Building Trust Through Fair Project Practices

I walked into a room full of frustration. The project was off track, the budget was bleeding, and trust had worn thin. As the new project manager, I had 30 days to rebuild what was broken not just the plan, but the relationships. 💡 Here’s the exact trust-building strategy I used to shift the momentum - one conversation, one quick win, and one honest update at a time. ▶ Day 1–5: I started with ears, not answers. 🎧 Active Listening & Empathy Sessions I sat down with stakeholders - one by one, department by department. No slides. No status updates. Just questions, empathy, and silence when needed. 💬 I didn’t try to fix anything. I just listened - and documented everything they shared. Why it worked: They finally felt heard. That alone opened more doors than any roadmap ever could. ▶ Day 6–10: I called out the elephant in the room. 🔍 Honest Assessment & Transparent Communication I reviewed everything - timelines, budgets, blockers, and team dynamics. By day 10, I sent out a clear, no-spin summary of the real issues we were facing. Why it worked: I didn’t sugarcoat it - but I didn’t dwell in blame either. Clarity brought calm. Transparency brought trust. ▶ Day 11–15: I delivered results - fast. ⚡ Quick Wins & Early Action We fixed a minor automation glitch that had frustrated a key stakeholder for months. It wasn’t massive, but it mattered. Why it worked: One small win → renewed hope → stakeholders leaning in again. ▶ Day 16–20: I gave them a rhythm. 📢 Clear Communication Channels & Cadence We set up weekly pulse updates, real-time dashboards, and clear points of contact. No more guessing who’s doing what, or when. Why it worked: Consistency replaced confusion. The team knew what to expect and when. ▶ Day 21–25: I invited them to the table. 🤝 Collaborative Problem-Solving Instead of pushing fixes, I hosted solution workshops. We mapped risks, brainstormed priorities, and made decisions together. Why it worked: Involvement turned critics into co-owners. People support what they help build. ▶ Day 26–30: I grounded us in reality. 📅 Realistic Expectations & Clear Next Steps No overpromising. I laid out a realistic path forward  timelines, budgets, trade-offs, and all. I closed the month by outlining what we’d tackle next together. Why it worked: Honesty created stability. A shared plan gave them control. 💬 In 30 days, we hadn’t fixed everything but we had built something more valuable: trust. And from trust, everything else became possible. Follow Shraddha Sahu for more insights

Speed looks impressive on a dashboard. Trust looks invisible until it is the only thing left standing. In my time watching systems rise and fall across blockchain, governance, and enterprise, one pattern keeps repeating: yesterday's flashy launch becomes tomorrow's cautionary tale if people cannot rely on the system without second guessing. ⚠️🔁 Here is why trust is the real benchmark: ✅ Reliability wins. People forgive slow features. They do not forgive surprises that break their workflow or money. 🔍 Predictability compounds. Predictable behavior from your product and your team turns first-time users into habitual users. 🛡️ Safety builds adoption. Clear governance, transparent incentives, and recoverable failure modes let partners and enterprises say yes. 🤝 Reputation outlasts velocity. Reputation is earned by consistency, not by hype. A quick builder checklist you can use today: • Track trust metrics, not just usage metrics. Examples: time to first value, repeat actions, governance participation, dispute rates. • Design for observable failure modes so partners can audit and accept risk. • Make promises you can keep and communicate those promises plainly. Plain language builds credibility. • Invest in education and onboarding. Trust is taught more than it is coded. Fast can win rounds. Trust wins decades. If you want something that lasts, build for the latter. 🔥 Share one sentence about a time trust saved or broke a project you care about. I will highlight the most useful examples. 👇

