In this article
Harvard Business Review notes that a manager’s own habits can contribute to distrust. The audit below helps you inspect those habits without assuming every concern is unfounded.
Ask what you mean by trust your team
“I do not trust them” combines several possible problems. You may doubt a person’s capability, reliability, judgement or willingness to raise a concern. You may also be uncomfortable with an approach different from yours.
Name the specific task and concern. “I am unsure whether this colleague can verify the financial assumptions” is more actionable than “They are not ready.”
Then identify the evidence. What happened, how recently and under what conditions? One mistake during an unfamiliar task is different from a repeated pattern after clear instruction and support.
Do not use likeability or similarity to you as a substitute for evidence. Someone can communicate differently and still make sound decisions.
Look at the checks you have added
List the approvals, updates and reviews you require. For each, write the risk it is meant to address.
A checking step may be necessary for a legal obligation, a high-consequence decision or a developing skill. Another may exist only because you added it after feeling anxious.
Ask whether the check catches the relevant problem. Reviewing every email will not necessarily improve a poorly defined customer commitment.
Also ask whether the check creates a new risk, such as delaying a time-sensitive response or leaving nobody sure who owns the decision.
Keep useful oversight. Remove or redesign checks only when the underlying risk has another adequate control.
Separate different from wrong
Write the minimum standard before reviewing the work. What must be accurate, compliant, usable or delivered by a particular time?
Then notice where your feedback concerns preference. A different slide order or writing style may still meet the objective.
If a preference is genuinely necessary for a shared format, explain it in advance. Do not introduce invisible requirements after the employee has completed the task.
Ask the person to explain their reasoning. You may discover a consideration you missed, or you may identify a specific gap that needs correction.
The aim is not to accept every alternative. It is to judge the work against a defensible standard.
A hypothetical approval habit
Imagine a manager asks an experienced colleague to own a weekly customer update. She then rewrites every message before it is sent.
When she reviews her changes, most concern phrasing rather than factual accuracy. The colleague has begun sending rougher drafts because he assumes the manager will rewrite them anyway.
They agree a shared checklist covering confirmed dates, unresolved risks and the next action. The colleague sends the update directly when it meets the checklist and escalates an exception.
The manager samples the process at an agreed review point rather than approving each message.
This hypothetical shows one possible cycle between oversight and ownership. It does not mean close review is always unnecessary.
Discuss a real capability concern directly
If the evidence shows a skill gap, explain the requirement and offer appropriate support. A colleague cannot improve against an undisclosed suspicion.
Try: “The last two forecasts used inconsistent periods. We need the comparison on the same basis. Let us review one example and agree how you will check the next one.”
Set a proportionate review point and define what would show readiness for greater independence.
If reliability is the concern, discuss the specific commitments and any constraints. If serious conduct is involved, use the proper process.
Do not label a person permanently untrustworthy when the issue is a learnable skill. Equally, do not ignore a repeated pattern because you want to appear supportive.
Test your own tolerance for reasonable uncertainty
Delegation involves accepting that another person may make a reasonable choice you would not have made. Decide in advance which differences you can live with.
Start with a bounded, reversible assignment where appropriate. Agree the outcome, limits and escalation trigger.
When the employee works within that agreement, resist changing the rules merely because you feel uncomfortable. If new information genuinely changes the risk, explain it and revise the boundary openly.
Afterwards, review the reasoning and outcome. Use evidence to expand, maintain or reduce oversight.
Run the audit on one task
Write the task, the specific risk, your current check and the evidence behind it. Ask whether the check is necessary, whether it addresses the risk and whether the employee understands it.
Peak Belt’s guides to team accountability and trust and credibility provide wider context. Explore TrueNorth for related practice.
Review whether opportunity is distributed fairly
Notice who receives stretch work and who receives only tightly controlled tasks. Ask whether the difference reflects relevant evidence or a preference for familiar colleagues. A person cannot demonstrate a capability they are never allowed to practise. Where appropriate, create a bounded opportunity with support and clear criteria, then evaluate what happens rather than relying indefinitely on an old impression.
Change one habit that prevents genuine ownership, while keeping the controls the work actually requires.
AI-assisted researched guidance from PeakBelt. Hypothetical examples are labelled in the text. See our editorial approach.