Trust & Inspire: How Truly Great Leaders Unleash Greatness in Others

“When it comes to the way we lead—in the workplace, in the classroom, at home—we’ve been repeating the same style of leadership for a long time. Many leaders still view their role as much more like a machinist than a gardener. They approach it first with the priority that there is a job to be done, and their role is to leverage the resources and people at their disposal to accomplish the task at hand.”

Covey distinguishes between mechanistic leadership that treats people as tools to be used and organic leadership that nurtures growth and potential. The machinist approach focuses on immediate task completion and efficiency, while the gardener approach prioritizes long-term development and sustainable results. This quote illustrates why many traditional leadership methods fail to engage modern workers, who seek meaning and growth rather than simply being “leveraged” as resources.

“Here’s the revealing thing: most of us are probably a lot more like Senior than we’d like to think. In fact, perhaps the single biggest barrier to becoming a Trust & Inspire leader is that we think we already are one!”

This sobering observation highlights the gap between self-perception and reality when it comes to leadership style. Many leaders believe that they’re already inspiring and trusting when their actions still reflect Command & Control patterns. This connects to the book’s advice to Start with Your Own Transformation Before Attempting to Lead Others, emphasizing that honest self-assessment is the crucial first step in leadership transformation.

“All organizations today have two epic imperatives to achieve. First is the ability to create a high-trust culture that can attract, retain, engage, and inspire the best people—and thus win the ongoing war for talent. In other words, win in the workplace. Second is the ability to collaborate and innovate successfully enough to stay highly relevant in a changing, disruptive world. In other words, win in the marketplace.”

Covey establishes the business case for Trust & Inspire leadership by identifying the dual challenges facing modern organizations. Success requires both internal excellence (engaging talent) and external relevance (adapting to change), both of which demand collaborative, innovative approaches rather than rigid control systems. This quote demonstrates that Trust & Inspire isn’t just morally superior but practically necessary for organizational survival in a 21st-century dynamic environment.

“Command & Control leaders operate under a paradigm of position and power. Trust & Inspire leaders operate under a paradigm of people and potential.”

This concise statement captures the fundamental difference in worldview between the two leadership approaches. Command & Control relies on hierarchy and authority to drive compliance, while Trust & Inspire recognizes that sustainable results come from unleashing human capacity. The shift from “position and power” to “people and potential” represents a complete reorientation of how leaders view their role and the source of organizational effectiveness. For example, where a teacher with a Command & Control framework might see a student’s doodling as evidence of inattention and fault them for it, one operating within a Trust & Inspire framework might work with the student to find ways to yoke their artistic interests to learning objectives.

“The same management thinking around control and containment that works so efficiently with things simply does not work effectively when applied to people. People don’t want to be managed or handled. This approach no longer works in our world today (if it ever did). People won’t stay at a job where they’re being controlled or treated like a replaceable tool or component, as if they were exchangeable or replaceable. You can manage resources. You can manage systems. You can manage processes and procedures. But you cannot effectively manage people.”

Covey draws a crucial distinction between managing things and leading people, arguing that the same principles don’t apply to both. While objects and systems respond predictably to control mechanisms, people require trust, respect, and inspiration to perform at their best. This insight explains why traditional management approaches increasingly fail in knowledge work environments where employee engagement and creativity are essential for success.

“Command & Control is becoming increasingly irrelevant and ineffective in our dynamic, multigenerational, interconnected world. I would go so far as to say that Command & Control has been ineffective for much of the past—it was simply more culturally accepted and seemed to work only because less was required. That’s no longer the case. We cannot simply make cosmetic fixes, hoping to mask our outdated style. It’s time for change, and the kind required to move from Command & Control to Trust & Inspire is not incremental; rather, it’s a sea change. It’s not a change in degree, it’s a change in kind.”

This passage emphasizes that the shift to Trust & Inspire leadership represents a fundamental transformation rather than minor adjustments to existing practices. Covey argues that Command & Control appeared to work historically only because the demands on organizations were simpler, but modern, complex challenges require genuine paradigm shifts. This emphasizes that surface-level changes in behavior won’t be sufficient without deeper shifts in mindset and approach.

“In a sense, Command & Control is modern-day bloodletting. It’s mind-boggling that it persists to this day.”

Covey uses a medical analogy to illustrate how Command & Control represents outdated thinking that persists despite evidence of its ineffectiveness. Just as bloodletting was once considered good medicine but is now recognized as harmful, traditional authoritarian leadership continues despite research showing its limitations.

“If it’s true that most people have positive intent, where does the breakdown happen? It’s in the way we lead. Our style. How we do what we do. Our style is getting in the way of our intent.”

This quote addresses a common frustration among leaders who have good intentions but poor results with their teams. Covey suggests that the problem isn’t usually bad motives but ineffective methods; leaders undermine their own positive goals through controlling or uninspiring approaches. This insight helps leaders understand that changing their style, not their intentions, is often the key to better outcomes, reflecting core insights to start with one’s own transformation and Model the Change You Want to See Rather Than Demanding It.

