safeguards, doing away with progress reports and abolishing regulations: “Vulner-
ability is the means to begin a trusting relationship. It is the amount you wager that
you have to fear when giving trust. The bigger the potential loss, the greater your
faith” (Sprenger 2002b, p. 100). This risk is accepted by those in your environment
and accurately perceived and interpreted as a signal of trust.
The trust that the leader gives commits the partner, e.g. the employees. Trust
creates a kind of claim. Niklas Luhmann has stated: “As with gifts, trust can be
captivating.” Trust is addictive and disarming until the person who receives it can
give something back. Trust is a deposit on a relationship’s account, an amount the
other has to compensate for in order to get rid of the obligation, as Sprenger
describes this psychological mechanism. I find this comparison extremely good.
However, employees often try to escape the pressure of the commitment by
favoring schematic exchange ratios such as “vacation against overtime.”
Since 1954 McDonald’s and Coca-Cola renew their cooperation every year with
only a handshake and without long contract negotiations. The agreement that the
Star Alliance cooperation is founded on consists of just four pages, regulating only
the bare necessities. The partners make themselves vulnerable, and thus commit to
each other to get repaid equally with trust.
In daily leadership there are many opportunities to actively make ourselves
vulnerable, trusting that we will not to be taken advantage of by others:
Delegating a task to an employee without checking on them constantly
Refraining from declaring everything an executive matter in difficult situations
Not reserving the key market and customers for yourself, but letting others work on
them
Sharing information that could be used against you
Holding an “election” and giving the employees the opportunity to choose another
boss
In times when the growth of a company greatly depends on finding and keeping
the right people and the competition for the best minds is heated, the employer is
not automatically the donor of trust and employees are not necessarily the benefi-
ciaries. Rather, the two sides of the relationship alternate. Nevertheless, it is upon
the leader to take the first step and not to wait for others to do it. Being vulnerable is
too difficult for many managers because they fear nothing as much as the supposed
weakness and vulnerability. The way the leader approaches the organization deter-
mines how the employees will react. This first step, this pre-investment without any
guarantee of a return requires courage, self-esteem and empathy. But trust is a safe
investment and pays off.
Trust is always based on responsibility. According to Drucker: “Trust does not
mean that everyone likes each other. It only means that it is possible to trust each
other, and this requires an understanding of each other. Therefore it is essential to
take the complete responsibility for the relationship. This is an absolute must”
(Drucker 1999, p. 260).
In order to move towards a culture of trust, mainly “trust in trust” is needed, i.e.,
the trust in the willingness of others to trust. Each stakeholder, no matter where they
96 2 Occupation or Calling: What Makes for Good Leadership?