It is distressing to observe how many different, very costly, systems in the modern organization are designed and implemented as an alternative to human interaction based on trust. Employees, hoping to contribute meaningfully to the organization with their best efforts and skills, often get completely bogged down by practices of recording, reporting and scoring their work. Instead of being productive and making a positive difference with their skills, they feel they are wasting time to either calm the nerves of the manager or meaninglessly comply to the rules of a system that produces reports that they never hear of.

In the bigger system of modern society we often experience that our word does not count for much anymore. Whether we are dealing with a bank or wanting to make use of the services of a library, we need to submit evidence of who we are, where we stay, and other, often seemingly irrelevant, personal information. While we mostly are prepared to tolerate the paperwork when applying for a loan at a bank or for membership at a library, we can feel insulted by management's demands to show evidence of every bit of work we do and explanation of how we spend our time.

There are many good reasons for having systems that measure and record all kinds of work activities, but the effectiveness and productivity of our organizations will not be determined by the level of control that is exercised but the level of trust that exists. In bureaucratic organizations you have high levels of control and the absence of creativity and entrepreneurship. In its life-cycle it is one step away from death. Accountability is necessary, but the less trust there is in organizations the more dependent we become on external, bureaucratic measures with increased levels of frustration as a result. Form triumphs over function. Meetings are then no longer a means of open, honest and constructive debate. They become sterile reporting sessions with lots of information but very little movement in terms of new ideas, change of heart and a boost of energy.

Consider the chain of destructive behavior when a manager does not trust the people who report to him. A person who is not trusted typically does not feel valued. Even if he contributes significantly to the organization through his work and even if those contributions are recognized, he will not feel valued when treated with suspicion or distrust. Once a person feels that his integrity is questioned or not respected, he responds by shielding himself off from the person who distrusts him. The relationship becomes strained and such a person less open, less forthcoming, less enthusiastic and less helpful. Information and ideas that he normally would have shared, now remains hidden from his manager.

It is obvious that the less information and creative ideas the manager has, the less able he is to solve the problems that faces him from day to day. The more problems he has and the more pressing they are, the more the distrusting manager will try to proof that he does not need others to manage. It is a mindset that typically originates from unfulfilled dependency needs in childhood. If, as a child, a person feels abandoned and left to his own ability to survive, it will most probably manifest later on in life as a deep-seated fear that other people will prove to be unreliable. As leaders, they develop tremendous self-reliance. They tend to become controlling and impatient with people who do not succumb to their ideas and wishes. When they become parents they will teach their children not to trust others easily.

At the point when the distrusting manager finds himself in a corner and is desperate to get out, the climate of fear and suspicion is so advanced that nobody is prepared to offer any support or help. Not only does he suffer the consequences of inefficiencies and un-productiveness but so does everyone else.

The level of trust in a work organization is in the first instance determined by the leadership. Unfortunately, leaders rarely discuss their distrust with the other person; instead, they act on it and thereby aggravates the situation. Trust or the lack of it is as real to the life of a business organization as its sales figures. What is more, it is more fundamental to its success than the commitment and hard work of all its members. Cohesion and team synergy is built on trust. Without it, people's commitment and hard work is diluted.

It is understandable that we don't want to feel vulnerable and by trusting others we willingly are making ourselves vulnerable. However, that is the risk that good leaders are willing to take in order to grow a community that work as a team. Good leaders are aware of it and see their roles as builders of trust. They know that trust is not built by an attitude that implicitly says: I don't trust you, but you can trust me. Being trustworthy is only one side of the coin. Yes, as leaders we need to demonstrate honesty, integrity, consistency, discipline, work ethic, humility and commitment to be trusted. But we also need to be willing to be first in extending trust to others.

Different scorecards and other management tools are helpful to the goal of building an efficient organization. However, if the organization is already low in trust, it is most likely seen as yet another example of distrust and management's way of controlling behavior rather than leading and inspiring people in a way that demonstrates their belief in them.