Organizational Trust Concepts

Here's a helpful framework I use with leadership teams who want to fix trust issues in their culture. You have to look at four intersecting dimensions of trust: - Trust in YOURSELF: when do you trust yourself to take risks? - Trust in OTHERS: when do you find it easy to hand over control to others? - Others Trust in YOU: in what situations do people trust you and when do they withhold trust? - Trust OUTSIDE: when do external stakeholders trust you and when do they question decisions? These questions conducted across organisations can produce revealing trust ‘heat maps’ of what is happening in your culture.

I’m writing an essay on high-trust vs low-trust cultures. Here are some early notes: - Trust is not binary. It's a spectrum. Some societies trust easily. Others don’t. You can literally map it.     - There's a strong positive correlation between trust and GDP. High-trust societies grow faster. Low-trust ones stay stuck.     - I was born in Bulgaria (low-trust), moved to Denmark (high-trust), then worked across Southeast Asia (mixed, but mainly low). You feel the difference instantly.     - In Denmark, people trust first. It's liberating and efficient. In Indonesia or India, you earn trust painfully, inch by inch.     - High-trust environments create speed. Low-trust environments create drag.     - When you expect good intentions, you collaborate faster. When you expect bad ones, you move slowly, double-check everything, and spend half your energy covering your back.     - Early in my career, I trusted easily. Locals thought I was naïve. I got burned sometimes. But overall, trusting fast paid off a lot more than it cost me.     - Distrust feels smart in the short term. It feels strategic. It feels like you’re protecting yourself. Long-term, it’s a tax that costs you building relationships with good people.      - Suspicion drains creative energy. It kills autonomy and agency. It creates cultures where no one builds unless someone is watching.       - People from high-trust cultures need to build some muscle for dealing with low-trust environments. Don’t take suspicion personally.     - People from low-trust cultures need to realize that world-class talent will avoid them if they keep defaulting to suspicion.     - You cannot hire top performers while treating them like potential liabilities.     - Trust will be abused. That's the price of playing at scale. You will lose sometimes. But overall, trust is a positive-sum bet in a world that rewards compounding.

Trust collapsed after one missed deadline They delivered millions in savings together. Then one critical project failed. I watched my client Sarah's (have seeked their permission and changed their name for confidentiality) team transform from celebrating quarterly wins to exchanging terse emails within weeks. During our first coaching session, they sat at opposite ends of the table, avoiding eye contact. "We used to finish each other's sentences," Sarah confided. "Now we can barely finish a meeting without tension." Sound familiar? This frustration isn't about skills—it's about broken trust. In The Thin Book of Trust, Charles Feltman provides the framework that helped us diagnose what was happening. Trust, he explains, isn't mysterious—it breaks down into four measurable elements: ✅ Care – Sarah's team stopped checking in on each other's wellbeing ✅ Sincerity – Their communications became guarded and political ✅ Reliability – Missed deadlines created a cycle of lowered expectations ✅ Competence – They began questioning each other's abilities after setbacks The breakthrough came when I had them map which specific element had broken for each relationship. The pattern was clear: reliability had cracked first, then everything else followed. Three months later, this same team presented their recovery strategy to leadership. Their transformation wasn't magic—it came from deliberately rebuilding trust behaviors, starting with keeping small promises consistently. My video walks you through this exact framework. Because when teams fracture, the question isn't "Why is everyone so difficult?" but rather: "Which trust element needs rebuilding first—and what's my next concrete step?" Which trust element (care, sincerity, reliability, competence) do you find breaks down most often in struggling teams? #humanresources #workplace #team #performance #cassandracoach

Do people like working with you? Maybe you never asked yourself that question. Maybe you never needed to in the past. This is changing. In today’s collaborative, fast-paced, and often remote environments, your ability to build trust and connection affects how your work gets done and how others experience working with you. You DON'T need to be outgoing, people-pleasing, always available, or even universally liked. You DO need to be intentional in how you engage, so you are remembered (positively) for how you make others feel. 💡 Try these: - Remember details and follow up: “How did that conversation/meeting/interview go?” - Offer help before being asked: “I’ve worked with that team before if it helps to compare notes.” - Acknowledge effort in real time: “That slide deck took a lot of time and we didn't give you much. Thank you. ” - Giving others credit and authentic praise when deserved When this becomes part of how you operate, people feel respected, seen, and valued and that changes how they respond to you. The bonus: Professionals who build relationships with intention tend to: 🏆 Get better, faster collaboration from peers and stakeholders 🏆 Navigate organizational politics with less friction 🏆 Recover trust more quickly when tensions run high 🏆 Gain informal influence, even without formal authority In today’s complex and interdependent workplace, the strength of your relationships directly shapes the quality of your outcomes. Whether you’re leading, collaborating, or navigating uncertainty, the trust you’ve built becomes a key factor in how effectively things get done. #RelationshipBuilding, #Trust, #Collaboration, #SoftSkills, #TeamDynamics, #ContextualAgility Skiilify

