Why Trust Outperforms Engagement Hacks

One of my client companies recently made a bold shift: They replaced their Engagement KPI with a Trust KPI. And it’s one of the smartest moves I’ve seen. Why? Because trust is not a byproduct of engagement - it’s the precondition. 📚 Research backs this up: A meta-analysis by De Jong et al. (2016) found that team trust is a strong predictor of performance, especially in high-interdependence teams. Yet we treat trust like something we either have or don’t. 👉But trust isn’t a mood but rather a design decision. To start with, we need to understand 3 types of trust: 1. Cognitive 2. Affective 3. Swift Most leaders focus on cognitive or affective trust - built over time. But there’s a third type they don’t know about: Swift Trust. 📍Swift Trust forms quickly in temporary, remote, or fast-moving teams. It doesn’t require deep familiarity, it requires structure. And here’s how leaders can engineer it: ✔️ Start with clearly defined roles and expectations ✔️ Align fast around shared goals and purpose ✔️ Create quick wins that build early credibility ✔️ Model openness and ask for input from day one ✔️ Name the importance of trust explicitly In other words, trust isn’t “earned slowly” in every context. It can be catalyzed intentionally if you know how. That’s what I’m helping this client do: not just educate about trust but build it inside the team with psychological safety and my method, one behavior and ritual at a time. Because when trust becomes a designed feature, not an accidental outcome - performance, inclusion, and engagement follow. P.S.: Which type of trust is most alive in your team right now?

If you’re aiming to grow your LinkedIn presence, you might’ve heard of engagement pods—private groups where members agree to like, comment, and share each other’s posts to boost visibility. Sounds like a shortcut to success, right? Not so fast. Make an informed decision. Engagement pods can increase traction quickly, but they carry risks that CXOs, founders, and thought leaders can’t ignore. 🔹 The temptation: Why some use pods- The logic is simple ✅ More likes and comments signal “popularity” to LinkedIn’s algorithm. ✅ Posts reach more feeds, boosting visibility. ✅ New users or those struggling with reach see it as a quick win. But here’s the catch... 🔹 The Reality: Why pods can be risky What looks like engagement is often empty: 🚨 Fake engagement, no influence ↳ Pod members like to be out of obligation, not impact, distorting who values your content. 🚨 Algorithmic red flags ↳ LinkedIn discourages artificial engagement (per their policies) and may suppress your reach if detected. 🚨 Reputation at risk ↳ Authenticity drives credibility for CXOs and founders—fake engagement erodes trust. 🚨 Time without ROI ↳ Engaging with irrelevant posts wastes time better spent on real connections. 🚨 Account penalties ↳ Flagged activity risks restrictions or bans—unacceptable for high-profile pros. 🔹 The smarter alternative: Organic growth (slower maybe but surer) Instead, try: ✅ High-quality content ↳ Share real experiences and insights—authenticity drives traction. ✅ Genuine engagement ↳ Comment on peers’ posts because you want to, building stronger ties. ✅ Leverage features ↳ Use polls, carousels, and questions to spark discussions. ✅ Build “Natural LinkedIn Cheerleaders” ↳ Connect with pros who naturally uplift each other, not out of obligation. ✅ Stay consistent ↳ Show up regularly with depth, not just frequency. Speed kills, authenticity lasts. Pods might offer a growth hack, but they build numbers, not influence. 🚀 Thought leaders thrive on real conversations, not artificial likes. 🚀 Visibility without credibility is hollow. 🚀 Strong brands grow on trust, not shortcuts. Maybe I am old school, what are your thoughts? #personalbranding #thoughtleadership #contentcreation

Your company's marketing strategy is dead wrong if you're chasing fleeting attention instead of building lasting trust. I've seen this pattern repeatedly: Brands focus exclusively on capturing eyeballs through targeted ads, viral content, and engagement hacks. They get the spike in traffic, then wonder why conversion rates remain abysmal. By contrast, effective marketers understand that trust is built over multiple meaningful touchpoints, and that trust operates on a completely different principle than attention. Trust is owned. Attention is rented. A few years ago, McDonald's tested a new initiative to determine how building trust through multiple ad channels would impact store visits in Los Angeles. They ran out-of-home (OOH) and mobile advertising campaigns for six weeks, and then tracked three customer groups: — those not exposed to either campaign — those exposed only to OOH — those exposed to both OOH and mobile Results showed that customers exposed to both campaigns had a 729% higher visitation rate than unexposed customers (19.81% vs 2.39%), demonstrating the power of combining OOH with mobile retargeting. This isn't a coincidence. It's how our brains process information. Out-of-home advertising isn't primarily an attention medium; it's a trust and legitimacy builder. People aren't consuming your narrative on billboards, but they're subconsciously registering your presence in the physical world with authority and legitimacy. That's why companies like Amazon reportedly allocate 60% of their marketing budget to out-of-home advertising. They understand this fundamental truth: trust-focused advertising primes your audience, making all your attention-grabbing efforts significantly more effective. The most successful marketing strategies balance both: trust-building foundations that you own permanently, supporting attention-capturing tactics that you temporarily rent. Stop throwing money at fleeting attention. Start investing in owned trust. Your conversion rates will follow.

Trust isn't built in annual reviews. It's built in daily conversations. Most companies treat trust like a quarterly metric: - Scheduled check-ins - Formal assessments - Powerpoint promises Then they wonder why engagement scores flatline. Real trust happens in unscripted moments: When you admit "I don't have the answer" in front of your whole team. When someone misses a deadline and your first question is "What do you need?" not "Why are you behind?" When you defend your team's work to senior leadership, even though it failed. When you say "That was my mistake" instead of letting your direct report take the heat. When you notice someone's drowning in meetings and actually cancel yours - not just reschedule it. The truth? The most trusted leaders aren't the ones with perfect presentations. They're the ones who show up human when it's: - Messy - Inconvenient - Unplanned - Uncomfortable Trust isn't a metric you measure annually. It's a currency you earn daily. And every interaction is either making a deposit or withdrawal. Choose wisely.

Unpopular opinion: Engagement hacks don't build trust. I've seen people treat LinkedIn like a numbers game. - 50 comments a day - Reposting every 3 hours - Copy-pasting replies quickly And then they wonder why no one reaches out. The thing is: Comments can help you with visibility. But they can't make people stay. Trust comes from: → Your ideas → Your content → The stories you tell → The problems you solve If you want to build trust... Share 1 story in your own words, even if it's just once a week. That's what actually sticks. P.S. What do you think about this? ___ ♻️ If this helped, share this forward. 💌 Follow me for more LinkedIn growth and personal branding tips.