Trust and the Work of Organizations
“The essential condition of cooperative action is the willingness of individuals to contribute their efforts to a common purpose. And this willingness rests fundamentally on a condition of trust.”
- Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive
Trust and the Work of Organizations
We are living through a time when the internal scaffolding of many organizations, public and private, large and small feels like it is coming undone. Expectations are shifting. Commitments are fraying. Structures that once held together are now under strain, and the people inside them are often unsure whether to hold on, rebuild, or walk away.
In this environment, the usual language of leadership and strategy feels inadequate. Efficiency, innovation, agility; these words still circulate, but they no longer carry weight. What people are really asking for, often without saying it directly, is something more fundamental: Can we trust each other enough to move?
Trust is what allows people to act in conditions of uncertainty. It is the invisible infrastructure that holds organizations together when the path ahead is not clear.
Trust is not a soft virtue. It is not a motivational poster or a cultural perk. Trust is what allows people to act in conditions of uncertainty. It is the invisible infrastructure that holds organizations together when the path ahead is not clear. When trust is present, people coordinate, speak truthfully, and take responsibility. When it is absent, even the best strategy stalls.
This paper is not about building trust as a side initiative. It is about understanding trust as the working medium of all real collaboration. Without trust, the work fragments. With it, the work lives.
Trust as the Medium of Coordination
To understand the role of trust in organizations, we must first understand what makes organizational work possible. At its core, any organization is a system of commitments. People make and keep promises to one another across time, roles, and levels of responsibility. These promises are what allow things to get done.
But commitments are not self-executing. They live in conversation. They require clarity, mutual recognition, and a willingness to be accountable. This is where trust enters, not as an attitude, but as a structuring force. In the language of Fernando Flores (Disclosing New Worlds, Conversations for Action…), trust is generated through the successful coordination of commitments: requests made clearly, offers accepted responsibly, promises kept or renegotiated when circumstances change.
Trust, then, is not static. It is dynamic. It is formed, tested, and reinforced through repeated cycles of speech and action. It exists not as belief, but as observed reliability over time. And in this view, organizations are not machines with processes. They are webs of interdependent coordination enabled, sustained, and sometimes broken by trust.
When trust is working, teams move quickly and with minimal friction. When it fails, work becomes theatrical.
When trust is working, teams move quickly and with minimal friction. When it fails, work becomes theatrical. People perform agreement but hedge their commitments. Deadlines are met in form but missed in substance. Clarity erodes. Silence spreads.
The cost of low trust is not just inefficiency, it is paralysis. Organizations become bureaucratic not because rules are bad, but because trust has disappeared. In the absence of trust, people protect themselves. They stop initiating. They over document. They avoid taking responsibility for outcomes they cannot control.
This creates a kind of institutional exhaustion. Leaders demand accountability, but without the conditions for trust, accountability becomes performative. People appear busy but are disconnected from purpose. Conversations flatten. Risk-taking vanishes. No one says what needs to be said.
This is the deeper danger, not a lack of productivity, but a loss of moral and strategic coherence. The organization may still function technically, but it ceases to act meaningfully. People withdraw their attention, their energy, their hope. Not because they are cynical, but because they no longer believe that the space can hold their real participation.
In such conditions, the work of leadership is not to demand trust, but to become trustworthy stewards of coordination. This means speaking clearly. It means honoring commitments or renegotiating them with integrity when circumstances change. It means creating space for others to speak without fear of punishment, to act without needing permission for every step, and to bring forward the knowledge they carry.
Trustworthy leadership is not soft. It is disciplined. It is rigorous in its use of language. It does not hide breakdowns or deflect blame. It faces complexity directly, and in doing so, gives others permission to do the same.
The future will not be built by command. It will be coordinated—patiently, imperfectly, and with courage.
This is not a matter of charisma or personality. It is about structure and practice. Leaders create the conditions in which trust can emerge by showing how they themselves work through complexity, how they speak, how they respond, how they hold space for accountability.
Over time, this builds a culture not of ease, but of shared confidence in the reliability of one another’s commitments. And that is what allows work to move again—not through compliance, but through mutual trust in action.
The Possibility Ahead
If organizations are to become truly responsive, resilient in the face of uncertainty, capable of intelligent adaptation they must recover trust not as an ideal, but as a core operational principle. This will require more than policies. It will require a different posture: one that treats every meeting, every commitment, every breakdown as a site where trust is either being built, reinforced, or eroded.
This is not theoretical. It is visible in who speaks up. It is present in how decisions are made. It is felt in the space between people: Are we in this together or are we protecting ourselves from one another?
The future will not be built by command. It will not be managed into being. It will be coordinated patiently, imperfectly, and with courage by people willing to trust each other enough to act.
That is the work now.
Deeper Dive: Suggested Readings
For readers who want to explore trust not just as a concept but as a practical discipline within organizations, I recommend studying Fernando Flores’ work on language and coordination, especially Conversations for Action. These works illuminate how trust is continually formed, sustained, and repaired through promises, requests, and declarations turning abstract trust into actionable practice.
For a broader context, Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline complements this view by showing how trust underpins the learning organization, and Arie de Geus’s The Living Company highlights trust’s role in institutional longevity.
Next up: Trust and the Work of Organizations
Chester I. Barnard’s classic, The Functions of the Executive, remains foundational for anyone serious about how organizations actually function not as charts and roles, but as systems of cooperation grounded in willingness and trust. This essay will build directly on today’s reflection by exploring Barnard’s core insight: that the true test of an executive is not command or control, but the capacity to maintain a cooperative system in which people willingly contribute to a common purpose.
Stay connected:
Subscribe to the Newsletter, follow me on LinkedIn, or follow The Pivot Mind for future essays.
Use this link to share with your network:
thepivotmind.com/blog/trust-and-the-work-of-organizations
With gratitude and anticipation,
John Henderson
Founder, The Pivot Mind