“People who operate from a Trust & Inspire paradigm have a sense of stewardship about everything, including their time, talents, money, possessions, relationships, and family. Similarly, leaders who operate from this paradigm also have a distinctive sense of responsibility about their role as a leader, seeing themselves as stewards—as having a responsibility for the growth and well-being of those they serve and lead.”

Covey introduces stewardship as a core concept that reframes leadership from ownership to caretaking. Rather than viewing their position, team, or resources as personal assets to be exploited, Trust & Inspire leaders see themselves as temporary custodians responsible for nurturing and developing what has been entrusted to them. This mindset naturally leads to decisions that prioritize long-term growth and well-being over short-term personal gain.

“Above all, stewardship is about putting service above self-interest. Self-interest tells you that you have to put yourself and your needs first. It’s a belief that serving others is for someone else, particularly the weak. Yet leaders who see themselves as stewards see it as the greatest strength. This doesn’t mean they neglect themselves. But they don’t feel the need to elevate their wants above the wants and needs of others, because they know that serving others is what enriches life.”

This passage redefines strength in leadership by arguing that service to others represents power rather than weakness. Covey challenges the common assumption that self-interest and strength go hand in hand, instead proposing that true leadership strength comes from the ability to prioritize others’ growth and success. This relates to the principle to Connect Work and Relationships to Deeper Purpose and Meaning by showing how serving others creates the sense of significance that drives sustainable engagement.

“Becoming a Trust & Inspire leader requires continual self-evaluation because it begins with you. Just as an airline asks you to put on your own oxygen mask first before helping others, you cannot be effective in raising those around you if you don’t work on yourself first.”

The airline oxygen mask metaphor illustrates why personal transformation must precede attempts to influence others. Just as a person can’t help others breathe if they’re unconscious, they can’t inspire trust and growth in others if they haven’t developed these qualities themselves. This quote directly supports the advice to start with one’s own transformation, emphasizing that authentic influence flows from personal authenticity and growth rather than positional authority.

“When most people think about trust, they simply think about trustworthiness. That’s not necessarily a bad thing—rather, it’s not a bad start. It’s difficult to have real, meaningful trust between people when one or both parties isn’t worthy of it.”

Covey distinguishes between being trustworthy (having integrity and competence) and extending trust to others, noting that both elements are necessary for Trust & Inspire leadership. While personal trustworthiness is foundational, leaders must also actively choose to trust others despite potential risks. This clarification helps readers understand that trust isn’t just about being reliable oneself but also about creating conditions where others can prove their own reliability. For example, a manager might delegate the task of researching market trends to an employee, conveying trust in their ability to compile the information that will shape future decision-making.

“The involvement of others tends to create far greater commitment. A mutually agreed-upon process of accountability with others who are involved requires an extension of trust. That mutual agreement is essential. If you’ve agreed to touch base on a project weekly, your checking in will be viewed as honoring your commitment. If you haven’t agreed, it may feel like micromanagement.”

This insight explains why involvement in creating accountability systems transforms them from control mechanisms into trust-building tools. When people participate in designing their own monitoring and feedback processes, they experience oversight as supportive rather than intrusive. This connects to the takeaway to Replace Control Systems with Clear Expectations and Mutual Accountability by showing how the process of creating agreements matters as much as the agreements themselves.

“But at some point, money wouldn’t matter. Because what truly matters, in the end, is mattering—making a difference. People want to know that their life and their work mattered, that they were significant. They want to find meaning in how they spend their time, not just a way to pay for it. They don’t want to just go through the motions and feel like the work they’re doing, or the reason they’re doing it, doesn’t matter.”

Covey’s discussion of “mattering” captures the fundamental human need for significance and purpose that transcends material compensation. While financial rewards can motivate to a point, people ultimately seek work that contributes to something meaningful beyond their paycheck. This quote directly relates to the advice to connect work and relationships to deeper purpose and meaning, showing why leaders must help people understand how their contributions create value for others and align with their personal sense of purpose.

“The ongoing issue is, ‘I have to get the job done, but I know I also need to build relationships with people.’ As leaders, we want to be both tough-minded and kindhearted, as leadership authorities Doug Conant and Mette Norgaard suggest. For too many, these seem like two separate responsibilities, and they can sometimes even manifest as competing priorities. The insufficiency of this false dichotomy sits squarely within an Enlightened Command & Control paradigm.”

This passage addresses a common leadership dilemma by revealing it as a false choice created by outdated thinking. Rather than seeing task completion and relationship building as competing demands, Trust & Inspire leaders recognize that strong relationships enable better task performance. Covey suggests that viewing these as separate responsibilities reflects residual Command & Control thinking, even when leaders have good intentions about caring for people. This insight reflects the key takeaway to Overcome Resistance by Addressing the Root Paradigm, Not Just Surface Behaviors.

“It takes far more strength for leaders to collaborate with their people than to micromanage them. It takes far more strength for leaders to extend trust than just give orders and manage their execution. I’ll put it this way: the success of Command & Control leaders is limited by the boundaries of their own strengths. By contrast, the success of Trust & Inspire leaders is virtually limitless, as their strengths are magnified by the strengths of a team that is ready and inspired to contribute their best. Wielding this level of compounding creativity, passion, and commitment is not for the weak but rather for the remarkably strong.”

