Trust, Competence, and the First Follower: A Leadership Philosophy Revisited

Author's Note: This essay began as a personal leadership philosophy paper for a college leadership course, but it evolved into something more meaningful. Nineteen years after publishing Leadership: Texas Hold'em Style, I revisited my original definition of leadership as the art of influencing people toward organizational goals and examined it through the lens of contemporary leadership theory and research. Along the way, I found unexpected connections to my current writing project, Leadership in the Age of Sail, particularly regarding trust, competence, followership, and influence. Rather than changing my understanding of leadership, this course strengthened it by providing academic support for lessons learned through decades of professional service, volunteer leadership, and community involvement. This essay is both a reflection on leadership and an exploration of the foundations that make influence possible.

    Nineteen years ago, in Leadership: Texas Hold'em Style, I defined leadership as the art of influencing people toward organizational goals. At the time, I intentionally chose the word influence because it encompassed the broadest range of leadership behaviors. Leaders influence through encouragement, coaching, mentoring, persuasion, example, discipline, and, when necessary, corrective action. Every leadership action is ultimately an attempt to influence human behavior toward a desired outcome. While I recognized that trust was an essential component of influence, my understanding of leadership was primarily centered on the leader's ability to move people and organizations toward meaningful objectives. After completing this course, I realize that my original definition remains largely intact, but my understanding of how influence is created, sustained, and exercised has become significantly more sophisticated.

One of the most significant concepts reinforced during this course was trustworthiness. As I am currently working on another book, Leadership in the Age of Sail, I have devoted an entire chapter to the subject of trust. Consequently, our group work and discussions surrounding trustworthiness were particularly relevant to my current research and writing. What I found most valuable was the emphasis on competence as a foundational component of trust. While integrity, honesty, and ethical behavior are essential, they are not sufficient by themselves. Followers must also believe that a leader possesses the knowledge, skills, judgment, and experience necessary to navigate challenges successfully.

This concept resonated with me because it aligned closely with conclusions I had already begun developing in my writing. A leader may have excellent intentions, but if followers doubt the leader's competence, trust will eventually erode. Conversely, highly competent leaders who lack integrity may achieve short-term success but ultimately undermine trust through their actions. The research examined during our group project demonstrated that trustworthiness rests upon both character and competence. This understanding expanded my original definition of influence by helping me recognize that influence is not simply a product of authority or personality. Sustainable influence is earned through demonstrated competence and reinforced through trustworthy behavior.

The course also expanded my understanding of followership and its relationship to influence. The video commonly known as The Dancing Guy has been one of my favorite leadership teaching tools for years. I have used it repeatedly in presentations, training sessions, and discussions about leadership. However, this course encouraged me to look beyond the obvious lesson of the lone leader and focus instead on the role of the first follower.

In many of the community organizations where I serve, I often find myself acting as the first follower rather than the person introducing a new idea. Community leadership differs from many traditional organizational settings because success frequently depends on recognizing good ideas developed by others and helping them gain momentum. The ability to identify a worthwhile vision and become its champion may be just as valuable as originating the vision itself. The first follower transforms an individual's action into a movement. Reflecting on this concept caused me to reconsider influence as something that does not belong exclusively to formal leaders. Influence can also be exercised by those who recognize potential, support others, and encourage collective action around a worthwhile goal.

Another important contribution of this course came through Adam Grant's Think Again. Grant argues that effective leaders must remain open to new information and willing to reconsider their assumptions. I found this perspective useful because it reflects a lesson I have learned repeatedly throughout my professional and volunteer experiences. Some of the most valuable people in any organization are those willing to challenge prevailing assumptions and ask difficult questions.

Throughout my career, I have intentionally sought out individuals who are willing to challenge my thinking. In environments where decisions carry significant consequences, mistakes can have far-reaching effects. Whether in law enforcement, community service, or organizational leadership, leaders benefit from people who are willing to identify flaws, question assumptions, and propose alternatives. At the same time, I believe leadership requires balance. There are situations involving ethics, safety, public trust, and organizational liability where leaders must firmly defend core principles. Openness to new ideas should not become indecision. Intellectual humility requires leaders to remain teachable while maintaining the courage to stand firm when circumstances demand it.

Several leadership theories explored during this course support my longstanding belief that leadership is fundamentally about influence. Servant leadership, in particular, aligns closely with my philosophy because it suggests that influence grows when leaders focus on helping others succeed. Rather than viewing leadership as a means of exercising power, servant leadership views leadership as a responsibility to develop people and help them reach their potential. This perspective mirrors my own experiences in volunteer organizations, community service, and professional leadership roles.

Authentic leadership also resonates strongly with my understanding of influence. Authentic leaders create influence by aligning their actions with their values and demonstrating consistency over time. Followers are more likely to trust and follow leaders whose actions match their words. Similarly, transformational leadership focuses on inspiring individuals toward a shared vision and motivating them to accomplish more than they believed possible. While these theories approach leadership from different directions, they all reinforce the central idea that leadership occurs through influence rather than authority.

As I reflect upon this course, I find that my original definition of leadership remains valid. Leadership is still the art of influencing people toward organizational goals. However, I now possess a deeper appreciation for the factors that create and sustain influence. Trustworthiness, competence, followership, intellectual humility, and service to others all contribute to a leader's ability to influence effectively. The course did not replace my understanding of leadership; rather, it provided academic support and theoretical frameworks for ideas I had largely developed through experience.

The most significant impact of this course was helping me better understand the foundations of influence. Nineteen years ago, I focused primarily on the outcome—the ability of leaders to influence people toward worthwhile objectives. This course encouraged me to look more closely at the underlying mechanisms that make influence possible. Trust must be earned. Competence must be demonstrated. Followers must choose to participate. Leaders must remain humble enough to learn while possessing the confidence to act. Together, these lessons strengthened my leadership philosophy and provided new insights that I will apply in my professional work, community service, and ongoing writing projects. Whether serving as a leader or as the first follower, my objective remains unchanged: to help people move toward meaningful goals while becoming better versions of themselves along the way.

