Can trust be spent?

My professional insights · Lyudmil Karaulanov · 8 min read

Published: 15 August 2026 · Version 1.0

Trust is often presented as a binary state: either we trust someone, or we do not. Tobi Lütke - co‑founder and CEO of Shopify - offers a more useful metaphor. According to him, trust resembles a battery: it has different levels of charge, and every interaction between people increases or decreases it.

This is not a scientific model, and its percentages are not measurable. But the metaphor explains something that formal structures struggle to capture: two people may have identical positions, powers, and responsibilities, yet their ability to work together also depends on the accumulated history between them.

Trust does not start from zero

In his conversation for The Knowledge Project, Lütke suggests that people who meet in a curated organizational environment can conditionally begin their relationship with a 50% charge. Both have gone through a selection process and belong to the same structure. This provides an initial basis for mutual trust, but not a guarantee.

From there, every interaction leaves a trace.

A kept commitment charges the battery. A concealed problem drains it. A recognized mistake can add trust, while an attempt to hide it removes more than the mistake itself. Consistent reactions create predictability; arbitrariness makes the other person defensive.

Trust therefore is not a general assessment of character. It is accumulated information about how the person is likely to act in the next important interaction.

The working capital of communication

A high trust charge reduces the cost of coordination. People can ask an unfinished question, show an incomplete idea, or report a risk before they have all the evidence. Not every word needs to be pre‑sanitized.

When the charge is low, the opposite occurs. Conversations are postponed, additional recipients are copied, witnesses are sought, and every decision must be confirmed in writing. The employee does not pass on the early signal but waits until they can fully protect themselves.

Formally, the organization continues to communicate. In reality, more and more of its energy is spent not on solving the problem, but on managing the risk of the communication itself.

In this sense, trust is the working capital of the informational environment. It allows knowledge to move before it becomes indisputable - and often before it becomes too late.

The useful conversation about charge

According to Lütke, the metaphor allows people to talk about the state of the relationship without the conversation immediately becoming a personal verdict.

"Our battery is drained" means something different from "You are an unreliable person." The first formulation points to the history of interactions and allows for restoration. The second defines the person and easily closes the conversation.

But to be useful, the question of trust must be tied to specific behavior:

• Which commitment was not fulfilled? • Which information was withheld? • Which decision was not explained? • Which reaction made the next conversation more difficult? • What behavior would begin to restore predictability?

Without this specificity, "trust" becomes an unquestionable personal feeling that can justify almost any decision.

Trust does not mean agreement

Here lies an important boundary of the metaphor. A manager may use "low charge" to sanction a person who often disagrees with them. Thus trust stops meaning reliability and starts meaning convenience.

But the employee who always confirms the manager's opinion is not necessarily the most reliable. In certain situations, greater trust is deserved by the person who takes the personal risk to report that a decision will not work.

Trust is not a promise of agreement. It is an expectation of integrity, competence, and predictable behavior - including when interests or assessments diverge.

That is why disagreement can charge the battery - if it is timely, reasoned, and directed at the problem. At the same time, apparent agreement can drain it if it later becomes clear that a significant risk was known but concealed.

Can the battery be recharged?

Damaged trust is rarely restored by assurances that "from now on everything will be different." Words can begin the process, but the charge accumulates through subsequent interactions.

The first step is concrete acknowledgment of what happened. Not "a misunderstanding occurred," but which commitment was not fulfilled and how this affected the other person.

The second is a change that can be observed: a new way of passing information, a clear deadline, a different procedure, or assumed responsibility.

The third is time. One action can quickly drain trust, but restoration usually requires a series of consistent actions.

This is not unfair. The battery does not measure intentions, but accumulated experience.

A reading for the manager

The most important part of the model is not the manager's assessment of how much trust they feel toward the employee. Equally important is how much charge remains in the opposite direction.

A manager may believe the relationship is good because there is no open conflict. But the employee may already have stopped sharing uncertain information, proposing initiatives, or pointing out mistakes. External calm then is not evidence of trust, but a possible result of its depletion.

The reaction to the first uncomfortable message determines whether there will be a second. If the messenger is humiliated, ignored, or left without feedback, the loss does not concern only the specific conversation. The organization loses part of its future access to information.

The point of instability

What this concept means →

An organization reaches the point of instability when formal cooperation continues, but the trust battery is already almost empty.

People perform assigned tasks, attend meetings, and follow procedures. But they stop giving what cannot be demanded by order: early warning, unfinished ideas, voluntary initiative, and honest disagreement.

Then management may mistakenly interpret the absence of negative information as proof that there is no problem. In reality, the system no longer has enough trust to carry the problem to it.

The battery metaphor explains how trust accumulates and is lost, but does not answer the harder question: what must the manager change in their own reaction to begin recharging again?

Because trust is not restored by assurances that "the door is open." It is restored when the next person who reports the uncomfortable is heard, protected, and informed about what followed.

This question is developed in the analysis "The Management's Readiness to Hear."

This material is of a general analytical nature and does not constitute individual legal, tax, financial or investment advice.