What Should We Really Expect From Our Leaders?

One week into his new presidency, Barack Obama is still one of the most talked-about people on the planet. It's hard to go anywhere - even to websites dedicated to the discussion of comic books! - without bumping into references to the 44th President of the United States. And where once the focus tended to remain on the historic significance of an African American ascending to the highest office in the land, now the talk has turned to the more familiar territory for U.S. presidents: is he doing the right things? It's still much too early to draw any conclusions on that question, but I think we're beginning to at least get a better feel for the man.

One trend that's become apparent in Obama's actions, so far, is that he's focusing on the future, not the past. His Inauguration speech had several mild jabs at the previous administration, but they were made in passing, and only as a point of contrast for what he hopes to accomplish in the future. Consider this passage from the speech:

"But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."

The lasting images from that small section are not the ones that he begins with - that of lobbyists dictating government policy for a powerless electorate, and infrastructural and environmental concerns being shunted off to the sidelines by those in charge - because he quickly declares that period to be over, and instead paints a more encouraging portrait of the classic indomitable American spirit that built the country in the first place. In this way, he acknowledges the problems that exist currently but couples that with a commitment to address them. That's great leadership.

In another part of the speech, he says:

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."

Perhaps most telling in that quotation is the admission at the end of an existing trust gap between the government and those whom they govern. I think back to my former workplace and wonder, "Would any of our leaders there have been bold enough to own up to that in public?" It seems highly unlikely to me, and yet Obama does so on (literally) Day One.

While still somewhat lacking in specifics - and one would shudder to imagine what an Inauguration speech that was laden with minutiae would sound like! - that previous section of the speech lays out a blueprint for how the Obama administration plans to re-calibrate the American government. There's reflection, in the form of determining, for each existing program, whether it's working or not; there's accountability promised on behalf of those in charge; and there's an implicit commitment to transparency. Toward that final point, one need only visit the new and improved White House blog to appreciate what a new day has dawned in Washington. (Can anyone even imagine the Bush-Cheney administration operating within a similar aura of forthrightness?) Again, these are all indicators of great leadership.

One of the most-cited portions of the speech went as follows:

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

To fully grasp just how different a tone was set by these words, compare them to what George W. Bush said in his infamous "Axis of Evil" address:

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."

Bush offers no olive branch, but instead exclusively peddles the commodity that would later get him re-elected: fear. He paints the world in the sort of stark black-and-white terms that only a small child would buy into: that of pure-good versus pure-evil. "You're either with us, or you're a terrorist!" That's cowboy leadership.

Obama, on the other hand, acknowledges the threats that are still out there, but also provides hope for eventual peace. History may prove that he was too naive, but I think that we've already seen enough to conclude that Bush was too divisive in his approach. (Which is quite ironic, considering the man characterized himself as "a uniter, not a divider" during the 2000 campaign!) The world has been growing increasingly more dangerous for decades, but vilifying your enemies while keeping your populace cowering in fear can't possibly be the right response. Barack Obama, it appears, understands that there's no eventual outcome from such an approach that can jibe with the ideals so proudly proclaimed in his country's constitution. He has, at the very least, presented his people with a path that is no longer at odds with their espoused values. At the risk of beating a dead horse: that's great leadership.

Reflection, honesty, accountability, transparency and an alignment of actions to values (some might call that "integrity", I suppose)... those are all attributes that have already exhibited themselves in some of President Obama's words and actions in his first week in office. They also show up in many of the books about Agile, as well as in discussions of leadership. I happen to believe that those are all traits that we should commit to, ourselves, and that we should expect from our leaders. Anything less should simply not be acceptable.

Giving Feedback

A couple of recent events have gotten me thinking about feedback.

The first incident was an offhand comment that a friend in management made to me while we were talking about something else. In mentioning that he'd just had a one-on-one with a staff member, he casually tossed off the fact that it had gone very quickly "because that person is doing a great job." That got me thinking about how we sometimes perceive meetings with employees as being issue-driven. In other words, a manager might consider that her only responsibility in a one-on-one is to respond to anything that the employee brings to her attention. To be sure, that's part of it: if someone who reports to me expresses concern that he doesn't have the equipment that he needs to do his job, has a conflict with a co-worker, or demonstrates a desire to get training in a particular area, then it behooves me to take that information away and do something about it. That's what I tend to think of as the reactive aspect of management. Any manager who doesn't pull off at least that much of the role is really hurting (in more ways than one) and should consider either stepping up his game or moving to a less-senior position in the company.