I once worked with a team that was, quite frankly, toxic. The same two team members routinely derailed meeting agendas. Eye-rolling was a primary form of communication. Side conversations overtook the official discussion. Most members had disengaged, emotionally checking out while physically present. Trust was nonexistent. This wasn't just unpleasant—it was preventing meaningful work from happening. The transformation began with a deceptively simple intervention: establishing clear community agreements. Not generic "respect each other" platitudes, but specific behavioral norms with concrete descriptions of what they looked like in practice. The team agreed to norms like "Listen to understand," "Speak your truth without blame or judgment," and "Be unattached to outcome." For each norm, we articulated exactly what it looked like in action, providing language and behaviors everyone could recognize. More importantly, we implemented structures to uphold these agreements. A "process observer" role was established, rotating among team members, with the explicit responsibility to name when norms were being upheld or broken during meetings. Initially, this felt awkward. When the process observer first said, "I notice we're interrupting each other, which doesn't align with our agreement to listen fully," the room went silent. But within weeks, team members began to self-regulate, sometimes even catching themselves mid-sentence. Trust didn't build overnight. It grew through consistent small actions that demonstrated reliability and integrity—keeping commitments, following through on tasks, acknowledging mistakes. Meeting time was protected and focused on meaningful work rather than administrative tasks that could be handled via email. The team began to practice active listening techniques, learning to paraphrase each other's ideas before responding. This simple practice dramatically shifted the quality of conversation. One team member later told me, "For the first time, I felt like people were actually trying to understand my perspective rather than waiting for their turn to speak." Six months later, the transformation was remarkable. The same team that once couldn't agree on a meeting agenda was collaboratively designing innovative approaches to their work. Conflicts still emerged, but they were about ideas rather than personalities, and they led to better solutions rather than deeper divisions. The lesson was clear: trust doesn't simply happen through team-building exercises or shared experiences. It must be intentionally cultivated through concrete practices, consistently upheld, and regularly reflected upon. Share one trust-building practice that's worked well in your team experience. P.S. If you’re a leader, I recommend checking out my free challenge: The Resilient Leader: 28 Days to Thrive in Uncertainty  https://lnkd.in/gxBnKQ8n

𝗢𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 Early in my career, I thought being a great researcher meant delivering perfect insights. I spent hours polishing slides, crafting the clearest recommendations, thinking that’s how I would gain influence and drive impact. But over the years, I’ve learned: 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲. 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘂𝗽. Looking back, some of the most trust-building moments weren’t in research readouts, but in smaller and ongoing interactions like chats, 1:1s, tech reviews and roadmap meetings. At first, these deeply technical discussions about model architectures, system tradeoffs, and backend constraints felt daunting. But I leaned in with deep curiosity to learn their world – their language, their constraints, how they define success. I began asking questions that brought a different lens – questions about user experience implications, hidden assumptions in metrics, and whether definitions of success truly aligned with user value. Over time, I noticed a shift. Partners began pulling me into more of these conversations. They valued not only the different perspective I brought but also that I was designing research grounded in their reality. The closer I got to their world, the more they trusted me to help them navigate complexity with users in mind. Here are a few lessons that have guided me: 💡 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲. It’s easy to point out flaws. It’s harder – and far more powerful – to ask questions that unlock better thinking. 💡 𝗚𝗲𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱. Sit in their reviews and participate in their discussions. Learn the tradeoffs they’re wrestling with. Empathy is the foundation of trust. 💡 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. When partners see how you approach a problem, they begin to trust your intuition and judgment, not just your final results. 💡 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸. Research isn’t just about answering questions; it’s about reframing them to drive better decisions. When partners see that your involvement helps them achieve goals faster, better, and with greater user impact, trust accelerates. 💡 𝗖𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗯𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝘀. Research insights are powerful, but it’s the engineers, PMs, and designers who build and ship. Recognizing their contributions creates shared ownership and success. At the end of the day partnership is built in 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 – asking a clarifying question that reframes priorities, acknowledging a tough tradeoff, or staying a bit longer to align on next steps. Trust grows when partners see you’re not just doing your job, but actively working to strengthen their efforts and amplify their impact.

