Depends. Trust is a funny thing. It really depends on the type of business and the environment. If McDonalds replaced systematic structure & monitoring with trust that the job would get done right, the whole system would be shot to hell. That's a basic example, but it can also be carried over to most office environments.

I used to be a proponent of your theory. To an extent, I still am, but you can only go so far with your trust. After going through a few employees myself, I began to see that unless you have an employee who is essentially as internally motivated as yourself, you are going to have to rely on much more than trust to make sure things get done right. One employee of mine is a complete genius and does some great work, but he just can't manage his time well. In the beginning, I trusted him to make sure the work got done right and on time. It didn't work. Now, I have to monitor him. He works specific days & hours and is held accountable for reporting to me regularly on his progress. I took away some of his freedom, removed some of my trust in him, but guess what? His work gets done right & on time now.

So, do I believe in trusting your employees? Absolutely. But you also have to know their weaknesses and their tendencies, and be willing to monitor & enforce just enough policies to make sure your employees are actually working efficiently and effectively.
Anthony | 12.18.06 - 11:29 pm | #

You are 100% right Anthony - my opinion is very biased because I am internally motivated and I (wrongfully) assume that everyone is equally as motivated. That said, I still think the mass-monitoring that goes on does as much harm as it does good.
Adam | Homepage | 12.19.06 - 12:27 pm | #