People tend to systematically overestimate their impact on the results of activities in which their contribution is non-existent. Phrases "the company's good performance was due to the CEO, or "the team's poor performance was due to the coach," describe these kinds of situations well. One's overestimation is common in individual-centered cultures and people who see themselves as independent - individuals self-perception (this individual delusion is culturally bound).
Social psychologists are skeptical about the validity of such an idea that individual contribution systematically impacts the result of an activity, in its general place. So, what impacts the results of, let's say, a meeting or a game? Does the individual have a greater impact than the team or the situation? The social psychologists emphasize the importance of interaction between an individual and the situation and claims that its importance is far more complicated than our everyday thinking suggests.
Companies' structural competitiveness is determined significantly by people's trust
So, how do we create situations that are prosperous? And, what if instead of saying "she or he did it," we said, "they or we did it"? Team or companies' structural competitiveness is determined significantly by people's trust. First of all, trust promotes smooth cooperation. Secondly, trust is interlocked with innovation and equality. In fact, hierarchy explains almost 80% of the fluctuation in trust. Where there is less hierarchy, people trust each other more.
Equality in change promotes and creates innovation. In fact, socio-psychological experiments that have examined the impact of leadership styles and reward-sharing principles show that equal groups produce more self-contained outputs than unequal ones. Indeed, those teams or companies that emphasize competition and inequality do worse than those who emphasize team effort, equal players, whereas trust generated by social equality creates the conditions for renewed and effective operations in all areas.
Even though inclusiveness in decision making can sometimes seem slow or costly to managers and leaders, we suggest they take the time to create a collaboration and inclusive community that is built on trust.
In conclusion, equality, innovativeness, trust, and cooperation brings competitive advantages. So, even though inclusiveness in decision making can sometimes seem slow or costly to managers and leaders, we suggest they take the time to create a collaboration and inclusive community that is built on trust. Building a community that trusts each other is most of the time worth the investment.