Zero Trust Processes and Building Strong Communities using ACTS

If last week was about how “trust” can hide bad process, this week is about building a process that doesn’t need trust to function, while still growing a team people want to be part of. Think “zero-trust,” not as cybersecurity, but as a design principle for knowledge work.

Here’s the problem I see over and over: when a brand-new teammate joins, the instinct is to micromanage the person instead of upgrading the system. That creates a loop—control → less trust → more control. Communities wither under that loop. Great teams flip it: they build processes so clear and self-checking that people can contribute confidently and earn trust through outcomes.

My shorthand for this value stream is ACTS:

• A — Absorb.Are we here to learn? New context, new data, new constraints. Absorption is work. Treat it like work.

• C — Choose.What decision is being made, by whom, and when? Choices collapse ambiguity.

• T — Take. (Ownership/Action)What are you taking on? What does “good enough” look like? By when? Where does it live?

• S — Status.Where does the loop close so others can see progress without a meeting?

Most meetings wobble because none of these are explicit. That’s why “this could’ve been an email” is usually wrong. Email rarely closes the loop on Choose and Take, and it never guarantees Absorb. In a room (real or virtual), there’s at least a perception that people absorbed the context. But without crisp Choose/Take, you still end up playing tennis over a concrete wall—no idea if the ball’s coming back, or where.

Zero-trust process means we don’t rely on vibes. We rely on visible loops. A manager riffing out loud isn’t an assignment until it’s tagged as Choose (“Decision: explore X by Friday?”) or Take (“Owner: Maya; Output: one-page draft in the Strategy folder; Due: Friday 3pm”). Individual contributors shouldn’t guess; they should ask which verb we’re in: “Is this absorb, a choice you’re making, or something for me to take?” That single clarifier prevents two days of heroic work on a comment someone said while brainstorming.

Time tracking is a great example. When it’s used as a weapon, people sandbag or avoid it. When it’s part of a zero-trust loop, it helps you improve: “I thought this would take 90 minutes; it took 3 hours—why?” That’s Status feeding learning back into Absorb and better Choose next time.

To wire ACTS into your team, put small guardrails in place:

• Agenda verbs. Every agenda line gets a verb badge: [A] Absorb, [C] Choose, [T] Take, [S] Status. If a topic doesn’t get a verb, it doesn’t get time.

• Decision log. Choices go in one place with who/what/when. Not Slack archaeology.

• Take templates. When someone “takes,” capture owner, outcome, acceptable fidelity (“rough draft” vs “final”), where it lives, and a realistic due.

• Status ritual. Publish progress where consumers already look (board, feed, dashboard). No extra meetings to “be seen.”

Notice what’s happening: we’re designing process that works with brand-new, imperfect humans. That’s zero-trust in the best sense—assume nothing about context, memory, or intention, and make the loop visible. Ironically, that’s how you grow trust and community. People don’t feel policed; they feel supported. The community starts improving the process because it’s finally clear what “better” means.

Process Debt Truth: Trust is earned by people, but protected by process. Build loops so tight that trust becomes a by-product—not a prerequisite.