The Fifth Element: Revisiting the Trust Equation

Twenty five years ago, three management consultants to professional service firms wrote a gem of a book titled The Trusted Advisor. The authors’ observations and advice on trust are timeless, and I highly recommend revisiting the contents regularly as a matter of personal check-up.

Since then, much has changed. Perhaps, a quarter of a century later we ought to revisit the famous Trust equation.

Now, what in the world would justify doing that?

The original formula has four interrelated trust elements: Credibility (C), Reliability (R), Intimacy (I) and Self-Orientation (S). The extent of trust and trustworthiness is determined by adding up C, R and I, and dividing their sum by S. The core argument I will attempt to lay out in this article is that clients who seek establishing a relationship with a trusted advisor, nowadays, seek an additional key element. To support this claim, — apart from my own observations and (perhaps, my irrelevant) intuitions — I believe the following developments in the professions are sufficient as evidence.

First, in the accounting profession, Client advisory services (CAS) have been on the rise for a while now. According to the 2024 CAS Benchmark Survey, “CAS practices have continued to experience double-digit growth, which is stronger revenue growth than firms are experiencing overall.”

Obviously, this growth cannot be explained without the supporting client demand for advisory as such. Consider that getting paid for giving advice is a very very different kind of service in contrast to subject matter expertise followed by technical execution. It requires a starkly different skill set. And thus you arrive at the first signal.

Second, Inflo published a report (commissioned through Censuswide) of the U.S. businesses that use accounting firms for audit services which states that the “findings reflect a deeper desire among clients for audit services that are both flexible and tailored,” pointing out that “Audit firms that want to maintain client loyalty must move beyond the transactional and deliver services that feels strategic, responsive …”

To back this up, the report suggests that approximately 1-in-5 clients view (1) lack of innovation and (2) lack of technology adoption as good-enough reasons to switch auditors in the next three years.

Third, in the financial services industry, the recent Harris Poll reports that approximately 4-in-10 heirs plan to switch their parent’s asset managers after inheritance. The top two reasons for switching are quite unexpected: 38% of heirs state, We do not have a similar investing philosophy, and 33% — My values do not align with those of the current provider. Notice, philosophy and values alignment.

What’s curios, the report suggests that the top two reasons for staying with the service provider are not the same as leaving: 53% stay due to Great communication, and 52% due to High level of service. In other words, what gets the professional firm retained isn’t the same stuff that gets the firm fired. I would also remark that what gets the firm hired in the first place is different as well.

Fourth, the 2025 report on the State of the U.S. Legal Market by Thomson Reuters states, “the market for law firm services has become far more competitive, shifting from a sellers’ to a buyers’ market, driven primarily by a dramatic change in client expectations to be in control of all major decisions related to the planning, scheduling, staffing, and pricing of their matters.” Surely, left unaddressed, such preferences are likely to facilitate client defects. The report sums it up nicely, “those firms most willing to innovate and adapt will be those that thrive in the new year and beyond.”

Finally, the overall high degree of uncertainty in the developed markets, and unprecedented speed of technological change that is impacting all professional services fuels the need for something beyond credibility, reliability, professional intimacy, and low self-orientation.

Given the aforementioned market trends and developments, I am becoming increasingly convinced and, therefore, propose an additional trust element to account for. This fifth element is of particular relevance to the Trusted Advisor status, and is becoming too important to ignore.

The Fifth Element

Because the authors suggested to treat the Trust Equation “as a framework for looking at the topic, and not as a scientific conclusion,” I feel confident in introducing additional variable (Maister, Green & Galford, p.69). In my view, the fifth — and crucial — trust element is Adaptability (A).

We can agree to use any other label, but here is what it boils down to. Adaptability is the professional’s capacity and willingness (!) to modify and sometimes co-create the strategy, service approach, methodologies or communication style based on the client’s evolving perspective, goals and preferences. It is the kind of behavioral readiness (if not proclivity) to actively adjust the professional’s own posture in response to changing external conditions or internal client needs.

