Many organizations pay attention to strategy, processes, KPIs, and structure. As soon as results lag behind, the focus often shifts to sharper objectives, better reporting, or a different management style.
However, in practice, I see that the cause frequently lies elsewhere. Teams often know perfectly well what needs to be done. They possess sufficient knowledge, experience, and resources. The real challenge arises when people withhold crucial information, avoid difficult topics, or fail to hold each other accountable for agreements.
At that moment, trust comes into play.
Why is trust often underestimated?
Trust is often viewed as something that arises when people like each other or can work well together. As a result, the subject easily takes on a soft appearance. That image does not do justice to the impact that trust has on an organization's performance.
In teams with little trust, decisions are made more slowly, risks remain hidden longer, and errors are discovered later. People expend more energy protecting their positions than solving problems. In teams with high trust, the exact opposite happens. Information flows faster, problems are discussed sooner, and people dare to take responsibility.
When does the lack of trust become visible?
As long as results are good, customers remain satisfied, and growth continues, underlying tensions can remain hidden for a long time. The team then appears to function just fine. The real test comes when deadlines are under pressure, revenue lags, or a difficult choice has to be made. That is when situations arise where people have to hold each other accountable, interests clash, and uncertainties become open for discussion. It is precisely at those moments that you see how strong the trust truly is.
Teams with little trust often show similar behavior:
- Problems are shared late.
- Critical questions are absent.
- People defend their own position.
- Decisions are indirectly undermined.
- Discussions are shifting to the corridors.
The irony is that everyone thinks they are protecting the collaboration, while it is precisely the collaboration that comes under pressure.
Why does low trust lead to worse decisions?
Good decisions arise from access to good information. That seems obvious, yet this is often where things go wrong. Within management teams, valuable knowledge is scattered across various people. The commercial director sees different signals than the operations manager. The financial officer views risks differently than an entrepreneur or owner.
The quality of a decision depends on the extent to which those perspectives are actually brought to the table. When people suppress doubts, soften objections, or avoid sensitive topics, the quality of decision-making declines. The team then works with an incomplete picture of reality.
That explains why trust is much more directly linked to results than many organizations think.
How do you recognize a team that lacks trust?
Trust can often be recognized in small signals.
Problems are only shared when they are big
In well-functioning teams, risks are brought to the table early. People share signals as soon as they notice that something is about to go wrong. In teams where trust is less strong, the opposite happens. Problems are initially solved individually, departments try to find a way out on their own, and managers wait until they have more certainty. As a result, the organization loses valuable time. By the time the topic finally appears on the agenda, the impact is often much greater than necessary.
Decisions are implemented with different interpretations
A management team makes a decision and everyone agrees. A few weeks later, it turns out that every MT member had a different interpretation of the same agreement.
One views it as a top priority. Another as an important area of focus alongside regular work. A third expects additional decision-making before action is taken.
Often, there is no substantive difference of opinion underlying this. During the decision-making process, people did not ask enough follow-up questions or did not express their doubts. As a result, apparent agreement arises, while in reality, different expectations exist.
Difficult conversations take place outside the meeting room.
One of the strongest signals becomes visible after a meeting. During the meeting, everyone seems to agree. In the hallway, during lunch, or in a one-on-one conversation, the real concerns subsequently surface.
- I don't think this is going to work.
- I think we are missing something important.
- “No one dared to say it, but…”
As soon as the most valuable information is shared outside the meeting, a management team runs a risk. The organization then makes decisions without utilizing all the available knowledge.
People protect their own domain
Trust becomes truly visible when interests clash. In teams with a high level of trust, people look at the organizational interest first. In teams where trust is under pressure, attention shifts more quickly to one's own team, department, or responsibility.
This usually happens unconsciously. People want to limit risks, protect results, or prevent their department from being disadvantaged by a decision. This leads to discussions in which everyone appears to be acting rationally, while the shared goal drifts further and further out of sight.
The organization surprises itself.
Perhaps the most recognizable signal is that setbacks turn out to be surprisingly predictable in hindsight. An important client leaves. A strategic project grinds to a halt. A change lacks sufficient support.
Looking back, it often turns out that several people had seen the signals earlier. Someone was concerned about the schedule. Another had doubts about the feasibility. Yet another saw resistance emerging within the team. The information was available. However, the trust to discuss that information in a timely manner proved insufficient.
Can you trust that everything will be put on the table?
Trust significantly determines how people collaborate, share information, and implement decisions. It influences what information is disclosed, how quickly risks become visible, whether people hold each other accountable for agreements, and the level of support for joint decisions.
Merijn de Jager helps organizations strengthen trust as the foundation for effective collaboration and strategic execution. Drawing on his experience in organizational development, he guides management teams in conducting open conversations, creating shared ownership, and translating strategy into concrete results.
Would you like to discover the impact of trust on the performance of your team or organization? Feel free to contact me for a no-obligation consultation.
