A critical point me was implied, but not explicitly stated: trust is a two way relationship. Leaders need to trust people to do the right things. People need to trust leaders and each other for the information and tools to be successful and the freedom to make mistakes.
Like the author, I've been in environments where friction led to fantastic results and environments where it was to be avoided at all costs--with less than optimal results.
Teams deliver the best results when trust allows friction, or what I sometimes call "healthy conflict."
Well said. I agree, trust is reciprocal and without it friction either turns corrosive or gets avoided entirely. The part that’s often missing is that leaders don’t just allow healthy conflict, they have to model what happens after it. How disagreement is absorbed, resolved or remembered teaches the team whether trust is real or performative.
When trust holds, friction sharpens the work. When it doesn’t, even good intentions start to drift.
I haven't heard this talked about much... if ever. And as a former corporate comms associate, I am racking my brain as to why. I wish more people could be transparent and understanding. I really enjoyed this Post!
Thank you! I think it’s rarely talked about because it lives in the gray space between intention and expectation, which most organizations avoid naming. Transparency makes it visible. I’m really glad it resonated with you.
I like this article. Thank you for posting.
A critical point me was implied, but not explicitly stated: trust is a two way relationship. Leaders need to trust people to do the right things. People need to trust leaders and each other for the information and tools to be successful and the freedom to make mistakes.
Like the author, I've been in environments where friction led to fantastic results and environments where it was to be avoided at all costs--with less than optimal results.
Teams deliver the best results when trust allows friction, or what I sometimes call "healthy conflict."
Well said. I agree, trust is reciprocal and without it friction either turns corrosive or gets avoided entirely. The part that’s often missing is that leaders don’t just allow healthy conflict, they have to model what happens after it. How disagreement is absorbed, resolved or remembered teaches the team whether trust is real or performative.
When trust holds, friction sharpens the work. When it doesn’t, even good intentions start to drift.
This one hit.
This was so true,I’ve seen teams drift when trust erodes, even though no one meant harm.
I haven't heard this talked about much... if ever. And as a former corporate comms associate, I am racking my brain as to why. I wish more people could be transparent and understanding. I really enjoyed this Post!
Thank you! I think it’s rarely talked about because it lives in the gray space between intention and expectation, which most organizations avoid naming. Transparency makes it visible. I’m really glad it resonated with you.