Trust & Teambuilding

The term Trust gets thrown around at work a lot. We use it so often that you’d think we all collectively understand what it is and why it’s so important. But it’s worth unpacking this concept a bit to make sure we really do know why it plays such an important role in teams.

Trust refers to an intersecting set of beliefs about the relationship between what other people say and do and what they mean and accomplish. Trust reflects that you believe that team members are telling you the truth and not omitting crucial information in their accounts. It reflects that people will follow through on their commitments. Trust also involves a belief that other people are capable of fulfilling the tasks they set out to perform.

Here are the three reasons why trust is so crucial.

FUTURE PLANNING

A critical part of planning for the future is having a clear sense of what is going on within an organization. A plan starts with knowledge of what is happening in the present. That means when someone gives you information about their capabilities and the current status of project, that information has to be accurate.

A lack of trust in the information you get from team members adds uncertainty to the planning process. You may no longer feel like you have an accurate sense of the current situation or the capabilities of the group. That can make it hard to get a project moving. As a result, you may feel like you have to verify information you’re getting from others before moving forward. Not only is that process time-consuming, but it may also make team members feel like you are checking on up them, which can further erode trust.

DISTRIBUTING WORK

Trust is also crucial for ensuring that every member of a team is assigned a reasonable share of the work. When you don’t believe that your team members will follow through on their commitments (or that they are capable of doing a good job with the tasks), then you shy away from giving them responsibilities. As a result, the rest of the team must carry more of the load.

In addition, when you are forced to rely on the teammates you do not trust, you end up micromanaging their work. You may find yourself telling them how to carry out key aspects of the job, checking up on each step, and asking for confirmation when things are completed. Not only does that take away from your own effectiveness, it leads to frustration from those being micromanaged.

YOUR MOTIVATION

At times, your supervisor has lost your trust. That can undermine your energy and enthusiasm to work. Lots of research suggests that your motivation to complete a task is influenced by whether you think the task can be completed as well as your sense of whether your efforts will be rewarded. When you don’t trust your supervisor, both of these facets of motivational strength are diminished. That can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in which you believe that a job will fail, so you don’t put in much work, which then leads the job to fail.

Unfortunately, this pattern feeds on itself. Your mistrust of management increases the chances that a task will go badly. When the team does not achieve its goals, leadership loses faith in the effectiveness of the team, which affects the way they treat the team in the future. Likewise, the team members are reinforced in their sense that management is ineffective.

Toxic Bosses At Work

If toxic bosses are so terrible, why do people still follow them? It has a lot to do with the way your mind works. Many bad bosses are unfit to lead because they are often narcissistic, don’t genuinely care for their employees and would do anything to get the best results — even at the expense of others or basic morals.

Yet many of those managers have admirers and hold positions of power, from the business realm to politics. Take world leaders as an example:- 57 countries are currently led by dictators that are unethical, unstable or incompetent.

People can’t always know they’ll have a toxic boss when interviewing for jobs, but once they’re in the door, they can stay devoted to those bad managers for months or even years — largely because either they have the wrong idea about what good leadership looks like or because they’re trying to reap personal benefits from the relationship.

1. People confuse arrogance and narcissism for strength - Strength and confidence can be important leadership qualities. But people sometimes confuse arrogance and narcissism for strength. In 2011 - a University of Amsterdam randomly assigned a leader to different groups of participants, had each team complete a group task and asked each team to rate their leader afterward. Participants rated the most narcissistic leaders as the most effective, even if those leaders actually inhibited communication and harmed their group’s performance.

A bad boss’ narcissism convinces them that they’re always right, so they reject help from others and don’t learn from their mistakes. Many are drawn to these people who appear competent — like they can take charge and handle a leadership role. But they can be narcissists, and things can get out of hand.

2. People fall into ‘cognitive laziness - If you’ve ever had a bad boss, you’ve probably thought to yourself, “I don’t want to go through the effort of figuring out how to handle this situation. It sounds exhausting. Instead, you find ways to convince yourself that your boss is actually fine. Riggio calls that feeling “cognitive laziness.”

When a bad boss does something wrong, people often give them a “pass” instead of holding them accountable, because they think the boss is above the rules anyway. That can allow a bad boss to engage in even worse behavior with no consequences.

People also tend to trust others similar to them. If your coworkers appear to support your bad boss, you might feel compelled to follow the herd rather than take a stand, and your boss could stay in power without being questioned.

3. People equate good results with good leadership - To you, your boss might be a toxic manager. To someone else, they might be someone who delivers valuable results, like an increase in profits or a successful sales deal.

For those leaders, the ends justify the means. If they appear effective, people just don’t question how they got there. Bad bosses may seem effective at getting good results, but it often involves “collateral damage,” like creating a toxic workplace by treating employees poorly or making unethical decisions. 

4. People enjoy the power of association - Bosses often hold power within a company or group. Some people enable and assist a manager’s worst attributes in the hopes of getting rewarded for loyalty, like a promotion or pay raise. A bad leader attracts hench-persons who surround them because they like being connected to a powerful person.

