Can you control trust at work? Curation of perspectives (Building Trust Part 2)

This article is a collaboration between Artur Henriques, The Long Missing SoW, and Elina , Leadership Capability System, exploring what trust at work really means, where it comes from, and how much of it is actually within our control.

I am Elina and I write about leadership as a set of capabilities. Most managers already know what good leadership looks like in theory. The gap is in bridging that knowledge with the everyday struggle: building teams of real owners, creating visibility in political environments, dealing with the inner critic, and staying effective when it gets messy. Capability is that micro-muscle that turns a manager from someone drifting through their role into someone authoring it.

Hello, I am Artur Henriques, and I want to thank Elina for this collaboration opportunity. I write The Long Missing SoW, a newsletter dedicated to IT Leadership, Management, and Tech Strategy. With over a decade of experience leading teams, I throw out useless corporate talk for actionable tips and tactical insights.

Trust at work is one of those topics everyone knows matters in theory, yet many struggle with in practice. Today, we are taking one question and sitting with it from two different angles, then exploring perspectives from other Substack authors on the topic.

The question: Can you deliberately build trust, or do you just have to earn it slowly?

I believe trust must be earned slowly, regardless of your background or past achievements. My approach is similar to a “brute force” strategy: I have a firm conviction that trust is built primarily upon results. While great communication and stakeholder management go a long way, if a manager takes too long to deliver, trust starts to erode from the top down.

A leader never stands alone. They require the support of those above them in the hierarchy and the commitment of the teams below. Even a CEO needs the confidence of shareholders to execute an ambitious strategy, just as the teams need to be aligned with the same goals for being able to succeed. Trust may be channelled through words, but it is built upon results.

In a recent article, I explored how trust must be materialized through results, no matter your position. I advocate for taking initiative, breaking silos, and fostering collaboration by integrating ideas from multiple sources. Together, these actions don’t just build trust, they define a strong Leader.

While I was publishing my own article about trust, for this collaboration, another writer whose viewpoints I respect a lot also published an article about trust. Simone D'Amico’s view highlights that the Leader should not provide all answers but should empower others instead, by providing them with the tools for their own decision-making.

During my research for this subject, I found an old article of mine that also uses the trust of a central point for team dynamics. The projects that we are assigned to might not have enough resources to play by the book and follow all the best practices. In these cases, relationships are what save the project, more than any Agile buzzword.

The first lens I would use to answer this question is the subjective experience of trust. We interpret every interaction through a different operating model, shaped by past experiences, beliefs, and personality traits. When you put a group of people in a room, each carrying their own lens, you cannot engineer trust based on just your understanding of the world.

I remember taking a team out for a social event, exactly the kind of thing you do to build connection. At some point colleagues exchanged casual jokes, normal team banter, everyone laughed. Later, the person the joke was about told me she felt excluded. The environment had been deliberately designed to create connection and trust, and it still produced something no one intended. You cannot control what a situation means to someone else.

But there is a second lens: what can you actually control? As a leader, you still have a responsibility to create conditions where trust is possible; and that requires capability, not just good intentions.

Early in my management experience, my instinct was to fix situations like that one. What I learned is that the more effective role is not fixer but container creator, someone who observes before intervening, acknowledges everyone’s experience without taking sides, and shows up consistently enough that people know what to expect. Someone who creates enough space for the group to work through friction rather than around it.

That capability takes time to build. But the return is not just smoother team dynamics, it is the ability to prevent serious derailment before it happens.

I selected the following articles by Substack authors I recently read. I tried to pick different perspectives from pragmatic to deeply psychological to represent the multi-layered nature of the question of trust.

The Last Unfair Advantage — Dennis Berry , Elite Leaders

This is more of a pragmatic view. The piece positions trust as a key differentiator in an AI-saturated professional landscape. When knowledge and skills are outsourceable, being able to build trust, i.e. being consistently knowledgeable, honest, and reliable is a competitive edge that compounds over time.

Trust First, Feedback Second — Melissa Muth Martinez, Honest Office

This article takes an organisational and practical view, drawing on Charles Feltman’s framework, this piece argues that trust rests on four pillars: care, sincerity, reliability, and competence and that feedback only works when those foundations are already in place.

When Trust Breaks: The Neuroscience of Betrayal — Vera Hart MD PhD

The most physiological angle in this collection. The piece explores what actually happens in the brain and nervous system when trust is broken. The reframe that stays with you: rebuilding trust after a difficult experience is not simply a mindset shift. It is neurological recovery, and it takes the time it takes.

It’s Not Just About Them: Rethinking Trust - by Elina

Most of us treat trust as something that either exists or does not, a gut feeling about others. This article challenges that by arguing that our own reactions, beliefs, and leadership choices actively shape the trust dynamic.

Trust is multi-faceted, fragile, and deeply contextual. It is built on results and on small moments. It is relational, which means two people in the same environment can experience it completely differently.

That is exactly why this conversation matters. For this collaboration we started in different places to answer the same question, and that feels right. Trust probably does not have one universal mechanism. It has yours, shaped by your context, your role, and the people around you.

So, we will leave you with the question:

What is trust at work for you? Something you build deliberately, through consistent action and intentional choices; or something you let develop organically, through time and shared experience?

We would love to hear your perspective in the comments.