Leaders ADAPT teaching package
Teaching team trust: a free session plan for team leaders, L&D and leadership courses
Who this is for
Instructors of organizational behavior and leadership courses at university and MBA level, learning and development leads running team effectiveness or new manager programs, and team leaders who want to run one honest session with their own team. It extends psychological safety teaching from the climate of a team to the specific behaviors of the person leading it. No preparation beyond reading this page, printing the handout and opening the test link.
What participants leave with
- A test score and a Trust Loop map of their own team, with the weakest loop named from evidence rather than mood.
- A promise audit of their last seven days, with one promise to close out or renegotiate this week, written word for word.
- A first sentence ready for the two second window: the moment after someone brings them news they did not want to hear.
Pre-work (optional, 10 minutes)
Ask participants to write down the last piece of bad news that reached them from their team or study group: what it was, roughly how many days after the problem started they heard it, and who told them. Nobody shares it. It is the evidence they will hold up against the Information Gap fingerprints in the session.
TRUST: a five loop map, two loops in depth, and the Information Gap
Trust is not a mood the team is in. In Andreas Pettersson's TRUST model it is five quiet judgments each person makes about the leader, one per letter. This session shows all five as a map, then goes deep on the two that the free test measures most directly: Reliability and Safety. A strong loop does not make up for a broken one, which is why a leader who keeps every promise can still get the filtered version of the truth. The Information Gap is what that filtered version looks like from the top, and the two second window is where it opens or closes.
- The map: five loops, one line each
- T, Transparency: they understand why you decide what you decide. R, Reliability: you do what you said you would. U, Understanding: you see what their work is actually like. S, Safety: they can tell you the truth without paying for it. T, Track Record: they can see you deliver. Use the map to locate the problem. This session works two of the loops in depth.
- In depth: Reliability
- The judgment: does this person do what they say? It is mostly built or lost in small promises: "I'll send that over", "I'll look into it", "let me get back to you". Leaders remember the big commitments they kept. Teams remember the small ones that quietly disappeared. When the loop breaks, people start chasing you, double checking what you said and building workarounds so they do not depend on you. To rebuild it, promise less, put a time on everything you do promise, and when you cannot deliver, say so before the deadline rather than after. A promise renegotiated in time still counts as kept. A silent miss does not.
- In depth: Safety
- The judgment: can I bring bad news to this person without it costing me? You cannot announce this loop into existence. People learn it by watching what happened to the last person who brought a problem, a mistake or a disagreement. When it breaks, problems arrive late, polished and secondhand, and meetings go quiet. To rebuild it, respond to the messenger before you respond to the message: thank them, ask what else they know, then deal with the problem. Do it in public, because the room learns from the public moments.
- The Information Gap and its four fingerprints
- The gap is the distance between what is actually happening and what makes it all the way up to the leader. It is not a flaw in people. It is the predictable side effect of being in charge: teams learn that speaking up costs something and staying quiet costs nothing, and the strongest people go quiet fastest. Four fingerprints show it is open: surprises other people saw coming; meetings that run too smoothly; hearing the truth sideways, from a peer or a customer instead of the person closest to it; and the phrase "I didn't want to bother you." "My door is always open" is often a sign the gap already exists, not a cure for it.
- The two second window
- The two seconds after someone tells you something you did not want to hear. People calibrate on your face and your first sentence, not on your policy. One visible flash of irritation teaches the room more than a year of open door speeches, and getting it wrong once in public resets everyone who watched. The fix is proof, not permission: a prepared first sentence ("Thank you for telling me. What else do I need to know?"), questions that get past the filter, and handling the public moment well every time.
- The leader speaks last
- When a team leader runs this session with their own team, the speaking order is part of the design. In every round, the person with the least positional authority goes first and the leader goes last. A leader who speaks first sets the ceiling, and everyone else calibrates down to it. Going last also lets the leader choose how much to disclose. This is the speaking order Andreas uses when he facilitates leadership teams.
The TRUST loops and the Information Gap are Andreas Pettersson's frameworks; the Information Gap and the two second window come from his public webinar teaching. Psychological safety as a team climate is Amy Edmondson's research term; this package focuses on the leader behaviors that produce or erode it.
Session plans
Pick the length that fits your slot. Every version uses the same test, framework and worksheet.
