Blog

One of the laziest ways people talk about trust in business is as if it belongs in the culture bucket. It gets treated as something nice to have. Important, of course, but vague. A leadership value. A team dynamic. A word on corporate wallpaper. You can sometimes get away with that in strong businesses. But in struggling ones, you cannot.

In a turnaround, trust is not soft. It is operational.

If people do not trust the numbers, decisions slow down. If they do not trust the workflow, they create workarounds. If they do not trust another function to deliver, they start checking, rechecking, escalating, and protecting themselves before anything has even gone wrong. That is when the business begins to clog. What looks from the outside like a performance issue is often, underneath it, a trust issue that has worked its way into the machinery.

This is one of the reasons I have always found Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team so useful. Not because it is theoretically elegant, but because it is brutally practical.

In a turnaround, you can see the model playing out in real time. The dysfunctions are not abstract. They show up in meetings, in handoffs, in forecasts, in missed targets, and in how leaders behave under pressure.

And it all starts at the bottom of the pyramid: absence of trust.

Why trust matters

Trust in a turnaround is not about whether people like each other. That helps, but it is not the point. The real question is much more practical: can people rely on the system enough to move without constant friction?

That friction starts with data.

If every metric is open to interpretation, every decision becomes a debate. You end up spending half your time arguing over whose numbers are right instead of doing anything about them. Businesses in trouble cannot afford that. They need enough confidence in the underlying information that people can make decisions quickly, even if the data is not perfect. Perfect data is a fantasy. Trusted data is what matters.

Then it shows up in workflows.

A surprising amount of drag comes from people not believing the workflow will actually see the work through. So they hover. They chase. They pull extra people into meetings, and copy another six on emails just to create safety. They build side spreadsheets because the system of record does not feel reliable. None of this is irrational. It is what people do when the process has stopped earning trust.

And then there is trust in handoffs.

This is where many turnarounds get stuck. One function believes another is always late, always vague, or always making excuses. The result is predictable. Energy that should be going into customers, delivery, or product ends up being spent on internal protection. Teams stop acting like parts of one business and start acting like neighboring countries with weak diplomatic ties.

That is not a culture problem. It is an operating one.

It crumbles fast!

What makes Lencioni’s model so relevant in turnarounds is that once trust breaks down, the rest tends to follow very quickly.

First, teams become reluctant to engage in real conflict. Healthy conflict is direct, issue-based, and useful. What you usually get instead is guarded behavior, side conversations, political maneuvering, and frustration expressed in safer places. People stop challenging each other cleanly because they do not feel safe doing it. So the real debate never happens where it should.

From there, commitment gets weaker. If people have not had the honest conversation, they rarely buy in to the decision. They may nod in the room, but they leave with reservations, private disagreement, or selective interpretation. In a turnaround, that is deadly. The business does not have time for leaders to be half-in and privately freelancing.

Then accountability starts to collapse. This is one of the most visible symptoms. When trust is low and commitment is shallow, peers stop holding one another to account. They escalate upward, complain laterally, or simply tolerate underperformance because confronting it feels too costly. The CEO then gets dragged into refereeing issues that the team itself should be capable of resolving.

And finally, attention shifts away from collective results. People start protecting their function, their narrative, their team, or their personal position. Sales blames product. Product blames commercial quality. Operations blames planning. Finance mistrusts everyone’s forecast. At that point the company may still be busy, but it’s no longer moving as one business.

That is why the model matters. It explains why trust is not a soft cultural layer sitting off to the side. It is the foundation that allows teams to engage in real conflict, commit cleanly, hold one another accountable, and stay focused on collective results.

The leader’s role in rebuilding trust

This part is not glamorous. Rebuilding trust has very little to do with speeches and a great deal to do with operational discipline.

First, make the numbers boring.

By that I mean consistent, explainable, and stable enough that people stop arguing about what is real. One definition per metric. One source of truth. Minimal room for performance theater.

Second, make workflows dependable. Not perfect. Dependable.

If approvals always take too long, fix the approval path. If handoffs are fuzzy, define them properly. If teams are compensating for the same broken process every week, stop admiring their heroics and repair the process.

Third, force real conflict into the room.

This is where the Lencioni model becomes especially useful. If the leadership team is avoiding clean debate, you have to surface it. The goal is not more tension. The goal is more honesty. Better to have a direct argument about a broken handoff in the meeting than a month of passive resistance outside it.

Fourth, insist on genuine commitment.

Once the discussion is done, the decision has to become the decision. Not one version for the room and another in the corridor afterward. In turnarounds, alignment cannot be performative.

Fifth, make peer accountability normal.

If every miss has to be escalated to the CEO, the team is not functioning as a team. Senior leaders should be able to challenge one another directly and constructively without turning it into politics or waiting for the boss to intervene.

And finally, keep bringing the conversation back to collective results.

Not functional victories. Not who was right. Not who is protected. Results. A turnaround only works when the leadership team behaves like owners of the whole business.

The payoff is bigger than it looks

When trust starts returning, the first thing you notice is not usually morale. It is speed.

People decide faster. Meetings get shorter. Side channels begin to fade. Escalations become cleaner. Cross-functional work becomes less defensive and more fluid. Leaders start disagreeing more openly, but with less politics. Accountability gets sharper because commitment is clearer. And the organization stops wasting so much energy on defensive motion.

That is why I do not think of trust as a cultural afterthought in turnarounds. I think of it as part of the execution engine. Trust does not sit beside execution. It sits underneath it.

Trust is infrastructure.