Institutional Trust Issues

You can replace roles. But you can’t replace trust. And you can’t rehire loyalty. That’s where most leaders fail. They treat people like resources. They take talent for granted. They think anyone can be replaced- “Another hire. Another resource.” But trust isn’t replaceable. And loyalty doesn’t return once it’s gone. By the time they realize it, their best people are already out of the door. 10 daily choices that make people stay (not walk) 👇 1. Recognize effort, not just results Results are visible. Effort is invisible. Ignored effort always leaves. 2. Defend reputations If gossip outruns your support, loyalty dies in silence. 3. Protect their energy Burnout isn’t weakness—it’s neglect. Guard energy like you guard budgets. 4. Cheer when they outgrow you If you built their wings, don’t fear their flight. 5. See the whole person Not just their role. Not just their output. People stay where their humanity is valued. 6. Make hard talks human Correction without compassion is just criticism. Compassion makes truth land. 7. Give them growth oxygen. No room to grow? They’ll find air elsewhere. 8. Invite their fingerprints on decisions A real seat at the table  means their ideas shape the outcome. 9. Celebrate milestones, not just KPIs. Birthdays. Anniversaries. First wins. These anchor belonging. 10. Ask what they need. Don’t assume. Ask. Needs change-care is asking again. Deadlines are forgotten. But how you made people feel- that’s remembered forever. Safe. Seen. Supported. Be the reason someone stays, not the reason they leave. Lead so they stay by choice, not by contract. ♻ Repost to help build workplaces people never want to leave. ➕ Follow Mike Leber for daily insights on leadership and growth. — 📌 Your free "True Leader's Playbook" - 21 daily habits to become this kind of leader (+ free update on the way): https://lnkd.in/eNy9xRUK

We trusted them. That made the dispute worse. I spoke on a panel recently about dispute resolution. The very first question came to me: “𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵?” I said: Because not all trust protects you. Some of it actually makes things worse. The silence in the room spoke volumes. We like to believe trust is a buffer. That it makes relationships “safe.” But in practice, I’ve seen it do the opposite. Trust, when it’s shallow, mismatched, or never stress tested, can give you a false sense of security. Then conflict hits, and everything fractures. Some trust can survive pressure. Some gets exposed by it. Here’s what I’ve seen over and over again: → 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 can be rebuilt → 𝗘𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 takes the longest to repair → 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 (“they’ll deliver”) is resilient → “𝗡𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝘆𝗲𝘁” 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 often the most dangerous. → 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 (“they have our best interests at heart”) is vulnerable And in high-stakes negotiations or long term partnerships, most people 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆’𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. They just assume it’s strong, until it's tested! For relationships to survive disputes Don’t avoid tension. Build for it. → Create psychological safety → Track trust in real-time, not just in retros → Structure contracts for repair, not just prevention → Make it okay to raise concerns 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 the damage is done Trust isn’t avoiding discomfort. It’s knowing how the relationship holds when a dispute shows up. So the question worth asking isn’t: - “𝘋𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳?” - It’s “𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥?” That’s where the real relationship lives. I’d like to hear from you: What’ve you seen help (or harm) trust during a dispute? Let’s raise the bar for how trust is built 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱. ----------------------------------------------- My free newsletter is where I share the expert stuff that doesn’t fit in a post. One email a week - focused, useful, and real. Join me: https://lnkd.in/gseUj6US

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗠𝗶𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿: 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗟𝗼𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 I've observed something fascinating about leadership: Your team remembers 10% of what you say, but 90% of what you do. The truth about workplace culture isn't written in handbooks - it's demonstrated in hallways, meeting rooms, and everyday interactions. Daily habits that define you: • How you treat the cleaning staff • Whether you're punctual for meetings • If you take blame but share credit • How you handle stress • Your response to after-hours messages Each action sets an unspoken standard: When a leader stays late, the team feels pressured to match. When a leader admits mistakes, it creates psychological safety. When a leader skips lunch, it normalises unhealthy habits. Your choices create invisible rules. The real test? Ask yourself: Would I want to work for someone who acts like me? The gap between words and actions is where trust goes to die. Culture isn't what you preach. It's what you permit and practice. Your team is always watching, not to judge, but to understand: "Is it safe to be honest here?" "Do we really value work-life balance?" "Are mistakes truly opportunities to learn?" They find answers in your actions, not your words. So, what story are your daily choices telling?