People should learn to recognize these psychological tendencies, so they can recognize when they’re following a toxic boss. It also helps to understand what a good boss looks like, he adds: someone who achieves results while limiting collateral damage, shows genuine care for their employees and accepts help and feedback from others.

HappyFresh Is Not Happy

HappyFresh has shut down operations in Malaysia and Thailand after struggling in those countries, leaving the embattled grocery delivery startup to focus on its main Indonesian market.

The Instacart-style delivery service said it was left with no choice but to cease operations in the two markets, according to posts on its local Instagram accounts on Thursday. It will stop its grocery business effective immediately, just days after the startup said it secured fresh funding and resumed operations in Indonesia.

Jakarta-based HappyFresh, which struggled this year to raise capital after a sharp downturn in the young online grocery sector, is working with venture debt funds Genesis, Innoven and Mars on restructuring its business. Representatives of US firm Kroll replaced three former directors on its board as part of the effort.

Founded in 2014 as one of the first Instacart-style grocery delivery services in Southeast Asia, HappyFresh has raised at least US$97 million (RM443.2mil) in equity funding in addition to debt financing. Formally known as ICart Group Pte, the company’s business has faced challenges in the face of slowing economic growth, surging inflation and higher interest rates. 

Natthamon - Thailand Super Investment Genius

A popular YouTuber, who claimed to be a successful forex trader has reportedly fled abroad after allegedly cheating thousands of investors out of two billion baht (RM246.7mil). Natthamon Khongchak, better known as Nutty the YouTuber, defrauded over 6,000 victims.

One victim had deposited about 18 baht million (RM2.2mil) with her. On Aug 24, some 30 people to file complaints against Natthamon with the Economic Crime Suppression Division.
The YouTuber had used her popularity to lure victims with the promise of high returns in a short time.

Natthamon’s YouTube account, which is titled Nutty’s Diary, has over 800,000 followers but the last clip was posted some five months ago. Natthamon claimed to be a successful forex trader and financial coach.

She invited people to deposit money in her account, promising 25% returns for three-month contracts, 30% for six-month contracts and 35% for 12-month contracts. She pledged to pay returns every month.

However, in April, her customers began complaining that they had not received the payments as promised.

In a May 25 Instagram post, Natthamon said she had made a mistake in trading and lost all the money but promised to repay to her investors. On June 24, she announced she was being sued in two cases and would not be able to repay other investors if she was jailed.

Yesterday, popular Facebook page Drama-addict posted that Natthamon had fled abroad. It added that one of her alleged victims, identified only as Nok, had offered a reward of one million baht (RM123,395) to anyone who could provide information that led to her arrest.

The page said it received information that Natthamon had fled to Malaysia.

Who is Cui Peijun

An entrepreneur in China who spent 32 million yuan (US$4.7 million) helping more than 4,000 university students from low-income backgrounds to finish their studies has won praise for his generosity. Cui Peijun, from Xinxiang in Henan province, central China, has been funding local university students whose families can’t afford the tuition fees since 2003.

The successful entrepreneur, who was forced to cut his own schooling short because his family could not afford the fees, passionately believes in making education accessible to all.

A week ago Cui was outside the office building where he runs his business for the annual distribution of money to needy students. Cui is seen sitting next to a long table on which are placed rows of 100 yuan (US$15) notes. The money is divided into bundles with different amounts such as 3,000 yuan (US$438) and 5,000 yuan.

Cui hands the money personally to the students who queue up in front of him. As the students approach Cui, they extend both hands towards him, make a bow, and then collect the money.

This year, Cui distributed 1.1 million yuan (US$160,000) to 160 students from his own personal savings.

“I had to drop out of school due to poverty, so I launched this funding project by myself,” Cui said. “Poverty should not be passed down to the next generation. They shouldn’t be stopped from attending school because of poor living conditions.”

In China, it is fairly common for wealthy individuals to finance students from low-income backgrounds or who are struggling with illness or disability.

Earlier this month, a 90-year-old former university lecturer was in the news for providing financial support to low-income students using money he made selling recyclable materials he collected late at night.

In May, a schoolmaster in northern China was in the news for spending his life savings creating a free education system for disabled students. In the 12 years since he started the school, he has helped more than 500 disabled students from ages seven to 30 to complete their education, with around 120 going on to find paid jobs.

Sniffing Out Bully During Job Interview

No sane person wants a boss who is a bully. One of the main reasons people leave a job is because they have a bad manager. Unfortunately, the drastic changes that happened in the workplace during the pandemic may have created more toxic bosses.

Bullying behaviors often stem from stress and anxiety and the desire for leaders to solve a problem. What the recent pandemic did is heighten stress and anxiety in the workplace, especially among leaders who didn’t get training on how to manage a team. All of that is causing leaders to not necessarily act in a respectful way to the team.

Instead of finding out too late that you’re working for a toxic leader, look for these five signs during your interview:

OBSERVE HOW THEY INTERACT WITH OTHERS - One way to spot a bully is to listen to how they speak with others. Do they do they say “please” and “thank you”? Do they call people by their first names? Do they interrupt? Interruptions send a message that ‘what I have to say is way more important than what you’re saying. 