Adaptability can also be viewed as a set of flexible work-related behaviors that enable professionals to adapt to change. This is often achieved by demonstrating excellence in problem solving, entropy (uncertainty, anxiety, stress, and crisis) management, openness to new learning and experiences, as well as flexibility related to people and organizational culture.

It is the capacity for exploratory curiosity and a genuine willingness to embrace change: both in the external environment as well as within the client’s domain. I believe this quality is required of Trusted Advisors more than of any other type of relationship. (We will revisit all four types shortly).
A trusted advisor would never force a square peg into a round hole that used to be rectangular the day before yesterday.
Possessing such a quality inevitably demands the Trusted Advisor to be prepared for burning off their own deadwood of biases, suppositions, perceptual frames, and sacred cows in service to the client. Quite an important distinction from low Self-orientation. A true Trusted Advisor would never force a square peg into a round hole that — we know for a fact — used to be rectangular the day before yesterday. And that’s precisely what (some) clients value in such a relationship.

Almost by definition, clients who seek advisory services have challenges with their current strategy: they’re either stuck, lost, or suspect of going in the wrong direction. Otherwise, they wouldn’t need advice. The hallmark of Trusted Advisors rests with their ability to map out the path and, if necessary, reformulate goals. Adaptability is a prerequisite for such faculties.

Having said that, a legitimate question pops up, Perhaps Adaptability is crucial but does it really belong in the Trust equation?

To answer this vital question, we ought to ask my teenage son. From his point of view, I am trustworthy enough to let me help him with his homework. For which he pays dearly by feeling stupid every time I try to teach him a lesson. (I must concede, I’m a complete failure as a teacher.) Yet, when it comes to discussing his aspirations, big projects, strategic plans for the future, I am ignored.

The explanation is quite straightforward: according to my son, the parent is not the kind of person to be trusted with such sensitive matters. Why? Because (in his mind) I’m cheugy, unlit, basic, cringy, sus, or whatever other delulu words teens use nowadays to describe someone unfit for a proper conversation about real stuff that matters — matters to them. In other words, I am perceived as someone extremely unlikely to adapt to his worldview.

This isn’t about my enormous Self-orientation or abnormal lack of Intimacy. (Obviously, as an experienced parent I’m quite reliable and exceptionally credible — so, these two elements aren’t under scrutiny). I do love my kid and wish the very best for him. In fact, I’m prepared to put his interests ahead of mine in most cases. The parent-child Intimacy exists, too. Although, I suppose I could do something about improving on this trust element. All in all, the basic trust is there. But it’s not at the level expected of a Trusted Advisor.
If we don’t actually see the world the way our clients see and live it, we just won’t get it.
If Intimacy is willingness to discuss difficult topics with empathy and emotional honesty, and Self-orientation is a selfish interest in personal wins and successes rather than my kid’s (client’s), Adaptability helps with shedding outdated or inappropriate perceptual frames that prevent us from seeing another’s (often valid) point of view. And if we don’t actually see the world the way our kids (clients) see (perceive, feel, experience, live) it, no amount of professional intimacy or lowest self-orientation will help — we just won’t get it.

Ask your teenage kid about your own levels of Intimacy, Self-orientation, and contrast those with Adaptability if you want to test my hypothesis.

Mapping Trust Elements

One of the book’s chapters outlines a categorization of client-vendor relationships into four types. For convenience, I have labeled them as: (1) Service Provider, (2) Problem Solver, (3) Insightful Ally, and (4) Trusted Advisor. Even though the authors do make a case for a Trusted Advisor as a preferable type of relationship to strive for, they nevertheless acknowledge: “... there are times when it is perfectly appropriate and right for a relationship to be service-based or needs-based. And there are times when a particular type of relationship is not the appropriate one,” (Maister, et al., pp.8–9).

According to the authors, scoring high on the Trust Equation “is a profitable strategy” (Maister, et al., p.84). It follows that in order to be perceived as a Trusted Advisor — which is at the pinnacle of a relationship — professionals must attain higher scores.

As the authors point out, “Not every potential client will place the same weight on each factor of the trust equation,” (Maister, et al., p.152). Table 1 exhibits a proposition for the trust elements’ mapping.