Memoirs of a Gully Boy Episode 36: #Trust – The Foundation of Impactful Leadership Trust is the cornerstone of every successful relationship, whether it’s with your team, clients, or stakeholders. It’s the invisible currency that fosters collaboration, inspires loyalty, and drives meaningful results. Earning Trust in the Early Days In one of my first leadership roles, I was tasked with managing a team of seasoned professionals who were skeptical about my approach. I knew that earning their trust wouldn’t happen overnight. Instead of asserting authority, I spent the initial weeks observing, listening, and understanding their challenges. When I finally proposed changes, they were based on what I had learned from the team. The response was overwhelmingly positive because they felt heard and respected. Trust wasn’t built with grand gestures but through small, consistent actions that demonstrated empathy and accountability. Lesson 1: Trust is earned through listening and delivering on promises, not by demanding it. Building Client Trust in a Crisis A project for a major client once faced an unexpected technical failure just days before launch. The client was understandably frustrated, and tensions ran high. Instead of deflecting blame or downplaying the issue, I took full ownership, provided a transparent timeline for resolution, and kept them updated at every step. This approach turned a potentially damaging situation into an opportunity to strengthen the relationship. The client appreciated the honesty and accountability, and our partnership grew stronger as a result. Lesson 2: Trust thrives on transparency, especially in challenging times. Empowering Teams Through Trust Trust isn’t just about earning it for yourself—it’s about extending it to others. During a high-pressure system migration project, I delegated critical tasks to team members who were relatively new. While some questioned the decision, I trusted their capabilities and provided the necessary support. Their performance exceeded expectations, and the project was a resounding success. That experience reinforced that trust empowers individuals to rise to challenges and reach their potential. Lesson 3: Trust isn’t a risk; it’s an investment in people’s growth and confidence. Sustaining Trust Through Integrity Trust, once broken, is hard to rebuild. Over the years, I’ve learned that the simplest way to sustain trust is to lead with integrity. Whether it’s meeting deadlines, delivering quality, or admitting mistakes, consistency in actions speaks louder than words. In one instance, a client project faced delays due to unforeseen challenges. Rather than overpromising and underdelivering, I laid out a realistic plan and ensured that every milestone was met thereafter. That consistency solidified trust, even in difficult circumstances. Lesson 4: Trust is maintained through unwavering integrity and consistent follow-through. To be continued...

Ever work with someone who seems credible on paper but…something still feels off? 🤔 You just don’t fully trust them. That’s because trust isn’t built on credibility alone. It’s multi-dimensional. I recently came across the Trust Equation (from The Trusted Advisor), and it perfectly captures the nuances of building trust. Here’s how the Trust Equation defines trust: 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 = (𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 + 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 + 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆) / 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Let’s break it down: 🔹 Credibility: Do they have demonstrated competency? Think degrees, experience, expertise. 🔹 Reliability: Do they follow through? Are they consistent and dependable? 🔹 Intimacy: Now, this one is often overlooked. Do you feel safe with them? Is there empathy, openness, and honesty? And thats all divided by: 🔸 Self-Orientation: Are they focused on the greater mission, or are they more focused on their ego? Are they always trying to be right (high self-orientation), or asking thoughtful questions to understand (low self-orientation)? ⚠️ And here's the kicker: even high credibility and reliability can be undone by high self-orientation When ego dominates, trust degrades. But when service dominates, trust grows. Lately, I’ve been thinking about the Trust Equation as a lens for my own relationships and self-reflection. It’s a simple, powerful way to understand what really earns trust in leadership, teams, and life.

Promoting the wrong individuals within an organization can have detrimental effects on team morale, productivity, and retention. When employees observe that promotions are not based on merit, but perhaps on favoritism or other non-performance-related factors, it can lead to feelings of disillusionment and undervaluation. This environment often pushes the most capable and valuable employees—the "best person"—to seek opportunities elsewhere where their contributions are recognized and rewarded appropriately. To prevent this, organizations should prioritize transparent, fair, and merit-based promotion processes to retain top talent and maintain a healthy workplace culture. When management promotes the wrong people, it can have several negative consequences for the organization: 1. Decreased Morale: Employees who feel overlooked or see less competent colleagues promoted may experience frustration and a drop in motivation. 2. Loss of Talent: Top performers may leave the organization, seeking environments where their contributions are recognized and rewarded appropriately. 3. Reduced Productivity: Ineffective leaders can hinder team performance, leading to missed deadlines, poor decision-making, and decreased overall productivity. 4. Toxic Work Culture: Promoting the wrong individuals can foster a culture of favoritism, complacency, and disengagement, negatively affecting the workplace environment. 5. Increased Turnover: Higher turnover rates can result from dissatisfaction among employees, leading to increased recruitment and training costs. 6. Erosion of Trust: Employees may lose trust in management and the promotion process, which can lead to disengagement and a lack of loyalty to the company. To mitigate these issues, it's crucial for organizations to establish clear, merit-based criteria for promotions and ensure that decisions are transparent and aligned with the company’s values and goals. The best people who get promoted often demonstrate a combination of qualities that set them apart. These qualities typically include: 1. Strong Leadership Skills: They can lead by example, inspire others, and manage teams effectively. 2. Consistent Performance: They consistently deliver high-quality work and meet or exceed expectations. 3. Problem-Solving Ability: They can identify challenges and come up with practical, innovative solutions. 4. Communication Skills: They excel at communicating clearly and effectively, both in writing and verbally. 5. Emotional Intelligence: They understand and manage their emotions and those of others, fostering a positive work environment. 6. Vision: They have a clear vision for the future and align their efforts with the broader goals of the organization. These qualities not only make them effective in their current roles but also prepare them for the greater responsibilities that come with a promotion. Connect and Follow 👉Mukesh Singh

