Evaluating trust beyond competence

Trust collapsed after one missed deadline They delivered millions in savings together. Then one critical project failed. I watched my client Sarah's (have seeked their permission and changed their name for confidentiality) team transform from celebrating quarterly wins to exchanging terse emails within weeks. During our first coaching session, they sat at opposite ends of the table, avoiding eye contact. "We used to finish each other's sentences," Sarah confided. "Now we can barely finish a meeting without tension." Sound familiar? This frustration isn't about skills—it's about broken trust. In The Thin Book of Trust, Charles Feltman provides the framework that helped us diagnose what was happening. Trust, he explains, isn't mysterious—it breaks down into four measurable elements: ✅ Care – Sarah's team stopped checking in on each other's wellbeing ✅ Sincerity – Their communications became guarded and political ✅ Reliability – Missed deadlines created a cycle of lowered expectations ✅ Competence – They began questioning each other's abilities after setbacks The breakthrough came when I had them map which specific element had broken for each relationship. The pattern was clear: reliability had cracked first, then everything else followed. Three months later, this same team presented their recovery strategy to leadership. Their transformation wasn't magic—it came from deliberately rebuilding trust behaviors, starting with keeping small promises consistently. My video walks you through this exact framework. Because when teams fracture, the question isn't "Why is everyone so difficult?" but rather: "Which trust element needs rebuilding first—and what's my next concrete step?" Which trust element (care, sincerity, reliability, competence) do you find breaks down most often in struggling teams? #humanresources #workplace #team #performance #cassandracoach

https://lnkd.in/ex4Rrabt Beyond Trust: Measuring Performance and Behaviours in Business I recently came across a Simon Sinek clip where he talks about performance vs. trust in Navy SEAL teams. His point is clear: in high-performing teams, trust matters more than performance. Yet in business, we measure performance relentlessly — and trust rarely, if ever. The result? We sometimes end up promoting toxic people into toxic leaders, and fail to acknowledge or support those who are 'doing everything right but not getting results'. The challenge is that trust is hard to measure. It’s something you feel, not something you can score. So in organisations — especially high-pressure functions like sales — I’ve found it more practical to swap out trust for behaviours when building a simple “magic quadrant” for employees. It’s a framework I use with leadership teams and individual contributors alike, and it consistently sparks lightbulb moments. The axes are simple: Performance: the results we’re accountable for. Behaviours: the actions and habits that underpin long-term success. What do we mean by behaviours? In sales, for example, behaviours are visible and easy to assess: CRM hygiene – are systems kept up to date? Preparation – are they ready for calls? Collaboration – do they work respectfully with supporting functions? Knowledge – do they know the products inside out? Representation – do they act as a true company ambassador? Process – do they follow the systems critical to collective success? Company-first mindset – do they prioritise what’s right for the business over what’s convenient for themselves? Why this matters Someone may be underperforming today, but if their behaviours are exemplary, we should invest in them — because strong behaviours usually flow into strong performance. In fact, if they’re doing everything we ask behaviourally, the issue may not be them but what we’re asking of them. Conversely, a high performer with poor behaviours can erode culture, damage collaboration, and ultimately hold the whole team back — even if their personal numbers look good. The quadrant in practice Try it, It’s a simple model, but one that brings clarity to performance conversations for everyone (good and bad) — and helps leaders focus on what really drives sustainable success.