Those are those are strong clues. In an interview panel with more than one interviewer, candidates can also observe how managers react to their coworkers and vice versa. For instance, a manager who dominates the interview without allowing for others’ questions may indicate a domineering management style. If signs seem murky, candidates can ask about how managers maintain a positive work environment… with a dismissive or rude answer pointing toward a workplace bully.


DETERMINE THEIR EXPECTATIONS FOR THE ROLE - During the interview, ask the manager, What differentiates a successful employee in this role from an unsuccessful one? Look for clues that the hiring manager expects compliance, always-on availability, and exerting their authority for the sake of power. For example, if the hiring manager considers successful employees to be the people who put in midnight hours and work weekends, you may find yourself bullied into doing so as well.

NOTICE IF THEY TRY TO PUT YOU AT EASE - Interviews can be stressful. Paying attention to what the hiring manager does to put you at ease. If they do things to create a stressful environment in the interview, they are likely to do so on the job, as well. The hiring manager who is late for the interview and does not give you time to represent your capabilities is likely continue showing little respect for your time and skillset going forward.


WATCH HOW THEY HANDLE DISCOMFORT - The key to spotting toxic people is to get them to confront situations where they might fail or look bad. A lack of concern for others while responding to that ego threat is a sure sign of a potential bully. 

A question you could ask would be ‘What is your opinion on your company’s chief rivals’ strengths and vulnerabilities and how they compare to your company? A good answer is one where the respondent can provide feedback with respect for the rival. Are they able to acknowledge where the rival is more effective? Do they speak of the rival with respect or disdain? Would you want your boss speaking to or about you the same way?”

TALK TO REFERENCES - “It is becoming increasingly popular for applicants to ask to speak to organizational references, such as others on the team or previous employees who have worked on the team in the past.

Speak to people who work for this leader and ask specifically how they are being managed and developed. When managers are investing in their staff and creating a psychologically safe environment, the team will have no problem sharing that information with new applicants.

Bullying managers are likely to create an environment of vague secrecy—team members may not come out and tell you the boss is a bully, so read between the lines and probe deeper, if possible.

Closing The Loophole on Automobile Insurance Claim

The Federal Court has ruled that road accident victims should be automatically compensated without having to sue insurance companies. In delivering the landmark ruling, Federal Court judge Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli said the provisions of the Road Transport Act 1987 should be construed to protect all motorists, including victims of road accidents. He also said that Parliament's intention in enacting the law was to protect innocent third-party road users.

Datuk Rahman said this in a 140-page judgement on a decision delivered by a three-member bench he led last week — the two other judges were Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang — that allowed the appeals of eight motorists, seven of whom were injured in motor accidents.

Insurers - Five of the appeals involved Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Ltd, Amgeneral Insurance Bhd, Allianz General Insurance Company (M) Bhd, and Malaysian Motor Insurance Pool.

The victims had filed a negligence suit in the sessions courts against the owners of vehicles and/or drivers involved in their accidents for damages.

Their appeals came about as the insurance companies managed to obtain a declaration from the High Court to nullify the policies of motorists involved in the accidents due to allegations of misconduct on the part of the vehicle owners, which caused the accident victims to be denied monetary compensations that were due to them.

Sambung Bayar & Excuses To Deny Claim - In one of the cases, the vehicle owner had “sold” the vehicle to a third party through what is known as “sambung bayar” (continuing payments), but without informing the insurance company. The owner later asked the court to declare their policy as void. Based on that order, the insurer had refused to cover the victim's losses.

In another case, even after a full trial at a lower court had found the driver of the vehicle to be negligent, the insurance company declined to pay for the damages of the accident the driver caused, after alleging it had been defrauded.

Eventually, the victim of the accident merely held a paper judgement that was “not even worth the paper it was written on”, the Federal Court was quoted as saying. The court said this was unfair because the victim’s constitutional rights to be treated fairly had been infringed.

In allowing the appeals, the apex court awarded RM150,000 in costs to each of the successful parties in the appeal.

Balancing Act For Victim & Insurer - According to Rahman, the Act has to balance two competing interests — that of innocent third parties affected by a motor vehicle accident versus insurance companies. In the case of the insurers, the law has to protect them from being victimized by fraudulent claims.

But in setting the balance between these competing interests, the loss has to fall on one party. And if that is the case, the Act has decided that such a loss should be borne by the insurer, he said. This follows the principle established in a 1959 Indian Supreme Court case (British India General Insurance vs Capt Itbar Singh).

Rahman, in explaining the Federal Court's decision, said it is because it is compulsory for all vehicle owners to have insurance coverage and that the Road Transport Department would not issue road taxes for those without an insurance coverage.

This provides that if a vehicle injured a victim, that person could sue the owner or the driver of the vehicle, as the vehicle owner has insurance coverage. Hence, the insurer should automatically step in and “indemnify” the victim, without the victim having to sue the insurer.

Many grey areas had sprung up in motor accident cases over the years and caused huge problems for innocent road victims. This judgement resolves those difficulties in one fell swoop.