Brilliant Initiative in Public Service In Baghpat, the SP recently conducted a legal knowledge exam for SI and SHO candidates, ensuring that only those with deeper subject knowledge would be entrusted with charge. This step emphasizes merit-based accountability within the police force, a practice that strengthens both institutional credibility and public trust. However, alongside legal knowledge, equally critical is training in communication, empathy, and public behavior. 1. Studies highlight that over 60% of public grievances against police globally stem not from lack of legal understanding but from miscommunication and perceived misconduct. 2. The UN Handbook on Police Accountability stresses "people-centric policing" where officers are assessed not just on technical skills but also on their ability to engage with citizens respectfully. 3. Countries like UK, Japan, and Singapore have institutionalized behavioral training, leading to 30–40% higher public trust levels compared to regions where training is limited to law enforcement. If such dual-assessment systems (legal + behavioral) are introduced across all government departments in India, it could drive a cultural shift toward performance, transparency, and citizen-first governance. A small step in Baghpat could be a template for nationwide reform.

While INTEREST-based conflicts can generally be solved through information, compensation, or negotiation, in VALUES-based conflicts: 👉 Information is seen as PROPAGANDA 👉 Compensation is seen as BRIBERY  👉 Negotiation is seen as BETRAYAL In recent conversations about how to navigate change in a context of societal polarisation and turmoil, I have found myself repeatedly citing a somewhat technical 20+-year old research paper by Joyce Tait called "More Faust than Frankenstein”, which I came across while working on the polarised issue of genetic modification in forestry. In the article, Joyce differentiated between INTEREST-based conflicts and VALUES-based conflicts. Her framing resonated deeply with what I experience as I support collaboration in contexts of complexity, uncertainty, and polarisation. I continually see policymakers and corporate or institutional leaders in the face of criticism pursuing a strategy of more and more explaining which in a context of low trust only has the effect of causing more resistance and further mistrust. Or inviting activists or disempowered groups to the “table" for discussion without understanding the costs associated with being seen as a traitor by their peers. I just discovered a subsequent article by Tait, focused specifically on interests and values, which can be downloaded on this link:  https://lnkd.in/e8Yvdec6 Herewith a few take-aways/ interpretations for those of you working on supporting dialogue on polarised issues: 👉 We all have both interests and values. 👉 Values are associated with identity and community. Recognise that people have values and that they have communities around these values, to whom they are committed and on whom they depend. 👉 While interests are negotiable, values are not for trading. 👉 If you need to convey information in a context of low trust and values-based conflict, consider who will be genuinely trusted as a carrier of this information, to avoid it being received as propaganda. 👉 Acknowledge that people have needs beyond physical/material/financial needs. These needs include things like identity, recognition, dignity, etc. and are sometimes tied to social roles. When needs are unmet, negative feelings arise, and these lead to behaviour that may sometimes go against apparent interests. 👉 Lack of communication often happens when one party considers an issue an interest and the other considers the same issue a value. Failure to recognise these differences may mean that the roots of a dispute remain uncovered. 👉 Maintaining a conflict may become an interest in itself. It seems to me that leaders today need a new set of capabilities to navigate diversity and complexity in a non-cohesive society, including a much more sophisticated language and perception around the dynamics of conflict. 