Trust is the currency of leadership. Influence is the currency of trust, and empathy is the heartbeat of leadership. This is not a philosophy, esoteric or fancy statements. These are the golden principles which enable the core of leadership development.              “Trust trumps everything. And everything that flows from trust – learning, credibility, accountability, a sense of purpose and a mission that makes work bigger than oneself” -Deborah Mills-Scofield But, how does trust fortify as an infallible investment?   We like to think of trust as a binary judgment. We either trust someone or we don’t. In reality, trust is a complex feeling gorged with layers that work to build a pyramid of connection with others. No wonder trust is so hard to create and so easy to lose.    At the most basic level, trust is the initial feeling we get when first meeting someone. What people say and do and how they say it or act helps us to infer whether we can trust them in general.    Shortly, people begin to perceive about how reliable and consistent that person is. This forms level-II. We prefer and believe people who are predictable in their actions, reactions, and responses. We also listen closely for how genuine a person is. How much a person inflates everyday facts, influences how much we trust them.     Presuming we trust a person at II-level of reliability in the workplace, we then assess whether we believe in their competence. When we trust that people have the skills/knowledge to perform well at what they do, we reach yet another level of confidence in them.    With a smaller set of people, we reach the next level of emotional trust. At this IV-level, both feel safe and respected when they interact. Emotional trust encourages people to be candid, but also sensitive about what would make others uncomfortable. This is psychological safety.   When team members trust leaders at the emotional level, they are open to feedback and are willing to confront personal challenges. When leaders feel trusted at this level, they are more likely to be vulnerable with others about their true feelings, doubts, and beliefs.    The last level of trust is the hardest to attain, especially for results-driven leaders. Reciprocal trust exists when both parties maintain the highest confidence in each other.    In particular, this V-level of trust depends on the belief that both people operate from good intentions and have pushed aside self-interest to support the relationship. When such reciprocity in trust exists, peer-like bonding, communication, taking risks & showing willingness to innovate together deepens mutual trust in the relationship.    Unfortunately, we can’t skip one level to attain a higher level. We must pass through every stage. Through direct experience, demonstration, and observation, we earn our way up the trust ladder.    What level of trust do you experience with your team members?   Trust that is fully reciprocated is the pinnacle of leadership success.

Trust isn't what we feel about each other. It's what our brains have been trained to expect from each other. After 15 years of observing and sitting across from CEOs in their most vulnerable moments—when the board has lost faith, when their co-founder walks away, when the team they built stops believing—I've learned something counterintuitive: Trust failure is not a personal failure. It's systemic. Think of trust as your team's collective nervous system. It's constantly recording patterns: who delivers, who deflects, who shows up when things get hard. These micro-memories shape every future interaction—automatically, unconsciously, relentlessly. I've been in the room for 200+ trust autopsies. Different companies, same cause of death: The BRIDGE Framework: B – Benevolence. Not kindness. Active investment in others' success even when it costs you. R – Reciprocity. The unconscious ledger everyone keeps. Are deposits matching withdrawals? I – Information Velocity. Truth moves at the speed of trust. Secrets create organizational neurosis. D – Dependable Ability. Competence theatre vs. actual delivery. Your team knows the difference. G – Goal-oriented Alignment. Shared reality or parallel universes? Most teams are living in the latter. E – Ethical Integrity. Your values under pressure reveal your true organizational DNA. Here's the uncomfortable truth: Most leadership teams are performing trust rather than building it. They mistake proximity for connection, meetings for alignment, politeness for psychological safety. The executives who transform their organizations don't manage trust—they architect it. They understand that every micro-interaction either deposits or withdraws from an invisible emotional bank account. Over the next few weeks, I'll decode each circuit through real breakdowns I've witnessed (names changed, patterns intact). Because when you understand the architecture, you can rebuild anything. 💭🌱 A reflection for you: Which circuit just made you think of a specific person on your team? That's your starting point. #Trust #TheExecutiveEdge #Leadership #OrganizationalDynamics #TrustArchitecture

Competence builds trust. At the same time overplaying it breaks partnering in coaching. One of the cornerstones of trust is competence, the ability to deliver what’s expected with skill and integrity. But in coaching, there’s a paradox: how do we demonstrate competence without creating a power dynamic that disrupts the coaching relationship? The Code of Ethics by International Coaching Federation reminds us to make clear and accurate representations, to be modest about our achievements, and to avoid any behavior that signals superiority. This balance plays out differently in coaching contexts: External Executive Coaching. Clients often hire us based on reputation. The challenge is to shift trust from our brand to the coaching process itself, staying grounded and facilitative, not advisory. Team Coaching. Here, competence is visible in how we hold the process, not in having answers. Trust emerges when teams see we’re in service of their collective growth, not leading from expertise. Internal Coaching. Colleagues may already know our skills. The risk? Being seen as a fixer, not a coach. We must continually anchor trust in confidentiality and neutrality. When it empowers competence builds trust. Quite the opposite when it overshadows partnering. How do you hold this balance in your coaching? #siliconvalleycoach

