Is Your High-Performing Team Hiding A Trust Problem?

Forbes

25-06-2025

Trust and Collaboration
Is your most successful team a ticking time bomb? If you're confusing performance with psychological safety, that might just be the case.
It's not uncommon for high-performing teams to deliver exceptional results despite operating in environments where trust is quite fragile. These teams are often populated by aggressive drivers who excel at execution and have developed efficient systems for getting things done.
But this short-term success isn't always a good thing. In fact, their success can mask fundamental weaknesses that become catastrophic when circumstances change.
How High Performers Succeed Without Trust
Research has consistently shown that psychological safety is one of the strongest predictors of team performance, productivity, quality, safety, creativity, and innovation. But why, then, do some teams continue to succeed even when trust in the overall environment is low?
The answer lies in understanding what drives short-term success versus long-term resilience. High-performing teams without psychological safety often succeed because they've mastered the art of getting things done within existing parameters. Team members are skilled performers who can deliver results independently, and each team member knows their role and executes it efficiently. They've developed systems that work when market conditions are stable. In essence, these teams succeed despite their trust issues. They're like high-performance race cars—they can achieve impressive speeds on a smooth track, but they're vulnerable when the road gets rough.
When Success Becomes a Liability
The problem emerges when these teams face challenges that require adaptation, innovation, or rapid learning. Under those conditions, high-performing teams operating in a low-trust environment often become victims of their own success.
Because they're winning, questioning the status quo feels unnecessary and disloyal. Therefore these teams frequently operate in a state of "productive harmony" that looks healthy from the outside but suppresses the tensions that drive innovation, adaptation, and growth.
To determine whether your high performers are operating with a trust deficit, ask yourself: "Who on your team consistently puts forth contrary points of view, and how are they treated when they do?"
The answers are telling. High-performing teams often pause at this question. They'll mention someone who "sometimes plays devil's advocate," but when pressed about how those interventions are received, they reveal a culture where dissent is tolerated but not truly valued. The contrarian might be heard, but their input rarely changes course.
True psychological safety means that contrary viewpoints don't just get airtime—they get serious consideration and can actually influence outcomes.
The External Environment Test
We're operating in an era of unprecedented uncertainty—supply chain disruptions, economic volatility, technological disruption, and changing workforce expectations. It's not enough for today's teams to perform well under optimal conditions. They need to demonstrate resilience when external conditions shift.
When employees feel comfortable asking for help, sharing suggestions informally, or challenging the status quo without fear of negative social consequences, organizations are more likely to innovate quickly, unlock the benefits of diversity, and adapt to changing market conditions.
On the other hand, teams that achieve success despite a lack of psychological safety often struggle when the rules change.
Without a foundation of trust that enables rapid learning and adaptation, they become rigid and vulnerable. They find it difficult to quickly acknowledge what wasn't working and pivot their approach.
Building Anti-Fragile Teams
The teams that can adapt, learn, and innovate under pressure share several key characteristics:
They institutionalize dissent. Rather than hoping someone will speak up, they create formal mechanisms for surfacing contrary viewpoints. Some teams rotate a "designated contrarian" role, while others end major decisions with a structured "pre-mortem" where members explicitly explore how things could go wrong.
They measure learning, not just results. These teams track how quickly they identify and correct course when initial assumptions prove wrong. They celebrate the team member who first spots trouble ahead, even if it means acknowledging earlier mistakes.
They practice vulnerability. Leaders model intellectual humility by regularly admitting what they don't know and asking for input. When teammates witness a leader taking responsibility for failure or admitting a shortcoming, they're more likely to trust that leader in the future—and to trust each other.
Institutionalizing Trust
If you're leading a high-performing team, don't assume your success guarantees future effectiveness. Instead, audit your team's trust foundation with these questions:
The teams that will dominate the next decade won't just be high-performing—they'll be anti-fragile. They'll get stronger under pressure because they've built culture that turn groups of talented individuals into truly resilient teams.