Not long ago my friend, a pilot by profession, told me: “These are budget airlines. If you want politeness, take a business jet”

This sentence stopped me for a while. Because have we really reached a point in today’s world where politeness becomes a premium good? Where basic courtesy requires an extra fee?

Anatomy of budget airlines

The business model of budget carriers is essentially the art of precise cost cutting. Every service gets sliced into atomic parts, from which the customer composes their own package. Want to choose your seat? Extra fee. Want a sandwich? Extra fee. Want your suitcase to fly with you, not on the next flight? Extra fee.

In this savings factory, the crew got hit the hardest. Time pressure, multiple flights per day, minimal breaks – all this makes the flight attendant’s smile start to cost money. And not just literally (in terms of personnel costs), but also mentally. It’s hard to be polite when you’re working at the edge of endurance.

And passengers? Well, cheap often means nervous. Add delays, cramped conditions and the fact that everyone saved on their ticket, so every complication hurts twice as much. This creates a recipe for conflict where politeness becomes the first casualty.

The economics of a smile

Does politeness really cost money? At first glance, it seems like it doesn’t. After all, it’s just a way of communicating, right? But when we look deeper, it turns out that courtesy requires resources:

• Time – longer conversations, explanations, patience
• Mental energy – emotional control, empathy, positive attitude
• Training – customer service is a skill that needs to be developed
• Safety buffer – a polite employee cannot be overloaded

In a world where every minute is counted and every penny weighed, these “soft” costs become very real. Politeness requires slack in the system, and there’s no slack in maximum efficiency models.

Premium as usual

In business or first class, the story looks completely different. Here the service has time, there are fewer passengers, everyone is (theoretically) less stressed. Politeness becomes part of the product that the customer consciously pays for.

This leads to a paradoxical situation: the more someone pays, the nicer treatment they can expect. A two-tier politeness system emerges, where basic human decency is reserved for those who can afford it.

Is it just airlines?

Of course not. Let’s look at:

• Call centers – basic plan: automated system and 20 minutes of waiting; premium: instant connection to a living person
• Banking – basic account: harsh online form; premium account: personal advisor who remembers your name
• E-commerce – regular service: standard responses; premium: personalized solutions

Everywhere we see the same pattern: politeness as a differentiating element, additional value for those who can afford more.

Can this be avoided?

Here we get to the heart of the matter. Does politeness have to cost money? Can’t you really be nice while maintaining efficiency?

I think you can – but it requires a change in business philosophy. Instead of treating courtesy as a cost, you need to start seeing it as an investment. A satisfied customer returns, recommends, doesn’t generate conflicts. That also has its value.

Some companies understand this. Models are emerging where politeness is part of the organization’s DNA, not a luxury for the chosen few. But they require courage – the courage not to compete only on price, but on value.

Questions at the end

Do we agree to a world where basic decency is a premium good? Where a smile requires an extra fee, and courtesy is a privilege of the wealthy?

Or maybe there’s a third way – one where politeness is neither a cost nor a luxury, but a basic standard? Where a company can be efficient and human at the same time?

These are questions that each of us – as a consumer, employee, or entrepreneur – must answer for themselves. Because in the end, we decide what world we build. And what world we buy.

When I was thirteen years old, my mother decided it was time to change the furniture in my room. She didn’t ask for my opinion – one day I simply came home from school to find strangers carrying out my favorite desk. “It’s for your own good,” I heard when I started to protest. Twenty years later, working as an agile consultant in a financial services corporation, I heard almost identical words: “This transformation is for the good of the entire organization.”

Peter Senge was right: People don’t resist change; they resist being changed. And the difference is fundamental.

Anatomy of Resistance – When Good Change Meets Poor Communication

In that financial corporation, I encountered a situation that perfectly illustrates the mechanism of resistance. The organization employed over 3,000 IT specialists, most of whom had worked in the waterfall model for years. The board made a strategic decision to transition to agile methodologies – and rightly so, because today’s financial market demands the speed of response that waterfall simply cannot guarantee.

The problem was that the change was announced, not introduced. During one of the first meetings, the development manager told me directly: “We got an email saying that starting next month we’re working in scrum. Where’s the room for our opinion?”