But less obvious to some is the proactive part of people management. Going back to the example above, someone who's "doing a great job" is every bit as deserving of feedback as the employee who's got a beef, is visibly struggling or has been causing problems for others. The reality, of course, is that often the "great job" folks don't get much attention from their managers because they don't represent the proverbial burning fire in the way that the more reactive situations do. While that may make some logical sense - at least to those of us who've been in management and experienced the "crisis du jour" scenario in all its glory - it's also kind of ass-backwards, if you think about it. After all, here are the stars and superstars of your organization, and they're the ones that you basically leave to their own devices, while you focus all of your attention on everyone else. It can certainly be a tough trick shot to pull off, but what's really called for in that situation is that the manager spend a non-trivial portion of her time providing morale-building feedback on those areas that her best performers are excelling at, as well as coming up with new goals and challenges that will excite, inspire and motivate them to grow even further.

And if you can do that, then it's unlikely that any one-on-one get-together will ever be particularly short!

The other recent trigger for feedback thoughts was the time I spent earlier this week reviewing a draft copy of Mike Cohn's next book. This is something I've been doing, on and off, since late last year. I'm a big fan of Cohn's previous works, as well as a two-time attendee of his Agile Estimating workshop series. Because of that, I was more than happy to set aside some time to provide feedback on a selection of chapters within his upcoming Succeeding with Agile book.

Despite having no professional experience whatsoever in the field of editing, I happen to think that I'm pretty good at it. (That could, of course, be entirely delusional on my part!) For material of this sort, what Mike usually gets from me are comments that fall into the following broad categories:

• booboos: typos, spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, wrong words used
• flow problems: poor transitions, leaps of logic, unsupported conclusions, contradictions, wandering points
• missing bits: unaddressed concerns, partial lists, problems with no solutions
• suboptimal choices: examples that seem weak, repetitive wording, sentence structures that sound wrong if read aloud
  
• positive reinforcement: places that really worked, humourous parts that made me laugh, sections that especially resonated with me

In each case, I give specifics (pg #, some piece of text that can searched on easily, and whatever point I'm trying to make) because I want him to at least understand what I'm saying... whether or not he agrees with it, is up to him. It's an easier relationship than the manager one that I wrote of up above, because there's really no onus on me, in this case, to convince Mike to change a single thing in his draft. That's not my role here, as he's not working for me and I'm not in any way responsible for the contents of his book. But that still doesn't mean that I should take the task of giving feedback lightly (which I don't), or that I should simply throw a bunch of vague, generalized observations his way and let him make of them what he will.

As someone who's recently been on the receiving end of review feedback (not just once, but twice!), I know first-hand just how valuable it is when it comes in the form of specific, clear communication. I was pretty lucky in that regard, but then again I chose my reviewers fairly carefully. In general, I'd strongly recommend that if you're ever asked to provide that sort of thing in the course of your travels, simply put yourself in the other person's place, and then give the kind of feedback that you'd consider the most valuable were you receiving it. (That old Golden Rule just turns out to have so many applications, doesn't it?)

By the way, if you'd like to similarly review some of the chapters of Mike's book, you can do so here.

Great Leaders Don't Play The Blame Game

Watching a Sunday morning news program today, I heard an expression that took me back to my days as Agile Manager. The comment was made in relation to the current economic woes facing the U.S. (and the rest of the world) and was in response to the question of whose policies really caused it. The answer given was, "There's plenty of blame to go around!"

I don't dispute the factual veracity of that assessment, as it's almost certain that multiple parties failed in various ways to carry out the responsibilities of their positions. It wasn't just the banks that screwed up, or the legislators, or the people who are supposed to enforce the rules, or even the people borrowing more money than they should have. It took all of that misbehaviour and more to bring the world economy to this point.

