Trust, Oversight and the Fragile Leader.
- David Yates
- May 15
- 4 min read
What happens when we confuse support with surveillance.
When Trust Feels Like a Trap.
Trust is everywhere in leadership language. It appears in strategy documents, company values and performance models, but in practice, trust is rarely clean.
Most people, at some point in their careers, have experienced the kind of trust that doesn’t feel like trust at all: a polite handover laced with hidden oversight, a task delegated but still tightly watched or a responsibility accepted but not truly owned.
You’re told: We trust you, but then the check-ins come.
The quiet corrections, the unsolicited “support,” or implied meaning:
We trust you, until you do it differently.
For leaders, this rarely comes from ego, more likely it comes from pressure, because modern leadership carries accountability without full control.
Leaders are expected to empower others, but still carry the consequences if things go wrong. It’s no surprise that they stay so close to the “doing.”
That they watch the edges and they quietly recalculate what’s been delegated.
This tension, between trust and responsibility often leads to something else entirely.. oversight disguised as support. It may look like involvement, but it feels like surveillance.
It keeps people careful and it keeps leaders exhausted.
Over time, this corrodes the very thing it’s trying to protect.
In Part 1, we saw how deference can rob teams of their voice. In Part 2, we explored how delegation breaks down when fear overrides ownership.
Now we arrive at the final layer.. how to lead with trust, without letting go of visibility.
Trust as a Designed System, not a Personal Virtue.
We often treat trust as a character trait.
You either have it or you don’t, but in reality, trust needs scaffolding, especially in high-pressure environments.
The most resilient teams don’t rely on personality. They rely on clarity: of roles, expectations and escalation. They separate trust from surveillance by making oversight visible, predictable and purpose-driven.
In these teams, support is rhythmic, not reactive and it lives in standing reviews, not surprise check-ins and it flows both ways.
Leaders feel able to step back, allowing teams to feel safe stepping forward.
This doesn’t happen by accident. It takes design, maturity and it takes language.
Common language with shared terms for when to ask, when to act and when to step aside.
What Aviation Teaches Us About Trust and Verification.
In many industries, “Trust but Verify” is interpreted as a contradiction. A polite way of saying “I’ll be checking your work.”
In aviation, it means something fundamentally different.
In aviation, trust but verify is a cultural lens, not a loophole, nor a suspicion.. but a shared and agreed upon truth.
We trust one another’s professional standard, because we’ve all met it repeatedly. We also trust the variability of human capacity, even in highly capable people and because we’ve all experienced it personally.
We know it varies.. Week to week. Day to day. Minute to minute.
The presence of cockpit voice recorders and flight data monitors doesn’t undermine trust, it reinforces it. Not because pilots are being watched, but because they know the system sees them.
You aren’t guessing, or hiding. You’re operating in full view, with full respect.
Because of this, pilots are trained to intervene, not just when something goes wrong, but when the signal is faint.
They rehearse the handover, use known language and remove their ego.
The three levels of intervention are hinting and tipping, tell me what to do and do it for me. These are practised in the simulator and used on the line.
They’re normal. Expected. Constructive. No one flinches because everyone understands verification isn’t a sign of distrust. It’s a sign of care and support.
Because this language is used daily and its meaning is understood both explicitly and implicitly, even a single sentence can prompt internal questioning and humility in the face of a shared decision.
Business could learn from this. Not by installing recorders, but by designing clarity:
Rhythmic, agreed oversight: not reactive check-ins.
Open language for escalation: not silent withdrawal.
Shared acceptance of human limits: not posturing over capability.
When verification becomes a shared safety net, not a private suspicion, trust deepens and people relax into their work.
The Cost of Getting It Wrong.
When trust is vague, everyone suffers.
Leaders feel anxious: They stay too close and they struggle to rest.
Teams feel watched: They take fewer risks and they stop innovating.
Communication becomes guarded: Feedback is filtered and initiative dries up.
All of this looks like professionalism on the outside, but inside, people are holding back. They’re overthinking and adapting to the leader instead of the problem.
Eventually, this creates fragility: a system that appears orderly, but breaks the moment pressure rises.
The system is designed as brittle.
This is the exact opposite of resilience.
Trust is Infrastructure, not Intuition.
If we want to build truly resilient teams, we have to treat trust as a system response, not a personal virtue.
Define roles clearly: so ownership is known.
Schedule oversight intentionally: so feedback isn’t mistaken for panic.
Establish escalation norms: so problems surface early, without shame.
Normalise verification: not as doubt, but as diligence.
Leaders must learn to step back without disappearing. Teams must learn to step forward without fear and both sides must understand that trust is not the absence of visibility, it’s the presence of shared responsibility.
This entire trilogy has pointed to one truth: Resilience is not found in the individual, but in the way the system holds the individual day to day and when the pressure rises.
When we stop deferring, we free people to think.
When we delegate clearly, we build capacity.
When we trust with structure, we make performance sustainable.
This is Resilient Leadership, designed with clarity and care. It opens the door to trust, adaptability and sustainable performance.
Comments