That was the moment I realized I wasn’t fighting resistance to agile. I was fighting resistance to being changed without participation in the change process.

When “They” Become “Us” – The Psychology of Ownership

The human psyche has one fascinating feature: what we create automatically becomes part of our identity. That’s why the best changes are those in which people feel like co-creators, not passive recipients.

In that corporation, I decided to apply a strategy I call “infiltration from within”. Instead of imposing ready-made solutions, I started with questions:

• What problems do teams encounter in the current work model?
• Where do they waste the most time?
• What frustrates them most in daily processes?

It turned out that people know perfectly well what doesn’t work. After three weeks of workshops, one of the senior developers said: “You know what, our daily standups are basically daily scrum, just nobody called it that.”

Bingo. I wasn’t introducing something foreign – I was helping to name and structure what already existed.

“Not Invented Here” Syndrome

Every organization has its cultural DNA, its way of thinking about itself. In financial corporations, that DNA often sounds like: “we’re unique, our processes are complicated, no external methodology will understand our specificity.”

This uniqueness syndrome is one of the strongest defensive mechanisms2. People don’t reject change per se – they reject change that ignores their context, their knowledge, their experience.

Therefore, a key moment in my work was showing that agile isn’t a ready-made suit you have to put on, but rather fabric from which you can tailor a custom suit. Instead of saying “this is how you do scrum,” I said “let’s see how we could adapt these practices to your needs.”

Influence as Medicine for Resistance

The most effective medicine for resistance is a sense of influence. When people feel they have real influence on the shape of change, resistance transforms into engagement3. This isn’t motivational theory – it’s basic human psychology.

In that organization, the breakthrough was when teams began proposing modifications to standard agile practices themselves. The Product Owner from the mortgage department suggested that in their context, sprint review should be held in two parts: technical demo for IT and business demo for stakeholders. “Otherwise,” he explained, “half the people get bored, and half understand nothing.”

That was brilliant. And more importantly – it was their idea.

Change as Journey, Not Moving

We think about organizational change like moving house: you pack old things, transport them to a new place, unpack. Meanwhile, change is rather gradual metamorphosis – a process where old and new coexist for some time, and people have space for adaptation4.

In practice, this meant I didn’t impose total revolution. Instead, we introduced changes iteratively (how agile, right?). We started with daily standups in three pilot teams. Then we added retrospectives. Sprint planning came only after a month. Each element was tested, adjusted, familiarized.

Communication as the Glue of Change

One of the biggest mistakes in change management is assuming that information equals communication2.Information is “what is changing.” Communication is “why it’s changing, how it will affect me, and what I can do about it.”

In that corporation, the first step was creating a transparent communication channel. Not another newsletter from management, but a real place for information exchange. We created an internal agile community where people could ask questions, share concerns, propose solutions.

The most interesting were questions like: “What will happen to my project manager role?” or “Is scrum master a promotion or demotion for a team lead?” These questions showed where the real source of resistance lay – in fear of losing position, competence, professional identity.

Error Culture vs. Fear Culture

In organizations with strong control culture, people learn that error is a threat3. Therefore, any change that introduces uncertainty meets with resistance. Agile assumes experimentation, learning from mistakes, adaptation – everything that in traditional corporations is perceived as risk.

Breaking this paradox required reprogramming the way of thinking about errors. Instead of talking about “failures,” we started talking about “lessons.” Instead of “problems” – “improvement opportunities.” This may sound like PR newspeak, but it has a real impact on team psychology.

When Resistance Becomes an Ally

Paradoxically, at some point resistance became our greatest ally. People who were initially most skeptical, after being convinced of the change, became its best ambassadors. Why? Because they went through the full cycle: from resistance, through understanding, to internalization5.

The senior developer who initially said “another project management methodology,” after three months of working in scrum, organized an internal agile conference. “I want other teams to try this too,” he said. “But on their own terms, not because someone tells them to.”

Lessons from the Front Lines

After six months of work in that organization, when I look back at the entire transformation, I see several key truths about resistance in organizations:

Resistance is not the enemy of change – it’s a natural defensive mechanism that protects the organization from chaotic, ill-conceived decisions4. Intelligent change management uses resistance as feedback, not fighting it as an obstacle.

