Latest news with #trustIssues
Forbes
25-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Is Your High-Performing Team Hiding A Trust Problem?
Trust and Collaboration Is your most successful team a ticking time bomb? If you're confusing performance with psychological safety, that might just be the case. It's not uncommon for high-performing teams to deliver exceptional results despite operating in environments where trust is quite fragile. These teams are often populated by aggressive drivers who excel at execution and have developed efficient systems for getting things done. But this short-term success isn't always a good thing. In fact, their success can mask fundamental weaknesses that become catastrophic when circumstances change. How High Performers Succeed Without Trust Research has consistently shown that psychological safety is one of the strongest predictors of team performance, productivity, quality, safety, creativity, and innovation. But why, then, do some teams continue to succeed even when trust in the overall environment is low? The answer lies in understanding what drives short-term success versus long-term resilience. High-performing teams without psychological safety often succeed because they've mastered the art of getting things done within existing parameters. Team members are skilled performers who can deliver results independently, and each team member knows their role and executes it efficiently. They've developed systems that work when market conditions are stable. In essence, these teams succeed despite their trust issues. They're like high-performance race cars—they can achieve impressive speeds on a smooth track, but they're vulnerable when the road gets rough. When Success Becomes a Liability The problem emerges when these teams face challenges that require adaptation, innovation, or rapid learning. Under those conditions, high-performing teams operating in a low-trust environment often become victims of their own success. Because they're winning, questioning the status quo feels unnecessary and disloyal. Therefore these teams frequently operate in a state of "productive harmony" that looks healthy from the outside but suppresses the tensions that drive innovation, adaptation, and growth. To determine whether your high performers are operating with a trust deficit, ask yourself: "Who on your team consistently puts forth contrary points of view, and how are they treated when they do?" The answers are telling. High-performing teams often pause at this question. They'll mention someone who "sometimes plays devil's advocate," but when pressed about how those interventions are received, they reveal a culture where dissent is tolerated but not truly valued. The contrarian might be heard, but their input rarely changes course. True psychological safety means that contrary viewpoints don't just get airtime—they get serious consideration and can actually influence outcomes. The External Environment Test We're operating in an era of unprecedented uncertainty—supply chain disruptions, economic volatility, technological disruption, and changing workforce expectations. It's not enough for today's teams to perform well under optimal conditions. They need to demonstrate resilience when external conditions shift. When employees feel comfortable asking for help, sharing suggestions informally, or challenging the status quo without fear of negative social consequences, organizations are more likely to innovate quickly, unlock the benefits of diversity, and adapt to changing market conditions. On the other hand, teams that achieve success despite a lack of psychological safety often struggle when the rules change. Without a foundation of trust that enables rapid learning and adaptation, they become rigid and vulnerable. They find it difficult to quickly acknowledge what wasn't working and pivot their approach. Building Anti-Fragile Teams The teams that can adapt, learn, and innovate under pressure share several key characteristics: They institutionalize dissent. Rather than hoping someone will speak up, they create formal mechanisms for surfacing contrary viewpoints. Some teams rotate a "designated contrarian" role, while others end major decisions with a structured "pre-mortem" where members explicitly explore how things could go wrong. They measure learning, not just results. These teams track how quickly they identify and correct course when initial assumptions prove wrong. They celebrate the team member who first spots trouble ahead, even if it means acknowledging earlier mistakes. They practice vulnerability. Leaders model intellectual humility by regularly admitting what they don't know and asking for input. When teammates witness a leader taking responsibility for failure or admitting a shortcoming, they're more likely to trust that leader in the future—and to trust each other. Institutionalizing Trust If you're leading a high-performing team, don't assume your success guarantees future effectiveness. Instead, audit your team's trust foundation with these questions: The teams that will dominate the next decade won't just be high-performing—they'll be anti-fragile. They'll get stronger under pressure because they've built culture that turn groups of talented individuals into truly resilient teams.
