SO you're Agile; you've got a continuous build going, the code's got unit tests, integration tests, big visible charts are up and current around the bullpen, your velocity looks good. But there's no trust....

The developers don't trust each other, the testing becomes defensive, the code becomes more and more difficult to refactor. Egos get in the way, team timeouts stretch on without resolution, customer demos are fractured, retrospectives become muted with silent finger pointing. The product starts to lose coherence and the cost of change rises steadily...

The project sponsor doesn't trust the team, at every opportunity he edges closer to imposing a command and control structure that will micro-manage every element of the teams daily behavior. The facilitator does his best to defend the team but now there's project manager touting a GANTT chart about, with team members now reduced to 'resource blocks'. At the next meeting the project sponsor insists that the project should be reviewed by the company's 'architecture group'.The team becomes disempowered, hustle disappears, ownership ebbs away...

The facilitator doesn't trust the team and questions their ability to deliver. He adds technical debt cards to the product backlog to incorporate code checking tools into the build system - not as an aid, but as a form of policing. He keeps a timesheet of when the team members arrive and depart the office and suspects that certain people aren't pulling their weight. He begins to dread meeting with the project sponsor and becomes unenthused and cynical...

OK, so maybe I've painted a outlandish or ridiculous scenario (or maybe not!) but since the term trust is quite a 'soft' subject I figure it was best to try an example. Trust, like respect, is a fundamental human quality that is built over time and only under the right circumstances. It supports bravery and confidence.

Interestingly, it is this quality that has seen Toyota voted above all other automotive manufacturers by their suppliers - the knowledge that they will consistently work with their suppliers to ensure a mutually beneficial outcome, regardless of company restructuring, market circumstances or whatever local conditions may be occurring. People are beginning to realize the importance of trust again.

Trust (with it's inverse - fear) was a key indicator that emerged from a discussion with Simon about determining a given company's 'agility'. It was somewhat surprising (at first at least!) to see that technology related factors were far overshadowed by something I rarely hear mentioned in conversation. Trust is something you can foster by empowering your team, removing the command & control structure and promoting honesty.

Patrick Lencioni talks a lot about trust as part of The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. Specifically he says a dysfunctional team demonstrates an absence of trust. Whereas members of great teams trust one another on an emotional level and they are comfortable being vulnerable with each other about their weaknesses, mistakes, fears and behaviours. They are completely open with one another. Teams that trust one another engage in constructive disagreement, make decisions, take action, make commitments and hold one another accountable to them. People in these teams put aside personal aspirations and egos to seek collective results that define success as a team.

I like the idea of encouraging people to show vulnerability. A simple and alternative way of achieving this is to take the team down the pub and have one or two too many beers. In a social situation, with a bit of liquid lubrication, people relax their inhibitions and you start to see the real persons. And the next day, the night before becomes a shared experience for everyone and this is the beginning of a binding effect.

--Simon, 03-Dec-2006