People aren’t afraid of change – they’re afraid of losing control over their work environment. Give them a sense of influence on the shape of change, and resistance will transform into engagement.

The best change is one that people feel as their own – even if the original impulse came from above. The art lies in transforming external mandate into internal motivation.

And finally: Peter Senge was right. People really don’t resist change – they resist being changed. The difference is fundamental and has enormous practical consequences.

In the end, organizational change isn’t moving furniture. It’s more like moving to a new apartment – you can take with you what’s valuable, but you must be ready for a new environment. And it’s best if that decision is yours.

Those who have worked with me know that I often address the topics of trust, courage, and sensitivity.

Now I’m gathering my thoughts, structuring them, and I wanted to invite you to think about these topics with me. There won’t be many of these thoughts – fewer than six, a bit more than four, about five.

Thought #1: Trust is not weakness – it’s an investment that brings unexpected returns

Imagine you’re the captain of a ship. You can either stand by each crew member and control their every move, or trust their competencies and focus on setting the course. Which strategy will take you further? The answer may be surprising for those who believe in micromanagement.

Research clearly indicates that teams with high levels of trust are up to 50% more productive than those where mistrust and control reign. This isn’t opinion – it’s hard data. Stephen Covey didn’t call his groundbreaking book “Speed of Trust” without reason. Because that’s exactly what it’s about – trust accelerates everything.

Innovations aren’t born in an atmosphere of suspicion

When the mind is trapped in a spiral of suspicion, its creative powers become drastically limited. It’s like trying to compose a symphony whilst someone constantly looks over your shoulder and questions every note. Amy Edmondson’s research from 1999 showed that psychological safety and trust in teams increase innovation by as much as 30%. Imagine – one-third more breakthrough ideas, solutions, and improvements simply because people aren’t afraid to share their concepts!

In practice, I’ve seen this countless times. A team that feels it can safely experiment generates solutions that no one had even dreamed of before. And a team where every failure is cause for shame and blame? There innovations die in the bud.

Authentic business relationships as a catalyst for success

Harvard Business Review published a study in 2018 that was a real shock for many managers: authentic business relationships can accelerate project completion by as much as 40%. Imagine – the same project, the same people, the same resources, but completed almost half as quickly. How is this possible?

The answer lies in the time and energy we devote to protecting ourselves against potential disappointment. How many times have you written a long email to “have everything in writing”? How many meetings have you spent establishing who is responsible for exactly what (read: whom we’ll blame when something goes wrong)? This “transactional caution” eats up time that could be devoted to actual work.

Sleep, trust and efficiency – an unexpected connection

And now something that may seem unrelated, but has a deep connection to our topic. The National Sleep Foundation conducted research in 2020 that showed better sleep quality improves cognitive functions and decision-making by 20-30%. What does this have to do with trust?

When you don’t trust your colleagues, your brain works at increased speed even during rest. It analyses, calculates risk, plans emergency scenarios. It’s exhausting – both physically and mentally. The result? Worse sleep, less mental clarity, weaker decisions.

The paradox is that we prefer to lose energy on control instead of investing it in development. Imagine how much you could achieve if you redirected the same energy you devote to mistrust towards creative problem-solving? Gallup showed in 2017 that leaders who build trust not only achieve better results but also attract the best talent, reducing employee turnover by as much as 25%.

Trust as a business strategy

We’re talking here not about warm, soft feelings, but about hard business strategy. Every pound invested in building trust returns threefold – through faster processes, greater innovation, and higher talent retention.

This is how it works: Trust unleashes the creative potential of the entire team. When we stop being afraid, we start creating breakthrough solutions. It’s a simple mechanism that is still undervalued in many organisations.

Practical application: from theory to practice

So how do you build a culture of trust in practice? Here are several strategies I’ve tested:

1. Start with yourself – show your vulnerability and admit to mistakes. Nothing builds trust like a leader’s authenticity.
2. Celebrate failures as lessons – a team that knows it can safely make mistakes will make bolder decisions.
3. Eliminate “office politics” – clear rules for promotions and recognition eliminate the need for “games” and build trust in the system.
4. Practice “radical transparency” – share information that was traditionally reserved for a narrow circle.
5. Invest in relationships – find time to get to know your team as people, not just as resources.

