Ask Savannah
What actually builds trust on a team — and the quiet ways leaders erode it without meaning to.
Separate the standard itself, which should stay high, from how you respond when it isn't met — curiosity about what happened builds trust, while visible disappointment builds a team that manages what you see instead of telling you the truth. The standard isn't the problem; the emotional cost of admitting a gap usually is.
Look at your last few promotion and top-rating decisions and ask honestly what behaviors actually earned them — if it's individual output alone, regardless of how it was achieved, that's your real culture, whatever the values statement says. Culture is defined by what gets rewarded twice, not by what's written on the wall.
Accountability only works when it's built on a genuinely specific, mutually understood commitment — a vague expectation held to a hard deadline is pressure, not accountability, no matter how it's framed. Invest the clarity upfront, at the point the expectation is set, not after a shortfall becomes visible.
Test it directly — step away for a real stretch, not an afternoon, and treat whatever breaks as your actual list of what to build capability around. A team that runs well in your absence has your judgment built into the system itself; one that stalls has been depending on you personally, which is a different thing entirely.
Address the behavior directly and as seriously as you would for anyone else — protecting a strong performer from the standard because their numbers are good teaches the entire team that the standard bends for people useful enough to matter. That lesson spreads faster than any stated value ever will.
Notice that smoother meetings can mean either genuine alignment or trained silence, and they look identical from your seat — the only way to tell is by actively rewarding the specific act of pushback when it happens. Thank people visibly for disagreement that changes your mind, especially when it's uncomfortable to hear.
Name the real losses honestly, for the people leaving and the people staying, rather than moving quickly to the business case for why it was necessary. Trust rebuilds through candor about what was actually hard, not through reassurance that things are fine now.
Watch for fewer people volunteering problems before being asked, and surprises that turn out to have been visible internally for weeks before reaching you. That pattern usually means the cost of speaking up has quietly gotten higher than the value of doing it, not that everything is actually fine.
Get each person's actual concern specifically, separately, before bringing them together — strong personalities in conflict are often responding to a real, nameable stake, not just clashing styles. Naming the concrete issue usually de-escalates faster than a generic conversation about "working together better."
Treat it as seriously and directly as you would any other accountability issue — senior conflict left unaddressed because both people are valuable tends to model, for the whole organization, that the standard bends at the top. The cost of avoiding it compounds precisely because everyone below is watching how it gets handled.
Have a question of your own?