You don’t have to like them to get the job done. Here's why👇 I once led a complex acquisition bid for a client many years ago and had to pull together a strong team. One guy—let’s call him John—was opinionated, sarcastic, and frankly, not someone I would go to lunch with. But… I trusted him. Not because we were friends, but because I knew he’d deliver on a critical aspect of the project. That’s when I learned about the two types of trust: 🧠 Cognitive trust — “I trust your competence” ❤️ Affective trust — “I trust you because we have a relationship” 📚 In The Culture Map by Erin Meyer, trust is explained as a spectrum. Countries like the U.S. lean on cognitive trust—task first. Places like Nigeria? Affective trust—relationship first. The U.K. sits somewhere in between (just like my mixed cultural roots). ⚠️ The danger? We often confuse one for the other. You like someone, so you assume they’ll do a great job. You dislike someone, so you assume they’re incompetent. Wrong on both counts. Often time, in business we confuse relationship based trust (Affective trust) with Task based Trust (Cognitive Trust). You need to trust that your colleague will execute on a job excellently (Task based trust) but when he doesn't, you often times ascribe that lapse to something else, maybe he was ill, or someone else messed up. You do this because you trust him and don't want to think that he would deliberately make you look bad. But you got it wrong, you just have relationship trust with him and not task-based trust because he just isn't that good at his job. Especially in business—whether you're hiring, leading, or selling—you must know which type of trust you're dealing with. It can become very confusing because in Nigeria and many Asian countries, if you don't build up a relationship trust with a prospect, there is little chance the deal will close, regardless of your technical skills. Yet in the US, it is the opposite, you must start with cognitive trust!. Have you conflated the two at work or even in your personal relationships and do you now see why? I didn’t like John. But I trusted his ability. That clarity helped me make the right call. P.S.: Have you ever chosen to work with someone because you liked them… and it backfired? Or maybe the reverse—someone you didn’t like, but who delivered big? Drop your experience in the comments—I’d love to hear how it played out #dbrown #LeadershipDevelopment #WorkplacePsychology #TeamDynamics #EmotionalIntelligence

Ever work with someone who seems credible on paper but…something still feels off? 🤔 You just don’t fully trust them. That’s because trust isn’t built on credibility alone. It’s multi-dimensional. I recently came across the Trust Equation (from The Trusted Advisor), and it perfectly captures the nuances of building trust. Here’s how the Trust Equation defines trust: 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 = (𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 + 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 + 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆) / 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Let’s break it down: 🔹 Credibility: Do they have demonstrated competency? Think degrees, experience, expertise. 🔹 Reliability: Do they follow through? Are they consistent and dependable? 🔹 Intimacy: Now, this one is often overlooked. Do you feel safe with them? Is there empathy, openness, and honesty? And thats all divided by: 🔸 Self-Orientation: Are they focused on the greater mission, or are they more focused on their ego? Are they always trying to be right (high self-orientation), or asking thoughtful questions to understand (low self-orientation)? ⚠️ And here's the kicker: even high credibility and reliability can be undone by high self-orientation When ego dominates, trust degrades. But when service dominates, trust grows. Lately, I’ve been thinking about the Trust Equation as a lens for my own relationships and self-reflection. It’s a simple, powerful way to understand what really earns trust in leadership, teams, and life.

Employees don’t trust companies. They trust people. That’s why most “trust initiatives” fail. Executives think trust comes from managers. Employees know it’s about the entire system. So, how do you rebuild trust in an organization ? Three things matter from employee side : 1. Benevolence : "I trust that you will do right by me." ✅ Back-up ✅ Mutual trust ✅ Opportunities for growth 💬 Manager: I trust my employee can grow with my business. 2. Competence : " I trust that you know what you’re doing. " ✅ Room for error ✅ Recognition  ✅ Best job match 💬 Manager: I trust my people have what it takes. 3. Integrity : " I trust that you are telling me the truth. " ✅ Pay transparency ✅ Fair promotion  ✅ Walking the talk. 💬 Manager: I trust my executives admit mistakes, seek feedback for continuous improvements. Trust isn’t a slogan. It’s built—or broken—with every decision. What else makes or breaks trust? Drop your take below. #trust #employerbrand #transparency #mercer Source : Global Talent Trends Mercer 2024