 

References

Grant, A. (2021). Think again: The power of knowing what you don't know. Viking.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261.

 

 

Trust and Merit: The Hidden Link Between Leadership Credibility and Organizational Fairness

Trust and meritocracy are often discussed as separate pillars of effective organizations, yet in practice they are deeply interconnected. Meritocracy promises that individuals are rewarded based on ability and performance, while trust determines whether followers believe that promise is real. Without trust in leadership, even the most carefully designed merit-based systems lose legitimacy. Trustworthiness—grounded in ability, integrity, and transparency—serves as the bridge between leadership credibility and perceptions of fairness, shaping employee engagement, performance, and organizational outcomes.

At its core, trust in leadership reflects a willingness by followers to be vulnerable to decisions that affect their outcomes. Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) define trustworthiness as consisting of three key components: ability, integrity, and benevolence. Ability refers to the competence and skills that enable leaders to perform effectively. Integrity involves adherence to principles and consistency between words and actions. Benevolence reflects a leader’s perceived concern for the well-being of others. In modern organizational contexts, benevolence is often expressed through transparency—open communication, clarity in decision-making, and accountability. These elements collectively determine whether employees view leaders as credible and trustworthy.

Meritocracy depends heavily on these perceptions. In theory, a meritocratic system rewards individuals based on performance, qualifications, and contributions. However, research suggests that employees’ perceptions of fairness are not determined solely by outcomes, but by the processes used to reach them. Colquitt, Scott, and LePine (2007) demonstrate that trustworthiness significantly influences risk-taking and job performance, indicating that employees are more willing to invest effort when they believe leadership decisions are fair and grounded in competence and integrity. When leaders are perceived as trustworthy, employees are more likely to accept decisions—even unfavorable ones—because they believe those decisions are based on merit rather than bias or favoritism.

Ability plays a foundational role in linking trust and meritocracy. Leaders who demonstrate competence are more likely to be seen as capable of evaluating performance accurately and making sound decisions. When leaders lack ability, employees may question whether rewards and promotions truly reflect merit. This skepticism undermines confidence in the system and can lead to disengagement. Conversely, when leaders consistently demonstrate expertise and sound judgment, they reinforce the legitimacy of merit-based outcomes. Employees are more likely to believe that success is achievable through effort and performance, which strengthens motivation and organizational commitment.

Integrity further reinforces the connection between trust and meritocracy by ensuring consistency and fairness in leadership behavior. Leaders who adhere to clear principles and apply standards consistently signal that decisions are not arbitrary. This consistency is critical in merit-based systems, where even the perception of favoritism can erode trust. When employees observe alignment between stated values and actual decisions, they are more likely to view the system as fair. Mayer et al. (1995) emphasize that integrity is essential for sustaining trust over time, as it provides predictability and reduces uncertainty in leader behavior. Without integrity, meritocracy becomes vulnerable to manipulation, and trust quickly deteriorates.

Transparency, as a modern expression of benevolence, is equally important in maintaining trust within meritocratic systems. Transparency involves clear communication about how decisions are made, why certain outcomes occur, and what criteria are used to evaluate performance. Feuer and Mastrogiovanni (2025) note that a significant portion of employees report low trust in leadership, often due to a lack of clarity and openness. When leaders fail to explain decisions, employees may fill the gaps with assumptions of bias or unfairness. In contrast, transparent leaders provide insight into their reasoning, which helps employees understand and accept outcomes. Transparency reduces ambiguity, strengthens perceptions of fairness, and fosters a sense of inclusion in organizational processes.

The absence of trustworthiness can create what some scholars describe as the “illusion of meritocracy.” Organizations may claim to operate on merit-based principles, but if employees do not trust leadership, those claims lose credibility. Perceived inconsistencies, lack of transparency, or questionable decision-making can lead employees to believe that outcomes are influenced by factors other than merit. This perception not only reduces motivation but can also increase turnover and decrease organizational citizenship behaviors. Employees who do not trust leadership are less likely to take initiative, share ideas, or engage fully in their roles, ultimately undermining organizational performance.

In contrast, when trustworthiness is embedded in leadership practices, meritocracy becomes more than a theoretical ideal—it becomes a lived experience. Trustworthy leaders create environments where employees believe their efforts will be recognized and rewarded fairly. This belief encourages collaboration, innovation, and risk-taking, all of which are essential for organizational success. Colquitt et al. (2007) highlight that trust enhances both performance and willingness to take risks, suggesting that employees are more likely to engage in behaviors that benefit the organization when they trust leadership.

Ultimately, the relationship between trust and meritocracy underscores the importance of leadership credibility. Merit-based systems cannot function effectively without trust, and trust cannot be sustained without demonstrated ability, integrity, and transparency. Leaders who embody these qualities not only enhance their own credibility but also strengthen the systems they oversee. In doing so, they create organizations where fairness is not just promised, but consistently experienced.

In conclusion, trustworthiness serves as the foundation upon which meritocracy depends. Ability ensures competent decision-making, integrity guarantees consistency and fairness, and transparency provides the clarity necessary for employees to understand and accept outcomes. Together, these elements determine whether employees trust leadership and believe in the legitimacy of organizational systems. As organizations continue to emphasize performance and accountability, the integration of trust and merit will remain essential for achieving sustainable success.

References

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927.

Feuer, N., & Mastrogiovanni, M. (2025). Most employees don’t trust their leaders. Here’s what to do. Harvard Business Review, 1–7.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.