Trust, Time, and Supervisory Communication
David A. Rust, Ed.D., Founder, EQLead | EQ-i 2.0 Leadership Assessor and Coach
A supervisor and a relatively new employee are having a rough morning. Trying to lighten the mood, the supervisor makes a dry, sarcastic comment about a project deadline. With an employee they have worked with for years, the comment might land exactly as intended because the employee knows the supervisor, knows the humor, and understands what was meant and, just as importantly, what was not meant. With a newer employee, the same comment can land very differently. Instead of hearing humor, the employee may hear criticism, frustration, or even a warning.
Same supervisor. Same words.
Very different result.
I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately because I am seeing versions of this scenario in my coaching work. In one organization, trust between some supervisors and employees is already thin. At the same time, sarcasm, sharp humor, and an occasionally unmeasured tone have become fairly common in everyday interactions. I do not believe most of these supervisors are trying to be disrespectful. In many cases, they think they are simply being themselves, and some may even believe they are making the workplace more relaxed.
But they are sometimes using a tone their relationship has not yet earned, and that matters.
Trust determines how much latitude your tone has
Leaders sometimes think of communication style as a fixed characteristic: “I’m direct,” “I joke around,” or “That’s just how I talk.” But supervisory communication does not happen in a vacuum. The same words can carry very different meaning depending on who is saying them, who is hearing them, and the history between those two people.
Early in a working relationship, there is not much history to draw from. An employee may not yet know whether a supervisor is fair, predictable, supportive, consistent, or easily frustrated. They are still trying to understand and make sense of the person who has authority over their work, and that naturally makes tone harder to interpret. A sarcastic comment can sound like criticism. A short or curt response can feel like anger. A teasing remark can sound personal. The employee simply does not yet have enough experience with the supervisor to confidently fill in the blanks.
Over time, that can change. When a leader consistently follows through, treats people fairly, handles mistakes appropriately, communicates clearly, and demonstrates that employees can count on them, trust begins to grow. As that trust grows, so does the amount of communication latitude in the relationship. An employee who knows a supervisor well can think, “I know what she means.” A newer employee may still be wondering, “What did she mean by that?” That difference is significant.
Time helps, but time does not create trust
There is also an important distinction between time and trust. They are related, but they are not the same. People can work together for years without developing much trust at all. Time simply gives leaders repeated opportunities to demonstrate whether they are trustworthy, and trust comes from what happens during that time.
Employees are continually gathering information through everyday interactions. Does the supervisor do what they say they are going to do? Are they consistent? Can an employee bring them a problem without wondering whether they will be embarrassed or dismissed? Can they disagree with the supervisor? What happens when they make a mistake? Those experiences gradually teach employees how to interpret their supervisor and how much confidence they can place in the relationship.
That is why a leader cannot simply decide that a relationship is comfortable enough for sarcasm, bluntness, or sharp humor. The employee has a vote in that decision too, whether the supervisor realizes it or not.
The employee has a vote in that decision too,
whether the supervisor realizes it or not.
Humor is not automatically harmless
Humor can be a useful leadership tool. It can reduce tension, make a leader more approachable, and help people connect. But humor is not automatically harmless simply because the speaker intended it to be funny. Research on supervisor humor reinforces that different kinds of humor can produce different employee outcomes. Kim et al. (2016), for example, found positive associations between constructive forms of supervisor humor and employee outcomes, while aggressive humor was associated with poorer psychological well-being. Their work also showed that affective trust matters in how some forms of humor shape the supervisor-employee relationship.
That fits what I see in practice. The question is not simply, “Was I joking?” A better question is, “Did this person have enough trust in me to hear it the way I intended it?” Sarcasm is especially tricky because it requires the listener to interpret words differently from their literal meaning. That takes a degree of trust, and if the relationship already contains uncertainty, sarcasm can create more of it.
The question is not simply, “Was I joking?”
A better question is, “Did this person have enough trust in me to hear it the way I intended it?”
Tone can either build trust or weaken it
This becomes particularly important in organizations where trust is already damaged. I am watching that dynamic play out now. Some supervisors are trying to build stronger relationships with their employees while, at the same time, continuing to use sarcasm or a sharp tone in interactions where the relationship is not yet strong enough to support it.
Then something predictable happens. A comment lands badly, the employee becomes a little more guarded, and the supervisor senses the distance and may conclude that the employee is overly sensitive or unwilling to engage. The distance grows, even though no one involved necessarily intended for that to happen. It can simply be the result of a leader communicating as though more trust exists than actually does.
That is why I think leaders need to view tone as something that should be calibrated to the relationship. That does not mean becoming fake, scripted, or overly cautious. It means recognizing that effective communication changes depending on the level of trust that actually exists between two people.
What this means for supervisors
First, supervisors should communicate according to the relationship they actually have, not the one they wish they had. The fact that you can tease with an employee you have supervised for eight years does not mean you should communicate the same way with someone you have supervised for eight days or eight weeks. When trust is low or still developing, clarity is your friend. Being measured does not mean being cold; it means reducing unnecessary ambiguity while the employee is still learning what to expect from you.
Leaders should also earn informality rather than assuming it. If you want employees to be comfortable with a more direct, relaxed, or humorous communication style, build the relationship first. Reliability, fairness, follow-through, listening, and consistency create the room for communication to loosen and allow for more informality, naturally, and over time.
It is also important to pay attention to what comes back to you. If something you intended as humorous is repeatedly met with silence, nervous laughter, defensiveness, or over-explanation, do not automatically conclude that everyone else needs a better sense of humor. That response is information. It may be telling you that the relationship does not yet have enough trust to support the tone you are using.
Supervisors should be particularly careful with sarcasm because positional authority changes the weight of a comment. Words exchanged between peers do not always carry the same risk as those words that come from the person who evaluates performance, assigns work, approves leave, recommends promotions, or influences someone’s future. The power difference matters.
So does psychological safety. Edmondson’s (1999) work reminds us that employees are more willing to ask questions, admit mistakes, raise concerns, and speak candidly when they believe doing so is interpersonally safe. A leader’s everyday communication can either reinforce that sense of safety or quietly work against it.
The bottom line
Trust, time, and tone are connected. Time provides opportunities for trust to develop. Trust gives a leader more latitude in how they communicate. Tone, in turn, can either strengthen that trust or weaken it.
Leaders do not need to stop being themselves, but “that’s just how I talk” is not a reliable communication strategy. The question is not only whether a comment reflects your personality. The better question is whether the relationship is strong enough to support it.
Sometimes the tone itself is not the problem. You just have not earned the right to use it yet.
Leave a Reply