Frances Frei vs David Maister: The Trust Triangle and the Trust Equation Compared
Comparing Frances Frei and Anne Morriss's Trust Triangle with the Trust Equation from David Maister, Charles Green, and Robert Galford: two frameworks for understanding trust at work, what each measures, and how to use both.
Two frameworks for trust circulate in leadership and consulting: the Trust Triangle, from Frances Frei and Anne Morriss of Harvard Business School, and the Trust Equation, from The Trusted Advisor by David Maister, Charles Green, and Robert Galford. People compare them because both break trust into parts, and because the two sets of parts overlap but are not the same.
What is the core difference?
The Trust Triangle is a diagnostic. When trust is wobbling, ask which of the three drivers is weak: is the person not showing their real self, is their logic flawed or unclear, or do they not show care? Fixing the weak driver restores trust.
The Trust Equation is a profile. It scores the components of trust: how credible and reliable the person is, how safe they are to be open with, and how focused on themselves. Raising the numerator or lowering self-orientation increases trust.
One finds the broken piece. The other measures the whole.
What is the Trust Triangle?
Frances Frei is a professor at Harvard Business School and was senior vice president for leadership and strategy at Uber in 2017 and 2018. With Anne Morriss, she wrote Uncommon Service (2012) and Unleashed (2020), and the HBR article Begin with Trust (2020) presenting the Trust Triangle.
The three drivers are authenticity, logic, and empathy. The authors suggest that most people have a trust wobble in one of them, and that leaders can learn to identify and correct it. The framework appears in their books and speaking.
What is the Trust Equation?
The Trusted Advisor (2000), by David Maister, Charles Green, and Robert Galford, presents the Trust Equation: trustworthiness equals credibility plus reliability plus intimacy, divided by self-orientation. Credibility is about words, reliability about actions, intimacy about safety in sharing, and self-orientation about the focus of attention.
Maister, a former professor, wrote Managing the Professional Service Firm (1993). Green founded Trusted Advisor Associates, and later books include Trust-Based Selling (2006). Galford is a consultant and author who worked on the book from his experience with professional firms.
How do they compare?
| Dimension | Frei and Morriss | Maister, Green, and Galford |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Trust Triangle | Trust Equation |
| Components | Authenticity, logic, empathy | Credibility, reliability, intimacy, divided by self-orientation |
| Structure | Three drivers; find which wobbles | A ratio of four components |
| Origin | Harvard Business School; leadership at Uber | Professional services consulting |
| Audience | Leaders and teams | Advisors, consultants, and professionals |
| Key works | Unleashed (2020); Begin with Trust (HBR 2020) | The Trusted Advisor (2000) |
| Unique element | Logic: the quality of your reasoning | Reliability and self-orientation as explicit factors |
When does each one fit?
The Triangle fits when you want a quick read on why someone is not trusted at a given moment: a leader whose messages are not landing, or a new manager meeting resistance. It points to the specific element to work on.
The Equation fits when you are building a long-term advisory relationship and want to review how you show up: do you deliver, do you create safety, and do you keep your own interests out of the room?
They can be used together. Empathy in the Triangle corresponds to low self-orientation in the Equation, and authenticity relates to intimacy.
What does this look like in practice?
A manager's team does not trust a new plan. A Triangle diagnosis asks whether the manager came across as authentic, or seemed to be reading from a script; whether the logic of the plan was clear; and whether the team felt the manager understood their concerns. Often one element is the main problem.
An Equation review asks whether the manager has been reliable in following through on earlier promises, whether team members feel safe raising concerns, and whether the manager seems more focused on their own success than on the team's. The two give complementary views: one of the moment, one of the relationship.
"People are not trusting [me or a colleague] in this situation: [describe]. First, using the Trust Triangle, assess authenticity, logic, and empathy, and say which looks weakest and why. Then, using the Trust Equation, assess credibility, reliability, intimacy, and self-orientation. Suggest one change that addresses the weakest point in both views."
Why it works: the Triangle finds the immediate wobble and the Equation reveals the longer-term pattern.
