Trust, Safety, and Shared Ownership – Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #1182

Trust, Safety, and Shared Ownership – Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #1182

Dear Colleagues! This is Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #1182 for Pharma Veterans. Pharma Veterans Blogs are published by Asrar Qureshi on its dedicated site https://pharmaveterans.com. Please email to pharmaveterans2017@gmail.com  for publishing your contributions here.

Credit: Andres Ayrton

Credit: fauxels

Credit: Karola G

Preamble

This blog post is inspired by a quote taken from Corey Blake of https://roundtablecompanies.com . The quote is “People can’t own their 50% until they feel safe that the other party will own theirs too.”

Trust, Safety, and Shared Ownership: The Hidden Equation Behind Every Relationship

In every professional or personal relationship, we like to believe that fairness is simple. Each person does their part, contributes their share, and together things work. Yet, in reality, collaboration, whether between two people, teams, or entire organizations, often falters not because people won’t do their part, but because they don’t feel safe enough to do so.

That is the insight captured in this deceptively simple statement: “People can’t own their 50% until they feel safe that the other party will own theirs too.”

This idea touches the essence of leadership, teamwork, marriage, partnerships, and even social contracts. It points to something deeply human: our need for psychological safety, the belief that we won’t be betrayed, punished, or made vulnerable when we act in good faith.

The Myth of the 50–50 Relationship

We often describe good relationships as “50–50.” Each side contributes equally, takes equal responsibility, and meets in the middle. But in practice, relationships rarely feel that neat.

Why? Because “ownership” doesn’t occur in a vacuum. People don’t simply decide to contribute their half; they decide based on how much they trust the other side to contribute theirs.

When trust is high, people naturally go above and beyond their 50%. When trust is low, they retreat, protect, and ration their effort. The equation becomes self-reinforcing: mistrust breeds guardedness, guardedness breeds distance, and distance breeds failure.

In organizations, this is why teams stall when departments start protecting their turf. It’s why communication between management and staff breaks down when each side assumes the other won’t act in good faith. In families, it’s why relationships freeze when one partner keeps score and the other shuts down.

The 50–50 balance doesn’t start with fairness; it starts with safety.

Safety as the Foundation of Ownership

“People can’t own their 50% until they feel safe that the other party will own theirs too.” 

This statement redefines the order of cause and effect. We often think ownership creates trust, but in reality, trust creates ownership.

Psychological safety, feeling respected, heard, and protected from unfair blame or exploitation, is what gives people the confidence to step forward and own their share. When people feel unsafe, even the most responsible individuals can become defensive, passive, or disengaged.

A team member might avoid taking initiative, fearing they’ll be criticized if something goes wrong. A manager might withhold information, fearing it will be used against them. A business partner might delay investment, fearing the other won’t deliver. The irony is that each person is waiting for the other to prove reliability, while both are stuck in mutual caution.

Safety breaks that loop. It tells people: You won’t be punished for acting in good faith. You won’t be taken advantage of for giving your best. Once that feeling takes root, ownership follows naturally.

Leadership and the Burden of the First Move

Leaders, more than anyone else, must understand this principle. Leadership is not about demanding accountability; it is about creating the conditions in which accountability can exist.

A great leader goes first in owning their 50%. They model responsibility, consistency, and fairness. They signal, through words and action: You can trust that I will do my part. When that signal is clear and consistent, people start to lower their defenses. They take more initiative. They share more openly. They risk being creative.

This is why psychological safety has become one of the most powerful predictors of high-performing teams. In Google’s famous “Project Aristotle,” researchers found that the best teams weren’t necessarily the smartest; they were the safest. Members felt they could take risks without being humiliated or punished.

Leaders who create safety don’t have to chase accountability. Their people naturally begin to own their 50%, and often more.

The Dynamics of Fear and Control

Conversely, when leaders rely on control instead of trust, they unknowingly destroy ownership. Micromanagement, blame culture, and opaque decision-making send a subtle but powerful message: You can’t trust that others will do their part, so you’d better protect yourself.

When that message circulates through a team, everyone starts protecting their corner. Departments stop collaborating. Meetings become political. Energy shifts from creation to preservation.

The deeper tragedy is that people in these systems are often good, capable, and well-intentioned. But their environment signals danger, not safety. So, they comply, hide, or withdraw, not out of laziness, but out of self-preservation.

Rebuilding trust in such cultures takes time. It requires transparency, humility, and small repeated actions that prove reliability. It requires showing, not just saying, that everyone’s contribution will be respected.

Relationships as a Mirror of Mutual Safety

This truth isn’t confined to the workplace. In personal life, too, many conflicts stem from fear that the other won’t “own their half.” Partners argue not because they dislike each other’s efforts, but because they don’t feel secure about consistency. Friends drift apart when one feels their emotional investment isn’t reciprocated. Communities fracture when some feel they’re carrying more than their fair share. In every case, safety precedes generosity.

When both sides feel safe that their investment will be met with care, they give freely. When they don’t, they retreat. The relationship becomes transactional—a constant negotiation of who owes what. True relationships are built not on perfect balance sheets, but on mutual assurance: I will show up for you, and I trust you will show up for me.

From Compliance to Commitment

When people don’t feel safe, they comply.

When people feel safe, they commit.

Compliance produces minimal effort—doing only what’s required. Commitment produces creativity, resilience, and shared purpose. The difference lies in whether people believe the relationship is fair, respectful, and safe.

This truth scales from personal relationships all the way up to societies. Citizens can’t “own their 50%” of civic responsibility if they don’t believe institutions will uphold theirs. Employees can’t “own their 50%” of performance if they don’t trust their company to reward merit.

Safety, fairness, and mutual accountability are the invisible architecture of collective success.

Sum Up

At the heart of every thriving relationship lies one brave decision: to own your 50% even when you’re not yet sure the other person will. That act of trust, if grounded in clarity and integrity, often becomes contagious. It calls the other side forward. It proves that responsibility is not weakness, and that safety is not naïveté.

The moment people feel safe that their effort will be met, they step into ownership. They stop protecting and start building. And that is when real partnership begins, not when everything is equal, but when both sides make each other feel safe enough to be generous, responsible, and human.

Concluded.

Disclaimers: Pictures in these blogs are taken from free resources at Pexels, Pixabay, Unsplash, and Google. Credit is given where available. If a copyright claim is lodged, we shall remove the picture with appropriate regrets.

For most blogs, I research from several sources which are open to public. Their links are mentioned under references. There is no intent to infringe upon anyone’s copyrights. If, any claim is lodged, it will be acknowledged and duly recognized immediately.