- Bruce Herscovici
- Sep 22
- 2 min read
Early in my leadership journey, I believed trust was the secret to building high-performing teams.
And in many ways, it is.
But I’ve learned that trust alone isn’t enough.
Even in teams where people believe in each other’s competence and intentions, you’ll often see hesitation:
To challenge ideas
To admit mistakes
To flag risks
To speak up when it matters most
That’s where psychological safety comes in.
It’s the felt experience that says, “They’ve got my back. I can be honest here. I won’t be punished for being real.”
One of the clearest examples I’ve seen of this “trust + psychological safety” model in action was at TELUS Mobility.
Sales and Marketing both reported to the EVP of Sales & Marketing—Wade Oosterman—a leader deeply committed to building high-performing teams through trust and psychological safety.
One of the best reflections of that was how we managed go-to-market execution.
Every week, our Sales & Marketing leadership team—VPs from Product, Brand, Corporate Stores, and Dealer Channels—would review in-flight projects using a gated process that ensured alignment, clear ownership, and high execution standards.
These meetings weren’t just status updates.
They were working sessions.
Disagreements came to the surface.
Trade-offs had to be made.
Risks got called out early.
And because the team had built real trust—and felt safe—we could:
Debate without politics
Pull the red cord without fear
Speak truth to power
Resolve issues fast and move forward aligned
Wade led with intent. He challenged assumptions, protected the must-haves, and cleared out the noise. But the magic wasn’t just in his facilitation—it was in the team’s ability to collaborate without defensiveness.
Trust got us to the table. Psychological safety got us to the truth.
That’s what allowed us to execute with excellence—on time, on message, and on point for the customer.
So here’s my question:
How are you building both trust and psychological safety on your teams?
Have you experienced the difference when both are present?
Comments