Why do we trust the wrong people in our workplace?

Trust is a dangerous business, a “calculated exposure” to alternative behaviors and impacts (Hancock et al., 2011). However, as Hobbes (1651) argues, trust is one of the key factors that unite society. But trust is an evolutionary phenomenon, leading us to rely on instincts that help us when physical danger is overflowing, but in today’s office space, where we pause the beat for evaluation It may be adapted environment It leads to better results (Giphert & Van Vugt, 2018).

Who do we trust and why?

On the surface, it makes sense to trust people who exhibit high moral character and exhibit traits like integrity. consciencereliability, fair play, Generosityand a reliable work ethic (Aquino & Reed, 2002). In our personal life, romantic partners and close friends tend to check these boxes. But when we enter a world of unstable work, we may find ourselves trusting big talkers, overpromizers, and what we feel is powerful. yeah. Research shows that we often place trust with people who recognize that they have authority and influence, and sometimes they have the greatest interest in their minds. I believe that I believe (Den Nieuwenboer et al., 2023; Mooijman, 2023). When we go back to high school and size our office groups, we are more likely to trust people we identify as members of the group or “cool kids” rather than as gifts. Confidence to independent thinkers and those who push back the status quo (Hancock et al., 2023).

Both bad followers and empowering leaders can get lost when they place their trust in unreliable things that often have disastrous consequences.

Bad followers and social learning theory

Bad bosses create news reels when suspicious behavior hits the headline. However, such a disaster cannot be done without the host of employees who participate in what Solas (2019) calls “bad followers” or who participate in fraud, hide evil deeds, and see the opposite when a violation occurs. It’s possible. This phenomenon may be partially due to Social learning theoryor the tendency to emulate the behaviors around us, especially when such behaviors enjoy positive outcomes (Bandura, 1977).

However, when a culture is created to reward gossip, backstab and sabotage as successful strategies to climb corporate ladders, secure pay raises and win praise, these behaviours are adopted as norms; leads to broad moral liberation (Khan et al., 2022). In such an environment, mastermind rhetoric is considered the gospel, whistleblowers, those who oppose injustice and invoke evil deeds, are the villains in the only case. crime This is what Devine and Maassarani (2011) calls “truth violating.” In the act of survival, betting on powerful players to win, new employees are willing to place their trust in a strong inner circle and rewrite their ethics code so that they are not targeted next (nearby & miracles) , 1985). As part of that self-preservation, they deliberately withhold information from people who are perceived to be outside, and to allow ethical newcomers to decipher the real story and know who or should trust. makes it even more difficult (Weng et al., 2020).

Empowering leaders may unconsciously empower the wrong people

Book on the impact of being empowered leadership Snapped between the walls of a local bookstore, competition On the bestseller list, and the promise is realistic and well documented, but leads to reinforcement in Creativity And innovation has a dark side to equations that are often excluded from the narrative (Alif & Nastiti, 2022). Counterintuitive to logical thinking, sometimes empowerment can lead to mayhem instead of ingenuity and growth. This flip of script occurs when a well-meaning leader gives trust and leeway to people who don’t have leads, and even more surprising, they use their own power grabs to push people around them down .

Specifically, Yam (2011) and colleagues found that empowered leaders are “to give unearned trust and influence to weak and morally subordinates.” IdentityAnd, a “strong desire for domination,” they could use this new trust to sully sully the reputation of those who perceive them as threatening their power, including the leaders themselves. Thus, leaders who unconsciously attempt to flatten their hierarchies in the hopes of amplifying more voices will flatten themselves and erode the moral integrity of the larger group.

Dark Triads and Quarters as Explanations of Immoral Behavior

Sometimes these aforementioned bad followers are only trying to ease their anxiety by slandering others who threaten their rule, but sometimes more suspicious is brewed. there is Dark Triad of personality Comprehensive narcissism (Grand and rights), Machiavellian Realism (operation and cold), and Psychosis (impulsive, cold, Seeking the thrill Combined with low levels of empathy anxiety), Paulhus and Williams (2002) tested. Each covers distinct traits, but they all showcase different levels of overlap, cold and self-promotion.

Most are familiar with Dark Triads, Dark TetradMost predicted in workplace bullies that evoke trust in the targets just to use disclosures to others, highlighting new additions of sadism, characterized by feeling pleasure in others’ pain, and later use disclosures to them. It was found to be a character of the same type (Fernández-del-río et al., 2021;

Finely adjust the trust meter

Looking back at some of my biggest professional regrets, many people trust and put confidence in the wrong people, and then elicited advice from colleagues that I later discovered. So, how do you fine-tune your trust meter when you trust something you can’t trust?

1. Questioning your gut instincts: Our instincts served our ancestors well, and kept them wary of wandering around the night beasts. But today, the busy pace of the workplace can sometimes lead us to rely on our gut to make snap judgments. wise To pause and evaluate the landscape more carefully (Giphert & Van Vugt, 2018).

2. moral Characteristic Identification: When considering who to trust, it is helpful to examine their personality against some of the 19 moral traits identified by Aquino and Reed (2002): compassion, compassion, conscientious, reliable, ethical True, fairness, tolerancefriendly, generous, give, hardworking, kind, honest, kind, loyal, religious, reliable, and understanding.

3. Knowing the pitfalls: The realm of perceived power and influence in a person can distort the perception of reliability (Mooijman, 2023). When we find that we can quickly trust someone we just met, we ask ourselves whether their position on the hierarchy encourages reversal, then referring to the moral characteristics of Aquino and Reed (2002). please.

4. Withholding tax information: A common marker that is unreliable is information withholding for selfish reasons. In such a scenario, the manager or colleague hides the appropriate details or documents that are needed decision making To shake out consequences for personal benefits (Weng et al., 2020). A useful reality check is to warn Adichie’s (2009) “the dangers of a single story” and to reflect on three questions that frequently pose to university students. Whose voice is silent? Why is it important?

5. I’ll keep you boundary: Work isn’t your family, but some organizations want to evoke the Philosopher. A careful collection of trustworthy colleagues who will develop your thinking and encourage your creativity is a victory. However, paying attention in self-disclosure and critically evaluating information from colleagues who have not yet gained your trust creates boundaries that will help you avoid harm.

Kindness is an offering to be given with richness, but trust is a sacred gift given to a selected few who have won recognition. Remember, you can be kind to people you don’t trust.