At 11 PM on a Friday evening, the only light in Alice’s home office was the glow of her laptop screen. Her gaze was fixated on the cursor blinking in relentless succession, echoing the escalating internal chatter, each one sliding over the next in a growing storm of anxiety. Trouble had been brewing in the past few weeks: the project had quality issues, and the team was on the verge of losing a key contributor the following week. Emails from Bob, her collaborator, lied unanswered, open in tabs too numerous to count. Each message was polite and professional, but something felt off. Alice couldn’t shake the feeling that trust, the invisible thread that was supposed to connect their collaborative efforts, was fraying. She couldn’t pinpoint exact instances of betrayal or incompetence, yet the sense of unease was obvious. The intangible absence of trust obscured their way forward.
This wasn’t just about a project; it was about understanding the silent yet crucial undercurrents in professional relationships, much like trust is the bandwidth of communication. How do you address a problem you can only feel but not clearly see or articulate?
Consider the following example scenarios to see how insights about trust apply in real-world contexts. If anything resonates, you should read on.
- As an IC, I constantly try to fit in and sometimes second-guess myself.
- As a tech lead, I am not getting much constructive feedback on my design proposal, but strangely, I am also not getting strong supporters to move the project forward.
- As an IC/Manager, I want more scope and responsibility, and a business need is apparent, but my boss seems evasive about the topic.
- As a Product Manager, I wasn’t promoted due to a similar feedback pattern of struggles of building trust with my engineering counterpart. However, I felt otherwise because all the deliverables were high quality and on time. I want to diagnose the situation.
- As a senior leader, I need to understand why the Voluntary Attrition rate is dropping in some parts of the organization.
- As a senior leader, I need immediate action items to prepare the teams’ mutual trust to bring two (incompatible) teams together to solve a shared problem in a few months.
This blog post explores the often nebulous world of trust in professional relationships. In many situations, subtle signs of eroding trust can turn into a downward spiral. Remember the first time you second-guessed your closest colleague’s intent; or a sinking sensation stemming from the fear of an unconfirmed betrayal? The blog post offers an assessment framework to identify your strengths and blind spots in trust. Then you will learn how to transform the gut feeling into constructive conversations or concrete behavior changes to form a stronger professional bond.
Assessing Trust
In this section, you will use an assessment framework to understand your default trust inclination.
Scoring Guide: Score on a scale of 1–4.
1 means no or minimal inclination or exposure;
2 means you exhibit the behavior less frequently than most others;
3 means you do it more often than most others;
4 means you believe you are a star for demonstrating this behavior.
Instructions: Score yourself using the scale above on the behavior items listed in Table 1. Focus on your natural tendency or instinct rather than your existing skills or professional experience.
Trust is usually a two-way street. To assess a relationship effectively, do the assessment twice. First, rate yourself from your perspective, and then rate the other side from their perspective, using your perception. Strive for objectivity by focusing on their actions and past behaviors, not just your feelings. If you notice insightful differences, consider this an opportunity to improve trust. Encourage the other party to complete the same exercise and then compare notes. In discussion, aim to understand each other’s viewpoints, contexts, and reasoning, particularly in areas with a significant perception gap. This may involve one party initiating a difficult conversation. Communicate, and collaborate on ways to strengthen trust! Conflict from trust issues can often be resolved by directly tackling the root issue. Your job now is to get ready for a deeper dive.
WARNING: Please do NOT read beyond this section to prevent biasing your scoring.
I’ll offer an example to help your assessment. When assessing “logical risk/benefit analysis” behavior, recall your recent decision processes such as major item purchases, renewing an apartment, or choosing a job offer — how frequently and deeply did you do risk/benefit analysis? If you made the decision entirely based on talking to friends or based on feelings, then you will get 1; if you have done an in-depth analysis that involves meticulously weighing the financial outlay against the expected advantages, you have gone the extra mile of understanding the value creation in the value chain or considered uncontrollable probabilities, then you can get a 4! Most behavior items are collected empirically from my professional experiences and observations. They should be self-explanatory, but if you are stuck and don’t know what it is — just look it up, or leave a comment for help!
Please STOP here until you have completed the above assessment.
Record the Assessment
Now, transfer your scores from Table 1 to the corresponding cells in Table 2. Then, sum the columns and the rows.
