It"s lonely at the top. Yet top managers really need a support network they can trust. Trust helps leaders perform better; it also makes them feel better. Having colleagues to confide in improves decision making and reduces stress.
What creates trust? Research indicates that people look for three essential things: ability, benevolence and integrity. Cathleen McGrath of Loyola Marymount University and Deone Zell of California State University Northridge looked at the relationship between support-seeking behavior and these traits. McGrath and Zell studied the support networks of 50 senior executives at a Fortune 50 technology firm and developed eight profiles of executives" contacts. They then looked at how the senior executives looked to these profiled groups in different ways. The researchers divided forms of support into four categories: raw information, actionable advice, strategic or political help, and emotional support. And they discovered that the leaders rely on different types of trust, depending on the kind of support they want.
To elaborate on the four groups of support: First, raw information involves facts and figures like budgetary numbers, meeting dates, competitors" activities or inventory levels. It"s the most explicit form of assistance and one of the easiest to obtain through technological means. Second, actionable advice means recommendations or suggestions aimed at accomplishing something. This type of advice has low emotional demands, but can be intellectually complex. It involves not just data but also draws on a person"s experience. Third, emotional support entails someone wanting help in working through difficult issues. And, finally, strategic or political help is the most complicated, and requires high emotional and intellectual demands. How do you best enlist support? When do you decide to try to diffuse tension among colleagues? Strategic help gets into questions of this nature.
McGrath and Zell broke down the executives" network contact profiles into eight categories. "Harsh Truthtellers" are honest, regardless of whether the truth is painful. "Moral Compasses" have an unwavering sense of right and wrong. "Loyal Supporters" align their values closely with those who are seeking support. They are sympathetic, even if not experts in the relevant material. "Star Players" are experts in their fields, but not necessarily empathic. "Average Joes" have moderate levels of ability, benevolence and integrity. "Dealmakers" get things done. They want to help and can, but sometimes handle issues in ways that clash with the support seeker"s values. "Cheerleaders" provide unconditional support, but may not be the most capable colleagues. "Trustworthy Partners" are capable, display high integrity and have the support-seeker"s best interests at heart.
McGrath and Zell gathered data from 50 of a Fortune 50 organization"s leaders—vice presidents, directors, general managers and other executives—who were part of a senior leadership development program. Those surveyed reported on 661 contacts who they trusted enough to go to for personal support.
Those studied preferred Trustworthy Partners 86% of the time when they were looking for actionable advice and 57% of the time when looking for strategic or political help. They also looked often to the Harsh Truthtellers, despite the fact that people in this category display little benevolence. The executives looked to the Harsh Truthtellers 73% of the time when looking for actionable advice and 45% of the time when looking for strategic or political help. Those involved in the survey next turned to the Loyal Supporters and Moral Compasses for these types of support.
When the executives were looking for emotional support, they sought out those who displayed integrity and benevolence—and were less concerned with seeking out those who were most skilled. This meant that they turned to Loyal Supporters 78% of the time. And when the executives were looking for raw information, they looked to the Average Joes most often—again, 78% of the time.
Finally, it seems that high integrity is what support-seekers look for in their networks. When executives perceived that someone among their support group had high integrity, they would go to that person for support that had to do with either intellectual or emotional concerns.
Also of note: While executives sought Trustworthy Partners and Harsh Truthtellers most often, and then looked to Loyal Supporters and Moral Compasses, they didn"t generally turn to Star Players. Ability, it seems, is not enough. Further, executives almost never turned to Dealmakers or Cheerleaders, probably because they don"t display as much integrity.