns many social observers. In American life, intimacy has traditionally been found in the family, the club, the neighbourhood, the lifelong friendship, and the church. Yet our present form of industrial life threatens all of these traditional sources of intimacy, or primary contact with others. Of those Americans who were born in 1900, twelve percent experienced a divorce. By comparison, of those born between 1940 and 1945, the best estimates are that forty percent will ultimately divorce, and among those who remarry, forty percent will divorce a second time. For younger Americans, the rate seems to be climbing. Much the same can be said of neighbourhoods, clubs, churches, and friendships, all of which are casualties of our way of life.
[Ouchi, 1981]

As intimacy is essential for a happier family and social life so is it for useful and productive relationships in organizational settings. In our organizations, family may serve as a source of this intimacy. Intimacy among members of an organization would not only improve the productive relationships but may also serve as the basis of long-term commitment of people with their organizations. In turn, this would certainly bring stability, cohesion and prosperity for the company.