The Silent Tax on Your Team: What Withheld Trust Actually Costs

Why High-Performing Tax and Accounting Professionals Leave Organizations That Think They Have a Compensation Problem

Michael was one of the strongest senior members of the tax department. Technically sharp, reliable under pressure, and increasingly capable of handling complex matters independently. When he gave notice after four years, his manager was genuinely surprised. The exit interview was brief. Michael cited a compensation increase. His director authorized a counteroffer. Michael politely declined.

Three months later, over coffee with a former colleague, the real story came out. The money helped, but it was not the reason. After four years of consistently strong work, Michael still felt treated like someone in their second year. Every significant email reviewed. Every technical memo revised. Every judgment call second-guessed. He was tired of waiting to be trusted.

His manager never knew. The organization believed they had lost a retention battle over compensation. What they actually had was a trust problem nobody had named. And in tax and accounting, whether in public practice or corporate environments, this story is common enough to be a pattern.

What makes this pattern so persistent? Three things: trust problems disguise themselves as other issues, leaders underestimate the business cost of withholding trust, and most don't know how to calibrate oversight appropriately. Understanding these three dynamics can change how you lead.

Takeaway 1: Trust Problems Get Misdiagnosed—And the Cost Shows Up Quietly

The brain's threat detection system does not distinguish well between physical danger and social threat. When someone consistently feels evaluated rather than supported, their nervous system responds with a low-grade protective state. Cognitive resources that could go toward creative problem-solving get redirected toward self-protection and vigilance.

This is not a character flaw. It is biology. This protective response is particularly common in tax and accounting leaders whose professional training has reinforced skeptical instincts for years. Research on psychological safety has shown that teams where people feel safe to take risks, ask questions, and offer ideas perform better on nearly every dimension. Creativity, decision quality, learning speed, and retention all improve.

The opposite is also true. When people do not feel trusted, they narrow their behavior to what feels safe. They execute instructions rather than think independently. They wait to be told rather than take initiative. They become very good at not making mistakes, but not particularly good at anything else. And because these are diligent professionals who still produce quality work, the leader often does not notice anything has been lost. The real cost is invisible.

Here is what makes this especially difficult in tax and accounting: departing employees rarely name the real reason. Saying "I never felt trusted" is emotionally vulnerable in a profession that values composure. It is easier to cite compensation, career growth, or work-life balance. The leader accepts that explanation, the organization adjusts their benchmarking, and the actual problem continues untouched.

The painful irony is that leaders who withhold trust lose their best people first. A mediocre performer might tolerate years of close oversight. A strong performer will stay for a while, hoping things will change, then quietly start looking elsewhere. By the time the leader realizes what is happening, the decision has already been made.

Takeaway 2: Trust Is an Investment Decision With Measurable Returns

For professionals trained to think in terms of risk and return, it helps to reframe trust in those terms.

When a leader extends trust appropriately, the return is initiative, confidence, retention, and discretionary effort. People who feel trusted bring more of themselves to their work. They take ownership rather than just complete tasks. They stay longer and refer other strong candidates.

When a leader withholds trust, they avoid a short-term risk. The work might be done incorrectly. An important relationship might be mishandled. Those risks are real, and the instinct to control for them is understandable.

But withholding trust also has a cost, and it is long-term and compounding. People do not develop capabilities they are never given the chance to use. Teams do not build depth if only the leader is empowered. High performers leave for environments where they feel believed in. These costs accumulate slowly and rarely appear on any dashboard. By the time the pattern is visible, years of talent development have been lost.

The question is not whether to extend trust. It is how to extend it appropriately to the person's experience level and the actual risk involved.

What This Looks Like in Practice

In public accounting: Every piece of client communication must be approved by the manager, even for five-year veterans. The work is protected, but team members never develop the judgment to own relationships independently. When they leave for roles with real authority, the firm is surprised. The team members are not.

In corporate tax departments: A director reviews every technical position memo before it goes to the CFO, even when written by experienced managers. The stated reason is maintaining consistency. What managers experience is that their judgment is not valued. Eventually the strongest ones leave, taking institutional knowledge with them.

In both environments: A leader who, during peak periods, works far longer hours than necessary because they cannot fully delegate. The team absorbs that when it really matters, their leader does not trust them. Over time, they stop offering to take on more.

None of these are dramatic failures. But cumulatively, they create environments where talented people execute well but do not grow, and eventually they leave.

Takeaway 3: Calibrate Oversight to Experience Level, Not Your Comfort Level

A professional in their second year needs close review and detailed feedback. Someone with seven years of strong performance should not receive the same level of oversight. If your review process looks identical regardless of tenure and performance history, that is worth questioning.

The diagnostic question is this: Am I reviewing this because the risk genuinely requires it, or because not reviewing it makes me uncomfortable? The first is professional judgment. The second is a control habit worth examining.

Quality control is necessary. Uniform quality control across all experience levels is a choice with consequences. It signals distrust and limits people's growth, no matter how much you care about standards.

Where to Start

Identify one person on your team who has been waiting too long for real autonomy. Not someone genuinely not ready, but someone consistently strong for two or more years who is still managed like they might make a critical error at any moment. This week, give them one meaningful piece of work you would normally review extensively, and review it only once. Notice what that brings up for you. The discomfort is information.

Ask yourself: Are my strongest team members more capable and confident than a year ago? If you are unsure, that is a signal. If they are not growing, the environment is likely limiting them.

Finally, ask someone you trust on your team: "Is there anything I do that makes it harder for you to take ownership of your work?" Then listen without defending. What you hear might be uncomfortable. It will also be useful.

What Michael's Manager Did Not Know

Michael's manager cared about her team. She worked hard and held high standards because she believed the work required it. What she did not know was that Michael had spent two years hoping she would trust him, and another year accepting she would not.

The organization that hired him gave him significant responsibility in his first ninety days. A year later, he is thriving. His new environment took a risk on him that his previous one never did. The risk paid off, but not for the organization that trained him.

Trust withheld does not feel like it costs anything in the moment. It feels like prudence, like professionalism, like maintaining standards. The cost shows up later, in the people who leave, the capabilities that never develop, and the teams that execute well but never quite become what they could have been. That cost is real, even when it is silent.

Related Articles:

• Part 1: Your Greatest Strength Might Be Your Biggest Blind Spot

• Part 3: Busy Season Doesn't Lie - What Pressure Reveals About Your Leadership (coming soon)