Go back

Leadership - when trust and control go hand in hand

Posted on December 2, 2024

Picture 1

Leadership - when trust and control go hand in hand

Trust and control should not necessarily be viewed as dichotomous opposites in the workplace or society. A wise leader recognizes trust and control as essential allies that can complement and reinforce one another.

Few of us want a manager constantly looking over our shoulder. Instead, we prefer a leader who trusts our skills and grants us autonomy in carrying out our tasks. However, as a leader, there is a risk in relying solely on trust and allowing employees to operate independently. This approach might lead to projects lacking direction and procedural errors. On the other hand, exercising control over employees might be seen as a lack of trust—or is it?

The Value of Trust

According to German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, today’s complex societies depend on citizens’ trust. Optimistic expectations of institutions and systems allow individuals to navigate these complexities, despite having access to only a fraction of the necessary information. In his book Trust, Danish economist and political researcher Gert Tinggaard Svendsen emphasizes the societal and economic benefits of social trust—our tendency to trust strangers—in which Denmark ranks highest in worldwide. He argues that social trust is crucial for a good Danish economy because it reduces transaction costs, such as the time and money spent on oversight and control. He reframes Lenin’s famous phrase to: “Control is good, but trust is cheaper.”

Trust, therefore, is vital for a well-functioning society. A similar principle applies within organizations, where modern phenomena like psychological safety and autonomy stem from a postmodern culture of trust. In contrast, control is often viewed as a villain undermining trust and its positive effects—and perhaps rightly so.

In the public sector and private finance, the Danish press frequently highlights scandals: money laundering, dividend tax fraud, nepotism, tax evasion, and healthcare mishaps. These are often long-standing issues that eventually lead to tightened controls and the implementation of procedures that bog down bureaucracy, frustrate employees, and diminish motivation. One healthcare leader complained:

"It feels like the press dictates what we focus on in hospitals. If there’s a cancer case in the media, cancer gets all the managerial attention. Then we’re measured on how many diagnoses, treatments, and follow-ups we deliver. But from a professional standpoint, we may not be using our time wisely. This demotivates our skilled professionals, who then leave.Then we don’t get the results we are aiming at"

The problem with increasing control in response to scandals is the creation of a bureaucracy so dense that responsibility becomes sidelined. Employees fall back on, “I did what I was supposed to,” implying they haven’t exercised professional judgment or considered ethics. When every misstep is met with more control, we risk fostering indifferent, cynical employees who stop thinking critically—a dangerous outcome for any society.

In some parts of the public sector, leaders are now exploring the opposite approach. Several hospitals are transferring healthcare decisions back to departmental teams. Also, despite several scandals at the Danish Tax Agency, an organization built on enforcing compliance, Director Merete Agergaard is actively fostering trust among management layers. As she explains, this does not mean abandoning bureaucracy entirely; she stands firmly behind maintaining supportive procedures. Leaders need “just enough control” to feel confident they understand what’s right and wrong. This balance between trust and control is crucial and forms the foundation of what we call the trust-control paradox.

The Trust-Control Paradox

Control’s negative connotations in an organization often stem from its association with traditional, hierarchical management characterized by rigid power structures and limited employee influence. Consequently, in Scandinavian leadership traditions, control has almost become a dirty word, replaced by postmodern virtues like holacracy, sociocracy, and nión-hierarchical organizations. Yet even in these settings, employees work to create structures ensuring tasks are completed effectively.

Postmodern leadership, however, can sometimes go too far. When a leader’s toolbox consists solely of autonomy, employee involvement, and coaching, employees may begin to crave clearer guidelines and firmer leadership. Too much freedom can paralyze employees, export polarization downward to increase among employees and spark vicious cycles of conflict.

This is not only a philosophical or sociological stance but also a pattern we’ve observed in both public and private organizations.

Without clear frameworks, employees face heightened accountability for failures, leading to anxiety and indecision. In extreme cases, excessive autonomy can create a self-imposed pressure akin to an internalized panopticon, resulting in stress and confusion.

Empirical studies repeatedly show that employees need structure and clear expectations from leadership. Inspired by Tina Øllgaard Bentzen from Roskilde University, control might be better framed as governance, freeing it from its negative associations. According to Bentzen, governance/control is effective when it becomes meaningful for task completion, particularly when co-created through dialogue with employees. Meaningful governance and control should:

  1. Involve employees in its design.

  2. Provide a clear framework for task execution.

  3. Empower employees to exercise decision-making and autonomy confidently.

This form of meaningful control not only fosters mutual trust between leader and employee but also grants the leader greater insight into employees’ work processes because employees feel safe sharing their challenges.

One might argue that trust and control form a leadership paradox. On one hand, they appear mutually exclusive—showing only control undermines trust. On the other, they are interdependent—trust can be built through clear frameworks, and control achieved through trust. Navigating this paradox requires reflective leadership. Leaders must ask themselves: What is just enough of trust so that it doesn’t end up in blind trust? When do I show just enough control to provide direction and confidence? When do I show just enough trust to instill autonomy and belief in my employees?

Communicating the Balance

Leaders must articulate and justify their use of control. When governance is implicit or left unspoken, and only trust is communicated, leadership risks losing credibility. Often, hidden forms of control, like performance management or compliance checks, emerge anyway, creating conflicting messages: “We trust you, but we need to monitor your performance.” Instead of concealing control, leaders should make it explicit, framing it as supportive structures for task execution. Hidden control is directly harmful – it is at high risk at being mistaken for mis-trust

How to Lead with Trust-Control

Balancing trust and control requires a nuanced approach tailored to the task and the individual employee. Here are three practical steps for integrating trust into control:

  1. Clarify expectations:

    Discuss task frameworks and the level of governance and control employees feel they need, including how often to check in.

  2. Solicit feedback:

    Ask employees how they perceive your balance of control and trust—whether they feel micromanaged or left unsupported.

  3. Adapt to individual needs:

    Learn to recognize which employees thrive on structure and which need high autonomy.

Too often, organizations respond to failures by tightening control. However, this risks exacerbating the problem. Employees disengage and stop taking responsibility when there’s too little trust. By asking, “What is just enough control?” leaders can use control not only to mitigate risks but also to foster trust, create better task frameworks, and strengthen psychological safety within the organization. With this approach, control becomes a tool for building, rather than eroding, organizational trust.

By Lotte Lüscher, Msc. In psychology, PhD in management and Lars Kjartan Bacher Svendsen, Msc in psychology and Doctoral student