Creating a more cohesive workplace whereby trust is one of the foundational elements is not a one-step process. One of the first steps to achieving a more cohesive workplace is to determine how you make choices and then embrace that other’s make choices differently.  Their differences are not typically a stab at making you feel less respected or valued. They may just have a difference preference in how they make decisions than you do.  Let’s take a look at the differences.
Do you determine your actions by thinking through the scenario and deciding over time what your action will be?  Or do you decide most things by whether they feel right or wrong?  If you go to purchase a new car, do you base your decision off all of the research you could find about crash ratings, longevity of the vehicle, price comparisons with other vehicles, testimonies from those that have purchased this vehicle, your history with the same brand or any other facts you can discover?  Or do you go shopping for a vehicle and are captured by its appearance, how it feels in the driver’s seat, the pleasure it provides to have all of the vehicle options at your fingertips or how it makes you feel when you are driving that particular vehicle for the test drive?
One decision preference was by thinking it through and the other decision preference was by how it felt.  These are VERY DIFFERENT methods and can cause huge riffs between employees if you don’t understand that the ‘thinking’ method is not a stalling technique and the ‘feeling’ method was not made as an uninformed decision.  They are merely different preferences. If employees are working on a project or depend upon each other for completion, understanding each other’s preference goes a long ways towards cohesion on a team.
Now the differences can be embraced as employee individuality and not viewed as a means to make the other look incompetent or not participating as part of the team. When you see it other’s viewpoints it builds trust between the employees. Use the differences to see the situation in its entirety and make the decisions using both preferences for the team’s advantage.

Carolyn P Fitzpatrick