20 minute version
| Minutes | What happens |
|---|---|
| 0 to 3 | Hand count, eyes open: "Who has heard I didn't want to bother you from someone in the last month?" Say the premise: trust is five judgments people quietly make about you. |
| 3 to 8 | Everyone takes the free team trust test on their own device. Note the score, the level and the lowest of the four areas. |
| 8 to 13 | Show the map in one slide, one line per loop. Then Reliability and Safety in two minutes each. Name the four Information Gap fingerprints in one breath. |
| 13 to 18 | Handout steps 2 and 4: rate the five loops from evidence, then run the promise audit for the last seven days. |
| 18 to 20 | Three volunteers say one promise they will close out or renegotiate, and to whom. Everyone else writes the day on their handout. |
45 minute version
| Minutes | What happens |
|---|---|
| 0 to 5 | Hand count on the fingerprint phrase "I didn't want to bother you". Then ask how many days late their last piece of bad news arrived (the pre-work). Frame: the gap is normal, and it is built by the leader's behavior, not the team's honesty. |
| 5 to 10 | Everyone takes the free team trust test. Note score, level and lowest area. Nobody shares numbers. |
| 10 to 20 | Teach the map, then Reliability and Safety in depth. Then the Information Gap: the four fingerprints and the two second window. Demo the window yourself: a colleague reads bad news card 1 from the handout, you react badly once, then well once. |
| 20 to 30 | Read the fictional case aloud. Groups of three or four answer discussion questions 1 to 3: which loops are broken, which fingerprints show, what Priya's first sentence should have been. |
| 30 to 40 | Handout steps 1 to 5: the map, the gap check, the promise audit and the first sentence. Pairs read their first sentences aloud and the partner ticks the checks at the bottom of the handout. |
| 40 to 45 | Round the room, least senior person first and the most senior person last: one promise to close out, one first sentence. Close with discussion question 6 and ask them to retake the test in three weeks. |
90 minute version
| Minutes | What happens |
|---|---|
| 0 to 10 | Fingerprint hand count, then the pre-work: how many days late did your last piece of bad news arrive, and from whom? Collect the range of days on a flipchart without names. |
| 10 to 15 | Everyone takes the free team trust test. Note score, level and lowest area. |
| 15 to 25 | The map. For each loop, ask the room for a moment they saw it break, without names. Point out that the test measures Reliability and Safety most directly, which is why the session goes deep on those two. |
| 25 to 40 | Reliability in depth. Each person runs the promise audit (handout step 4) alone, then pairs compare: which kind of promise slips most often, and who notices first. |
| 40 to 52 | Safety in depth, then the Information Gap: why it forms, the four fingerprints, why "my door is always open" can be a symptom. Then the two second window, demonstrated twice with bad news card 1: bad reaction first, prepared first sentence second. Ask the room what they saw change. |
| 52 to 65 | Fictional case in groups of four. Discussion questions 1 to 5. Each group reports the one loop they would fix first and why. |
| 65 to 80 | Two second window drill in trios: bearer, leader, observer. The bearer reads a bad news card, the leader responds, the observer writes down the leader's first sentence and what their face did. Rotate so everyone plays leader once. Debrief: which first sentences made the bearer want to say more? |
| 80 to 90 | Handout steps 5 and 6: each person commits a first sentence for the window and a day to close out their promise. Run the commitment round with the leader speaking last. Close with discussion question 7. Suggest a retake of the test in three weeks. |
The free test participants take
Participants take the free team trust test on their own phone or laptop. It takes a few minutes. It asks for a name and email to send the full result, so tell participants that in advance. Results go only to the person who took it, so nobody has to share a score unless they choose to.
Link to give participants (paste it into your slides or learning platform):
https://www.leadersadapt.com/assessments/team-trust/?utm_source=teaching-package&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=teach-team-trust
The case: the team that never pushes back
Fictional case, written for teaching. Names, companies and numbers are invented.
Priya Raman was promoted eight months ago to lead the 18 person customer operations team at Kettlewell Supply, a fictional industrial parts distributor. She is well liked, works long hours and tells every new hire that her door is always open. Her team calls her dependable: the new ticketing tool she promised in January arrived in March, as promised, and so did the extra hire.
In April she moved two senior agents from the phone queue to the key accounts desk and announced it in a two line email with no reason given. Within a week the team chat had three theories about why, the most popular being that the phone queue was about to be outsourced. Nobody asked her. Two agents updated their CVs.
Her weekly team meeting finishes early most weeks. Nobody disagrees with anything. In June, Priya learned from the finance director, not from her own team, that the largest customer had filed a formal complaint about late credit notes three weeks earlier. When she asked the team lead for that account why he had said nothing, he answered: "I didn't want to bother you. You had the hiring plan going on."
Two weeks before the complaint, a junior agent had said in the team meeting that the credit note backlog was getting worse. Priya frowned, said "That is not what the numbers show", and moved to the next item. She does not remember the moment. Everyone else in the room does. Priya has asked you what she should change first.
The handout
One page per participant. Steps 1 to 5 take about ten minutes; step 6 is the commitment.
 Teaching packageTeaching team trust |
Leaders ADAPT | CC BY 4.0leadersadapt.com/teach-team-trust/ |
Trust Loop map, promise audit and the two second windowTRUST LOOP MAP
Name: ____________________ Team or group: ____________________ Date: __________
STEP 1. MY TEST RESULT
Score: _____ / 100 Level: ____________________
Lowest area (circle): Safety Candor Reliability Repair
How the test maps to the loops: Reliability = Reliability loop. Safety and Candor = Safety loop and the Information Gap. Repair = how you recover when any loop breaks. Transparency, Understanding and Track Record are not in the test: rate them from evidence below.
