"Build trust" is advice you can't act on. David Maister's Trust Equation makes it concrete: your trustworthiness is your Credibility plus Reliability plus Intimacy, all divided by your Self-orientation — how much you seem to be in it for yourself. Three levers you build up, and one you'd better keep down. Because that last one sits in the denominator, it doesn't nudge trust up or down — it scales the whole thing. Which is why a brilliant expert who's visibly out for themselves can be trusted less than a warm beginner.
Credibility, Reliability and Intimacy add up. Self-orientation divides. Load a persona, or drag the levers yourself — then max out the top three and push Self-orientation up, and watch trust fall off a cliff. That collapse is the whole lesson.
Do they know their stuff? Expertise, and the honesty to say "I don't know."
Do they do what they say? Promises kept, consistently, on time.
Is it safe to confide in them? Discretion, warmth, no flinching at hard news.
How self-serving do they seem? A high denominator divides all the good above it away.
Most people collapse trust into competence, or into likeability. The equation is sharper: it names four distinct levers, shows that competence is only one of them, and reveals the one that sits in the denominator — where it quietly overrules the rest.
"They're brilliant at the work, so of course I trust them."
Competence is one corner. It's mostly Credibility — a single term in a four-part equation. Plenty of capable people are kept at arm's length.
"Pile on enough credibility and reliability and trust will follow."
Self-orientation divides. Look like you're in it for yourself and you shrink all three top levers at once — faster than any one of them can build trust up.
"I trust the people I like."
Different things. You can trust a prickly expert you'd never grab a drink with, and warily enjoy a charmer you'd never lend money. Likeability leans on Intimacy; trust needs all four.
| Variable | The question it answers | What raises it | What tanks it |
|---|---|---|---|
| CredibilityNumerator + | "Do they know their stuff?" | Demonstrated expertise; precise claims; saying "I don't know" when you don't. | Bluffing; vagueness; being caught confidently wrong. |
| ReliabilityNumerator + | "Do they do what they say?" | Small promises kept; consistent follow-through; showing up on time. | Missed commitments; surprises; forgotten details. |
| IntimacyNumerator + | "Is it safe to confide in them?" | Discretion; warmth; handling bad news without judgement. | Gossip; judgement; brittleness when things go wrong. |
| Self-orientationDenominator ÷ | "Are they in it for me, or for them?" | Listening first; genuine curiosity; crediting others. | Pushing an agenda; name-dropping; making it about you. |
Pick one real working relationship — a colleague, a report, a client, a boss — and hold it in mind. Rate each statement from disagree to agree. We'll map your answers onto the four levers and surface the one term holding this relationship back, plus one concrete move to lift it.
Score each one from disagree to agree. We'll turn your answers into a Credibility, Reliability, Intimacy and Self-orientation reading, then show you which lever is the drag — and what to do about it.
Once you can see the four levers, you start recognising them everywhere — in the people you'd trust with anything, and the ones you somehow never quite do. Each of these is the equation playing out.
C 9 · R 7 · I 3 · S 9 → trust ≈ 2.1
Genuinely brilliant. But every recommendation happens to require more of their billable time, and every meeting circles back to their own genius. The competence is real — it just reads as self-interest, so the insight lands like a sales pitch.
The fix isn't more expertise. It's visibly putting the client's outcome ahead of the next invoice. That's the denominator, not the numerator.
C 8 · R 9 · I 2 · S 3 → trust ≈ 6.3
You'd hand them any deadline and never think about it again — rock solid. But you'd never bring them a half-formed worry or bad news, because it has never felt safe. Reliability without intimacy earns a narrow, sturdy kind of trust.
Two different trusts. Task-trust is built on Reliability; confide-in-me trust is built on Intimacy. One doesn't substitute for the other.
Week 1: credibility unproven · self-orientation low → trust climbs early
New to the team, no track record yet. Instead of proving how smart they were, they spent the first month asking questions, crediting other people, and following through on tiny commitments. Trust arrived before the competence had even been demonstrated.
Low self-orientation is the fast lever. You can't fake credibility overnight — but you can stop making it about you today.
One missed commitment tanks Reliability → trust drops hard
A single broken promise does outsized damage, because reliability is inferred from a pattern. The repair isn't a grand apology — it's a visible stack of small commitments made and kept, until the pattern outweighs the exception.
Reliability compounds in small promises kept. Rebuild it in specifics: promise little, deliver exactly, repeat.
Knowing that Self-orientation divides is one thing. Catching yourself in it — mid-pitch, mid-defence, when your own agenda is loudest — is another. That's the work we do with the leaders and teams we coach: turning a four-part model into the habits that make people willing to follow you.
Talk to us about coachingIt's the only term in the denominator. Lower it and every ounce of credibility, reliability and intimacy you already have starts counting for more. Most people pour effort into the numerator and ignore the one lever that scales all of it.
Credibility gets you into the room. Reliability, intimacy and a low self-orientation are what keep you there. The most capable person in the org is not automatically the most trusted — and often is the last to notice.
Trust is rarely won or rebuilt in one grand gesture. It's the boring accumulation of tiny commitments made and honoured. Promise less than you could; then deliver exactly what you promised.