Several years ago, we worked with a firm in New Orleans and the CEO, Phill, hired The Metiss Group to resolve what appeared to be a leadership conflict inside a high-performing sales team. On paper, everything made sense: quarterly numbers were strong, territory coverage was balanced, and incentive structures were aligned. Yet the team was fractured. Morale was low, turnover was rising, and collaboration had stalled.
Phill and the executive team believed the problem was one particular sales manager who, in their words, "just didn't get it." He was accused of poor communication, low initiative, and undermining group cohesion. But when we sat down with him and the team, a different story emerged. This manager was well-liked by his direct reports. He consistently hit targets. What he lacked was clarity on expectations, particularly from senior leadership. He was not unreliable. He was under-supported.
What broke in this case was not the person, but the perception. The team no longer trusted leadership, and leadership no longer trusted the team. Neither side had violated rules or acted maliciously. Still, something fundamental had collapsed: trust.
We call this Untrust, not because trust vanished, but because something quieter and trickier happened. Nobody stormed out of a meeting. Nobody broke the rules. But the air changed. Doubt crept in. And once that happens, people stop talking. It is what happens when one of the three foundational dimensions of trust—intentions, reliability, or competence—becomes strained, misread, or inconsistent. Once Untrust takes root, teams stop communicating, assumptions multiply, and outcomes decline.
The Metiss Group works with leadership teams every day to avoid this preventable trap. Trust is more than a feeling. It is a system. When that system is neglected or misunderstood, even high-functioning organizations suffer.
In this article, you will learn:
- Trusting Intentions: Do You Have My Best Interest in Mind?
- Trusting Reliability: Will You Do What You Say?
- Trusting Competence: Can You Do What You Say?
- Untrust: When One Leg is Weak
- Building and Repairing Trust in Degrees
Trusting Intentions: Do You Have My Best Interest in Mind?
Intentions speak to motive. Before people assess performance or promises, they ask themselves a more fundamental question: Does this person actually care about me, this team, or our mission?
A leader who advocates for their team, who seeks shared wins instead of personal victories, or who gives feedback with the intent to support, builds trust at the level of intent. That trust becomes especially important in moments of uncertainty or conflict. When intentions are trusted, people are more likely to extend grace, interpret mistakes as human, and stay open to feedback.
But when intentions are suspect, even without direct evidence, confidence erodes. A manager perceived as self-interested, or a colleague who seems more concerned with appearances than outcomes, introduces doubt. And where there is doubt, trust weakens.
Trusting Reliability: Will You Do What You Say?
Intentions are not enough without action. Reliability builds trust through follow-through. It is demonstrated in meeting deadlines, showing up prepared, and doing what was promised without being reminded.
Reliability is rarely lost through malice. It is usually lost through neglect. A single missed deadline, an unanswered message, or a forgotten commitment can outweigh months of consistency. And unlike intentions, which are internal, reliability is constantly visible.
Leaders often assume that their good motives compensate for unreliable behavior. They do not. Trust requires both belief in someone's motives and confidence in their behavior.
Trusting Competence: Can You Do What You Say?
The third dimension of trust, competence, is frequently underestimated. Even with good intentions and consistent follow-through, someone who lacks the skill, experience, or tools to perform will struggle to maintain trust.
Think of the CFO who is principled and responsive but lacks technical strength in forecasting. Or the HR leader who is reliable and well-meaning but unable to handle difficult conversations effectively. Over time, competence gaps create stress, not because of bad character, but because of repeated failure.
In the workplace, competence should never be assumed. It must be developed, evaluated, and supported. When leaders confuse competence gaps for motivational problems, they assign the wrong solutions. Coaching becomes punitive. Feedback becomes criticism. Trust becomes fragile.
Untrust: When One Leg is Weak
Trust does not collapse instantly. It deteriorates in stages. Picture trust as a three-legged stool, held up by intentions, reliability, and competence. The stool does not fall only when a leg disappears. It can become unstable when just one leg weakens, even slightly.
Untrust is not binary. It does not mean trust has vanished. It means the level of confidence is compromised. A team may trust their leader’s intentions and reliability but question their competence in navigating complex challenges. Or they may trust a colleague’s skill but worry about self-serving motives during team decisions. These partial doubts create hesitation, slow decision-making, and reduce cohesion.
Many organizations operate in this gray area. People are not openly defiant. They are cautious. They withhold ideas. They second-guess each other. The environment becomes safe enough to avoid conflict but not strong enough to foster deep collaboration. This is how Untrust quietly takes root.
The greater risk lies in misdiagnosis. A leader might misinterpret a competence issue as laziness. A manager might see an inconsistent performer as uncommitted, when the real issue is unclear direction. Misreading weak trust in one area can further erode the others.
Building and Repairing Trust in Degrees
Just as trust erodes gradually, it can also be rebuilt progressively. There is no single conversation or action that restores full confidence. Rebuilding requires repeated behaviors aligned with the specific trust dimension that is weakest.
Leaders must begin by asking where the gap is. If the team questions your intentions, then showing support, listening without defensiveness, and acting with transparency become essential. If reliability is the concern, build a visible track record of doing what you commit to, on time and without exception. If competence is the issue, be candid about limitations and actively seek skill development or support.
Teams should speak in specifics. Avoid vague statements like “we have trust issues.” Instead, say, “I know you want the project to succeed, but I need more consistency in your delivery,” or “I trust your work ethic, but this scope might be outside your current expertise.”
Individuals must examine how they are perceived, not just how they intend to behave. Are they overpromising? Avoiding accountability? Operating outside their capabilities without support? Small course corrections build trust more effectively than sweeping declarations.
Most importantly, rebuilding trust is not a one-person job. Leaders, teams, and individuals must all engage. Trust is built in interaction, tested in conflict, and reinforced by alignment between words and actions.
Takeaways
Trust is not a single trait. It is a system composed of three dimensions: intentions, reliability, and competence. Each can be strong or weak. Each can shift over time.
Untrust is not always the collapse of trust. Often, it is the quiet erosion of confidence in one area. This leads to hesitation, reduced collaboration, and missed potential.
Effective leaders treat trust as dynamic. They diagnose it with precision, address weaknesses with intention, and invest consistently in building stronger foundations. When trust is built and maintained this way, it becomes more than a cultural aspiration. It becomes a strategic asset.