Thought-provoking question: Do you have examples of great business benefits achieved through trusting others?

Thought #2: Trust is an equation where credibility is a variable we can control

I’m an engineer by education, so forgive me the mathematical approach to the topic. But what if trust can be presented as an equation? What if there’s a formula that will help us understand how to build and strengthen trust in our organisations?

Research by Mayer, Davis and Schoorman from 1995 proposes a fascinating formula:

The higher the credibility, reliability and level of openness, the higher the trust. The greater the focus on one’s own interests, the lower the trust.

The mathematics of interpersonal relationships

Let’s look at this equation closely. Credibility is our expertise and competencies – what we know and can do. Reliability is consistency in action – keeping promises and deadlines. Intimacy is the level of openness and honesty in the relationship. And self-orientation? That’s the degree to which we focus on our own benefits at the expense of others.

Interestingly, we multiply the first three elements together, which means that if any of them is close to zero, the entire trust drops drastically. On the other hand, self-orientation is in the denominator – the greater it is, the less trust there is.

Kouzes and Posner in their research from 2012 confirmed that we build credibility through consistent actions and decisions. It’s not one-off gestures or grand declarations that build trust, but daily consistency between words and deeds.

The business paradox of control

Here appears a fascinating business paradox: why do companies invest millions in control instead of in building credibility? Think about it: how much does your organisation cost in monitoring systems, security procedures, multi-level approvals? And how much does it invest in developing the credibility of its leaders and employees?

It’s like building an ever-higher fence instead of ensuring that no one wants to escape. I’ve seen organisations that spend fortunes on control systems whilst ignoring the basic fact: we cannot force others to trust. But we can systematically build our own credibility.

Project Aristotle – scientific confirmation of the power of trust

In 2015, Google conducted one of the most fascinating organisational studies of our time, called “Project Aristotle”. For two years, hundreds of variables affecting team effectiveness were analysed. The results? The most effective teams weren’t those composed of the greatest geniuses or best-paid specialists. The key factor turned out to be psychological safety – the feeling that one can take risks without being exposed to shame or punishment.

In other words, trust was the foundation of efficiency. In teams with high levels of psychological safety, people were more willing to share ideas, admit to mistakes, and collaborate on solutions. The effect? Faster product development, better customer service, and greater innovation.

Building credibility as a business strategy

So how do you build credibility in practice? Here are several proven strategies:

1. Consistency in small things – keep promises, even small ones. Punctuality at meetings, responding to emails, fulfilling commitments – these are the building blocks of credibility.
2. Transparency in failures – when something goes wrong, don’t hide it. Admit the mistake, draw conclusions, move forward.
3. Share knowledge – expertise builds credibility, but only if it’s visible and accessible to others.
4. Consistency of values and actions – ensure your decisions reflect the values you declare.
5. Appreciate others publicly – credible leaders aren’t afraid to give credit to the team.

Exponential growth of trust

What’s fascinating about organisational trust is its exponential character. Research shows that trust in an organisation grows exponentially with the level of leaders’ credibility. One credible leader can change the culture of an entire department, and several such leaders can transform an entire company.

The future belongs to organisations that understand this equation: team credibility × mutual trust = business success. In a world where more and more work requires creativity, innovation, and collaboration, organisations based on control will lose to those building trust.

Thought-provoking questions:
- What actions in your organisation most influence building credibility?
- Do you see a connection between the level of trust and team effectiveness in your organisation?

Thought #3: I start with a full sheet (100% trust credit), not an empty one

I’m someone who notoriously forgets his notebook at meetings. So I often borrow a sheet from other participants. Consider this – would you prefer to receive a clean sheet or one with another person’s notes? Most would choose the clean one. We prefer to start from zero, have empty space to fill.

With trust, it’s exactly the opposite. Or at least it should be.

Reversing traditional thinking

Conventional wisdom says: “Trust must be built”. We start from zero and gradually, through successive proofs of credibility, build trust capital. But what if this approach is fundamentally wrong? What if a much more effective strategy is to start with full trust – from 100% credit?