If you decide to ask your relationships also to assess you, keeping these records over time is a good idea. That way, it’s easier to do reflections and retrospectives. The goal is to help you to understand what works well for you and learn for future situations.
Understand the Scopes of Trust (Across Columns)
Now that we’ve discussed assessing trust, let’s explore how to understand and utilize these assessments.
The column totals represent your overall trust level across different scopes of relationships:
- Self-trust: A firm reliance on one’s own abilities, judgments, and decisions, reflecting an inner confidence and personal integrity. Self-trust is fundamental to all other forms of trust.
- Interpersonal trust: The mutual belief in and reliance upon the integrity and reliability between individuals.
- Cross-group trust: The establishment of confidence and reliance between different team, organizational, social, or cultural groups.
Each increasing scope of trust usually builds upon the previous one. It’s normal to experience a decreasing score when expanding the scope. However, if the overall score is low, you must look inward to address self-trust first before diagnosing external reasons.
If the total of one column is noticeably lower than the one on its left, it represents a potential blind spot or lack of exposure. For example, if you score high on self-trust but low on interpersonal trust, you may be great at technical work but at risk of overlooking the human side of collaborations. Or, if you are great at interpersonal trust but score low on cross-group trust, you may have a blind spot on organizational cultures and understanding more complex human dynamics.
With these insights, you might be eager to understand their causes and learn what actions you can take. We’ll explore that in a minute, but it is possible to improve skills to build trust, and it’s great you are taking the first step to being self-aware.
Understand the Types of Trust (Across Rows)
The row totals reflect your preferences for various types of trust. These trusts are in increasing order of impact power.
- Calculus-based trust centers around the rational calculation of benefits and risks.
- Knowledge-based trust builds on factual information, expertise, competence, and a shared understanding of a subject or domain.
- Task-based trust develops through consistent demonstrations of execution capability and reliability.
- Relationship-based trust comes from personal bonds and emotional connections.
- Idenfitication-based trust comes from identification with the other party’s desires and intentions. Aligned value systems, similar worldviews, and common grounds help establish trust, which might be the easy part. The ultimate form of id-based trust comes from the root of understanding and acceptance, even if it may not match your sense of self.
A low score in any row suggests you prefer to refrain from engaging in specific trust-building activities. Again, these are your potential blind spots.
Before we move on, a small disclaimer: Trust in the real world is complex and often subject to cultural and environmental differences. What I proposed here is a very simplified model that worked for me in my career. Please be aware that all models are wrong, but some are useful. I’d love to continue improving this model. Please comment if you have suggestions.
Are you building the “right” trust in your specific scenario?
Trust building is a gradual, often incremental process. And you, as an individual, need to exercise judgment to apply different types of trust in your specific situations. Trust has tradeoffs, as well. There is no one solution for all. Strong leaders use judgment to find an appropriate balance.
Does your counterpart have the same expectation of trust?
When improving trust in a relationship, many people default to building trust using their most comfortable approach (Now take a moment to go back to your assessment, what is your go-to approach?). Not explicitly validating and aligning on building the right trust may derail the effort or even degrade the trust.
Consider the below story from our protagonists, Alice and Bob. The initial conversation introduced a conflict where both parties focused on two incompatible aspects of trust building (task-focused vs relationship-focused).
In the glass-walled conference room, the city’s skyline loomed like a silent giant. Alice, her fingers laced together, gazed across the table at Bob. The room, usually buzzing with collaborative energy, felt tense today.
“A collaborative and transparent environment isn’t just idealistic, Bob,” Alice said, her voice a blend of passion and persuasion. “It’s essential for creative solutions. This project can be more than just a ticked box; it can be a benchmark of innovation.”
Bob glanced out the window, where the city pulsed indifferently. He admired Alice’s vision but felt the weight of reality anchor his thoughts. “Deadlines aren’t just dates, Alice,” he replied, turning his gaze back to her. “They’re commitments. We need clear roles and sharp focus. Trust is earned when we deliver, not just when we ideate.”
Alice’s heart sank slightly. She saw the unyielding structure in Bob’s eyes, a stark contrast to the fluid harmony she envisioned. The disparity in their beliefs was like an unbridgeable chasm, with the project teetering on the edge.
Bob noticed her disappointment. He respected Alice and valued her innovative spirit, but how could he explain that in his world, the lines were clearer, the paths more defined? Trust, to him, was a structure built of reliability and results, not just shared aspirations.