At my last job, the same thing was true. We didn't typically experience failures, whether large or small, because of just one person somewhere dropping a single ball. Instead, it was usually a more widespread problem, involving roles like Vice President, Project Manager, Product Manager, Product Development Leader and Product Development Team member. I honestly don't believe that any of us in those types of positions were "without sin" and therefore free and clear from accepting a share of the blame for how things went.

However... Where I didn't always see eye-to-eye with some of my peers and superiors on the topic of the Blame Game was in the relative weight that should be borne across the players. Rightly or wrongly, I've always operated under the assumption that management needs to be held to a higher bar. I felt that way before I joined the management ranks, and I've continued to subscribe to it since then, as well. One small indication that perhaps I'm not so out there in my thinking comes in the area of the law. As anyone who's been a manager knows, you only get that title with the accompanying caveat of a greater legal responsibility (and liability) should something go wrong within your work environment. For example, managers who allow a poisoned work environment to form around them, regardless of whether they actually contributed to it or even condoned it, can be held every bit as accountable for what happens within it (sexual harassment, violence, racism, etc) as the perpetrators of those acts. That's a very high standard, and it can be quite intimidating to learn that you're suddenly in that position upon promotion. Talk about a "good news, bad news" scenario!

But it works that way because the bar is higher. Pay scales are generally elevated, you're going to influence more people simply by virtue of your title and position, and expectations around your behaviour and composure are going to be greater. Those are all part and parcel of the package that comes with moving up that rung of the organizational ladder.

With that in mind, it's apparent to me that when things go awry, it's always going to be the higher-ups who must assume the lion's share of the blame. That may be perceived by some as being every bit as "unfair" as the example above within a poisoned work space, but it's also every bit as appropriate, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, it's something of a telling trait (to me, anyway) when a person in a leadership role complains about the seeming inequity of it. The best leaders understand that it comes with the job, I think, and they don't waste time talking about how "there's plenty of blame to go around." Instead, they accept that all problems are theirs to address (directly or indirectly) and a failure by anyone below them on the org chart is still a failure on their part. It can be a bitter pill to swallow - and I say that from experience - but it's also a component of what separates great leadership from those of us who just hold the title and collect the big paycheques.

Bringing this back to U.S. politics, my take so far on Barack Obama is that he is, and will continue to be, a leader who sees the futility of the Blame Game and knows that the buck will always stop with him. I think he'll spread credit for successes around liberally (another great leadership trait), but will conversely accept the blame for the failures himself... at least, I hope that he will!

Learning From Mistakes

In my experience, most people seem reasonably capable of learning from their own mistakes, although a select few of them are doomed to keep repeating the same errors in judgment, over and over, while optimistically expecting different results each time. Someone who falls off a bicycle and scrapes a good patch of skin off their forehead just might be more inclined to start wearing a helmet on subsequent trips; a person who fails to file their income tax on time and ends up forking over a big late penalty as a result is more likely to make an effort in the future to get that annual task done earlier. I suppose, in a way, those sorts of events are just more sophisticated versions of the scenario in which a small child reaches out and touches a hot stove element (despite parental instruction against it). Put simply: pain can be an excellent teacher!

But I wonder just how well most of us do at learning from others' mistakes? In that case, the pain part of the equation is either removed entirely, or at least dulled considerably. For example, would the story of a friend being pulled over and charged for drunk driving have enough of an impact to make me adapt my own behaviour around that sort of thing? (I don't drink, so this one's purely hypothetical!) As someone who simply hears about this incident, I don't actually experience any hardship myself, but can I still learn from what happened to my buddy?

Thinking back on my experiences as Agile Manager, I worry about just how difficult it is for one Agile team to learn from the mistakes (or successes, for that matter) of other teams. There's an obvious driver for wanting that sort of thing to happen: what organization would prefer to incur the cost of several teams all skipping merrily down the same garden path that leads to nowhere (for example)? By the same token, if a team tried a variety of approaches to solving a particular problem, many of which were deemed utter failures, before finally arriving at what they found to be a very viable solution, isn't it better for everyone if that eventual panacea is shared with all, and as soon as possible?