Research by Lewicki and Bunker from 1996 showed a fascinating pattern: teams that start with high levels of mutual trust achieve better results and faster cohesion. Why? Because from day one they can focus all their energy on the task instead of proving their worth.

Trust as a self-fulfilling prophecy

Psychologist Julian Rotter noted as early as 1980 that trust works like a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you give people trust credit, they feel obliged to deserve it. This isn’t naivety – it’s a psychological mechanism that uses our natural tendency to reciprocate positive expectations.

An example from life: in one of the technology companies I worked with, the new CEO introduced a policy of unlimited holiday days. Traditional thinking predicted chaos and abuse. What happened? Employees started taking FEWER days off than before and planned them with greater consideration. Why? Because they felt trusted and wanted to show they deserved it.

The risk of lack of trust

What if the greatest risk isn’t excessive trust but its absence? Dirks and Ferrin in their research from 2002 showed that lack of trust leads to increased control costs and reduced innovation. Organisations with low levels of trust spend more on monitoring, control systems, and security procedures – all of this absorbs resources that could be allocated to development and innovation.

Think about it this way: if you assume everyone might deceive you, how much time do you spend protecting yourself? How much energy that could go towards creating value goes towards protection against potential fraud?

Practical application: 100% trust credit

How does this work for me? When I start working with a new team or person, I give them full trust credit. I assume their competencies, good intentions, and commitment. This doesn’t mean lack of structure or clear expectations – quite the opposite. But within those expectations, I give maximum freedom and autonomy.

Do I sometimes get disappointed? Of course. But I treat this as an operational cost, not a system failure. Statistically, the gains from trust outweigh the losses – and significantly. It’s like investments – individual losses are inevitable, but the long-term strategy brings profits.

Belief in people as a driver of development

What’s fascinating is how your belief in people often becomes their motivation to develop. When you express trust in someone’s skills and character, you create space where they can grow. It’s like giving someone bigger shoes – at first they might stumble, but over time they’ll grow into them.

I’ve seen this many times in coaching practice – leaders who trust their teams are often surprised by how people exceed their expectations. Not because they suddenly became more competent, but because trust unlocked potential that was already in them.

Trust as the currency of the future

In the digital economy, where cooperation and innovation are key, trust becomes a currency of growing value. By spending it generously, paradoxically, you increase its value. It’s the only currency whose value grows when you spend it.

PS. This approach changes not only relationships but entire organisations – teams with high levels of initial trust achieve results faster and operate more efficiently.

Thought-provoking question: When did you last give someone 100% trust credit from day one and how did it affect your relationship?

Thought #4: Rebuilding trust is a process – but it doesn’t have to mean either naivety or revenge

We’ve all experienced betrayal of trust. Perhaps a business partner didn’t keep their word, maybe a colleague took credit for your idea, or perhaps a supervisor didn’t stand up for you when you needed it. What then? How do you rebuild damaged trust without falling into two extremes: naivety (“nothing happened”) or revenge (“I’ll never trust anyone again”)?

The third way: boundaries without walls

Between blind trust and complete isolation exists a third way – setting boundaries without building walls. Research by Mayer and his team from 1995 shows that rebuilding trust requires both boundaries and openness. Boundaries protect us from further harm, whilst openness gives a chance for healing the relationship.

Imagine trust is like a bridge between two shores. When the bridge gets damaged, you have three options: you can try to cross it as if nothing happened (naivety), you can completely demolish it (revenge), or you can repair it whilst building a temporary crossing in a safer place (wise boundaries).

Lesson, not a life sentence

Fisher and Ury in their study from 1981 suggested a fascinating perspective: treating betrayal as a lesson rather than a life sentence significantly improves psychological resilience. When we perceive painful experiences as a source of knowledge rather than proof of the world’s malice, we’re able to recover faster and act more wisely in the future.

I often hear: “I’ll never trust anyone again”. But isn’t that like closing all doors because one slammed shut? It’s like saying: “I once burnt myself with hot tea, so I’ll never drink anything again”. Moving away from a person who betrayed you isn’t isolation from the world. It’s wise self-protection whilst maintaining the ability to trust others.

