Keys to the Kingdom: What Trust (or the Lack of It) Says About a Workplace
3 min read
In the workplace, being given keys symbolises trust and responsibility, with some organisations granting access early as a sign of valuing competence over rigid timelines. This fosters belonging, initiative, and efficiency by reducing bureaucratic barriers. In contrast, withholding trust often signals a hierarchical, exclusionary culture where gatekeeping and second-guessing disproportionately affect marginalised employees, who may take on extra responsibilities without formal authority. Whether trust is extended or restricted reveals a company’s true values – driven by policy or selective bias. A workplace that prioritises capability over identity fosters growth, while one that hoards trust signals control. Which environment do you want to be in?
In the workplace, few moments signal a shift in status quite like being handed a set of keys. It’s a tangible sign of trust, a quiet nod that says, “You’re capable enough to hold the fort.” But what makes that moment even more significant is when it happens. Some organisations have strict probationary policies – six months, a year, maybe longer – before they consider granting that kind of access. Others, however, fast-track the process, offering keys to those who have proven themselves in a fraction of the time.
And therein lies an interesting question: what does early trust say about a workplace? More importantly, what does withholding trust say?
When Trust Comes Early
A workplace that extends trust quickly is making a statement – whether consciously or not. It suggests a results-driven culture, one that values competence over rigid timelines. It also signals confidence in leadership’s ability to assess people’s skills beyond arbitrary probation periods. In these environments, autonomy is often a given, and progression is based on merit rather than endurance.
For employees, early trust can be invigorating. It creates a sense of belonging and ownership, reinforcing the idea that one’s contributions are seen and valued. This kind of culture fosters initiative, encourages problem-solving, and, crucially, avoids the bureaucratic stagnation that keeps good ideas locked behind unnecessary approval processes.
But trust, when given, is never neutral. Who receives it, and for what purpose, is just as important as the fact that it’s given at all. If trust is extended primarily to those who fit a particular mold – racially, neurotypically, or in terms of class background, for example – then even a workplace that seems empowering can be rife with bias. And if you’re only being trusted with the menial, then exploitation is likely at play too.
When Trust is Withheld
Conversely, a workplace that rigidly withholds trust – delaying responsibility, hoarding decision-making power, or treating every new hire as an unproven risk – reveals an entirely different set of values. It suggests a culture steeped in hierarchy, control, and an obsession with proving oneself before being granted even basic autonomy.
While some might argue that slow-earned trust ensures quality and consistency, the reality is that gatekeeping often serves as a mechanism for exclusion. When certain people are required to prove themselves twice as much for half the trust, it’s not about ensuring competence – it’s about reinforcing power structures.
And those structures are rarely neutral. For many marginalized employees, trust delays are often coded. They manifest as constant second-guessing, being sidelined from decision-making, or having competence scrutinized in ways others don’t experience. One of the most insidious forms of gatekeeping is performance without promotion – where marginalised employees are given extra responsibilities but denied the formal authority (or pay) that should come with them.
A Workplace Litmus Test
So, whether trust is granted early or withheld, it’s worth asking: Is this a matter of policy or of selectivity? Who is fast-tracked? Who is held back? And why?
The answers will tell you everything you need to know about a company’s priorities. A workplace that recognizes competence irrespective of identity – and grants responsibility accordingly – is one that likely values agility, innovation, and respect for individual capability. A workplace that hoards trust for a select few, enforcing rigid hierarchies, is likely more invested in control than in growth.
And you have to ask yourself – is that somewhere you really want to be?
