Trust, Culture, and the Human Side of Decision-Making

This is part 2 of a two part series on institutionalising decision-making. Read part 1 here.

While systems and structures define how decisions are made, culture determines whether those systems actually work.

One of the more counterintuitive choices we made was around trust.

The conventional approach in most organisations is to ask individuals to prove themselves over time before giving them meaningful responsibility. Honestly, I believe this is dumb and feel sorry for organisations that have such leadership. In such organisations, Trust is something to be earned gradually. While this sounds reasonable, it often results in concentration of authority.

We chose to invert that model.

After a relatively short training period, individuals were given real responsibility – not shadow roles, but ownership of decisions and client relationships. The belief was simple: people grow faster when they know they are already trusted. This belief grew out of my experience at IFMR Trust and IFMR Capital (now called Dvara Trust and Northern Arc respectively) where I was given responsibilities beyond my years. I saw a similar approach when I joined Caspian. I wanted employees in Caspian Debt to have the same exposure and learning opportunities.

Trusting first with responsibilities did not mean absence of oversight. People were given space to act, but not left alone. Support was always close at hand. Trust without support would have been abandonment; support without trust would have been control. The message to the team members was simple – “Decide what is best for the company. In case of doubt, please feel free to ask.”

But trust cannot remain an abstract principle – it has to be reinforced through everyday actions.

We embedded it in small but meaningful ways. Casual leave for up to two days did not require managerial approval. Work-from-home was allowed up to eight days a month. No prior approvals required. (We experimented with more, but found that beyond a point it slowed collaboration and decision-making). Time in and out was not tracked. For new parents, additional work from home was allowed upto 3 years of the child’s age, along with support for childcare. The core belief was that we can’t expect employees to be delivering 100% all the time, we need to have their back when they are dealing with complications in their non-work life. True, some people misused the trust. We dealt with that as soon as we could.

We also created regular rhythms of engagement – monthly check-ins and more formal half-yearly appraisals with incentive payouts. These were not just evaluative mechanisms, but opportunities for alignment and reflection. This meant more time for managers for people management. We tried supporting them by making professional expert coaches available to them for them to find a safe space to discuss and approach better approaches at work.

The real test of these beliefs came during the COVID period.

At a time when many organisations responded with layoffs and cost reductions, our focus shifted almost entirely to make sure employees were taken care of. We reimbursed home office costs. We made thereapists available who could be consulted without anybody in the organisation knowing about it. We paid for the sessions. The focus of the entire organisation shifted to risk management. Profits were low that year, but not because of poor performance – rather, because of deliberate caution. The team worked intensely to avoid credit losses in an uncertain environment. As you would know, traditional performance frameworks tend to reward incremental profitability. But this was a period defined by losses avoided, not profits earned. We chose to recognise that effort. Except for a few senior members (who volunteered), increments and incentives continued for the rest of the team. It was a signal that judgment, discipline, and collective effort mattered, even when they did not immediately translate into higher profits.

Alongside internal culture, we were equally deliberate about how we engaged with our clients.

Our customers were building organisations to solve difficult problems. They did not need a another financial partner that appeared arrogant or overly transactional. We aimed to be measured, thoughtful, and respectful – grounded in understanding their businesses. Ultimately, our success was tied to theirs. This approach gradually shifted ownership outward. Clients built relationships with teams rather than individuals at the top. The organisation, not any single person, became the anchor.

Internally, we reinforced a simple belief: there is no competition inside the organisation. The competition exists outside. Helping others succeed was not optional – it was expected. Asking for help was equally normal.

When I eventually left Caspian Debt, what stayed with me were the messages from past and existing employees, customers and competitors.

Several past and current team members reached out to say that being trusted early had changed how they saw themselves. Some said it helped them believe in their own capabilities. Others felt their careers had been meaningfully shaped by their time at the organisation.

Several clients who knew me reached out saying that they were always pleasantly surprised how thoughtful and grounded Caspian employees were. They always felt heard.

Competitors reached out saying versions of how their credit decision processes became faster if they learnt that a company was funded by Caspian Debt. Some also cheekily said “We have always been trying to poach Caspian Debt employees.”

This is not a recipe for a perfect organisation. Caspian Debt was far from perfect. We were a work in progress. We always held ourselves accountable on two key parameters that should be core for any impact credit institution: credit quality of our portfolio and the social/environmental impact we were enabling through our investments. We did well on both the parameters. The messages I received more than anything else, felt like validation.