Ever rewritten a Slack message 3 times just to sound “safe”? This post is for YOU! It wasn’t the workload that broke them. Not the deadlines. Not the pressure. Not even the pace. It was something quieter. Something heavier. → Having to prove themselves twice for half the trust. → Being second-guessed, even after they delivered. → Watching their ideas acknowledged… only when someone else repeated them. I saw it happen years ago. A brilliant team. Green KPIs. Every goal met. But something was off. I noticed it in the in-between moments. → Presentation decks over-explained just to “play it safe.” → Slack messages rewritten three times before hitting “send.” → Eyes scanning the room for a nod, before sharing anything bold. On paper, they looked high-performing. But emotionally, they were exhausted. Not from doing too much From constantly proving they were enough. Now, as a coach, I see this in the stories my clients carry: The meetings they prep for days in advance… because they can’t afford to “wing it.” The feedback they receive is more about tone than talent. The invisible math they do every day: How much of myself is safe to show here? And when leaders ask me, “𝙒𝙝𝙮 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙢𝙮 𝙩𝙚𝙖𝙢 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙙 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡?” I ask: “Where in your culture do people have to earn safety… instead of start with it?” Because trust shouldn’t be a reward for performance. It should be the foundation of it. So if you’re a leader reading this: - Look beyond output. Ask what it costs people to deliver it. - Don’t just listen for what’s said. Pay attention to what’s filtered. - And remember, when people pull back, it’s not always a lack of drive. Often, it’s the fatigue of not being believed. P.S. Have you ever had to prove yourself again and again, just to be seen as competent? Even when you were doing your best? What did that feel like? You can just name the emotion. That’s where the healing begins.

In an industry focused on measuring everything from length of stay to readmission rates, we've overlooked our most fundamental metric: trust. This invisible foundation determines whether our sophisticated systems and advanced technologies actually improve health outcomes. When patients trust their providers, they share critical information, adhere to treatment plans, and return for necessary care. When providers trust their systems, they experience less burnout and make better clinical decisions. Trust isn't just a nice-to-have—it's the prerequisite that makes all other healthcare outcomes possible. The Trust Deficit Yet healthcare faces a profound trust crisis. Patients question whether financial interests outweigh clinical judgment. Providers wonder if systems support their work or just monitor productivity. Both navigate fragmented journeys where crucial information disappears between handoffs. We've designed systems that actively undermine trust: confusing billing, fragmented communication, and environments prioritizing efficiency over connection. Each frustrating interaction erodes the trust essential to healing. Trust as a Design Principle What if we designed for trust as intentionally as we design for efficiency? This means: +Creating transparency where there's typically obscurity: Making costs clear before services are rendered, explaining the why behind clinical decisions, and acknowledging uncertainty when it exists +Building consistency where there's typically variation: Ensuring care feels cohesive across touchpoints and providers share a complete picture of the patient's journey +Enabling human connection where there's typically transactional exchange: Designing environments and workflows that support meaningful conversation and relationship building +Demonstrating competence through thoughtful details: From clear wayfinding to seamless transitions between departments, showing that every aspect of the experience has been considered Measuring What Matters If trust is essential, we must measure it with the same rigor we apply to clinical metrics. This goes beyond satisfaction surveys to capturing specific moments where trust is built or broken: +Did you feel your concerns were taken seriously? +Was information shared in a way you could understand and act upon? +Were financial aspects of your care explained clearly and accurately? +Did your care team demonstrate they were communicating with each other? +Would you feel comfortable bringing up a sensitive health concern with your provider? Trust as Competitive Advantage The organizations that will thrive in healthcare's future aren't just those with the best technology or the most efficient processes—they're those that systematically build and protect trust at every touchpoint. In a world where patients have increasingly diverse options for care, trust becomes the differentiator that builds loyalty and word-of-mouth referrals.