Part of Find the Balance, a series on the tensions every leader lives with: why we lean one way, what drives the lean, and one small move.

“Trust, but verify” is one of those lines that sounds wise and is only half right. The trouble isn’t the verifying. It’s what tends to happen to the trust once checking becomes a habit. Most of us have seen it: a capable person brings work to a leader who checks it carefully, then checks the next piece, and before long they’re bringing problems to be checked rather than solutions to be approved. The more you check, the less others own.

The paradox

Trust people, and stay in touch with the work. Leaders need to give people real ownership, because ownership is what turns effort into care and care into good judgement. They also need to know what’s going on, because surprises are expensive and some work genuinely needs a second pair of eyes. The tension is real. Trust without contact can slide into not looking, and contact without trust starts to feel like surveillance.

Too little, too much

On one side is Challenging, here in the form of testing and checking: asking for the evidence, looking closely and not taking things at face value. Good questions catch problems early and sharpen everyone’s thinking. Done too much, every proposal is met with doubt and every piece of work is checked twice, so nothing is really delegated. Done too little, reports get signed without being read and plans approved because the presenter sounded confident.

On the other side is Supporting, here in the form of backing people and giving them room: believing they can do it, standing behind their calls and resourcing them properly. Done too little, people feel watched rather than backed, and they hesitate to use their own judgement. Done too much, the backing turns uncritical. You defend work you haven’t looked at, and the people who needed a stretch to do their best never get one.

What each side invites

Heavy checking sends a message, even when it isn’t meant: I don’t trust your judgement. People respond sensibly. Some stop using that judgement and hand everything up. Others get defensive and bring only what they’re sure will survive the questioning, so the ideas get smaller and the risks get hidden.

Uncritical backing invites a different drift. When nobody looks, standards slip quietly, and some people stop checking their own work because no one else does. Either way, the leader ends up less in touch with what’s really happening than they think, which is the opposite of what both the checker and the backer were aiming for.

Within: why you lean

A strong lean towards checking usually rests on a first story like “If I don’t check, it will go wrong.” Sometimes that story was earned. Something did go wrong once, and you were the one who had to answer for it. But a story built on one painful moment can end up running every situation, including the ones where the person in front of you is entirely capable. A lean the other way often rests on “Checking means I don’t trust them,” which makes any close look feel like an insult. Both stories fold two different things, trust in the person and attention to the work, into one.

Around: what the space rewards

Some workplaces make checking feel compulsory. Where errors are punished rather than learned from, or where audit and compliance are the main language of quality, leaders learn that the safest place for any piece of work is under their own eye. That shrinks Agency all the way down the line, and it wears away Safety too, since people under constant review learn to protect themselves first. Other workplaces swing the other way and treat any question as a lack of faith. It’s worth separating what the work actually needs from what your workplace has taught you to fear.

They move

The leaders who get this right adjust. They look closer when the stakes are high, when someone is new to a task or when something doesn’t add up, and they ease off as trust is earned. They also change the kind of question they ask. “What’s your evidence?” tests someone. “What would have to be true for this to work?” helps them think, and leaves them owning the answer. This is where Inquiry, which sits at the centre of all the approaches, earns its place: it lets you stay in touch through curiosity rather than control.

The move

Pick one small, specific step, and make it an if–then plan. Peter Gollwitzer’s research found that simple plans of the form “if this happens, then I’ll do that” make follow-through more likely. If you lean towards checking, try: “If I feel the urge to review someone’s work again, I’ll ask them one question about their thinking instead.” If you lean towards backing without looking, try: “If I’m about to sign something off, I’ll read the part that carries the most risk first, and ask about it.” Keep it small, concrete and decided in advance.

And a question to sit with. Whose work do you check most closely, and is that about the work or about you? What have you approved lately without really looking? And if you asked your team whether you trust them, would their answer match yours?

Find the Balance is one of Square Peg’s three practices, alongside Change the Story and Shape the Conditions.

References

• Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493