Leaders launching programs without trust are building dream homes on unstable ground. Trust forms the solid foundation that makes all other leadership efforts possible. Without it, every program—no matter how innovative—collapses under pressure. Think of trust as your organization's shock absorber. When market conditions shift, strategies pivot, or difficult decisions arise, trust ensures your team adapts rather than fractures. Without established trust, even your best initiatives quickly lose credibility: • An innovative employee-experience project feels superficial. • Conscious leadership training is dismissed as performative. • New DEI efforts are viewed cynically as compliance exercises. Building trust doesn't require complex theories—just consistent, predictable actions: • Clearly outline what's coming next quarter, and then deliver exactly as promised. • Regularly communicate updates, maintaining transparency even during quiet periods. • Address unavoidable changes openly, providing clear context and sufficient notice. I've seen this approach succeed repeatedly. One executive team facing significant distrust after leadership turnover made three clear promises for Q1. They met each commitment exactly as promised and communicated the results transparently. Within two quarters, their trust metrics improved by 12%. Start simply: Commit to one concrete action your team can count on in the next month—and follow through precisely. Invest first in trust. Every other initiative depends entirely upon it.

How I transformed chaos into a high-trust environment (Just by asking better questions.) Stakeholder alignment is not easy And this situation tested everything I knew about it. I was leading a critical project with tight deadlines. But one stakeholder was not aligned. She didn’t trust her team. She believed control delivers results. Her working style caused chaos: → She’d would approve a plan, then reverse it. → She would micromanage every detail. → Decisions were emotional, not strategic. This had a negative impact on the project: → The team was frustrated. → Deadlines were slipping. → Team morale was dropping. Here’s how I shifted her mindset and got her to trust the process: 1/ Addressed the fear behind the behavior ↳ I asked: “What’s your biggest concern right now?” ↳ She admitted she feared the project would fail and reflect poorly on her. ↳ Identified what was driving the micromanagement. 2/ Created structure that builds confidence ↳ I shared a clear roadmap with milestones. ↳ Then I asked: “Can we agree to revisit changes only in our weekly syncs?” ↳ She agreed, and we avoided frequent disruptions. 3/ Shifted her from control to contribution ↳ I asked: “Which part of the project would you like to own?” ↳ She chose one area and took full responsibility. ↳ Sharing regular updates reduced her doubts. 4/ Made progress visible ↳ Each week, I presented results in data, not opinions. ↳ Her trust grew as she saw the team’s delivery data. The result? → Frantic emails stopped. → Last-minute changes stopped. → She started trusting the team and the plan. This wasn’t just a project win. It transformed how we worked together. The lesson: You don’t manage stakeholders. You align them. So, always= Ask questions → Set boundaries → Build trust. PS: Ever turned a difficult stakeholder into a champion?

Beyond Status Updates: The Real Purpose of Project One-to-Ones If your one-to-ones consist mainly of "What's the status of X?" questions, you're missing the point entirely. Status updates belong in your project management software, team meetings, or email. ---> Your one-to-ones should focus on: 𝟏. 𝐔𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬 that won't appear in status reports 𝟐. 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 necessary for team members to deliver bad news early 𝟑. 𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 with project goals 𝟒. 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 that benefit both the project and the person Let me break down how to accomplish each of these. 𝟏. 𝐔𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐇𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐎𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬 In projects, the earliest warning signs of trouble often go unreported. Create space for this critical intelligence with questions like: 📌"What's something about this project that's concerning you that we haven't discussed in team meetings?" 📌"If you had to predict where we might hit a roadblock in the next month, what would it be?" 📌"What dependencies are you worried about that might not be on my radar?" These questions uncover the gold that never makes it into status reports. 𝟐. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 Project success depends on psychological safety. Build it systematically: Start with a personal check-in that has nothing to do with the project. Demonstrate vulnerability by sharing your own challenges. When they share concerns, respond with curiosity rather than immediate solutions. Remember details from previous conversations and follow up on them. One project leader I coached made a simple change: starting every one-to-one with > "What's something good that's happened since we last spoke, either at work or outside?" The team's problem-solving capacity increased dramatically within weeks. 𝟑. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐫 Great project leaders understand individual motivations and connect them to project success: ➡️ "What aspect of this project is most interesting to you right now?" ➡️"How could this project help you develop skills that matter to your career?" ➡️"If you could change your role on this project in any way, what would you adjust?" Then actively look for ways to reshape responsibilities to better align with these motivations. 𝟒. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 Every project is a learning opportunity. Make development explicit: 💥 Set a clear development goal related to the project. 💥 Break it down into weekly micro-challenges. 💥 Use one-to-ones to reflect on progress and adjust the challenge level. 💥 Connect team members with specific expertise to create informal mentoring. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗻𝗲-𝘁𝗼-𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿? Share in the comments, and let's problem-solve together. #ProjectLeadership #TeamDevelopment #ProjectManagement 