Balance between caution and openness

Daniel Goleman, creator of the concept of emotional intelligence, in his research from 1998 emphasised that maintaining balance between caution and openness leads to healthier relationships. Too much caution and we become cynical, cut off from others. Too much openness and we expose ourselves to constant hurt.

How do you find this balance? For me, the model of “open heart, alert mind” is helpful. I remain open to new relationships and experiences whilst being aware of potential threats. I don’t assume bad intentions, but I don’t ignore warning signals either.

People are fundamentally good

Additionally: People are fundamentally good and their bad behaviour is caused by something. It does me good to understand a person and then limit trust in them. Complete separation wouldn’t allow me to learn.

This perspective allows me to maintain faith in humanity even when a specific person disappoints me. I separate the specific person from all humanity – one betrayal doesn’t define everyone. Trust is a skill – you can develop and perfect it. Choose conscious openness instead of blind trust or total isolation.

Practical strategies for rebuilding trust

How do you practically rebuild trust after difficult experiences? Here are several proven strategies:

1. Precisely name what happened – instead of generalities (“you always disappoint me”), name the specific behaviour that violated trust.
2. Express your feelings without accusations – “I felt betrayed when…” instead of “You betrayed me when…”.
3. Establish clear expectations for the future – what do you need to start rebuilding trust?
4. Start with small steps – rebuilding trust is a process that begins with small but consistent actions.
5. Appreciate progress – notice and appreciate every step in the right direction.

My ability to trust is too precious a gift to let one person take it away. Therefore, even after painful experiences, I consciously choose trust – wiser, more aware, but still open to the beauty and potential of interpersonal relationships.

Thought-provoking question: How have you managed to maintain a healthy balance between caution and openness after difficult experiences?

Thought #5: Trust is not weakness – it’s a superpower that transforms life

Superpowers are super because they give power and are super. There’s just one problem: It’s terrifying, dangerous, difficult, and unnatural to trust like that… or so it seems.

Stephen M.R. Covey in his book from 2006 called trust “a superpower that unlocks creativity and cooperation”. Is this an exaggeration? My experience says no. Trust really has transformational power – both in personal and professional life.

The paradox of control and energy

The more we defend ourselves against hurt, the more energy we lose on control. It’s a fascinating paradox: trying to secure ourselves against all possible threats, we exhaust psychological resources that could be used for development and creativity.

Brené Brown in her research from 2012 showed that letting go of control reduces stress and increases mental clarity. When we stop obsessively monitoring every aspect of our life and work, we free enormous reserves of energy. It’s like switching a car from brake to accelerator – suddenly you can move forward instead of fighting to maintain position.

Trust as a conscious choice

Schoorman and his team in research from 2007 emphasised that trust is a conscious choice, not naivety. This is a key difference – naivety ignores risk, whilst conscious trust recognises it but decides to act despite it.

When did you last trust someone completely and allow yourself authenticity? How often do you hold back from trusting because you’re afraid of disappointment? These are questions I regularly ask myself and others. The answers often show how much we lose due to fear of being hurt.

Practical application: trust in everyday life

How this works very simply: Trust frees the mind from constantly calculating risk. When we stop being afraid, we start creating. In practice, this means:

1. Delegating without micromanagement – pass on a task and trust it will be done well.
2. Sharing sensitive information – openness builds mutual trust.
3. Admitting ignorance – paradoxically, showing one’s limitations increases credibility.
4. Giving second chances – disappointments are part of the process, treat them as lessons, not failures.
5. Showing trust publicly – express trust in others in the team’s presence.

Peace of mind instead of illusion of control

One of the greatest benefits of choosing trust is peace of mind. The illusion of control is exactly that – an illusion. We can never control everything. However, we can choose what we focus our attention and energy on.

Would you rather spend your limited resources on building walls or creating bridges? On protecting yourself against potential betrayal or building valuable relationships? On controlling others or supporting their development?

Life is too short for us to spend it behind a wall of mistrust. Being open to people quickly reveals that most of them deserve your trust.

Thought-provoking question: What superpower did you discover when you dared to trust in a situation that seemed risky?