The Relationship Of Trust

Whatever the sporting discipline, those who coach have the task of preparing the athlete to give their best in competition. Then there are those who transform training into the simple execution of orders.

The authoritarian approach in training is as widespread as it is harmful.

The challenge is no longer reserved for sporting performance. The competition expands and the athlete not only faces his opponents, but also his teammates, trainers and coaches.

There are those who, under such pressure, give their best, win, become a champion and unconsciously also become an example legitimizing this type of authoritarian training: it almost seems that sporting success comes thanks to the harshness of the coach, when instead  it comes, more often, by the resilience of the athlete, able to resist, to improve, despite the humiliations of those who should be his ally.

Not only that, but there are many other potential champions who do not have the same resilience and will to overcome the “harassment” of authoritarian coaches and remain unfulfilled promises, anonymous data of statistics on sports abandonment. From them the coach, with his authoritarianism, has obtained the only result of distancing them from the activity and also reducing their well-being and self-esteem.

The relationship between coach and athlete should instead be deeper and more bon, based on an empty relationship of authority. For potential to become reality, trust is needed: from the athlete towards those who train him, from the coach towards those who are training.

That is how the exhausting training sessions are not carried out out of blind obedience to orders, but out of the trust placed in the mutual relationship, with the authentic awareness that the aim of the training is improvement, sporting, but ultimately also human, of the athlete. And only in this way do the weight of expectations, the pressure of competition, lighten, finally when it is understood that the first fan of whoever is competing must be on the bench.

Sorry, I realize now that, due to my sporting passion, I indulged in talking about sport when I wanted to talk about the relationship of trust in the company. However, if you think about it, situations like those described above can still be configured even in companies.

The authoritarian (not authoritative!!) attitude creates a situation similar to the one just described: if mutual trust does not arise, only a few talents emerge, energy and potential are wasted, turnover increases, the environment becomes toxic even among colleagues.

The relationship of trust in the company is fundamental: it makes the relationship with the customer possible, directly influences the economic results and is an inevitable prerequisite for better performance.

Trust is the basis of all relationships, especially between a manager and his collaborators. On the one hand, the manager relies on the skills, seriousness and work of the employees; on the other hand, employees rely on the manager for their professional growth and well-being in the workplace.

Unfortunately, there are managers who have not yet realized the importance of creating a company culture based on trust.

Trust management, on the other hand, is a corporate objective to be treated with attention, planning, consistency and commitment.

A strong bond of trust between the two parties is essential even to create a positive and high-performance work environment.

It is trust that binds people, strengthens bonds, and gives rise to collaborations and exchanges. It is the force that creates projections, expectations, involvement. It can open up a world of opportunities.

Building employee trust is also important for the long-term success of the company. The real challenge, in fact, is to be able to build trust and maintain it over time.

Only in this way do employees trust their managers and tend to be more certain that the company is going in the right direction. As a result, they will be more willing to do whatever it takes to help their manager achieve goals and stimulate even less proactive colleagues.

But the manager must be the first to trigger this process, placing trust in his collaborators and delegating roles of responsibility to them.