Strategic Trust: Collaboration's north star

When people learn a new tool or method, there's a tendency to get caught up in the steps, ticking the boxes of the process without pausing to remember the 'why.' I recently had a conversation with colleagues who were applying Strategic Doing. They were new to the method, and while they followed each step diligently, it was clear they were missing something crucial: the bigger picture. With Strategic Doing, we're not just following a recipe—we're aiming for something far greater. We're trying to enable true collaboration, even between people with differing or even opposing interests. We're creating the conditions to move toward a shared north star, together.

It's about getting people—who might not naturally see eye to eye—to have meaningful conversations, to build trust, and to collaborate in a productive way. But what is it about trust that makes collaboration work so well? How does this concept, which sounds almost intangible (and quite frankly a bit mystical), practically change the way people can come together to get things done? And why is trust the heart of what we're trying to achieve with Strategic Doing?

Trust: The Secret Ingredient to Collaboration

Trust is more than just a feel-good term—it's the underpinning of effective teamwork and collaboration, particularly when diverse or even conflicting interests are in play. Research into collaboration highlights that trust is not merely a 'nice to have'; it is the glue that holds teams together, allowing them to take risks, share openly, and work more productively toward common goals. According to a study by Dirks and Ferrin (2001), trust has a profound impact on team performance, communication, and satisfaction. Trust can lead to improved information sharing, greater openness, and a willingness to engage—all essential elements for complex problem-solving.

But here's the challenge: building trust, especially among individuals or groups with divergent or conflicting perspectives, is not straightforward. It's tempting for teams to fall back on negotiations and compromises, where the goal becomes one of trying to get everyone to concede a little bit here and there until an uneasy agreement is reached. Strategic Doing is different. It isn’t about concessions—it’s about finding a shared aspiration, something that everyone can move toward despite their differences. That’s where trust becomes so pivotal.

According to Lencioni (2002), trust is the foundational layer of a high-performing team. Without trust, people are defensive, interactions are political, and every conversation becomes an exercise in self-preservation. But with trust, participants can let their guard down, take risks, and embrace vulnerability. Strategic Doing leverages this insight, providing a framework that encourages individuals to co-create and iterate, without feeling the need to 'win' at every turn. Douglas K. Smith (1996) emphasizes that trust is essential for team members to take risks and engage fully without fear of vulnerability, which directly aligns with the aims of Strategic Doing. Instead, the aim is to create value for the collective, for the shared north star.

Practical Ways Trust Enhances Collaboration

When trust is broken in a collaboration, the effects can be deeply damaging. Without trust, people become guarded, communication falters, and the willingness to take risks evaporates. According to Robinson (1996), when trust is violated, the collaborative environment shifts towards defensiveness and self-preservation, making it twice as hard to rebuild the foundations for productive work. Trust violations lead to increased monitoring, reduced openness, and an overall reluctance to share critical information (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). To repair trust, it often requires deliberate actions, increased transparency, and more consistent efforts to demonstrate reliability and integrity—essentially, teams must work twice as hard to regain what was lost. This additional effort is critical, but also time-consuming, which can significantly slow down progress (Kramer & Lewicki, 2010).

One of the more fascinating pieces of research around trust comes from Edmondson (1999), who talks about psychological safety—a key concept in creating environments where people feel safe enough to take risks without fear of being embarrassed or punished. Psychological safety forms the bedrock of trust. In Strategic Doing, we deliberately use time-boxed discussions and structured conversations to create these safe spaces. The structure isn’t there to enforce rigidity; it’s there to contain fears and anxieties, to ensure everyone has a voice, and to prevent domination by the loudest in the room.

The evidence shows that structured, time-boxed conversations help in reducing the cognitive load required to participate (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). By providing clear expectations and predictable formats, people can focus on the quality of their interactions instead of worrying about the 'rules' of engagement. It’s like having a well-marked dance floor—when people know where the boundaries are, they feel free to express themselves without constantly looking over their shoulders.

Furthermore, there’s interesting research on how shared goals can override individual interests. In a study by Tyler and Blader (2003), they found that when group members identify with a shared purpose, they are more likely to contribute to collective outcomes even when it might not serve their personal agendas in the short term. Strategic Doing uses this idea of a 'north star'—a compelling, shared goal that doesn’t belong to any one person, but to everyone. This shared goal is a catalyst for trust, as people begin to see their contributions as part of something greater than themselves.

The Magic of Trust in Flow

Now, let's talk about flow—that magical state where collaboration seems to click and productivity soars. In Csikszentmihalyi's (1990) work on flow, he describes a state where individuals lose themselves in a task, feeling both challenged and capable. Trust is a prerequisite for collective flow, especially in a group context. Without trust, people hesitate, second-guess, and ultimately hold back. With trust, they lean in, contributing fully and embracing the momentum.

Strategic Doing aims to create these flow states at a group level. When people trust each other and feel safe, they can move beyond defensiveness or cautious engagement into a mode of genuine collaboration—one where ideas build on one another, and momentum is palpable. This is when the magic happens. It’s where 'doing' transcends mere activity and becomes a dynamic process of shared creation.

In a way, the steps of Strategic Doing are there not to restrict, but to unlock the potential for flow by setting parameters that let people feel secure. Like guardrails on a winding road, the method doesn’t dictate the speed or the passion—it simply keeps everyone moving safely in the right direction.

Why This Matters: From Agreement to Alignment

It's easy to assume that collaboration means getting everyone to agree. But true collaboration isn’t about consensus; it’s about alignment. Alignment means we’re all moving in the same direction, even if we might have different reasons for doing so. Trust allows us to let go of rigid positions and engage in meaningful dialogue about what’s possible, rather than just what’s acceptable.

In a recent conversation with colleagues new to Strategic Doing, I noticed a common pitfall: focusing too much on the 'steps' and losing sight of the purpose. The magic of Strategic Doing isn’t in following every instruction perfectly—it’s in using the method as a guide to foster trust, create alignment, and move together toward something bigger. We use structured conversations not to suppress differences, but to manage them productively, giving every person the space and safety to contribute meaningfully.

Strategic Doing, at its heart, is about facilitating trust and building bridges between people who might otherwise see themselves as fundamentally at odds. And that’s where it shines. Because trust isn’t just a feeling—it’s the most powerful tool we have for unlocking the kind of collaborative magic that truly moves the needle.

The Research-Backed Takeaway

So, what are we really doing with Strategic Doing? We’re not just leading people through a set of steps. We’re creating an environment where trust can flourish, where collaboration becomes more than just a buzzword, and where people—regardless of their differing interests—can come together to work productively toward a common goal.

We’re setting the stage for people to feel safe, to feel heard, and to see value in their collective contribution. In doing so, we transform what might otherwise be an exercise in compromise into something far more powerful: a genuine alignment of efforts toward a shared, compelling vision.

References

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574-599. Kramer, R. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010). Repairing and enhancing trust: Approaches to reducing organizational trust deficits. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 245-277.

Smith, D. K. (1996). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. HarperBusiness.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper & Row.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450-467.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. Jossey-Bass.

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941-966.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349-361.