How Risk Allocation Impacts Contractors’ Cooperative Behavior and Their Perception of Fairness Research shows that, in construction projects, contractors often lack sufficient information to evaluate the trustworthiness of the owner [1]. Accordingly, they tend to rely on their perceptions, which influence their behavior when entering into the contract [2]. So, fairness perception can be seen as a behavioral risk that can serve as a signal for fostering the contractor’s cooperative behavior. Despite its significance, there remains limited awareness of what fairness perception entails and how it impacts project outcomes. According to the study conducted by Tianjin Univ in 2016 [2], risk allocation can affect contractors’ perception of fairness and their cooperative behavior. The study analyzed data captured from 284 Chinese project professionals including 159 project managers, 65 business managers, and 60 contract managers. Using regression analysis, the study empirically demonstrated that pro-owner contractual terms regarding risk allocation negatively affect the contractor’s cooperative behavior. This highlights that a contractor’s perception of fairness and the foundation for cooperative behavior are established during the RFP and even earlier stages, well before the contract is awarded. During contrct formation, through specific contractual terms and conditions such as limitations of liability, incentives, and penalties, the owner signals the degree of its trustworthiness and willingness to engage in collaborative risk sharing. Evidence shows that if risks are assessed and distributed fairly during these phase, it significantly reduces opportunistic behavior by contractors and helps the owner avoid paying a risk premium. Conversely, if fairness is lacking, the owner should be prepared for surprises down the line. Therefore, as noted in [1], “the owner should consider the consequences of the risk allocation strategies it adopts and shift from a one-sided win orientation to a fair and transparent approach to achieve a realistic win by promoting cooperative behavior.” Achieving this requires conducting quantitative risk analysis during contract formation phase to support both risk assessment and allocation, an essential step that is often overlooked due to limited awareness and maturity. At Hatch, we actively embraces emerging trends in risk management and continuously explores innovative ways of working to enhance efficiency and deliver greater value to our clients. At this year’s AACE International Conference, we introduced a novel model designed to support evidence-based risk allocation in collaborative projects. If you’d like to learn more about this initiative, feel free to reach out. Source: [1] https://lnkd.in/gGQ42i5s [2] https://lnkd.in/gunUGgsR #riskmanagement #riskallocation #trust #fairness #collaboration #cooperativebehavior

𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲. We once had to shut down four city blocks in downtown Phoenix for a private Macklemore concert. On the surface, it sounds like logistics. In reality, it was about trust. It took a month meeting with city departments, knocking on doors, and listening to city employees who mostly wanted to help the public, get a paycheck and benefits, plus not lose their job. Each had their own concerns: safety, traffic, liability or what would their boss do to them. Instead of pushing my agenda, I focused on their pain points and showed that I understood what mattered to them.  After the month of planning, we started at 2:15 the morning of the concert, to set up - they would not let us close the roads, then I convinced them it was okay, after the bars closed. That’s how you move big, complicated projects forward. Not with pressure. Not with shortcuts, instead - by giving people confidence that you see them, hear them, and will protect their interests (if nothing else, that they won’t get fired, their kids will be okay and life will be good). The principle is simple. 𝐈𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐬. 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. Whether you’re closing a deal, running a campaign, or trying to get four blocks of a city to shut down, the foundation is the same: trust built through listening. What’s one way you’ve built trust in a tough negotiation? #Trust #Negotiation #DealMaking #TILTTheRoom #MediaLaw #Macklemore Christopher Voss Kwame Christian, Esq., M.A. Alexandra Carter Dr. Robert Cialdini Scott Tillema