STEP 2. RATE EACH LOOP FOR THE LAST 14 DAYS
1 = broken, 5 = solid. Evidence means something you did or saw, not a feeling.
T Transparency They understand why I decide what I decide. 1 2 3 4 5
Evidence: ______________________________________________
R Reliability I do what I said I would. 1 2 3 4 5
Evidence: ______________________________________________
U Understanding I see what their work is actually like. 1 2 3 4 5
Evidence: ______________________________________________
S Safety They can tell me the truth at no cost. 1 2 3 4 5
Evidence: ______________________________________________
T Track Record They can see me deliver. 1 2 3 4 5
Evidence: ______________________________________________
A strong loop does not make up for a broken one. Weakest loop: ______________
STEP 3. INFORMATION GAP CHECK (tick any you have seen in the last month)
[ ] A surprise that other people saw coming
[ ] Meetings that run too smoothly: no disagreement, finished early
[ ] Hearing the truth sideways, from a peer, a customer or another team
[ ] Someone said "I didn't want to bother you"
Ticks: _____ Two or more: treat Safety as one of your weakest loops, whatever you scored it.
STEP 4. PROMISE AUDIT (Reliability, last 7 days)
List every promise you made, the small ones too: "I'll send it", "I'll check", "I'll get back to you".
Status: K = kept on time L = kept late R = renegotiated before the deadline S = silent miss
Promise To whom Status
1. _____________________________________ ______________ ___
2. _____________________________________ ______________ ___
3. _____________________________________ ______________ ___
4. _____________________________________ ______________ ___
5. _____________________________________ ______________ ___
6. _____________________________________ ______________ ___
Silent misses: ___ The one I will close out or renegotiate this week:
Exact words: ___________________________________________________
To: ____________________ Day: __________
STEP 5. SAFETY: THE TWO SECOND WINDOW
When someone brings me bad news this week, my first sentence will be:
_______________________________________________________________
What my face will NOT do: ______________________________________
One question I will ask to get past the filter:
_______________________________________________________________
PARTNER CHECK (partner ticks)
[ ] The promise names a real person and a real day
[ ] The words are written out, not summarized
[ ] The first sentence thanks the messenger before it touches the problem
STEP 6. RETAKE
I will retake the test on: __________ Loop I expect to move: ______________
BAD NEWS CARDS (for the two second window drill; cut out)
Card 1: "The supplier we chose last month will miss the delivery date by two weeks. I have known since Monday."
Card 2: "I made a mistake in the forecast I sent you. The number you took to the leadership meeting was too high."
Card 3: "Most of the team has gone back to the old process. We think the new one is slowing us down." Teaching team trust: a session plan. Andreas Pettersson, Leaders ADAPT. Free to use under CC BY 4.0. https://www.leadersadapt.com/teach-team-trust/ The full system: 5minleader.leadersadapt.com/5ml |
Discussion questions
- Put Priya on the five loop map. Which loops are working, which are broken, and why did her reliability not protect her in June?
- Which of the four Information Gap fingerprints can you find in the case? Which one should have worried her first?
- Replay the junior agent's comment about the credit note backlog. What should Priya's first sentence have been, and what should her face have done?
- Priya's door is always open. Why was that not enough, and what might it be a symptom of?
- The April email changed two people's jobs with no reason given. Which loop did it hit, and how would you rewrite it in two sentences?
- If your team rated you anonymously on the five loops, which would come out weakest? Is it the one you chose on your map?
- Psychological safety describes the climate of a team. The TRUST loops describe what the leader does. Where do the two meet, and which is easier to change by next week?
Facilitator notes
- Never collect or display test scores. Participants keep their own numbers; the debrief runs on the case and on the handout, not on who scored what.
- Run the fingerprint hand count before anyone has taken the test. People answer honestly when they have not yet been told what the phrase means.
- Most people rate Reliability as their strongest loop until they do the promise audit. Push for the small promises: "I'll check", "I'll send it", "let me come back to you". Those are the ones they forget and their team remembers.
- Agree drill roles in advance and never draft anyone from the front. If nobody volunteers for the two second window drill, play the bad version yourself first, badly and visibly. Laughter lowers the stakes and the volunteers follow.
- When the team's own leader is in the room, use the speaking order from the framework in every round: least senior first, leader last. Brief the leader beforehand on why, so it does not feel like a demotion.
- Keep the claims behavioral. Do not add brain chemistry or success rates to the loops; the session works because participants test the behaviors on their own team, not because of a statistic.
Use, adapt and cite
This package is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. You may copy, print, adapt and share it in any course, workshop or internal training, including paid ones, as long as you credit the source with a link.
Citation
Link for your course page or syllabus
Using the package does not imply any endorsement of Leaders ADAPT by your institution, and none is claimed. Teaching with it? Tell us at andreas@leadersadapt.com and we will list your course on the teaching packages page.