Psychologists can’t agree on what trust is. It is such a core foundation of our relationships. But, honestly? It’s felt like such a huge theme that I’ve delayed writing about it for my 30 Days Of Connection project, until now.    I listened to Rachel Botsman's talk “How to Trust and Be Trusted” at The Conduit on Monday night. She defines trust as: “A confident relationship with the unknown.” When we know how things are going to turn out, we don’t need trust. Trust is required of us when we don’t know. When we are vulnerable. Trust is subjective, contextual, and not easily controlled. Trustworthiness are the behaviours and values that shape whether someone feels confident placing their trust in you. Being trustworthy isn’t about grand gestures. It’s about how you: 1️⃣ Treat people daily, especially when things go wrong. 2️⃣ Communicate honestly and set clear expectations under pressure. 3️⃣ Make thoughtful decisions and avoid actions that could erode trust. When trust is eroded or absent, connection suffers. It’s hard to relax in a conversation when you’re second-guessing someone’s intentions. It’s difficult to collaborate when you’re unsure if a teammate has your back. And it’s painful when a friend or partner lets you down, making you wonder if you ever really knew them at all. It feels easy to recall times when someone has ruptured my trust in them. Our negativity bias tends to hardwire these (often painful) moments so that we don’t repeat them. It’s feels more difficult to recall times when trust was established because these aren’t grand gestures but small moments. “Trust is earned in the smallest of moments.’ - Brené Brown. So, here’s my question: What does trust mean to you? How do you know when it’s there and when it’s not? #30DaysOfConnection #Trust #Mattering #Relationships #Connection #Honesty #Trustworthiness

Organizations thrive in orderly conditions, with rules, expectations, and structure. But behind the scenes, a different game is being played. A game where mistakes must be absorbed, rules must be bent, and reputations must be preserved. Sociologist Niklas Luhmann addressed three uncomfortable truths that have lost none of their relevance in today's workplace: 𝐔𝐬𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 In many complex systems, rigidly following rules leads to stagnation. Employees often bend the rules to achieve results with temporary solutions, silent shortcuts, and tolerated transgressions. These are often informally accepted and tacitly considered necessary. But when the outcome is wrong, the same behavior is labeled as a transgression. 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 When organizations take risks, they do so under uncertainty. But when something goes wrong, the wisdom comes in hindsight: "We should have seen it coming," you hear. Even if the decision was reasonable, the outcomes change perceptions. What seemed like a smart choice becomes a reckless gamble. Organizations not only change their policies, they rewrite the past. They appoint committees, shift blame, and sometimes sacrifice leaders to restore public trust. But learning is difficult when the real incentive is to protect the existing narrative. 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐨𝐬 In theory, sanctions are precise and rule-based. In practice, “human errors” are reframed as isolated mistakes, not systemic failures. Leaders also avoid punishing strategic mistakes to protect the image of the system. Informal sanctions provide the real discipline, without ever naming the transgression. So people are excluded, redeployed, or their career advancement is silently blocked. People are not always punished for what they have done, but for the effect of their actions on the system. What do we learn from this? Organizations are not purely rational machines, but emotional, symbolic systems that manage disappointment through myths, stories, and ceremonies. They absorb contradictions between norms and actions through informal processes. And who prefer stability over transparency when it comes to dealing with “errors.” Perhaps most importantly, failure is tolerated, as long as it does not make the system vulnerable. The real question, then, is not just how to avoid errors, but how to allow errors without punishing learning? And how to create systems in which risk-taking is not only allowed, but also understood in its emotional and political context? Sources Luhmann, N. (1976), "Enttäuschungen, Fehler und Sanktionen" (chapter 17), in: 𝘍𝘶𝘯𝘬𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘍𝘰𝘭𝘨𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘖𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 3rd edition, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Luhmann, N. (1991), "Risikoverhalten in Organisationen" (chapter 10), in: 𝘚𝘰𝘻𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘙𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘬𝘰𝘴, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.