Daily Mail
31-05-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
The wealthy Manhattan enclave where residents are 'spying' on nannies and 'snitching' on their bad behavior
Nannies in a New York City neighborhood are now living in a permanent state of paranoia with wealthy residents prepared to name and shame those who behave badly on a popular Facebook group. While the Moms of the Upper East Side (MUES) group serves as a lifeline to its 33,000 members, nannies are now afraid they will find their picture one day plastered across its message boards. One mother recalled the panicked moment she saw a photo of her daughter alongside an ominous message about her nanny's behavior. 'If you recognize this blonde girl with pigtails I saw yesterday afternoon around 78th and 2nd, please DM me,' the message read. 'I think you will want to know what your nanny did.' She knew instantly it was her daughter and found herself spiraling over what her nanny - whom, it then dawned on her, she barely knew - could have done with her two-year-old. After enquiring after what happened, she was told her nanny allegedly roughly handled the child and threated to cancel a zoo trip if they didn't 'shut up'. The accused nanny denied the incident, but suddenly trust was gone and she let the nanny go before putting her daughter into a daycare that offered a livestream feed. The Facebook group also told many similar tales of nannies allegedly dealing out punishments of smacking, withholding food, leaving children unsupervised or neglecting the child. Another post photographed a woman sitting on her phone with her headphones in as an infant crawled next to her. 'I was really mad watching the whole scene,' the post said. 'I'm not exaggerating, this person NEVER stopped [using] the phone during the whole class. The baby was TOTALLY ignored.' Whilst some shared the outrage of the post, with one who said :'This makes me so upset. If this was the nanny, she's on her phone during working hours and that's not OK. If this was my kid I'd be so p***ed.' Others highlighted the issues with these posts that are often lacking context. 'Stop assuming the worst about people and situations you know nothing about,' one reply said. 'This is not abuse. It's not dangerous, and it's absolutely none of your business.' However, many brought up the issue of how much is costs to employ a nanny on the Upper East Side of New York City. Some of the most experienced and qualified nannies can charge up to $150,000 a year. But the fear of being caught on camera, in even the most innocent of situations, has nannies worried to go out in public while working. Holly Flanders of Choice Parenting, a company that places nannies in the area, said that now going to the park or out in public is a challenge for nannies. 'How are you supposed to interact with children if you're being judged constantly?' she told Air Mail. One mother, Christina Allen, said the MUES has created a fearful and untrusting environment in the nannying world. 'I hardly ever have the chill and playful experience at our local playgrounds,' Allen said. 'There's usually some sort of drama, and I feel as though everyone is judging everything you say and do. I think this is down to our area. I'm going to put it out there that maybe the playground politics is an UES thing, in fear of being featured on the Facebook page.' Allen said she could imagine a scenario where her child became involved in a situation resulting in Allen's photo being plastered on the group's page asking, 'Whose nanny is this?' One user posted a photo of one child's caregiver walking down the street with a harrowing recount of what she saw. 'Gosh I never thought I would be one of those mom's,' she wrote. '...especially as a woman of color myself but is this your nanny?' The post read that the nanny was rough with the child, 'way more than I as a mom would find acceptable.' 'Your child was crying but not throwing a tantrum, she needed love and support not rough handling and sternness,' the post said. 'It was not a nice scene to watch.' Other posts showed pictures of nannies sat on their phones with strollers or children beside them, or the back profile of a caregiver posted alongside an ominous message to their parent. 'Trying to find this child's parents to let them know of a situation that occurred today,' one warning said, followed by an explanation of the child running into the street before almost getting hit by a car. Another said: 'If this is your caretaker and your child is very blonde... I'd want someone to share with me if my nanny was treating my child the way I witnessed this woman treat the boy in her stroller.' While the posts can highlight dangerous behavior from caregivers, for the nannies who wind up accused of such incidents in a misunderstood situation there is typically little room to defend themselves. Flanders said the 'vast majority' of them who end up on Facebook's 'wall of shame' end up losing their jobs. 'It's not like there's an HR department. If you're a mom and you're having to wonder, "Is this nanny being kind to my child? Are they hurting them?," it's really hard to sit at work all day with that on your conscience,' she said. 'There are definitely some nannies out there who are benignly neglectful, lazy and on their phone too much. But the sort of scary stuff you see on Lifetime is not all that common.'
