The workplace perk nobody’s offering

This article is authored by Sujata Deshmukh, founder, Tutul Consulting.

I once witnessed something unusual in a leadership team. A senior leader was absent from a meeting, yet one of his peers confidently made a commitment on his behalf. Afterwards, I asked her how she could be so certain he would honour it.

Workplace leadership (Representational image)

Her answer has stayed with me: "It's a code we have here. Either we trust and align fully, or we argue till the end of time. And we never speak against anyone behind their back. The CEO has drilled this into us. We found it strange initially, but understood how powerful and rare it was. So now, it's our code."

That is a far more interesting definition of trust at the top. It is not about getting along. It is about being secure enough to stop protecting your individual position and start acting for the enterprise. I can challenge you in the room, disagree strongly, and still trust you to stand with the decision once made. And I can assume you will do the same for me when I am not there.

Trust is often confused with harmony. But a team that never disagrees may simply be a careful one. In many Indian workplaces, where hierarchy carries weight, people become skilled at reading the room: knowing when to speak, when to wait and when the CEO has already made up their mind.

Trust is not about creating comfort; it is about creating the courage to be uncomfortable together. A comfortable team may avoid difficult conversations. A trusting one can have it because people know the relationship will survive the truth.

When leadership rooms go silent, the problem is not necessarily a lack of intelligence. It may be a lack of trust for people to use it. I have seen leaders agree in the room and then have the real conversation elsewhere. They did not believe the room was the right place to say it.

At the top, colleagues are also leaders with mandates, reputations, ambitions and constituencies. There is an unspoken calculation about who gets the credit, whose idea prevails and who might benefit if someone else fails. People become careful. And careful leadership teams can be remarkably dysfunctional. Finance has its explanation, HR has another, Sales has a third. Everyone defends a reasonable position, but nobody asks the bigger question: what does the organisation need from all of us?

A leader has two teams to think about: The top team they sit on and the team they lead. Trust requires moving from "What does my function need?" to "What does the organisation need from all of us?" That may mean sharing information early, giving credit generously, supporting a decision one did not propose, or even learning to work with someone one does not like.

Employees may never see what happens in a leadership meeting, but they see its consequences. They grow cautious about escalating issues, copy more people on emails and work out whose version is safest to support. Energy shifts from solving problems to managing politics.

Perhaps that is the workplace perk worth paying attention to: not a team that always agrees, but one where disagreement does not cost the relationship, honesty does not cost standing, and once a decision is made, people stand together.

Trust is not merely a value. It is a currency.

(The views expressed are personal)

This article is authored by Sujata Deshmukh, founder, Tutul Consulting.