Trust is the multiplier on everything else you do as a manager. When it's high, your feedback lands, your delegation sticks, and people give you the benefit of the doubt on a bad day. When it's low, the same words read as threats and the same asks feel like overreach. This course gives you a way to see trust clearly: where it's strong, where it's fraying, and what specific move rebuilds it.

By the end of this course, you'll be able to:

• Diagnose the trust level in a key relationship using a concrete equation rather than a gut feeling
• Open and lead a candid trust-repair conversation that owns your contribution first
• Set expectations with clear outcomes, decision rights, and support so people can act without waiting for permission
• Deliver corrective feedback that challenges directly while still caring personally
• Delegate high-visibility work in a way that extends real trust instead of micromanaging or abdicating
• Audit your own reliability and close the one pattern that quietly costs you the most

This first unit gives you the diagnostic lens: a way to break trust into parts you can actually name and act on.

When trust feels "off" with someone, the instinct is to treat it as one vague mood. The fix is to make it specific. David Maister's Trust Equation does exactly that: Trust = (Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy) / Self-Orientation.

Read each term as a different question about you. Credibility is about your words: do people believe what you say is accurate and honest? Reliability is about your actions: do you do what you said you'd do, on time, consistently?

Intimacy is about safety: can people bring you a half-formed idea or a problem without it being used against them? And Self-Orientation, the denominator, is the one that quietly sinks the whole thing: when people sense you're mostly in it for yourself, every other factor gets discounted.

The practical move is to score one relationship at a time. Pick a person where something feels strained, and rate each factor as strengthening, holding, or weakening with a specific moment attached. Not "reliability is low" but "I told them I'd unblock the budget request and let it sit for a week." The evidence is what makes this usable, because the same chill can come from very different gaps, and the repair for each is different.

Most strained relationships don't have four problems. They have one that's doing the damage, and the rest follow. Your job is to find that single dominant gap, because trying to fix all four at once produces a generic apology that fixes nothing.

• Victoria: One of my analysts has gone quiet and I can't figure out why. My feedback to him has always been solid.
• Nova: So credibility's probably intact. Have you kept the commitments you made to him?
• Victoria: I told him I'd push his promotion case, then let it stall. Twice.
• Nova: That's not a credibility gap, then. That's reliability. Your words land; it's your follow-through that didn't.
• Victoria: And the whole time I'd been telling myself he was just disengaged.

Notice the turn at the end. The honest diagnosis points back at the manager's behavior, not the report's "attitude." That's the test of a real diagnosis: the gap you name should be one the other person would recognize if you said it out loud, not the one that's easiest to fix or flatters you most. Watch especially for high self-orientation hiding as something else: a 1:1 where you spent the first fifteen minutes on your own status update reads to the other person as "this is about you," no matter how reliable you've been.

Once you've named the gap, the conversation is simpler than it feels, because the equation tells you exactly where to aim. Lead with what you've observed without making the other person defend it: name the dropped invites, the cooler tone, the input you didn't get asked for. Then take responsibility for your likely contribution before they have to raise it, and be specific about the moment, for example, "I committed to my half of that analysis and missed it by two days, and you had to scramble." Then ask directly what repair would look like, and align on one concrete change you'll make this week.

Three openers to avoid: the false-humility check-in ("I just want to make sure we're okay!"), the framework data-dump ("I've diagnosed a reliability issue in our Trust Equation"), and the preemptive defense ("yeah, but you also..."). Each of those raises your self-orientation in the moment, which is the opposite of what repair requires.

The core takeaway of this unit: trust isn't a mood, it's four nameable factors, and repair starts with diagnosing the one gap that's actually doing the damage and owning your part in it. Before any of this gets live, you'll run a quick pattern-spotting check to see whether you can tell which factor is moving in a relationship from the evidence alone. So pick one real relationship that's felt off lately, and try naming the single dominant gap, with a dated moment attached, before you read the scenarios.