Trust Isn't Built by Protecting People From the Truth

One of the questions I've found myself asking repeatedly over the years is this:

Why do so many organisations assume their employees can't handle the truth?

I'm not talking about confidential commercial information or sensitive personal matters. There will always be information that can't be shared.

I'm talking about the everyday realities of running a business.

The difficult conversations.

The commercial pressures.

The changing market.

The financial decisions that leaders have to make every single day.

Too often these conversations happen behind closed doors, and employees are left to speculate. Rumours fill the gaps, trust begins to erode, and people feel as though they're being managed rather than included.

Sometimes I wonder whether this comes from historical leadership practices. Perhaps it was once believed that leaders needed to shield employees from difficult realities, making decisions on their behalf because "they wouldn't understand."

But I am not sure that is true in today's workplaces.

The vast majority of employees are adults with mortgages, families, financial responsibilities and lives outside of work. They understand that businesses face challenges. They understand that resources are finite. They know that difficult decisions sometimes have to be made.

What many struggle with isn't the decision itself.

It's not understanding why.

Recently I was working with a client discussing their policy around routine appointments during working hours.

Their business operates in an environment where every absence has to be covered. Cover comes at a cost, and those costs quickly accumulate. Naturally, they wanted to encourage employees to book routine appointments outside of working hours wherever possible. Their working day is relatively short, making this more achievable than in many organisations, while recognising that hospital appointments and other specialist appointments are often outside an employee's control.

Their concern wasn't the policy.

It was how to communicate it.

My advice was simple.

Tell people the truth.

Explain that the organisation will always do its best to accommodate appointments when there is little or no flexibility. But also explain the commercial reality. Every hour of cover has a financial cost. Every pound spent on cover is a pound that cannot be invested elsewhere.

Then tell people what that money could otherwise be used for.

Could it fund additional wellbeing initiatives?

More learning and development?

Better equipment?

A staff celebration?

Investment in technology?

Improved benefits?

When employees understand the wider picture, they're no longer being asked to follow a rule without context. They're being invited to understand the consequences of the choices being made across the organisation.

Interestingly, this idea was met with some hesitation.

Would sharing the costs feel negative?

Should leaders really disclose that information?

It made me pause because I don't believe transparency is negative.

In fact, I think the absence of transparency often creates something far worse.

When organisations don't explain decisions, people create their own explanations.

Those explanations are rarely generous.

People assume favouritism.

Poor leadership.

Hidden agendas.

Financial mismanagement.

A lack of care.

Often none of those things are true.

The story fills the silence.

This doesn't mean leaders should share every spreadsheet or every board discussion.

Transparency isn't about telling everyone everything.

It's about respecting people enough to explain the reasoning behind decisions that affect them.

There is a significant difference between saying:

"That's the policy."

and

"Here's why we've made this decision, here's the challenge we're trying to solve, and here's how we're balancing the needs of the business with the needs of our people."

One statement closes the conversation.

The other builds understanding.

Will everyone agree?

Probably not.

Some people will still be disappointed. Others may disagree entirely.

But disagreement doesn't automatically damage trust.

Feeling excluded often does.

Trust grows when people believe they're being treated like adults.

It grows when leaders communicate honestly, even when the message isn't particularly welcome.

It grows when organisations recognise that understanding doesn't always require agreement.

Perhaps one of the biggest opportunities for modern leadership is to stop trying to protect people from reality and instead invite them into it.

Because when people understand the challenges a business faces, they're often far more willing to become part of the solution.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Do organisations sometimes underestimate what employees can handle? Or is there still merit in protecting people from the commercial realities of running a business?