When Surveillance Masquerades as Reform Anurag Behar’s recent piece is a timely reminder: cameras in classrooms do not create accountability, they destroy trust. Yet, in India today, surveillance technology is being normalised as an unquestioned “solution” in education. From biometric attendance to AI-driven monitoring, these tools are promoted without meaningful debate. The Karnataka government’s plan to install mobile-based Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven Facial Recognition Attendance System, linked to the Students Achievement Tracking System (SATS), in schools shows how far this dangerous trend has gone. Despite a detailed objection from Critical EdTech India (CETI) via Gurumurthy Kasinathan, there has been no reconsideration. Global research is clear. UNESCO (2023) warns that surveillance undermines dignity, trust, and equity. Districts in the US and EU have paused or banned such practices. In India, however, invasive EdTech is pushed without scrutiny. Accountability in education cannot be reduced to data streams and camera feeds. It emerges from professional ethics, supportive governance, and community trust. If technology is used, it must serve pedagogy, not control. The real question is this: Are we reforming education, or merely digitising its erosion? #EducationPolicy #EdTech #Surveillance #ChildRights #Teachers #IndiaEducation #CriticalEdTech #Accountability

Organizational Trauma: The Recovery Killer Your Change Plan Ignores After Capital One's 2019 data breach exposing 100 million customers' information, leadership rushed to transform: new security platforms, restructured teams, revised processes. Despite urgent implementation, adoption lagged, talent departed, and security improved more slowly than expected. What they discovered—and what I've observed repeatedly in financial services—is that organizations can experience collective trauma that fundamentally alters how they respond to change. 🪤 The Post-Crisis Change Trap When institutions experience significant disruption, standard change management often fails. McKinsey's research shows companies applying standard OCM to traumatized workforces see only 23% transformation success, compared to 64% for those using trauma-informed approaches. ❌ Why Traditional OCM Fails After Crisis Hypervigilance: Organizations that have experienced crisis develop heightened threat sensitivity. Capital One employees reported spending time scanning for threats rather than innovating. Trust Erosion: After their breach, Capital One faced profound trust challenges—not just with customers, but internally as well. Employees questioned decisions they previously took for granted. Identity Disruption: The crisis challenged Capital One's self-perception as a technology leader with superior security. 💡 The Trauma-Informed Change Approach Capital One eventually reset their approach, following a different sequence: 1. Safety First (Before planning transformation) - Created psychological safety through transparent communication - Established consistent leadership presence - Acknowledged failures without scapegoating 2. Process the Experience (Before driving adoption) - Facilitated emotional-processing forums - Documented lessons without blame - Rebuilt institutional trust through consistent follow-through 3. Rebuild Capacity (Before expecting performance) - Restored core capabilities focused on team recovery - Invested in resilience support resources - Developed narrative incorporating the crisis 4. Transform (After rebuilding capacity) - Created new organizational identity incorporating the crisis - Shifted from compliance to values-based approach - Developed narrative of strength through adversity 5. Post-Crisis Growth - Built resilience from the experience - Established deeper stakeholder relationships - Transformed crisis into competitive advantage Only after these steps did Capital One successfully implement their changes, achieving 78% adoption—significantly higher than similar post-breach transformations. 🔮 The fundamental insight: Crisis recovery isn't just about returning to normal—organizations that address trauma can transform crisis into opportunity. Have you experienced transformation after organizational crisis? What trauma-informed approaches have you found effective? #CrisisRecovery #ChangeManagement #OrganizationalResilience

In the wake of shifting political and social pressures, many organizations are quietly (and also loudly - let's be honest) rolling back their DEI commitments. Programs are being defunded, roles eliminated, and statements softened or erased altogether. But here’s the reality: When organizations deprioritize DEI after years of promising commitment- even with the shifting winds of current landscape, they risk institutional betrayal. You might be wondering, what is institutional betrayal? Institutional betrayal refers to the harm or betrayal experienced by individuals when the institutions or organizations to which they belong fail to prevent, respond to, or acknowledge the misconduct or harm perpetrated within their ranks. This can involve situations where institutions neglect or cover up issues such as abuse, discrimination, harassment, or other forms of misconduct. It can also be when employees—especially those from marginalized communities—feel misled, dismissed, or even gaslit after being told their inclusion, equity, and belonging mattered. Imagine being hired under a company’s public commitment to diversity, only to watch those efforts disappear. Imagine being asked to share your lived experiences for a DEI initiative, only to have leadership quietly backtrack when the climate changes. The impact isn’t just disappointment—it’s broken trust, disengagement, and deeper workplace harm. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion isn’t a trend that's now fallen out of favor- It’s a promise. A culture. A responsibility. A moral imperative. A good business decision. If organizations want to build resilient, committed teams, they must recognize that abandoning DEI efforts isn’t a neutral decision—it’s an act that erodes trust and contributes to workplace harm and trauma. If you’re a leader feeling the pressure to pull back on DEI, ask yourself: ✅ What message does this send to the people who believed in our commitments? ✅ How does this decision align with the values we claim to uphold? ✅ What long-term consequences will this have on trust, retention, and culture? The cost of institutional betrayal is high. Is your organization willing to pay it?

