How Personal Preferences Erode Trust

Want to lose your team’s trust? Be an inconsistent manager. It might not feel like a big deal, but it creates unrest and destroys trust fast. Here’s how it plays out: One of your team members asks if they can work on a side project with the marketing team. You like them, see their potential, and say yes. A few weeks later, another team member asks for something similar, but you’re not really a fan of them, so you say no. Guess what? Your team will notice. People will talk. Culture will take a hit. Inconsistency in how you treat your team breeds resentment. It undermines trust. And soon, people will question your leadership. Here’s how to avoid it in this situation: 1️⃣ Set clear standards: Have a transparent process for requests like side projects. If you said yes to one person, make sure the criteria for saying yes are clear to everyone. 2️⃣ Check your biases: Before you give an answer, ask yourself — am I being fair? Don’t let personal preferences drive decisions. 3️⃣ Communicate openly: If you have to say no, explain why. People respect honesty, and it helps them understand where you're coming from. How do you stay consistent as a leader? Let me know in the comments.👇

PLAYING FAIR versus PLAYING FAVORITES In my book, Choosing Courage, I wrote about George, a shop manager who faced an agonizing test of principle. Despite his nephew, who reported directly to him, performing very poorly, George’s family was pressuring him to lower his standards or look the other way. George fired his nephew, and the choice cost him his relationship with his sister. But it also deepened the trust the rest of his employees had in him. Turns out, George was on to something: When people describe what undermines trust, lack of consistency is near the top. And nepotism – the hiring of friends or family and then holding them to different (lower) standards – is one of the clearest examples. Research shows nepotism erodes perceptions of fairness, weakens trust and morale, increases turnover intentions among the rest, and even damages reputation with future applicants. The same is true any time we play favorites for other reasons – be it for people more like us or people who are in our identity groups. It’s a natural thing to do. It’s also unfair and deeply damaging to everyone involved: It robs your organization of the best talent, it prevents those you favor from the feedback and accountability they need to grow, and it undermines others’ trust in and respect for you. This isn’t to say we should never work with our friends, family, or others we’re close to. But it does mean we have to be even more vigilant in those cases about fairness and accountability. More generally, if we say that being fair and trustworthy are core values, we better be ready to accept that living them out sometimes involves significant pain, such as losing close relationships like George did. That’s the necessary price of consistency and what it takes to earn the positive benefits that come from a reputation for doing the virtuous things we say we believe in. #fair #trust #values

I once convinced a client making $200M+ annually to remove their AI-powered product recommendation engine. They thought I'd lost my mind. Their marketing team had spent months implementing dynamic content that changed based on visitor behavior. Real-time personalization that was supposed to "boost conversions by 15%." Instead, it was creating decision paralysis. When we tested their "smart" homepage against a simplified version... the simplified version converted 40% better. The personalization was creating cognitive overload. Too many choices. Visitors couldn't focus on what mattered. But there's actually a deeper issue brewing now, with AI. Recent research shows 71% of consumers want AI disclosure when sites are being personalized. They're getting creeped out by how much websites "know" about them (yeah, me too!). Meanwhile, companies are doubling down on hyper-personalization because the technology exists. This creates what I call the "Personalization Privacy Paradox": ↳ The more we optimize for individual preferences, the more we erode trust In the end the client kept personalization for logged-in users who opted in. And they made their default experience elegantly simple: ↳ Clear value proposition ↳ Obvious next steps ↳ No algorithmic guesswork personalization Sometimes the best personalization is knowing when NOT to personalize.

The Quiet Earthquake How a General Manager's #Favoritism Shakes the Entire Organization In the world of business, leadership isn't just about making decisions—it's about how those decisions are perceived and felt across the ranks. One of the most quietly destructive behaviors a General Manager (GM) can exhibit is 'favoritism'. It’s often subtle, rarely documented, but always deeply felt. *The Ripple That Becomes a Wave* When a GM shows clear preference for a select few—be it through exclusive access, opportunities, or public praise—it doesn't stop at that inner circle. The impact travels downward like a quiet earthquake, shaking the confidence and morale of those outside the favored few. Employees start noticing who gets the prime assignments, whose mistakes are forgiven, and whose ideas are always championed. And when that pattern continues, it sends a powerful, unspoken message: merit doesn’t matter—proximity does. *Trust Erodes First* In any high-functioning team, trust is the glue. But favoritism chips away at it in three major ways: - Trust in leadership weakens: People begin to question decisions and doubt fairness. - Peer relationships suffer: The favored are resented, even if they haven’t asked for special treatment. - Self-worth declines: Talented individuals start doubting their value, leading to disengagement or departure. *The Organizational Cost* Favoritism isn’t just a “culture” issue—it’s a performance issue. Here’s why: - Innovation slows down. Why bother sharing ideas if only a few are ever considered? - Turnover increases. Top performers leave when they feel invisible. - Productivity suffers. Disengaged employees do what they must, not what they could. #Favouritism #LeadershipMatters #InclusiveLeadership #TrustInTheWorkplace #OfficePolitics

Nearly half of Americans feel stereotyped by identity-based ads—that’s a big red flag for marketers. Consumers want to feel understood, not placed into broad, outdated categories. I’ve seen firsthand how brands that lean too heavily on personal data can erode trust. Think about a fitness ad assuming someone’s health goals based on age or a financial ad making assumptions about income—when these miss the mark, they alienate more than they connect. Contextual advertising offers a smarter path, reaching people based on real-time relevance rather than personal data. As privacy concerns grow, brands that prioritize respect and relevance will win in the long run. #Advertising #ConsumerTrust #MarketingInnovation