Can you use both together?
Yes. They approach the same problem from different sides, and the overlap is a sign that they capture something real. Using both gives a fuller picture than either.
They are not research findings. Treat the components as prompts for reflection and check them with the people whose trust you want.
"Draft five questions I can ask [a colleague or client] to learn how they see my authenticity, logic, and empathy, and my credibility, reliability, intimacy, and self-orientation, without leading them. Add a way to thank them and to show what I will change."
Why it works: the frameworks are only useful if checked against what other people actually experience.
For related situations, see Apologizing to a Customer When You Got It Wrong.
Where to go next
Frances Frei and David Maister both sit in the Consultant & Advisor category. For the originals, read Unleashed by Frei and Morriss and The Trusted Advisor by Maister, Green, and Galford. To write the message you have been putting off, Strategic Email is a $49 tool built for high-stakes professional email.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Trust Triangle?
It is the framework Frances Frei and Anne Morriss described in their 2020 Harvard Business Review article Begin with Trust, and in their book Unleashed. They propose that trust rests on three drivers: authenticity, meaning people experience the real you; logic, meaning your reasoning is sound; and empathy, meaning you care about them. When trust wobbles, one of the three is usually the cause.
What is the Trust Equation?
It comes from The Trusted Advisor (2000), by David Maister, Charles Green, and Robert Galford. It states that trustworthiness equals credibility plus reliability plus intimacy, divided by self-orientation. A focus on yourself reduces trust however strong the other factors. It is a joint work of the three authors, and attribution to Maister alone leaves out Green and Galford. The book was a collaboration, so the equation should be cited to all three authors.
How are the frameworks similar?
Both treat trust as a set of components that can be examined and improved, and both highlight a person's focus on the other as essential: empathy in the Triangle and low self-orientation in the Equation. Both are practitioners' frameworks, not research findings. Many readers find them easy to remember and apply in conversations and feedback. Neither framework has been validated as a scientific measure, so treat them as structured questions rather than scores.
How are they different?
The Triangle diagnoses what is wobbling in a specific moment with three drivers, and is designed for leaders. The Equation lists four components in a ratio and is designed for advisors and professionals who need to build trust with clients. The Triangle includes logic, about the quality of your reasoning, and the Equation includes reliability, about doing what you say. Which to use depends on whether you need a fast diagnosis or a longer review of a relationship.
Who developed each?
Frei is a professor at Harvard Business School, who served as a senior vice president at Uber from 2017 to 2018, and Morriss is a leadership consultant and author. Maister is a former Harvard Business School professor who became a consultant and author, Green a consultant who founded Trusted Advisor Associates, and Galford a consultant and author on professional services. Their separate backgrounds help explain the differences in audience and emphasis.
Can AI help me diagnose trust?
It can help you apply either framework to a situation, list questions for a trust audit, and draft a plan. It cannot sense how people feel. Use it to organize your thinking, and ask the people involved. For example, ask it to list evidence for and against each driver in a described situation, or to draft a feedback request. Verify descriptions of the authors and their books against primary sources.
Written by Gareth Hoyle. Last updated 8 October 2026. Part of the authority.md guides library.
More guides.
Daron Acemoglu vs Ha-Joon Chang: Do Good Institutions Cause Growth, or Follow It?
Comparing Daron Acemoglu's institutions-first account of national prosperity in Why Nations Fail with Ha-Joon Chang's historical critique of the institutions literature: two views of development, with the main point of disagreement. General education.
Bill Ackman vs Carl Icahn: Two Styles of Activist Investing. Not Investment Advice
Comparing Bill Ackman's public, thesis-driven activism with Carl Icahn's decades of corporate pressure campaigns: how each approaches companies, boards, and the public. Not investment advice.
Adam Grant vs Simon Sinek: Evidence and Rethinking or Purpose and Why
Comparing Adam Grant's research-based work on giving, originality, and rethinking with Simon Sinek's purpose-driven Start With Why and Infinite Game: two popular voices on leadership, with different relationships to evidence.