This week, I’m in Berlin delivering training on the importance of robust and inclusive disaster risk reduction (DRR) policy. The discussions have been insightful, but one theme keeps emerging: the importance of trust. Participants have shared real-world examples of how communities’ willingness to engage with DRR initiatives, especially those inclusive of particularly at-risk or marginalised communities, is shaped by their trust in institutions, policymakers, and each other. Without trust, even the best-designed policies risk failing at the implementation stage. Building that trust means ensuring DRR efforts are transparent, inclusive, and responsive to the lived realities of those most at risk. This reminder aligns closely with a piece I’ve had published this week on PreventionWeb, exploring the role of misinformation and trust in DRR. The piece was based on a report I launched last month (https://lnkd.in/eniYeaNM), the piece examines how misinformation doesn’t just distort public understanding of risk: it actively undermines confidence in scientific expertise and disaster governance, disproportionately affecting marginalised groups. As we refine DRR policy, we need to recognise that trust isn’t an abstract ideal, it’s a core component of effective disaster preparedness and response. Without it, the best policies remain words on a page. Building trust requires deliberate effort. Key steps include: 1️⃣ Understanding the community by analysing cultural, social, and political dynamics and engaging key leaders 2️⃣ Engaging from the start using participatory approaches and consulting diverse community groups 3️⃣ Communicating openly by providing clear, honest, and timely information 4️⃣ Ensuring inclusivity by engaging marginalised groups and avoiding reliance on elite voices 5️⃣ Delivering on commitments by following through on promises and providing regular updates 6️⃣ Maintaining long-term engagement by fostering sustained partnerships and resilience-building By prioritising trust through transparency, inclusivity, and sustained engagement, DRR efforts can become more effective, ensuring that policies translate into meaningful action for those most at risk. The link to the PreventionWeb article can be found here: https://lnkd.in/ecdZMQt7 #InclusiveDRR #LeaveNoOneBehind

Words shape trust. I've seen brilliant teams fall apart because  of careless comments from their leader. And average groups thrive because their leaders chose their words wisely. The difference isn't in what you know. It's in how you make people feel when they  they don't. When someone brings you an idea, your first  words matter more than your final decision. When they make a mistake, your reaction becomes their story about whether it's safe to take risks. When they're struggling, your language either  builds a bridge or burns one. And the phrases that quietly erode trust? They often sound reasonable in the moment: ❌ "That's a bad idea" ❌ "We've always done it this way" ❌ "You should have known better" But they create invisible walls. People stop sharing.  Stop trusting. Stop trying. The phrases that build trust require more patience: ✅ "Help me understand your thinking" ✅ "What if we tried something different?" ✅ "Let's figure out what we can learn" But they create something beautiful:  Spaces where ideas flow freely. Where mistakes become lessons. Where people feel safe to be human. Your team isn't just listening to your words. They're learning what kind of leader you are. Every conversation is a choice. To build trust or chip away at it. To create safety or spark fear. To lift people up or shut them down. Choose wisely. The words you speak today shape the culture  you’ll be remembered for. ♻️ If this resonates, repost for your network. 📌 Follow Amy Gibson for more leadership insights.