It is 3am in Hanoi, Vietnam. Here is the nagging premise I cannot shake loose: control and trust cannot exist at the same time. Watch what happens when a leader says they want to be responsible, thorough, informed — and then requires every recommendation to be walked through before anything moves.
It's 3am in Hanoi, Vietnam.
I'm laying in bed with jetlag and a keynote presentation I'm giving in a few hours, reviewing some case studies I've put together. And a thought struck me that I can't shake loose. So I'm exercising jetlag demons the only way I know how.
Writing.
Here is the nagging premise: Control and trust cannot exist at the same time.
Leaders don't usually say they choose control. They say they want to be responsible. Thorough. Informed. They say, "I just need to understand the full picture before we move."
But watch what happens.
An internal subject matter expert brings a recommendation. They're asked to walk through every assumption. Every risk. Every alternative. Every implication.
The language is, "Help me understand."
The signal the leader is creating in that moment is something else entirely.
The signal communicates: "I don't trust you to decide."
Work slows. Decision velocity drops. Everything routes back to one place. The leader becomes the system.
And that is exactly where scaling and growing an organization breaks down. With leaders frustrated at not understanding why growth is not happening at the speed they want. They are blind to their own shortcoming.
Control has a ceiling.
Every decision becomes a meeting. Every meeting becomes a funnel. Every funnel leads back to the same bottleneck. People wait. Opportunities pass. Energy drains out quietly. And the leader, feeling the strain, does the one thing that makes it worse.
They tighten.
More involvement. More context. More check-ins. The reservoir fills and fills until the dam can't hold it.
I've been thinking about this through three companies.
Netflix built a culture around freedom and real accountability. No vacation policy. No expense approvals for most decisions. Hire adults. Expect ownership. That assumption scaled from 30 million to 300 million subscribers.
When Disney acquired Pixar, Bob Iger didn't absorb it. He protected it. The creative model stayed intact. The autonomy stayed intact. Control was available to him, and he chose not to use it. Both Disney and Pixar studios thrived, pumping out hit after hit.
WeWork said all the right things about community and openness. The behavior told a different story. Lavish executive spending, decisions without accountability, a culture that protected the top while preaching connection to everyone else. Employees saw the gap long before the market did. November 2023. Chapter 11.
Different industries. Different outcomes. One thread.
Trust.
Stephen R. Covey defined it simply: trust is a combination of both character and competence. We trust people when we believe they have no hidden agendas, they do the right thing, and they actually can. Miss either one, trust erodes. That's true of the people we lead. It's also true of how they see us.
Here is the part that gets uncomfortable.
Most leaders don't struggle with defining trust. They struggle with extending it.
Because extending trust means accepting a specific kind of risk.
Someone will make a call you wouldn't have made. Someone will miss something you would have caught. Someone will fail, and the outcome will be on your watch.
If that feels unacceptable, control takes over. And once control takes over, trust doesn't stand a chance.
I'll also say this, because it doesn't get said enough.
Controlling leaders are quietly requiring something of themselves: they have to be the smartest person in the room.
They may not use those words. They will freely admit they don't have technical expertise in every area. But the process gives it away.
The internal expert still has to build the deck. Still has to walk through every implication. Still has to convince before anything moves.
That process has a cost. And the people going through it know exactly what it means.
The leaders I've seen begin to break out of this pattern share one thing in common: they start extending trust in small ways.
Let decisions move without you when the consequences are limited. Watch what happens. Not just to the outcome, but to the person who made the call.
Then notice yourself. The urge to step back in. To ask one more question. To quietly tighten the loop.
Acknowledge the urge, don't fight it. Allow it to be there. Control is not going to go away quietly. And make a conscious choice to still stay with trust.
That moment is the work.
Because under pressure, you don't rise to your values. You fall back to your pattern.
If the pattern is control, trust disappears exactly when you need it most.
You don't reveal trust in how you talk about it. You reveal it in what you still need to control when something real is at stake.
So the question I keep coming back to is this:
When the pressure hits, does your system expand through trust... or collapse back to you?
The essential findings from this article.
The signal beneath the words — when leaders require every recommendation to be walked through before decisions move, the message is 'I don't trust you to decide,' and decision velocity drops as the leader becomes the system
Control has a ceiling — Netflix, Disney-Pixar, and WeWork illustrate three different outcomes on the same trust dimension; the thread running through all of them is whether leaders extended trust or withheld it
Extending trust means accepting a specific kind of risk — someone will make a call you wouldn't have made, and if that feels unacceptable, control takes over and trust doesn't stand a chance
Start smaller than you want to — let decisions move without you when consequences are limited, notice the urge to step back in, acknowledge it, and make a conscious choice to stay with trust; that moment is the work
Explore more writing on leadership, transformation, and organizational change.