What advice would you give to someone starting a business today?
We spend a great deal of time telling organisations to build trust. But what happens when people trust each other so much that they stop asking difficult questions? Matthew Bennett, Founding Partner of Willow Ethos, explores how excessive trust can discourage constructive challenge and undermine effective decision-making.
I recently worked with a client where we encountered an interesting cultural tension. This was not an organisation suffering from dysfunctional relationships. Quite the opposite. People respected one another. Leaders knew each other well. There was a strong sense of loyalty and mutual support. Trust, by most conventional measures, was a strength.
And yet, as we looked more closely, another question began to emerge.
Were people challenging each other enough?
It is an uncomfortable question because we have spent years positioning trust as an almost unqualified organisational good. We associate high-trust cultures with engagement, collaboration and psychological safety. Low-trust cultures, meanwhile, conjure up images of politics, defensiveness and people withholding information.
That distinction is broadly right. But it risks missing something important. Trust can become comfortable. When teams have worked together for a long time, relationships become established. People understand one another’s intentions. They know that colleagues are experienced, competent and generally acting in good faith.
All of that makes organisations easier places to work, but it can also make certain questions harder to ask.
“Are we sure?”
“What evidence are we using?”
“What if the assumption we have always made is wrong?”
“I know you feel strongly about this, but I disagree.”
Over time, trust can drift into deference. Familiarity can become certainty. Consensus can begin to feel like evidence that a decision is right. The danger is not necessarily dramatic groupthink. More often it is something quieter: fewer questions, assumptions left untested and disagreement softened until it is barely disagreement at all.
Research has long suggested that dissent plays an important role in decision quality. Experimental work on group decision-making has found that genuine disagreement can reduce the tendency of groups to seek information that simply confirms the position they already favour. Research on effective teams similarly suggests that cooperation and constructive controversy can coexist: teams can have strong relationships while still discussing opposing views openly.
That distinction matters. The answer is not less trust, it is a more mature form of trust.
Real trust should allow me to challenge you without you questioning my motives. It should allow you to tell me that I may be wrong without threatening our relationship. And it should allow a leader to hear dissent without immediately explaining, defending or closing the conversation down. This is where psychological safety is sometimes misunderstood. It is not about making work endlessly comfortable or removing disagreement. Amy Edmondson’s work has consistently connected psychological safety with the ability to speak candidly, raise concerns and challenge ideas in pursuit of better performance.
In other words, the goal is not harmony: it is productive tension.
For the client I was working with, this changed the leadership question. Instead of asking only, “Do people trust one another?”, we began asking:
“Is there enough trust here for people to disagree?”
That is a much harder test.
Leaders also have to recognise that encouraging challenge is only half the equation. What happens in the few seconds after somebody challenges us may matter even more. Do we become defensive? Explain why they have misunderstood? Move quickly to close the issue?
Or do we become curious?
High-performing cultures need both trust and challenge. Trust without challenge risks complacency. Challenge without trust risks conflict and defensiveness. The ambition should be neither comfort nor confrontation: it should be a culture in which people can say:
“I trust you enough to tell you that I think you may be wrong.”
About Matthew Bennett
Matthew Bennett is the Co-Founder and Founding Partner of Willow Ethos, a leadership and organisational development consultancy specialising in workplace culture, leadership effectiveness and organisational performance.
Drawing on his experience working with organisations across multiple sectors, Matthew helps businesses strengthen leadership capability, improve decision-making and build cultures that support sustainable growth.
To learn more about Willow Ethos or discuss how Matthew can support your organisation, contact him at [email protected].
Leave a Comment