One of the hurdles that may get in the way of such a happy outcome, of course, is that one group of people may not accept another group's solution, for any number of reasons: ego, a "not invented here" mentality, an incomplete understanding of the problem and/or solution, an ignorance around how the lesson actually developed, or simply personal preference ("We just don't like that approach"). As Agile Manager, I saw abundant examples of each of those in action.

But even worse than lack of acceptance was the lack of communication. In many cases, each team simply had no insight into what their counterparts were learning, and therefore didn't even have the opportunity to benefit from or reject the revelations happening elsewhere. Various attempts were made to remedy this, including holding "Scrum of Scrum" type meetings, using the Product Development Leaders in that capacity, and even having AgileMan blog about whatever he discovered teams trying in his travels. I wouldn't say that any of those worked especially well, though, as our largely-stovepiped Feature Teams / Product Development Teams proved. As such, I have no magic recipe for how to fix this.

What I do know, though, is that there's a hierarchy in life where learning from mistakes is concerned, and it goes something like this:

Top rung: Learn from mistakes around you, whether yours or others'
Middle rung: Learn from your own mistakes
Bottom rung: Never learn from mistakes

We're a species who attained our current "top of the food chain" status thanks to our opposable thumbs and all of the nifty tricks that we discovered we could do with them. Adaptation is what's gotten us where we are, and it's just as much of a game-changer now as it's ever been. And that means that how high you climb, as an Agile practitioner or even just as a human being, depends on how willing you are to inspect and adapt at every opportunity. And that's no mean feat!

Competence And Confidence Go Hand In Hand

Following up on my last post, I saw this great commentary about the relationship between competence and confidence in a recent Time magazine article. The piece is about Obama's plans for what to focus on first when he takes over as President of the United States. This particular paragraph falls in the middle of a section about the dire straits within the financial market right now, and what the new President will need to do in order to right the ship:

"Just like its banks and its carmakers, America's shattered confidence is in serious need of a bailout. And the thing about competence is that it nourishes fresh confidence. 'Yes, we can' is both an affirmation of optimism and the essential claim of the competent. When the slogan is rooted in a record of accomplishment - when tomorrow's yes-we-can is backed up by yesterday's yes-we-did - confidence and competence begin to feed on each other. This virtuous cycle of possibility isn't the whole of leadership, but it is an important part and perhaps the element most needed in today's sea of troubles."
- David Von Drehle, "Why History Can't Wait", Time magazine, Dec 29/08 - Jan 5/09

I think that's a very key perspective on leadership, and one that I wholly subscribe to. Nothing rattles the confidence of people quite like the fear that their leaders aren't up to the job. George W. Bush's record, especially over the past couple of years, illustrates that point painfully well.

For anyone in a leadership position today, my advice (for whatever it may be worth) is this: Establish a record of saying what you're going to do and then doing what you say. In other words, as the preceding article put it so eloquently, work hard to ensure that tomorrow's yes-we-can rah-rah speech is in fact given some weight by yesterday's yes-we-did track record. That simple feedback mechanism, implemented in the form of weekly updates, All-Hands meetings, newsletters or whatever, will build up so much confidence among those whose fortunes you're in charge of, that you'll soon find that they'll follow you wherever you lead. Failure to do so, on the other hand, as we've all observed so many times in our travels, will lead to situations like we have in the U.S. financial sector at the moment.

Competent, Not Complacent

Of all the controversial bits that I wove into the fabric of my two AgileMan books, it's probably true that nothing else was as likely to fan the flames of disgust - in certain quarters, at least - as my none-too-subtle questioning of the competence of some of those among our leadership group (myself, included, at times). It's not at all surprising that unflattering categorizations such as "borderline incompetent" would upset some, as they in fact did. Frankly, similar views expressed on my work blog (at the time) received the exact same chilly welcome, and that eventually led to me shutting down that particular avenue of communication (as described in More Real-Life Adventures of AgileMan, Issue # 45, Can We Not Talk?).

