Trust in Organizations: “I Don’t Trust My Employees” and What That Actually Means
You’ve probably been there yourself.
A manager, let’s call her Kate, sits at her desk after a long day. She’s exhausted and frustrated. Once again, someone on her team made a call she would have made differently. Once again, a project stalled because nobody stepped up to own it. Once again, she has the feeling that nothing runs unless she’s the one running it.
Kate finally says what she’s been thinking for a while: “I just can’t trust my people.”
I hear this sentence often, in coaching sessions, in leadership meetings, in hallway conversations after the meeting ends. It feels true, because it describes a real experience.
It’s still the wrong diagnosis. And as long as Kate sticks with it, nothing will change.
💌 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘣𝘰𝘹 (𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘬). 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘶𝘱 — 𝘐 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦. 𝘞𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯? ➡️ https://cohive.works/newsletter/
Why “I Don’t Trust My Employees” Names the Wrong Problem
Anyone who says they can’t trust their employees is, without realizing it, saying something else: I don’t trust my own system.
That sounds harsh, but it isn’t an accusation. If anything, it’s a relief.
Because if the problem really were the people, there would hardly be a fix. Keep hiring new ones? Tighten the screening process even further? Add more control? None of that leads anywhere.
If the problem sits in the system instead, in the structures, expectations, rules, and the way decisions get made and communicated, there are real levers to pull.
Kate doesn’t have the wrong employees. Without realizing it, she built a system where trust structurally has no room to form.
Why Trust in Companies Can’t Be Forced
You’ve probably seen this play out yourself. Plenty of companies try to build trust directly, without touching the underlying structure:
- Workshops built around trust exercises and group games
- Leadership training on psychological safety
- Values programs with posters in the hallway
- Town halls where leadership promises transparency and trust
And then nothing changes.
Not because people don’t want it to. Because trust doesn’t work the way these formats assume.
Trust is a generalization of expectations, built up from the past. That’s not abstract theory, it’s everyday experience. You trust the colleague who’s come through in three difficult situations before. You trust the manager who’s always said what she meant, even when it was uncomfortable. You trust the team that’s pulled together before, when it counted.
That trust isn’t a gift. It was earned, through moments when expectations were met, and sometimes through moments when they were broken and people kept working together anyway.
You can’t manufacture trust. You earn it over years, through a shared history. A team that was put together yesterday can’t have deep trust yet. That’s not a weakness on the team’s part. It’s also one of the reasons leadership literature so often overlooks why trust can’t simply be trained, no matter how good the program is.
Personal Trust and Systemic Trust: The Distinction Most People Miss
There are two very different kinds of trust in organizations, and people mix them up almost every time.
Personal trust forms between people, through shared history and the experience of knowing how someone thinks and how they behave under pressure. It takes time, can’t be rushed, and it’s fragile. A single betrayal can undo years of it.
Systemic trust is less talked about, but at least as important. It’s trust in an organization’s consistency, in its rules, in how decisions get made, and in the promises it keeps.
Picture a company that champions ownership while every expense under 500 euros still needs sign-off from the board. That’s not a trust problem between people. It’s a structure that signals, every single day, that the company doesn’t trust its own people.
And this is worth a closer look, because that 500-euro rule didn’t come out of nowhere. It’s a decision premise, a structure that was deliberately put in place at some point to limit risk. Some premises in an organization are decidable, like this approval threshold. You could change it tomorrow, by decision. Other premises are undecidable, they can’t be set by directive, they grow over time instead, like whether employees feel safe admitting a bad call.
These two premises act on each other. The 500-euro rule is a decidable premise that collides with the error culture, an undecidable one. What comes out of that collision isn’t a premise at all, it’s a reaction: the hesitation, the double-checking, the sense that nothing can be decided alone. That mistrust is the cultural result of the decidable structure, not its cause, and it’s also not the same thing as the undecidable premise itself. It’s what happens when a decidable rule collides with an undecidable one.
That’s the crucial twist. Culture can’t be changed directly, no diagnosis, no workshop, no appeal reaches it head-on. But the structure that reproduces that culture every day can be changed. Adjusting the approval rule doesn’t change the culture itself. It changes the conditions under which a different culture, one no longer shaped daily by mistrust, has room to develop.
People notice this distinction precisely, even if they’d never put it in these words. And where systemic trust is missing, personal trust becomes a crutch. Small circles of trusted people form, the ones who actually get delegated to, while everyone else gets managed through control. That works as long as those people are around, because they’re personally carrying the trust the system itself should have built. It breaks the moment they leave, move on, or simply stop scaling, because nobody else has that trust to fall back on.
The Control Trap: Why Well-Meant Control Destroys Trust
I want to be honest here, because this part can sting.
Get Martin Backes’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Most leaders who built a control system didn’t do it out of distrust. They did it out of a sense of responsibility, out of wanting to avoid mistakes, out of the belief that good leadership means staying on top of everything. That’s understandable. It’s still a problem.
Because control produces exactly the behavior it’s meant to prevent.
