For the last three years I have been trying to drive change in a soccer program in order to return it to the national rankings, and my God, it has been hard work. We are making progress, slowly and steadily, but not quickly enough for there to be peace in the valley, my friends. Some days it feels like trying to push a rope uphill. 

I've won a national championship. I've coached at the national-team level, mentored Olympic gold medal and professional team coaches; and, I've spent decades studying leadership, culture and teams in the area of high performance.

Here's an uncomfortable truth about past success: it's in the past.

My players like to channel their inner Janet Jackson: What have you done for me lately? My résumé might earn me a little credibility when I walk through the door, but it doesn't entitle me to their trust. Therein lies one of the most difficult challenges of leading change. How do we get our folks to TRUST in the process when they are on the journey? 

If you're trying to build something that lasts, the work is slower. You build standards. You recruit character, as well as talent. You develop people. You establish accountability. You build relationships and cohesion. You create an environment where the culture eventually becomes strong enough to sustain itself.

The problem is that very little of that work provides immediate gratification.

Nobody gives you three points because your team is becoming more cohesive. Your quarterly report doesn't necessarily show that employees are finally challenging one another constructively; and, when those investments aren't immediately producing wins, revenue, market share, or whatever outcome your organization measures, people begin to wonder:

• Is this working?
• Why are we doing this?
• Does this person actually know what they are doing?

That is the moment when leaders are tempted to reach for two very dangerous words:

Trust me.

I've learned that “trust me” is not a leadership strategy.

The Dip

Most meaningful change includes a period when performance gets worse before it gets better.

The old routines have been disrupted, but the new ones aren't yet automatic. Standards have risen, but people's capability hasn't caught up. Roles change. Familiar habits disappear. People who once felt competent suddenly feel uncertain.

I call it the dip.

Sometimes the fancy presentations, new processes and systems don't immediately lead to the outcomes we were hoping for. That's where people start looking backward and question, 'Maybe what we were doing before wasn't so bad.' It's also when leaders become vulnerable.

You begin questioning yourself. You feel the pressure for results. You wonder whether to stay the course or retreat to something more familiar, and your people are watching.

The question is no longer simply whether the strategy is right. The question becomes:

Do we still trust this person enough to keep following when we can't yet see the outcome?

Trust Has Three Sides

Two Harvard researchers Frances Frei and Anne Morriss offer a useful framework for building trust. Trust rests on three components: authenticity, logic and empathy.

• Are you really who you say you are? That's authenticity.
• Do you know what you're doing? That's logic.
• Do you care about what happens to me? That's empathy.

During periods of stability, weaknesses in one of those areas can sometimes remain hidden.

Change exposes them.

Authenticity: Are You the Same Leader When It's Not Working?

It is easy to be authentic when things are going well. The real test comes when the results aren't there.

If you say development matters, do you still spend time and resources on developing people when an experienced hire could provide a quicker fix?

If you said you wanted honest disagreement, how do you respond when someone questions your strategy?

If you preach accountability, what happens when the mistake is yours?

People watch these moments far more carefully than leaders realize. Your team needs to see enough consistency between what you say and what you do that they can reasonably predict who will show up when things become difficult.

Logic: Your People Need to See the Whole Picture

Imagine a leadership team considering a major organizational change. They spend six months reviewing the numbers. They meet with consultants. They debate alternatives. They examine risks. They argue. They reconsider. Eventually, they reach a conclusion.

Then they present it to employees in 30 minutes, and they're surprised when people aren't convinced.

The leaders have seen the entire movie. Everyone else has seen the final scene. Then we label their questions "resistance to change.” Sometimes they aren't resisting change at all. They simply haven't been shown enough of the logic.

If I am asking athletes to tolerate short-term frustration because I believe it will produce long-term success, then I have an obligation to make that thinking visible.

The same applies in organizations. Leaders should explain:

• What we are trying to build.
• Why we are doing it this way.
• What trade-offs are we accepting?
• What should progress look like before the ultimate results arrive?
• What evidence would tell us that our strategy is working?
• What evidence would cause us to change our minds?

That last question matters because trust doesn't require certainty.

Trust requires credibility.

There is tremendous credibility in a leader saying, “Here is what I believe. Here is why I believe it. Here is what we're watching; and if the evidence changes, we will change.”

That's very different from saying, “Trust me.”

Empathy: Change Looks Different from the Other Side of the Table

This may be the side of the Triangle of Trust that leaders lose most easily during transformation because leaders know where they're trying to go. Everyone else is experiencing what they're being asked to leave behind.

That's not the same thing.

When you're driving change, it's easy to interpret others' responses as resistance:

• Someone misses the old system = They're negative.
• Someone questions the strategy = They don't get it.
• Someone struggles with a new role = They're not adaptable.

As leaders, we can become so consumed with the destination that we fail to recognize the loss involved in moving away from the status quo.

Empathy doesn't mean abandoning the change. It doesn't mean lowering standards, and it certainly doesn't mean giving everyone veto power over difficult decisions.

It means acknowledging that the change you are excited about may be the change someone else is anxious about. Both things can be true.

Value where they are coming from. Make sure they feel heard.

One of the lessons I've had to learn repeatedly in leadership is that when someone comes into my office struggling with a decision I've made, my first responsibility isn't to explain it better.

Start with trying to understand what the decision looks like from their chair.

This makes people feel like they matter and they belong.

Diagnose Trust Instead of Demanding It

When you sense that people aren't following, don't immediately conclude that they're resistant, entitled, negative or afraid of change.

Ask a better question:

Which side of the triangle is weak?

Perhaps they don't trust your logic. They cannot see how today's pain connects to tomorrow's improvement.

Perhaps the problem is empathy. They understand the strategy perfectly well; they simply aren't convinced you've considered what it will cost them.

Perhaps it's authenticity. They've noticed a gap between the values you announced and the behaviours you're rewarding.

Now comes the harder part: Instead of asking, “Why don't they trust me?” ask:

“What am I doing—or failing to do—that makes trusting me difficult?”

That question puts responsibility back where leaders have some control: with ourselves.

Your job isn't to keep telling people: “Trust me.”

Your job is to keep giving them reasons to.