It was with great interest, then, that I read the following section in Barack Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope:

"[I value] competence. Nothing brightens my day more than dealing with somebody, anybody, who takes pride in their work or goes the extra mile - an accountant, a plumber, a three-star general, the person on the other end of the phone who actually seems to want to solve your problem. My encounters with such competence seem more sporadic lately; I seem to spend more time looking for somebody in the store to help me or waiting for the deliveryman to show up. Other people must notice this; it makes us all cranky, and those of us in government, no less than in business, ignore such perceptions at their own peril."

Now, I'd never be so pretentious as to compare myself to President-Elect Obama. After all, he's a great man who's overcome incredible odds to reach the highest office in the most powerful nation on Earth (and is the author of a couple of best sellers), while I'm an unemployed schmuck who was unable to get Agile successfully implemented into a mid-sized company (and had to self-publish his two books about the experience). And yet... if nothing else, we two have in common, apparently, a dissatisfaction with the laissez-faire attitude toward incompetence that others seem to exude when they encounter it.

Beyond that, much of what Obama writes about in his second book revolves around the notion that even unwelcome viewpoints should be discussable in our society. In his context, that can mean Democrats and Republicans being ready, willing and able to sit across the table from each other and talk productively about hot-button topics like abortion, regulation and health care without either side shouting down the other or shoving their fingers in their ears. I suspect that Mr Obama is the sort of man I'd enjoy working for or with, although I have my doubts as to just how well I'd live up to his obviously-high standards. At the very least, though, I doubt that he'd adopt a stance of "I agree with what you're saying but just don't think you should be saying it" as I experienced (on a few occasions) during my time as Agile Manager.

I also agree with the "ignore such perceptions [of incompetence] at [your] own peril" sentiments with which Obama closes that section. That head-in-the-sand attitude was clearly an issue in my former workplace at times, and continues to contribute to morale problems there even now (despite the most obnoxious voice of dissent - mine! - removing itself from the mix). Just as children naturally expect their own parents to be perfect authority figures, most people in subordinate roles desire to be led by not just competent, but hopefully "superior" individuals (in terms of skills such as decision-making, job knowledge, reliability, trustworthiness, etc), safe in the knowledge that everyone involved is doing their part (or more) to ensure success. Great leadership inspires everyone around it; anything less has the opposite effect, unfortunately.

The further I get into The Audacity of Hope, the more impressed I am with the character of its author and the leadership qualities that he embodies.

Getting What You Asked For

Sometimes I draw inspiration from the strangest of places!

In this instance, it was reading about how some well-intended school testing backfired on those who'd introduced it. In their fascinating book, Freakonomics, economists Steven D. Levitt and Stephen Dubner describe the results of some deep analysis that was done on 3rd to 7th grade testing within the Chicago Public School system around the end of the 20th century. Even prior to President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative, the CPS had instigated city-wide testing in order to ferret out the lowest-performing schools. The worst offenders faced suspension or even closure, and individual teachers could see rewards and punishment ranging anywhere from promotions to demotions or even job termination as a result of how their students did. All of which makes for a very interesting incentive scenario, indeed!

Levitt and Dubner make a good case for how such a setup can often cause the exact opposite effect compared to what had been intended. I'd written of something similar in the 1st AgileMan book (Issue # 22, Who's Measuring What Now?), where Call Centre agents were graded by how quickly they got through each call... thereby encouraging some of them to hang up on the callers! In the case of the Chicago Public Schools, what a certain (non-trivial) percentage of the Chicago teachers did as a result of the new standardized testing wasn't any more surprising: they cheated!

Specifically, these counter-incented instructors found ways to make their classes' results better than they should have been. That included prepping their classes exclusively for what would be on the tests, giving them extra time, helping them figure out the right responses during the tests, or even changing the results on individual student's answer sheets! Freakonomics provides a highly entertaining recounting of how the cheating teachers were found out (hint: it involved some awesome data-mining!) but what's relevant here is the lesson that can be learned about how you really do need to align your incentives (positive or negative) with your over-arching goals.

The school testing was put in place to improve the education system in Chicago, but because it was implemented in a less-than-perfect way, many of Chicago's elementary school teachers were being encouraged to behave in a manner that actually made things worse! Not only were some of the struggling students, teachers and schools not being identified (thanks to the cheating), but it was also bringing out the worst tendencies in many of the people charged with molding the next generation of Chicago-ites. Just imagine what students learn while watching their role model cheat on their behalf on a city-wide test! That's the kind of damage that's hard to undo!

