The Trust Paradox: Can There Be Too Much

I recently watched The Favourite on Netflix, and it got me thinking about the dynamics of trust and power in leadership. The movie tells the story of Queen Anne's fragile and isolated existence, and how her closest confidantes, Lady Sarah Churchill and Abigail Hill, vied for her trust and loyalty. What struck me was how Anne's unwavering trust (and mistrust) in both women, despite their clear rivalries and ulterior motives, ultimately led to her downfall.

I recall working with two senior leaders, A and B, who had vastly different approaches to trust. Leader A had a high-trust relationship with me, responding quickly and decisively to our proposals. He empowered me to take ownership of projects, provided necessary resources, and offered guidance when needed. This approach fostered a sense of security and collaboration within our team. We felt motivated to deliver high-quality results, knowing that our leader trusted our capabilities.

In contrast, Leader B's approach was more cautious and guarded. He often sought multiple opinions and cross-checked information with our team members, sometimes without the supervisors' knowledge. This created a culture of suspicion, where team members felt like their work was constantly being questioned and second-guessed. This environment stifled creativity, innovation, and growth, ultimately affecting our team's morale and performance.

This made me wonder: is it possible for a leader or team culture to be over-trusting? Can too much trust lead to complacency, blind spots, or even manipulation?

Philip Zimbardo, in his TED talk 'The Psychology of Evil,' explained how ordinary individuals can transform into perpetrators of evil actions. He identified three key factors at play, collectively called 'The Lucifer Effect':

1. The Person: What individuals bring into a situation, including their personality, values, and experiences.

2. The Situation: The immediate environment and circumstances that influence behavior, including factors like social norms, roles, and expectations.

3. The System: The broader context and power structure that creates and maintains the situation, including institutions, policies, and cultural norms.

For example, John, a normally kind employee, becomes aggressive in a high-pressure sales team. The situation brings out his competitive side, reinforced by a system that prioritizes profits over people. John may then do certain things, like lie to a client, which is something he would not do otherwise.

Zimbardo argued that to change an individual's behavior, you must change the situation. To change the situation, you need to understand where the power lies within the system. By understanding these factors and their interplay, we can better address and prevent harmful behavior, while promoting positive change.

In retrospect, with this framework in mind, Leader A's approach to trust was not blind faith but rather informed trust. He had established clear expectations, open communication channels, and built-in checks to ensure that trust was not exploited. This nuanced approach allowed our team to thrive while minimizing the risk of abuse.

As leaders, we can foster a culture of trust with our teams, but it's equally important to recognize that trust must be balanced with accountability and situational awareness. We must set up systems and intervene when necessary to prevent potential manipulation or harm. Just as a master builder balances the weight of a structure with the strength of its foundation, we as leaders must balance the power of trust with the stability of accountability. If we neglect to fortify our teams with clear expectations, open communication, and checks on power, the weight of trust can collapse, causing harm to individuals and organizations. Let us build trust with a strong foundation so it stands firm and supports the growth of our teams.