University studies say employers can break promises - I don't think so!

Below is an article I came accross on LinkedIn, ofcourse with the article being about trust and not agreeing with what it said I commented back.

Break promises if you like but treat your workers well..
Promises are made to be broken – especially if you're the boss. Workers don't care so much about whether their employers deliver on specific promises, according to the latest research in organisational psychology. What matters most are the rewards and opportunities they end up getting, even if they were initially promised more.
Most psychologists have assumed that broken promises in the workplace spell serious discontent. But previous studies have tended to record workers' perceptions about such breaches, without determining what promises were actually made.
To disentangle perception from reality, Samantha Montes and David Zweig of the University of Toronto in Canada began by asking students to put themselves in the shoes of hypothetical job candidates.
Half the students were informed that the recruiter made seven specific promises – about bonuses, training, support with personal problems, and so on – while half were not. Then the students read about what had happened to the imaginary employees three years down the line, when the employer had delivered all seven inducements, five or them, or just three.
More than 550 students clearly understood the scenarios described, yet their perceptions of the situations were influenced more by the number of inducements given than by whether any specific promises had been made.

My Response
I read this article with interest, which quickly turned into concern. I believe these kinds of studies and their results have the potential to continue down the spiral of broken trust in a workforce that is already suffering. We are already seeing some of the lowest levels of trust in business around the world, so we certainly don’t need people believing it’s OK to break promises and contribute to that downward spiral.

Let me explain why I disagree with these findings and the subsequent statements:

1. Promises only matter to people if they match the Expectations and the Needs of the individual. We are all drawn to people who actually make Promises that meet our Expectations and Needs, and it is on the combination of those 3 things, what I call ENPs®, that we place our trust in others. Employers will often make general Promises in job ads and interviews that may not matter to some employees but will extremely matter to others. Some specific Promises made to one employee will absolutely matter and they will be drawn to them, other Promises will not matter at all and will frankly just go straight over their heads.

Example: If an employee is Expecting regular ‘on the job’ and external training, which fulfils a strong Need for Self Actualisation and constant learning, and they are Promised regular training, they will be very much drawn to that job, and will react negatively if that training is not delivered. It will be one broken Promise that could completely destroy that employees’ trust in their manager and the organisation.

However, if that same Employee was Promised a bonus, and they are not motivated by Safety and Security and money is not a major driver for them, they will still Expect it because it was Promised, but they do not Need it to any great degree. Therefore a broken Promise about a specific bonus will not bother them, they’ll be happy with whatever they receive – as long as they still get their training!

2. Most people will adjust their Expectations based on what they see going on inside or outside an organisation – difficult times, a downturn, a frugal manager, will all impact employees’ Expectations about the likelihood of initial Promises actually being met. We all adjust our Expectations subconsciously to protect our trust. This is, in fact, how most of us cope with politicians. We Expect that many of the things they Promise will not be delivered to the extent that they Promised, so we still maintain a sense of trust, provided our basic Needs are met.

3. If half-Promises are delivered and meet the lowered Expectations, employees will generally accept those if, and ONLY if, they still feel their Needs have been met.

What does this mean for employers? All employers must:

1. Understand the Expectations and Needs of their employees
2. Only make Promises that they are confident they can deliver
3. If Promises are made in good faith and things change, communicate the changes to employees – ie manage their Expectations
4. Be aware that those Promises made to employees where there is a distinct link between the Promise, the Expectation and the Need must be met, and if not, the trust will break down
5. Understand that you cannot make assumptions about what employees want
6. Know that only Promising and delivering ‘good conditions and rewards’ as Montes suggests will satisfy some employees, but definitely not all, and is a dangerous position to take for an employer that wants good performance and aims to be an employer of choice
7. Decide if they want to be a trusted organisation or not. There is no middle ground, and if organisations are not aware of how trust is being built or broken down, chances are they are breaking it down on a daily basis and are, right now, suffering the consequences of that breakdown.

If you agree with me, please feel free to follow this link and voice your oppinion:
http://www.linkedin.com/newsArticle?viewDiscussion=&articleID=69598386&anetScope=2139318&report%2Esuccess=PdmtybENV2mnc3t3p8JpWuFiB1ZhaD9OnKUphCsu7LRNRYTOK1wrHHO_rcDN0rVBb1wuxUyPL-SZ