Part 3: Building Trust—Agreements People Can Depend On

A Series on Trust — Part 3

By Kristin Schleicher A manager I coached was an excellent communicator.

Yet she struggled to rely on other people and often felt she had to do everything herself.

She was hesitant to ask for what she needed, give clear direction, or offer difficult feedback. Being “too nice” was part of how she described the problem.

There was an important tension there. She wanted to trust others, but some of the conversations that would make that possible felt uncomfortable.

We explored her reluctance and the beliefs behind it. That experience keeps bringing me back to a practical point: trust needs agreements people can actually work with.

Delegation leaves room for both freedom and clarity

Imagine handing someone a project with the words, “I trust you. Just take care of it.”

That may sound empowering.

But what does success look like?

Which decisions can they make?

What resources are available?

When should they involve you?

Without those answers, the employee inherits uncertainty alongside responsibility.

The manager may later become frustrated with choices they never explained.

Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman’s trust model distinguishes willingness to accept vulnerability from the risk-taking behavior that follows. That distinction is useful here: trusting a colleague and deciding how much authority to delegate are connected judgments, but they are not identical. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust

My recommendation is to agree on the outcome, decision boundaries, available support, and review points. Then allow the person to work within that agreement.

A scheduled review can support autonomy when everyone understands its purpose. Repeated, unannounced checking tells a different story.

Questions need answers—and answers need follow-through

There are three parts to a credible leadership conversation:

What employees need	The question underneath
Permission to ask	Can I question this without being labelled resistant or incapable?
A meaningful answer	What does this mean for my role, workload, and responsibilities?
Follow-through	Did anyone address the concern—or did we just have a listening session?

Leaders will not always have a final answer. That is understandable. Leaving people indefinitely uncertain is a different matter.

A useful response might be: “Here is what we know. This part is still undecided. I will come back to you on Friday, even if the decision is not ready.”

Friday then matters.

Reliability includes changing a commitment honestly

Even a thoughtful leader will occasionally miss a deadline or discover that a promise cannot be kept.

When that happens, say so early. Explain what changed, acknowledge the effect on others, and agree on what happens next. Do not quietly replace the original promise and hope nobody noticed.

The same principle applies to feedback. If work needs to improve, delaying the conversation to preserve a pleasant atmosphere can leave someone facing consequences they had no fair chance to avoid.

Care can sound like: “This part is not meeting the requirement. Let’s look at the gap and what support would help you address it.”

Turn delegation into an agreement both people understand

“Please take ownership” sounds straightforward—until two people discover they understood ownership differently.

One expected independent decisions. The other expected approval before every step.

Neither interpretation was discussed.

Start with a conversation about the work and the person doing it. 

Ask what experience they bring, what support they need, and whether the assignment fits their existing workload. Respect includes allowing someone to identify a capacity problem without having their commitment questioned.

A useful opening is:

“I’d like you to lead this. Let’s look at what it involves and what needs to change in your current priorities.”

Then make the agreement concrete. 

Discuss:

• The outcome and how quality will be assessed.

• Decisions they can make and decisions that need approval.

• Resources, dependencies, and available support.

• Review points and situations that require earlier contact.

Ask the employee to describe how they intend to proceed. This checks whether you have explained the assignment clearly and gives them room to shape the approach.

Your responsibilities belong in the agreement, too. 

If they need your approval, when will you respond? If another department blocks progress, who will resolve it? Delegation becomes difficult when an employee is accountable for delivery but cannot depend on the support promised.

Suppose a review reveals a problem. Describe the gap, ask what contributed to it, and agree on a correction. Keep expectations consistent unless there is an explicit conversation about changing them.

“I expected the analysis to include these two markets. We didn’t establish that clearly enough at the start. Let’s agree on the revised scope and timing.”

That response combines accountability with honesty.

Trust becomes practical when both people know what they owe each other—and neither has to guess whether asking for help will count against them.

Look beyond the individual conversation

Recognition, opportunities, and workload allocation also need to match what leaders say they value. If people who raise concerns lose opportunities, invitations to speak up become hard to believe.

For HR and L&D, this means leadership development should include real working agreements and the organizational conditions needed to honor them. A communication workshop cannot compensate for an incentive system that rewards broken promises.

When you leave the room, can people move forward without guessing what you meant—or wondering whether you will change it tomorrow?