Trust Barometer puts high pressure on leaders

The annual Edelmann Trust Barometer was published this week. It received noticeably less attention from the media than in recent years, no doubt because it doesn't show any dramatic year-on-year falls in the trust that the public feels for institutions and business. Nonetheless, the survey continues to underline the high levels of scepticism and mistrust that now characterise our perceptions of political and business leaders.

One finding that inevitably stands out is the attitude towards banks and bankers. Trust in the banking industry in the UK has halved in the past five years, not surprisingly. Of the 18 countries surveyed, only Spain and Ireland have less trust in their banks. The fact that trust levels are twice as high in the US as in the UK must surely say something not just about the way the financial crisis has been reported and perceived on each side of the Atlantic, but also about the healthy degree of scepticism that naturally occurs among the British public. It would certainly be hard to argue that US banks have behaved any more honourably than their UK counterparts (see my post The Flaw: money-grabbing and misery in modern America).

The Trust Barometer also underlines how the events of recent years have cemented the public's mistrust of both political and business leadership, at least in the developed world. CEOs are little more trusted than government officials. And once again, the UK displays one of the highest degrees of scepticism among the countries surveyed.

Edelmann's analysis concludes that, in order to regain the respect and trust they have lost, leaders need to throw out the old mantra of top-down authority and embrace the "new mandate" of "inclusive management".  I believe that such a shift is healthy not only for leaders themselves but also for the performance of organisations. For one thing, many of the damaging leadership mistakes of recent years - from the ridiculous bets on subprime mortgages to insane corporate mergers (RBS-ABN, HP-Autonomy, etc) to the Iraq War - have happened because people with power were able to push through decisions that surely wouldn't have stood up to reasoned, informed and independent group scrutiny.

More diffuse models of leadership will gradually emerge. Chains of command will give way to webs of influence. The challenge then becomes to ensure that organisations don't drift into a sclerotic, directionless mess that stifles decision-making and accountability. Let's hope the finest minds in organisational development are at work on this very issue as I type.