People whose decisions get regularly overruled or checked stop actually deciding. They stop taking ownership. They learn: wait for approval, cover yourself, don’t do anything that raises questions. And then the manager wonders where all the initiative went.
Here’s an image for it: teaching someone to swim by never letting go of them keeps them from drowning. It also keeps them from ever learning to swim. Eventually you say, frustrated, “He just can’t swim.” The whole time, holding on was the reason he never learned.
That’s not a question of blame. It’s a question of structure, and that’s exactly where organizational and team development that targets this exact intersection comes in, working on the structure itself rather than individual behavior.
What Actually Builds Trust in Organizations
Even so, none of this takes big programs, workshop series, or trust initiatives. Trust forms in small, concrete moments, specifically the ones where what an organization says matches what it does.
- A decision that actually gets delegated. No quiet veto, no correcting it after the fact. It sits with the team and stays there.
- A promise that gets kept. Simple, repeated, reliable. Not dramatic, just consistent.
- Bad news that actually gets heard. No punishment, no spin. Rarer than it sounds.
- A mistake that gets discussed openly. Not covered up, not punished, treated as material to learn from. The first time that happens, everyone notices the system means it. Whether it’s an avoidable mistake or an honest misjudgment under real uncertainty makes a real difference here, the same distinction that determines whether psychological safety succeeds or fails.
These moments add up, slowly, unevenly, sometimes with setbacks. Out of them comes something no workshop can manufacture: real systemic trust. That’s exactly the core of how leaders learn to understand their own decision-making latitude.
That said, not every hesitation to delegate is a trust problem. Sometimes something else entirely is going on.
Trust or Confidence: A Distinction That Brings Real Clarity
If you don’t hand someone a task because they don’t have the skill for it yet, that isn’t distrust. It’s a lack of confidence in their ability, and those are two very different things.
Distrust says: I don’t know if you want to do this, or if you’re being honest with me.
Lack of confidence says: You don’t have this skill yet, but you can build it.
Mixing up these two concepts causes real problems. Either skill development gets blocked because control seems necessary, or someone ends up in over their head because showing trust gets treated as the same thing as delegating everything.
Every delegation decision is worth asking: is this a trust question or a confidence question? The answer shapes what needs to happen next. A coaching setting where a leader can work through their own role often helps here, rather than answering the question alone.
If the answer is clearly trust, not confidence, you’re back to the structural question. And that one can be tackled in three concrete places.
Building Trust in Organizations: Three Questions to Start With
This doesn’t take a master plan, just three honest questions and one thing to act on.
- Question 1: Where in your organization is there a gap between what the system promises and what it actually does? That’s exactly where systemic trust gets destroyed, every day.
- Question 2: Which control mechanisms exist that don’t actually manage real risk, but just reflect institutional anxiety? Which of those could you dismantle in the next three months?
- Question 3: When was the last time you truly delegated a decision, without stepping back in afterward? What did that do to the team?
And one more observation, useful only as a rough rule of thumb, nothing more. If you notice in yourself that you struggle to trust your people in general, almost across the board, you’re probably dealing with a systemic problem, and should start with question one and two, not with individual personnel conversations. If it’s one specific person on the team where things just don’t click, while everyone else works fine, that’s more likely personal distrust, unrelated to the system, and a direct conversation with that one person helps more than any structural change.
What follows isn’t a massive transformation. It’s a single, deliberate step. A promise that gets kept. A decision that actually stays with the team. A mistake that gets discussed openly.
Conclusion: Trust in Organizations Is a Structural Question, Not a Character Question
Anyone who says they can’t trust their people usually has a legitimate feeling but the wrong diagnosis. The feeling is real, you know that yourself. But the cause is almost never the people, and usually not a lack of personal trust either, or even a lack of confidence in specific skills. It sits wherever systemic trust is missing, and personal trust turns into a crutch that can’t hold the weight forever.
For anyone who has to make a call tomorrow, it comes down to this: don’t launch another trust initiative. Instead, take one of the three questions above seriously and follow it all the way through. Most of the time, that leads to the same kind of insight: an approval threshold, an escalation rule, a control mechanism that has less to do with actual risk than with the fear of losing control.
And then it takes patience, which most leaders find hard to come by. A changed approval rule won’t show up in next quarter’s employee survey. It shows up once enough people have experienced, enough times, that it actually holds, and that takes months, not weeks. Anyone who reverts to the old controls after the first disappointment ends up confirming exactly the distrust they were trying to remove.
Trust in organizations can’t be decided into existence. It grows wherever a structure keeps its promise, over and over, not wherever someone talks about it.
Get in Touch
If you’re noticing that you don’t trust your team, but you’re not sure whether the problem sits with the people or with the system, that’s exactly the point where an outside perspective helps.
In a first conversation, we’ll look together at where the real levers sit in your organization. Free, no obligation.
This blog article (both in English and German) first appeared on the CoHive Blog.
You could also check out our webpage and learn more about our work at: www.cohive.works.