It should be noted that the S-factor will be important for all four client-vendor relationships. Its relative importance will grow along with the relationship: from the Service Provider to the Trusted Advisor.

If I entrust you, my Trusted Advisor, with goal setting and strategy formulation, I must be convinced of your complete lack of Self-Orientation, especially since I am primarily the one who will bear the consequences of your advice, not you.

The surest way to achieve high scores in trust for all relationship types is to decrease the value of the denominator (S). In other words, be very low in Self-Orientation.

To interpret the trust elements’ distribution properly, let’s take a look at the last entry (Trusted Advisor) as an example. The first capital letter (A) which stands for Adaptability is the most important factor in a relationship (as well as low Self-orientation). When it is followed by a lowercase letter (i), this next trust element is important but to a lesser extent. When there is another lowercase letter (c), this suggests its importance, albeit to a lesser degree than the previous lowercase (i). The same goes for the last lowercase letter (r) — it is of lesser importance than (c).

Looking at other three examples in the table, the absence of any letter (with the exception of S) suggests that this trust element is not a dealbreaker for the client seeking a particular client-vendor relationship. It does not mean you can complete dispense with it, it’s just that it isn’t that important.

As another example, a client who seeks to work with a Problem Solver will care about its Credibility (C) first, and then about its Reliability (r). Professional intimacy (I) and Adaptability (A) aren’t that big of a deal because the challenging problem that requires hiring a specialist is oftentimes transactional and well-defined. To reiterate, the Self-Orientation (S) reversed is always important in all types of relationships.

When it comes to an existing client looking to work with (e.g.) a Service Provider this time, neither Credibility, Intimacy, nor Adaptability will matter that much. “Because we already have a relationship, you’ve already passed the Credibility test. What matters now, Can I rely on you to do the job?”

In all scenarios, — regardless of the relationship type — high Reliability and low Self-Orientation are the best predictors of job performance. Professionals who aren’t very reliable and look after their own interests first aren’t the ones who succeed in the long run. After all, the bulk of the new business in professional services comes through referrals.

Let’s examine each of the four relationships one by one. The angle of our investigation is, When it comes to making a procurement decision, who will the client perceive as a preferable vendor?

Clients who put most emphasis on the R-factor alone will seek to work with a Service provider. There’s just no reason to seek services of a (likely pricier) higher-relationship provider when any consistently reliable service provider is good enough for the job.

Consider the following analogy. “Dear Doctor, I have a terrible migraine again. Those magic pills you’ve prescribed last time seem to do the trick. Please issue another similar prescription.” In an attempt to maintain its Trusted Advisor status, the doc responds, “How about you relax on that leather coach and tell me about your relationship with your father first? I’ve scheduled our session for 3pm.”

Self-prescribed patients (clients) will not appreciate such an approach. Convinced that a reliable pill is sufficient, additional higher-tier services are perceived as obstructive to the attainment of goals.

Those clients who favor Credibility followed by the Reliability factor, will prioritize a relationship with a Problem Solver. But it is the former trust element that will influence the buying decision most: Do you possess the credentials to help with my arduous problem?

A need for an Insightful Ally will be fueled by the Intimacy factor combined with low Self-orientation, for the most part. Credibility followed by Reliability will be considered as well but to a lesser extent.
Why compete for lower-level projects having obtained the Trusted Advisor’s status?
Finally, when vendor’s Adaptability is a must while presence of the other four factors (i, c, r, and S) is a prerequisite as well, the client will favor working with a Trusted Advisor.

The key point here: while all trust elements are important, they are not necessary for all types of work assignments. On the one hand, you can’t go wrong if you attain high scores on all five factors thus eventually attaining the Trusted Advisor status. On the other hand, having achieved such standing, why compete for lower-level projects that don’t warrant hiring a Trusted Advisor. Approached carelessly, such actions might undermine the hard-earned status.

