Trust is often described as the foundation of leadership.

But trust is not simply about liking someone or having confidence in their technical ability. According to Roger Mayer, James Davis and F. David Schoorman’s influential model of organisational trust, trust is the willingness to make yourself vulnerable to another person’s actions because you believe they are competent (ability), genuinely care about your interests (benevolence) and consistently act according to shared principles (integrity). When any of these three dimensions disappear, trust begins to erode. (Academy of Management Journals⁠)

This definition is important because every employee makes themselves vulnerable every day.

You trust your manager to evaluate your work fairly.

You trust them to represent your performance accurately in leadership discussions.

You trust them to provide the information and support necessary for you to succeed.

You trust them to advocate for your development rather than quietly undermine it.

When that trust is broken, the consequences extend far beyond an uncomfortable working relationship.

Trust is demonstrated through behaviour

Many organisations measure employee engagement but fail to measure managerial trustworthiness.

Research suggests that employees judge leaders primarily through observable behaviours rather than intentions. Leaders who are perceived as competent, benevolent and acting with integrity earn trust over time. Conversely, persistent behaviours that communicate exclusion or unfairness gradually destroy it. (Academy of Management Journals⁠)

These behaviours may include:

• Withholding information required to perform effectively.
• Avoiding one-to-one conversations.
• Frequently cancelling, postponing or failing to attend meetings.
• Public criticism or humiliation.
• Dismissing ideas without consideration.
• Taking credit for another person’s work.
• Ignoring achievements while amplifying mistakes.
• Speaking negatively about an employee to colleagues or senior leaders.
• Describing someone as “too emotional,” “too difficult,” or “not a team player” without objective evidence.

Any one of these behaviours may simply reflect poor management.

However, when they occur repeatedly, consistently target the same individual and begin affecting that person’s reputation, opportunities and confidence, they resemble what organisational researchers describe as workplace exclusion or ostracism rather than ordinary management shortcomings. Research shows that leadership behaviour is one of the strongest predictors of workplace ostracism and that exclusion is associated with lower performance, reduced wellbeing, lower organisational commitment and increased intentions to leave. (PubMed⁠)

Understanding distrust through the SCARF model

David Rock’s SCARF model helps explain why these seemingly small behaviours have such a profound impact on employees.

SCARF identifies five social needs that influence our threat and reward responses at work:

Status – our sense of value and respect.

Public criticism, dismissal of ideas, taking credit for work or portraying someone negatively to senior leaders all threaten status.

Certainty – knowing what is expected and what comes next.

Managers who withhold information, avoid conversations or repeatedly cancel meetings create uncertainty that increases stress and reduces performance.

Autonomy – feeling trusted to exercise judgement.

Micromanagement, exclusion from decisions or deliberately limiting someone’s access to information reduce autonomy.

Relatedness – feeling included and accepted.

Being ignored, excluded from conversations, gossiped about or treated as an outsider signals social rejection.

Fairness – believing decisions are objective and consistent.

Acknowledging only mistakes while ignoring achievements, unequal treatment or biased performance narratives fundamentally violate employees’ sense of fairness.

Recent empirical research linking SCARF to workplace exclusion found that threats to fairness and status are particularly powerful drivers of employees’ intentions to leave an organisation. (Cambridge University Press⁠)

The lesson for leaders is simple: people often leave not because the work is difficult, but because repeated threats to these psychological needs make staying emotionally and professionally unsafe.

Psychological safety begins with the leader

Amy Edmondson defines psychological safety as a shared belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risks.

Employees contribute ideas, admit mistakes and challenge assumptions only when they believe doing so will not damage their reputation or career.

A manager who humiliates employees, dismisses concerns, controls information or damages reputations creates the opposite of psychological safety.

People stop speaking.

Innovation slows.

Learning disappears.

Politics replaces collaboration.

Research increasingly links psychologically unsafe environments with bullying, exclusion and employee withdrawal. (Cambridge University Press⁠)

What should you do if you recognise these patterns?

The first response is often to work harder.

Unfortunately, organisational research suggests that increased effort alone rarely changes dysfunctional leader-member relationships.

Instead, think strategically.

Continue delivering excellent work. Competence remains your strongest professional asset.

Document your contributions. Keep evidence of projects delivered, customer outcomes, stakeholder feedback and measurable business results. Performance conversations should rely on evidence rather than memory.

Increase your visibility beyond your immediate reporting line. Build authentic relationships across functions and with senior leaders through collaboration rather than self-promotion.

Volunteer for strategic initiatives where your work can be observed independently of your manager’s narrative.

Seek mentors and sponsors outside your reporting line who can provide guidance, perspective and advocacy.

Continue investing in your professional reputation through industry events, professional associations and continuous learning. A strong external network reduces dependence on any single leader for career progression.

Finally, recognise when the environment itself has become the problem.

A healthy organisation can survive a poor manager.

An unhealthy organisation often protects them.

If repeated attempts to improve the relationship fail, your reputation continues to be undermined and opportunities remain blocked despite sustained performance, finding a healthier environment may be the wisest career decision.

Leaving is not always giving up.

Sometimes it is refusing to allow another person’s distrust to define your professional identity.

The challenge for leaders

Leadership is not measured by how much authority we possess.

It is measured by how much trust we create.

Every cancelled meeting, every withheld piece of information, every public humiliation, every conversation that damages someone else’s reputation sends a message about whether this is an environment where people can flourish.

The best leaders understand that trust is not a soft skill.

It is an organisational asset.

Protect it, and people grow.

Destroy it, and eventually your best people will leave.