Recently, I have had discussions on how I would build trust in a company and trust as a value in a not-for-profit organization. This has me reflecting on how we decide whether to trust someone, cues, feelings, evidence or a combination? Why does trust feel harder today? We make split-second judgements about people while also relying on systems, policies, checklists, and safeguards to reduce risk. High-performing teams build both personal trust and process trust, then keep earning them through consistent, observable action.

Building Trust That Scales: From Snap Judgments to System Design

Trust is commonly defined as a willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of a partner’s actions (Mayer et al., 1995). A large research analysis further distinguishes among:

• trust (the willingness to trust),
• trustworthiness (ability, benevolence, integrity),
• trust propensity (a general tendency to trust) (Colquitt et al., 2007).

A Quick Example

When you drive on a two-way road, you expect oncoming drivers to remain in their lane. That confidence comes less from personally knowing those drivers than from shared road rules, enforcement, and trust in the design process, supported by generalized social trust (Jasielska et al., 2021).

By contrast, deciding to confide in a colleague rests on personal trust developed through credible competence and integrity signals over time (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).

“People are retreating from dialogue and compromise, choosing the safety of the familiar over the perceived risk of change.”
Richard Edelman

Two Practical Lenses

Building on this foundation, I frame two practical lenses for everyday work and policy that I was taught early on when completing my Dispute Resolution Certificate @ York University:

• Process Trust

Confidence in systems, rules, and safeguards.

Pros:
Scalable, efficient, predictable; lowers cognitive load and coordinates action at the population scale.

Cons:
Can erode rapidly after salient failures; requires maintenance (training, monitoring, transparent communication).

• Personal Trust

Confidence in a particular person built through interaction and reputation (Hancock et al., 2023).

Pros:
Deepens collaboration; supports learning and psychological safety in teams (Edmondson, 1999).

Cons:
Slower to build; more vulnerable to breaches and bias; hard to scale without supportive processes.

What Recent Research Adds

• Multilevel and contextual: Trust is shaped by interpersonal cues (for example, closeness and reputation) and by the surrounding context, technology, rules, and incentives (Hancock et al., 2023).

• Conceptual clarity: Contemporary analysis integrates interpersonal and institutional forms of trust, clarifying how they interact rather than compete (Hancock et al., 2023).

• Outcomes that matter: Trust in leadership correlates with satisfaction, commitment, and discretionary effort (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).

How We Actually Judge Trust

Trust judgments often begin as rapid, intuitive impressions and are then refined with evidence.

• Face and first impressions: People spontaneously evaluate neutral faces along two main dimensions: valence (approximated by perceived trustworthiness) and dominance; these judgments arise extremely quickly and can influence downstream decisions (Todorov et al., 2008).

• Nonverbal behaviour in context: Eye contact, open posture, and steady vocal tone often signal composure and trust, whereas fidgeting or gaze aversion can signal uncertainty. However, the link is probabilistic and sensitive to culture and situation (Burgoon et al., 2021).

• Learning from behaviour and reciprocity: We build trust through observed actions, following through commitments, engaging in reciprocal cooperation, and treating others fairly (Fehr & Gächter, 2000).

• Swift trust in temporary teams: In short-lived, high-stakes projects, teams often start by presuming trust based on roles and credentials and then verify and recalibrate as behaviours unfold (Meyerson et al., 1996).

Trust in Organizations: Business, Government, Media, and NGOs

At the institutional level, global surveys report headwinds for trust. The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer highlights rising grievance and insularity.

Insularity refers to a growing reluctance to trust, engage with, or rely on people who are different from ourselves, whether in values, backgrounds, beliefs, or information sources.

“Insularity has emerged as the next crisis of trust.”
Richard Edelman

Large segments of the public believe leaders across sectors mislead them, and people are less willing to extend trust across differences. These dynamics heighten risks for multinational firms and public agencies and complicate internal cohesion (Edelman Trust Institute, 2026).

Long-run data also show public trust in government near historic lows (Pew Research Center, 2025).

Inside organizations, perceived fairness, distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice predict trust in leaders, commitment, citizenship behaviours, and performance (Colquitt et al., 2001).

Trust in Technology and AI

As work becomes increasingly digital, employees continuously calibrate trust not only in people but also in systems and algorithms.

Research highlights the importance of transparency, reliability, and appropriate oversight in shaping human trust in AI (Glikson & Woolley, 2020).

Repairing Trust When It Breaks

Trust breaches are inevitable. What matters is how quickly and credibly we repair.

Effective responses:
• Match the response to the nature of the violation (competence vs. integrity)
• Combine acknowledgment with concrete remedial actions
• Rebuild through consistent follow-through (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009)

Practical Actions to Build and Sustain Trust

• Make the process visible: Codify decision rules, checklists, and escalation paths; rehearse with simulations and debriefs

• Invest in personal trust: Demonstrate ability, benevolence, and integrity; close the loop on commitments; apply fair, transparent procedures (Mayer et al., 1995)

• Signal fairness: Informational and interpersonal justice cultivate trustworthiness and performance (Colquitt et al., 2007)

• Measure what matters: Track psychological safety and institutional confidence; intervene early when leading indicators dip

• Enable swift trust safely: Clarify roles and escalation paths upfront; schedule early checkpoints

• Communicate across differences: Foster culturally aware communication and dialogue norms that preserve dignity

Conclusion

In the end, trust is neither a mystery nor a single moment; it is an evolving judgment shaped by what we see, what people do, what others say about them, and the systems that surround us.

First impressions and nonverbal cues offer rapid but imperfect signals. Behaviour, reciprocity, and reputation provide the evidence that strengthens or corrects those early intuitions.

At the organizational level, fair processes, clear communication, and credible leadership create the scaffolding for institutional trust, especially in a climate where public confidence is increasingly strained.

Whether we are building trust with individuals or within systems, the work is the same: make expectations visible, act with integrity, communicate transparently, and continually earn the confidence we hope others will place in us.

Trust may begin with a feeling, but it endures through consistent, observable action.

How do you know who or what to trust?

References (APA 7th)

Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behaviour as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.256

Burgoon, J. K., Wang, X., Chen, X., Pentland, S. J., & Dunbar, N. E. (2021). Nonverbal behaviors “speak” relational messages of dominance, trust, and composure. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 624177. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624177

Colquitt, J., Conlon, D., Wesson, M., Porter, C., & Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Edelman Trust Institute (2026). 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer.

Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and Retaliation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159–181.

Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 127–145.

Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627–660.

Hancock, P., et al. (2023). How and why humans trust. Frontiers in Psychology, 14.

Jasielska, D., et al. (2021). General trust scale. Current Psychology, 40(10), 5019–5029.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups.

Pew Research Center (2025). Public trust in government: 1958–2025.

Todorov, A., Baron, S. G., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2008). Evaluating face trustworthiness. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(2), 119–127.