Most practices intuitively solve this conundrum by assigning junior professionals to lower-tier, less complex, less challenging, and more standardized work. The kind of work that will not jeopardize the relationship if things go awry. The critical mistake senior professionals often make is when they hog most of the work that could’ve been and should’ve been (!) delegated. Such behavior inevitably leads to higher costs and underdevelopment of up-and-coming professionals.

The Trust Equation Revisited

Following my analysis, if you buy into this extra trust element idea, you might want to consider an updated equation as well. No groundbreaking suggestions here. The Adaptability factor should go in the numerator along with R, C and I trust elements. Figure 1 illustrates the updated formula.

As the formula suggests, regardless of the relationship type the buyer is currently aiming at, your most effective actions rest with Self-Orientation reduction. And as per my proposition in Table 1, Reliability is another factor that will always play a role in trust evaluation.

It is worth pointing out that there is a distinction in trust elements’ impact on an existing client versus a prospect. Credibility will be of somewhat higher relevance for the latter.

Marketing Matters

Understanding which client-vendor relationship type(s) your firm or practice is deliberately aiming at will simplify the following decisions.

First, based on the kind of relationship(s) both your best-fit clients and you desire, which buyer types you should be focusing on. Table 2 exhibits mapping of client relationships to buyer types. (Note that this is yet another framework and not a scientifically proven correlation.) I’ve written on this subject in detail in this article: Three viable alternatives to the Trusted advisor.

For example, a typical Convenience buyer is likely to prefer hiring a Service Provider for a multitude of reasons. One might argue, Wait a second, isn’t every single client seeking to work with a Trusted Advisor but that the inherently higher fees of such a provider preclude hiring the said advisor?

This is an incorrect perception. Buyers often claim they lack the funds, when in fact they either already have more than enough or have the means of securing more funds. Also, there are buyers who, for various reasons, can’t stand an idea of having lengthy conversations, extensive diagnostics, choice exploration, taking advice itself, and so on. Therefore, such buyers often prefer simplified, faster, convenient routes.

Second, what messaging to use in your marketing communications to amplify specific trust elements. For example, trusted advisors shouldn’t emphasize resource allocation toward advertising. The core marketing activities to prioritize should fall under the rubric of education, A-ha insights, and cutting-edge thought leadership. These choices will also impact your communication channel preferences.

Third, in order to compliment the relationship type, what service offerings — technical prowess versus strategic thinking — (e.g., bookkeeping versus CAS) to bring to the fore.

Fourth, which key selling points to emphasize during sales pitch. Should you primarily tilt the conversation toward problem finding and problem solving (diagnostics) versus execution and control.

Fifth, what evidence in the form of artifacts, processes, outcomes, and deliverables to dramatize during service provision. While your marketing and sales activities will set expectations, your process (performance) will have to meet and preferably exceed the said expectations. To attain client satisfaction with the relationship, clients should be exposed to specific evidence.

To become a trusted vendor, you don’t have to attain the Trusted Advisor status. In other words, being credible and reliable is often sufficient. Albeit, to specific types of relationship and buyer types.

For example, should you decide to gain and maintain competitive advantage becoming one of the most reliable Service Providers, your efforts should go into highest Reliability scores and lowest possible Self-Orientation. Indeed, to attract new clients, some degree of Credibility will be required. However, because in most cases the name of the game is client retention and satisfaction, not acquisition, your marketing objective will revolve around R and S factors — that’s what buyers seeking relationships with Service Providers will react to best.

Overemphasizing the remaining two factors will be a distraction. After all, you don’t want to brag about your incredible competence in solving complex, bet-your-farm problems to a client seeking a reasonable (reasonably priced, too) vendor who sells pills, rather than brain surgery.

Note that each trust element isn’t a binary proposition, but rather a spectrum. A professional firm cannot be completely unreliable (although, occasionally mishaps occur) or one-hundred percent reliable. Obviously, the higher your trust element scores, the better; in general.

Naturally, you’d want to compare yourself with competition. The trickiest part is that it is virtually impossible to accurately assess direct competitors’ trustworthiness. Unless you have open and honest relationships with clients who sometimes buy your competitor services. However, you could potentially hire a market research firm to assess the levels of service provider trustworthiness in your segment of interest. And then compare the mean and the fourth quartile with your own scores obtained through client surveys.

