The Performance vs. Trust Matrix
High performance without trust is toxic; trust without performance is coachable
The Performance vs. Trust Matrix is a two-by-two grid that evaluates team members on two axes: performance (how well they do their job) and trust (how much their teammates trust them). Everyone wants the person in the top right: high performer, high trust. The breakthrough insight, borrowed from the Navy SEALs, is about the person in the top left: the high performer of low trust. This person is the toxic team member. They exhibit narcissism, blame others, put themselves first, talk negatively about colleagues, and exert a corrosive influence on team dynamics, especially on new or junior members.
The SEALs, who are among the highest-performing teams in the world, would rather have a medium or even low performer of high trust on their team than a high performer of low trust. If the elite military teams prioritize trust before performance, Sinek asks, why do most businesses still assume performance matters first? The answer lies in what we measure: businesses have extensive metrics for performance but few if any effective metrics for trustworthiness. The simple fix is to go to the team and ask who the most trusted person is and who is the person no one trusts. Team members will likely all point to the same individuals.
The matrix also introduces the concept of coachability as the key deciding factor. Low performers of high trust can be coached to improve their technical skills. High performers of low trust can potentially be coached to develop better human skills. Only when a team member proves uncoachable, resistant to feedback and unwilling to take responsibility, should a leader consider removing them.
- Trust is as important as performance but is rarely measured; what is not measured tends to be undervalued
- High performers of low trust are toxic because they prioritize their own career over the team's success
- The simplest way to identify trust levels is to ask the team: they almost always agree on who is trustworthy and who is not
- Coachability is the deciding factor; an uncoachable high performer is more dangerous than an uncoachable low performer
- Teams naturally ostracize or keep at arm's length the member they do not trust
- Map your team on both axesEvaluate each team member on both performance and trust. Performance can be measured through standard metrics. Trust requires a different approach: ask team members privately who they trust the most and who they trust the least. The consistency of responses will reveal your trust landscape more accurately than any formal assessment.Pro tipAsk the team: 'Who is always there for you when the chips are down?' and 'Who do you feel you cannot rely on?' The same names will emerge from multiple conversations.
- Identify your high performers of low trustThese are the people who deliver results but leave a trail of damaged relationships. They may hoard information, steal credit, manipulate junior members, or throw colleagues under the bus. Their individual metrics look great, but the team's overall performance and morale suffer. Do not be fooled by their numbers.WarningWhen confronted, high performers of low trust rarely agree or want to listen. They think of themselves as trustworthy and believe everyone else is the problem.
- Assess coachabilityFor both low-trust high performers and low performers, the primary question is: Are they coachable? Work with low-trust players to develop human skills. Work with low performers to develop technical skills. Only when someone proves uncoachable, consistently resisting feedback and refusing responsibility for how they show up, should removal be considered.Pro tipGive concrete, specific feedback tied to observable behaviors, not personality. 'When you took credit for the team's work in the meeting, trust was damaged' is coachable. 'You are not a team player' is not.
- Make the hard call on uncoachable toxic performersIf a high performer of low trust proves uncoachable after genuine coaching attempts, remove them from the team. The short-term performance dip is almost always offset by the dramatic improvement in team morale, cooperation, and collective performance that follows. If a leader decides to keep an uncoachable toxic performer, the leader is now responsible for the consequences.Pro tipAfter removing a toxic high performer, pay attention to the team's response. You will likely hear: 'Thank you. We have been waiting for someone to do something about this.'
When SEAL leadership mapped their people on the performance vs. trust matrix, they discovered that the person everyone wanted off the team was never the low performer. It was always the high performer who could not be trusted. The SEALs now explicitly prioritize trust over raw performance when selecting team members, and their results are among the best in the world.
Welch ranked executives on performance and potential, effectively measuring only performance in two time frames. High performers were promoted regardless of whether their colleagues trusted them. This created an aggressive, internal-competition-driven culture that contributed to GE's near-collapse, requiring a $300 billion government bailout after the 2008 crash.
Officer Jake Coyle appeared to be a low-trust, low-performing 'problem officer.' But Chief Cauley recognized that the toxic culture, not the officer, was the root cause. Instead of firing Coyle, he gave him a second chance in a healthier environment. Today, Coyle is one of the most respected and trusted officers at CRPD and is responsible for training new recruits.
Sinek learned this framework directly from conversations with Navy SEAL leadership. The SEALs were struggling with the same problem every organization faces: identifying who should be promoted and who should be removed. They developed the two-axis graph of performance and trust and discovered a counterintuitive truth. The person everyone wanted off the team was never the low performer. It was the high performer who could not be trusted. These individuals crushed metrics but destroyed the fabric of the team. The SEALs recognized that a team of medium performers who deeply trust each other will outperform a team of star performers who do not.