Challenges in trust performance evaluation

This study evaluates how interpretability and outcome feedback impact user trust and collaborative performance with AI. 1️⃣ Interpretability is defined as the ability to explain how a model arrives at its results in terms understandable to humans. 2️⃣ Outcome feedback is defined as providing the actual outcome after a prediction to confirm its accuracy. 3️⃣ Through experiments involving prediction tasks, the study finds that interpretability does not significantly enhance trust, while outcome feedback reliably increases it. 4️⃣ Neither interpretability nor outcome feedback greatly improves task performance, highlighting a trust-performance paradox. 5️⃣ Increased trust in AI does not always result in improved performance, revealing a trust-performance paradox. 6️⃣ Users tend to both overtrust and undertrust AI when given outcome feedback, which can undermine performance. 7️⃣ Time-dependent trends show that negative experiences with AI diminish future trust and performance. ✍🏻 Daehwan Ahn, Abdullah Almaatouq, Monisha Gulabani, Kartik Hosanagar. Impact of Model Interpretability and Outcome Feedback on Trust in AI. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2024. DOI: 10.1145/3613904.3642780

I was recently listening to Simon Sinek talk about something that hit home — Performance vs Trust. He spoke about how organizations obsess over performance metrics — dashboards, KPIs, OKRs — but almost never measure trust. And it made me think. How many times have we seen high-performing, low-trust individuals rise through the ranks… They deliver numbers, but leave behind a trail of broken teams. Over time, they become leaders. And then? They end up selecting the next layer of managers who behave just like them. Toxicity gets disguised as “tough love.” Aggression gets rewarded as “drive.” And trust? That gets dismissed as “soft.” But here’s the thing. Trust does exist in teams — even if it’s not on a dashboard. Over lunch, in corridor chats, or during coffee breaks — if you ask, “Who’s the jerk in the team?” Everyone knows. They just won’t say it in a formal review. The deeper issue is skewed performance–reward systems. We reward the “what” and ignore the “how.” Performance matters. But trust sustains.

In an industry focused on measuring everything from length of stay to readmission rates, we've overlooked our most fundamental metric: trust. This invisible foundation determines whether our sophisticated systems and advanced technologies actually improve health outcomes. When patients trust their providers, they share critical information, adhere to treatment plans, and return for necessary care. When providers trust their systems, they experience less burnout and make better clinical decisions. Trust isn't just a nice-to-have—it's the prerequisite that makes all other healthcare outcomes possible. The Trust Deficit Yet healthcare faces a profound trust crisis. Patients question whether financial interests outweigh clinical judgment. Providers wonder if systems support their work or just monitor productivity. Both navigate fragmented journeys where crucial information disappears between handoffs. We've designed systems that actively undermine trust: confusing billing, fragmented communication, and environments prioritizing efficiency over connection. Each frustrating interaction erodes the trust essential to healing. Trust as a Design Principle What if we designed for trust as intentionally as we design for efficiency? This means: +Creating transparency where there's typically obscurity: Making costs clear before services are rendered, explaining the why behind clinical decisions, and acknowledging uncertainty when it exists +Building consistency where there's typically variation: Ensuring care feels cohesive across touchpoints and providers share a complete picture of the patient's journey +Enabling human connection where there's typically transactional exchange: Designing environments and workflows that support meaningful conversation and relationship building +Demonstrating competence through thoughtful details: From clear wayfinding to seamless transitions between departments, showing that every aspect of the experience has been considered Measuring What Matters If trust is essential, we must measure it with the same rigor we apply to clinical metrics. This goes beyond satisfaction surveys to capturing specific moments where trust is built or broken: +Did you feel your concerns were taken seriously? +Was information shared in a way you could understand and act upon? +Were financial aspects of your care explained clearly and accurately? +Did your care team demonstrate they were communicating with each other? +Would you feel comfortable bringing up a sensitive health concern with your provider? Trust as Competitive Advantage The organizations that will thrive in healthcare's future aren't just those with the best technology or the most efficient processes—they're those that systematically build and protect trust at every touchpoint. In a world where patients have increasingly diverse options for care, trust becomes the differentiator that builds loyalty and word-of-mouth referrals.

Years ago, we introduced a new performance tracking system at work. HR said, “This will help us work smarter.” IT said, “It’s a simple update.” Employees: “God abeg! Another wahala?” The resistance started immediately. Some employees worried about how this would affect their reputation. “If my numbers don’t look good, they'll think I’m underperforming.” They weren’t resisting the system; but protecting their STATUS. Then came the uncertainty. “Oga, how e go be? Will this change my targets? Will my bonus still come?” The lack of CERTAINTY made people anxious. Others sighed deeply, shaking their heads like Nollywood elders. “They didn’t even ask us before rolling this thing out,” they muttered at the loss of AUTONOMY. It wasn’t really about the system itself. It was the feeling of having no control. I’ve seen this same reaction outside the office too. When electricity tariff was increased, customers panicked. “Light we never see, na money una dey add.” They want CERTAINTY on what’s next. Smart meters are being rolled out. Some customers embrace it, others feel it’s a way to cheat them. “Na like this dem start last time.” When people think your decision lacks FAIRNESS, expect pushback. If new KPIs are introduced, employees start whispering, “Shebi na who sabi package go survive now?” Nobody wants to feel like they’re being set up to fail while others are favoured. When I understood why people react this way, I changed my approach. → I communicate early. Because uncertainty is what makes people shout “We no go gree!” → I involve them. Nobody likes feeling sidelined, even in family meetings. → I ensure fairness. When people sense injustice, "kasala go burst." The result is "less gra-gra" and more cooperation. Good people... That's the S.C.A.R.F model explained in simple terms. It helps you understand how unconscious reactions, threats, and rewards affect trust and your team's performance. S — Status: Does this make me feel valued or threatened? C — Certainty: Do I know what’s coming next? A — Autonomy: Do I have control, or is this forced on me? R — Relatedness: Am I in this alone, or do I belong? F — Fairness: Is this decision fair? Change is constant. If you handle it well, people will follow your lead. ----- Image: Woithe & Co.