To get the best results, I would suggest developing a list of factors that contribute to the five trust elements for your firm or practice. And incorporate these items into your regularly (!) administered client surveys. (I made an argument about the benefits of systematic proprietary surveys here.)

Natural Proclivities

There is absolutely no shame or dishonor in not striving for the Trusted Advisor status. There has always been and always will be demand for other three client-vendor relationship types. Besides, not every professional aims at becoming a true Trusted Advisor.

As the analysis suggests, one has to be genuinely interested in professional Intimacy and extremely comfortable with high levels of Adaptability. Let’s be honest here, not all of us are excited about this. “Dear Client, let me earn my paycheck by doing what I do best, and please spare me the details of your shoe size. I’m not putting your shoes on.”

For better or worse, such an attitude has everything to do with personality traits, behavioral proclivities, and individual’s natural strengths. To assess whether yourself or your colleagues will want to and be capable of becoming Trusted Advisors, there are assessment tools in the market. Charles H. Green, the co-author of the Trusted Advisor, offers one.

Because Adaptability isn’t part of the original formula, those tools are unlikely to measure it. However, you can supplement this by other instruments such as Big 5, Hexaco, and Hogan Assessments. With these tools, you want to measure curiosity and flexibility, humility (Hexaco), openness to experience (Big 5), and inquisitive scale and learning approach with Hogan Assessments. (A word of caution with popular mass-market assessments apart from the last three mentioned here. Please beware of using popular tools that have no scientific validity to them. There’s plenty of those around.)

An argument I often encounter: “No one cares about your personality type, interests and desires. When it comes to serving clients, there’s only duty.” This is expected from individuals high in trait Conscientiousness of which there are many among professionals. However, there’s one factor to be aware of that professionals often brush to the side, namely burnout.

When the sense of duty is paramount, it feels as if nothing else matters. Being extremely dutiful, you’d muster your grit and bite the bullet. Over and over. Now, it’s all fine and doable on a short distance. However, it becomes unsustainable over the long run.

When you constantly have to fight your natural tendencies, burnout is inevitable. And make no mistake about this, burnout will lead to lower morale, loss in productivity, lower work quality, lower client satisfaction, lower financial performance, and eventually higher voluntary turnover. In that sequence. And of course all of this gets exacerbated during extended periods of high stress. For example, during another dreadful tax season (for CPAs), anticipation of abnormal client heir defects (financial advisors), more 60-hour weeks, unending quarrels with partners, and so forth.

While each professional is capable of overriding its natural proclivities forcing oneself to always act in a manner required of (e.g.) Trusted Advisors, this may be taxing to some individuals more than others. Taking stock of professionals’ personality traits, natural strengths and talents as well as behavioral proclivities is a way to mitigate, if not prevent, the burnout crisis. When you know your individual weak spots, you’re in a better position to develop support systems and come up with workarounds.

Conclusions

To summarize, each client-vendor relationship is as noble as any other. Each provides an honest way to make a living and, perhaps, to prosper. The best predictors of long-term success for every relationship are low Self-Orientation and high Reliability.

To evaluate which relationship is more natural for your firm and practice, consider administering personality and behavioral assessments to your professionals and partners. To assess your current level of trustworthiness, consider surveying your clients. Make sure to include Adaptability evaluation in your assessment instruments.

In Luc Besson’s movie The Fifth Element, a bewildered, half-naked stranger, spouting gibberish falls through the roof of Korben Dallas’s taxi.

Given the chaotic entry, it is Korben’s remarkable Adaptability to a series of unlikely, unpredictable, high-stress events that earns Leeloo’s trust.

Their relationship evolves, eventually saving the galaxy. Should you ever wish to seek the Trusted Advisor relationships with your clients, be prepared to adapt. Like Korben did.

Remember, Leeloo takes the leap of faith, too.

References
Maister, H. D., Galford & Galford, (2000). The Trusted Advisor. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.