A better incentive plan, I have to assume, would be one where the measurement is both better-monitored (in order to reduce the opportunity for cheating) and more targeted toward helping, rather than punishing, those found wanting (thereby removing the motivation to cheat). Of course, it's always easier to "Monday morning quarterback" other peoples' mistakes than it is to get it right yourself!

Trust Isn't An Option... It's The Only Option!

I was reading an article on the woes of "The Detroit Three" (automakers) this afternoon, and came across this fascinating bit about the New United Motor Manufacturing Inc (NUMMI) plant that was a joint venture between GM and Toyota, starting in 1984:

"The plant had [previously] been one of GM's worst; the Toyota system made it one of GM's best.

Detroiters made the pilgrimage... en masse to see the miracle of NUMMI. Some dismissed what should have become a model for the entire industry. True, the technology wasn't that innovative. But Toyota made the workforce integral to improving the system. Workers were not mere labor inputs. GM had no problem understanding the just-in-time inventory system Toyota used, but executing it required a buy-in from the shop floor so that everyone was dedicated to improvement. The Toyota system, says John MacDuffie, a manufacturing expert at Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, 'relies on contributions from employees. It feels vulnerable, but your willingness to be open to that vulnerability is what helps you make it work.' In the 1980s and part of the 90s, the top-down culture of the Big Three could not absorb that kind of deep trust."
- Bill Saporito, "Is This Detroit's Last Winter?", Time magazine, Dec 15/08

Those who've read the 2nd AgileMan book, especially Issue # 46, Who Do You Trust?, will perhaps recognize that the preceding description bears at least some similarity to what I observed in my role as Agile Manager. Lean manufacturing (as Toyota created and mastered), like Agile software development, requires that a greater degree of trust be extended to the "rank and file" than many traditional management types are ready, willing or able to accomplish. It sounds like the Big Three suffered from that, and I certainly saw lots of evidence of the same issue in the workplace over the last several years.

So just how can you place trust in the employee base and be comfortable in doing so? Well, we didn't pull it off all that successfully, but I still believe I learned a thing or two along the way. Here's what I think it takes on the part of those in charge:

1. Clearly communicate what's expected of those you're entrusting. In our software environment, that means telling everyone "the what" and empowering them to come up with "the how". I personally think it's unreasonable (and doomed to failure) to dictate both "the what" and the "by when", but others may disagree with that.
   
2. Establish how the results will be measured, make them well known, and then follow through on what you established. Metrics are tricky business (as I wrote about in the 1st AgileMan book), but just because they're hard to do right doesn't mean that you get off the hook for producing them! The temptation to shift around the measurements as time goes by is often very strong, but also completely unfair to the people whose hard work is being evaluated. The onus is ultimately on management to set the yardsticks and then to live by them. Failure to do so causes the staff to believe that you're changing the rules as you go... because you are!
   
3. Treat the inevitable failures that will occur as opportunities for learning. This is another tough pill to swallow, because those who live by the Blame Game rules (and who have long since mastered "Cover Your Ass" as an integral skillset) will find it difficult to re-wire their brains to this new way of thinking. Finger-pointing and general CYA attitudes, however, do more to erode trust than just about anything else you can throw into the mix.
4. Celebrate successes, large and small. This was perhaps the biggest disappointment for me in my previous job: the focus always seemed to be on what had gone wrong, rather than on what had gone right. If one Feature Team did really well, management would only want to talk about the ones who were still struggling. If a team got their bug count significantly reduced, the focus would go on to how "late" their new features were. Despite providing hundreds of features in our first 2 years of Agile, I repeatedly heard executives say, "We haven't delivered a single thing since we started Agile!" That sort of skewed perspective is certainly not a good way to build trust between the layers of the company!

If you can pull those four areas off, you'll probably do very well in creating an empowered, high-performing environment in which everyone will succeed. If, on the other hand, you regard trust as an optional add-on, like power windows or leather seats, then you'll probably be sorely disappointed in the results you get each time you "cheap-out" in that regard.