But really it means when you delegate, do it thoroughly. Don't just say it once and assume it's done. Confirm that it's done. Set up a system to make sure that it's done.
I think "trust but verify" places more emphasis on the "trust" part whereas the other one emphasizes the personal responsibility. Both remind us to seek the balance between personal involvement and personal detachment in a particular project.
"Trust, but verify" captures the attitude that you're verifying not because of any suspicion of wrongdoing, but because there is a remote possibility of major problems. So the person who is being checked up on is not under suspicion, and shouldn't be concerned about the verification process. It is just a standard procedure because you'd have to be crazy not to check.
When delegating work, I always trust the people I delegate to. However, I verify what's done in order to make sure we're on the same page in terms of how things got done, and even to make sure that I communicated what I needed done effectively.
You can distrust and verify as well, but you're verifying for different reasons.
It's not that the OP doesn't trust his subordinate. It's that he doesn't trust the communication between them. It could be that the project wasn't described clearly, or that its high priority wasn't understood.
I think it simply refers to avoiding micromanagement but still checking the validity of results.
Surely "Trust but Verify" is a joke? Or at least a paradox.
If you trust someone then you don't need to verify, and if you verify then you aren't trusting someone.
And yet many people, such as this post and Ronald Reagan use it as if it just a simple slogan without a dark double-meaning.
Is it just me? I don't see how someone who "trusts but verifies" would act any different from someone who "distrusts and therefore verifies" apart from (falsely) telling the person being checked up on that they are "trusted".
Any Russians want to comment?