As the meeting adjourned, the two of them packed up their notes. The air between them was thick with unspoken truths — truths about how differently two people could view the world, even when they were looking at the same project.
The conversation could be better. Consider an alternative version where a crucial point happened to move forward the alignment and integration of the seemingly conflicting aspects of trust. This conversation deepened trust on both sides and resolved a dangling conflict. Both Alice and Bob share the same goal, which makes the resolution possible, but the magic here is to accept each other’s trust style and understand the reasoning behind why both can contribute to this situation.
Alice stood by the conference room window, her gaze lingering on the team area where a group huddled around their computers. She noticed the lackluster energy and the mechanical nature of their interactions. It wasn’t just efficiency that was lacking; it was inspiration, the spark of engagement.
Turning back to face Bob, her resolve strengthened by what she’d just observed. “Bob, have you noticed the team lately? They’re meeting deadlines, yes, but there’s a lack of… vitality. They’re not taking risks, not really pushing the boundaries. I believe if we invest in building stronger relationships, it will foster an environment where taking risks isn’t so daunting.”
Bob, who had been reviewing a spreadsheet, looked up, his expression a mix of contemplation and skepticism. He had always valued the predictability of processes and the clarity of roles. To him, these were the building blocks of a successful project. But he couldn’t deny the flat atmosphere Alice was pointing out.
Alice continued, “When people feel valued and safe making mistakes, they’re more likely to contribute creatively and even point out other’s potential errors to improve quality. It’s about more than just camaraderie; it’s about creating a culture where innovation thrives. I’ve seen it happen in my previous projects. When team members truly connect, the quality of work transforms.”
Bob’s eyes narrowed thoughtfully. He had always admired Alice’s ability to see potential where others saw routine. “I understand where you’re coming from, Alice. But how do we balance this with the need to meet our immediate goals? How do we ensure that building relationships doesn’t detract from our responsibilities?”
Alice smiled, grateful for the opening. “It’s a matter of integration, not tradeoff. We weave relationship-building into our workflow. Simple things, like more open discussions about challenges, celebrating small wins together, and encouraging a bit of healthy risk-taking.”
Bob nodded slowly, the gears in his mind turning. Perhaps there was a middle ground — a way to blend his structured approach with Alice’s vision of a more dynamic, connected team. It was uncharted territory for him, but maybe, just maybe, it could be the answer they were looking for.
Closing the loop
“This entire trust-building thingy is new to me. I’ve never done it before. What can I do?”
You are not alone! But your desire to make a change already sets you apart. As a summary of the blog post, I have a 4-step suggestion for you:
- Regularly assess your important professional relationships using the assessment tool in this post — with your manager, your horizontal peers, your reports, your key stakeholders, etc.
- Strive to understand your specific relationship situation more deeply.
- Common Goal: Articulate and align on your common goal.
- Accept Diverse Trust styles: Listen, understand, and accept the different trust styles between you and your counterparts.
- Prioritize Behaviors: Prioritize/Order the trust behaviors specific to your situation. (e.g., in a business deal situation, prioritize behaviors that build calculus-based trust; in a team merger, prioritize behaviors that build identification-based trust, etc.)
- Articulate and Align: Make compromises or demands based on the prioritization outcome, and align with your counterpart over a discussion. - Identify areas where trust-building behaviors are missing or need improving, and make concrete plans to change. (e.g., if you get feedback on task execution accountability issue, then focus on delivery; if you provide feedback that certain behaviors deviate from organization value, do set expectations on what needs changing). You can refer to behaviors listed in Table 1, but it’s undoubtedly just a representative subset. When you are unsure what to do, ask people in your organization for advice, e.g., who is the star person who is excellent at building cross-group relationship-based trust. How did this VP integrate two hostile groups, and one year later, they became the top-performing team? Observe and learn from their behaviors.
- Still confused? Find a mentor in your organization!
Finally, I trust you will use the information in this blog post wisely (please, please utilize it with good intent. Do NOT weaponize trust or misuse it for self-justification — I assure you an expert would know what those look like). There is no silver bullet or panacea for all situations. The world increasingly requires good human judgment and decision-making skills. I hope this blog post clears some fog on your map, but you, the protagonist, still need to be very observant and make sound judgments on your path to trust.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.