Covey reframes the strength versus weakness debate by arguing that trust and collaboration require more courage and capability than control and micromanagement. Command & Control may feel safer because it relies only on the leader’s abilities, but Trust & Inspire leaders access exponentially greater capacity by unleashing their team’s combined strengths. This perspective helps leaders overcome the fear that trusting others makes them appear weak or ineffective.

“The difference between a Command & Control leader and a Trust & Inspire leader, even if their actions are exactly the same, is that their behavior is interpreted completely differently, because it comes from a different place. To act decisively, or be firm, or be authoritative, or show ‘tough love’ or discipline from an established Trust & Inspire style is completely different from attempting the same things when you’re perceived as Command & Control. Your mindset and intent make all the difference, and your track record tells people loud and clear how to interpret your behavior.”

This insight reveals why the same leadership actions can have completely different effects depending on the leader’s established paradigm and track record. Decisive action from a Trust & Inspire leader is seen as necessary leadership, while identical behavior from a Command & Control leader may be perceived as domineering or manipulative. This demonstrates why the advice to start with one’s own transformation is crucial: People interpret behavior based on their understanding of the leader’s underlying motivations and character.

“Risk and return go hand in hand, and the research overwhelmingly shows that the return on being a Trust & Inspire leader is infinitely better than on being a Command & Control leader. That return is measured not only in dramatically increased performance but also in remarkably higher energy and joy—greater well-being.”

Covey acknowledges that Trust & Inspire leadership involves risk while arguing that the potential returns far exceed those risks. The benefits extend beyond mere performance metrics to include enhanced quality of life for both leaders and team members. This economic argument helps leaders who might be concerned about the practical implications of shifting away from control-based approaches.

“The great irony is that we’re never truly in control anyway. Principles are in control. Violating principles is like trying to violate gravity. When an airplane takes flight, it isn’t defying gravity. It is simply aligned with the principles that govern flight: lift, thrust, drag, and weight. Principles rule our world, and no matter how hard we might try, we can only ever create the illusion of control. The more we align ourselves to principles, the more predictable outcomes become.”

This analogy exposes the false security of Command & Control by revealing that true control comes from aligning with natural principles rather than trying to force compliance. Just as airplanes work with physical laws rather than against them, effective leaders work with human nature and universal principles rather than trying to override them. This insight helps leaders understand that when they replace control systems with clear expectations and mutual accountability, it isn’t about losing control, but about achieving better results through principle-based leadership.

“However, trust is the antidote to fear. Great leaders not only extend trust to others, they also help others gain trust and confidence in themselves. The resulting self-trust can be greater than their fears.”

Covey identifies trust as the key to overcoming the fear that often prevents people from taking initiative or pursuing growth opportunities. By helping others develop confidence in their own abilities, Trust & Inspire leaders enable them to act courageously despite uncertainty or risk. This connects to the takeaway to See Potential First, Then Develop It Through Strategically Extending Trust by showing how leader trust can cultivate self-trust in others.

“Being smart is more than just intelligence or credentials. It includes your ability to reach people, to inspire them, to open their minds rather than to shut them down so that everyone (including you) can benefit by what they bring to the table. By that definition, if you think you’re the smartest in the room, then you’re automatically not. If you think you’re always right, you’ll find that when it comes to people, you’re more often getting it wrong.”

This redefinition of intelligence emphasizes emotional and social capabilities over pure cognitive ability or formal qualifications. True intelligence includes the wisdom to recognize and leverage the intelligence of others rather than trying to dominate through superior knowledge. Covey’s paradoxical statement about being “the smartest in the room” challenges leaders to value collective intelligence over individual brilliance, a reframing that is an example of overcoming resistance by addressing root paradigms.

“If you want to encourage those around you to take chances, to try new things, to share their ideas, you need to communicate respect for them and their ideas, the good and the bad equally. Again, that doesn’t mean you have to act on all the ideas. But listening respectfully shows them that they matter to you. It’s important to note that there’s a difference between genuinely having respect for someone versus merely being respectful—and people can tell the difference.”

Covey distinguishes between superficial politeness and authentic respect, noting that people can sense the difference between genuine regard and mere courtesy. Creating psychological safety for innovation and initiative requires demonstrating real value for people’s contributions, even when those contributions aren’t immediately useful. This insight helps leaders understand that the advice to see potential first and then develop it requires authentic appreciation for others’ capabilities, not just diplomatic behavior.

“If you’ve felt stuck, take heart! You don’t have to remain that way. You can change your style. You can let go. You can rescript your leadership. You can rescript your life. You can program new behavior. You’re not a character in someone else’s story. You write your own.”

This encouraging message directly counters the barrier of believing “This is who I am” by emphasizing personal agency and the possibility of transformation at any stage of life (259). Covey suggests that leadership style is a choice rather than a fixed personality trait. This quote supports the recommendation to overcome resistance by addressing the root paradigm by showing that fundamental change is possible when people take responsibility for their own growth and development.