Is there data showing that trust is associated with other measures of organizational performance? For example, do organizations with higher levels of trust also have higher operating performance, lower turnover, higher employee satisfaction, etc.?

Yes, there is! And the data is very strong. Since the 1990s, a steadily accumulating body of evidence has shown that organizational trust has many positive outcomes – for individual employees, the teams they’re part of, and for organizations themselves. On the individual level, trusting one’s co-workers and leaders creates a feeling of comfort and safety, which makes employees more committed to their work, more willing to cooperate with others, more open to sharing ideas and information, and more inclined to experiment and innovate. Trust also encourages employees to closely identify with their organization, fostering what the literature calls “organizational citizenship behavior” – that is, a willingness to carry out tasks outside of their primary duties and responsibilities. For employees, all of this translates into higher levels of job satisfaction, productivity, and overall quality of work life.

At the team level, trust increases feelings of interdependence between employees. It facilitates altruism (for example, a willingness to help co-workers carry out their duties), courtesy and benevolence (respecting co-workers and looking out for their safety and wellbeing), positive attitudes, and loyalty to other employees. Having trust in co-workers also encourages employees to network, to partake of joint learning activities, and to share resources and opportunities. All of this increases the cohesion, effort levels, and overall performance of workplace teams.

At the organizational level, trust is a source of competitive advantage. Because employees in high-trust organizations are more committed to their work, rates of burnout and worker turnover are lower than in low-trust organizations. This reduces an organization’s long-term operating costs – to say nothing of litigation charges or other financial expenses an organization might accrue as a result of low member trust. The innovations and prosocial behaviors that trust fosters give organizations a financial edge, in part because organizational trust is associated with better internal communication, increased nimbleness and flexibility, and more effective problem-solving.

Because of these positive impacts, trust is now seen as a pre-requisite for effective organizational functioning.

Join the conversation here!

What are some tools/frameworks/techniques that employees operating in an organization where trust has been lost can use to maintain impact in spite of leadership choices?

Honestly, there's not a lot of research on ways to cope with the effects of untrustworthy leadership. That’s surprising, because we know a lot about how distrustful leader behaviors negatively impact employees. We know that workers in low-trust environments feel unsafe, confused, and anxious. They spend a lot of time worrying about how their leaders might undermine them, and how to manage those situations. They're generally cautious around leaders, and frequently decline to share ideas (a phenomenon known as “employee silence”).

In situations like this, what can employees do to maintain high levels of performance and promote the organization’s success? Within the literature, there are examples of employees meeting these goals despite the negative impacts of untrustworthy leadership. What seems to help, first and foremost, is building mental health. Striving to maintain a healthy life-work balance is important -- as is developing positive coping skills. For example, by creating or joining support networks outside of the workplace, it may be possible to discover more constructive ways of working.

Another idea is to look for ways to keep distrustful leaders at arms’ length. If possible, try to minimize interactions with those who might cause harm, and to develop habits of independence, self-guidance, and self-management. When this isn’t possible, strategize over how to prepare for unsupportive interactions with leadership, and look for ways to protect yourself from dangerous situations. For example, try to avoid placing yourself in a vulnerable position — like one that requires you to share confidential information. The research indicates that creating a defense mechanism that protects you from toxic leadership could be of benefit here.

Also, look for ways to create a more positive workplace. In many low-trust organizations, employee cynicism runs rampant. To counter this negativity, one suggestion is to create a small support group within the workplace. Within this group, look to create a high-trust environment — for example, by ensuring that everyone is treated with respect, by valuing diverse opinions, by encouraging collaboration, by rejecting collusion, and by refusing to engage in gossip or slander. Even small acts like these can make a difference.

Join the conversation here!

Does your work get to people's biases — especially those informed by race- and gender-based stereotypes? And how can leaders overcome these challenges?

Yes, our trust framework does account for the impact of bias on trustworthiness perceptions. Bias factors into identity-based trust, which highlights the role that emotional processes and non-rational judgments play in informing trustworthiness assessments. These assessments are not always accurate, and as such, there’s a difference between being trustworthy and actually being trusted.

We also know that impressions of leader legitimacy are shaped by racial and gender stereotypes. Cultural beliefs about race have created a stereotype of Black Americans as interpersonally warm (that is, caring, nurturing, and concerned with the wellbeing of others). By contrast, White leaders are stereotyped as being competent. Because leadership itself is associated with competence, these stereotypes encourage us to think that White people are more deserving of leadership roles than Black people. They also cause us to see Black leaders as more incompetent than their White counterparts even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

In situations like this, what can be done? A lot of the solutions have to be structural in nature. Beyond that, individual leadership practices may help overcome perceptions of trustworthiness informed by racial or gender biases.

Two potentially productive practices here are procedural justice and benevolent power use. Procedural justice aims for representativeness in decision-making: the idea is that people care not just about the consequences of a decision, but how that decision was made. To address these concerns, giving people a chance to provide input can send the message that a leader values them.

Benevolent power use has to do with providing employees resources to facilitate their professional growth. The idea is that by acting benevolently toward another without anticipation of any reward, leaders can increase a worker’s identification with them – thus helping them gain legitimacy.

A 2024 study found that benevolent power use may be a more effective pathway to legitimacy for minoritized leaders. More broadly, the study found that “to gain legitimacy, authority behaviors must produce impressions that align with culturally shared meanings associated with their racial identity."

Join the conversation here!

When it comes to shepherding organizational change, do you have tips for building trust with employees who do not believe that any change should happen at all?

It’s important to recognize at the outset here that resistance to change is normal. Our world is increasingly chaotic, and the pace of change seems to keep accelerating. Given that, change aversion is often logical; in many cases, it’s a survival strategy. Acknowledging that it’s perfectly natural to be wary of change is a good strategy for leaders to take; it sends the message that we need to think critically about change.

The relationship between organizational change and trust is a close one. Organizational change injects uncertainty into workplace environments, and this uncertainty often prompts employees to reassess the amount of trust they place in leadership. Usually, we see one of two outcomes: either organizational change builds internal trust, or it destroys it. The question of which way things go comes down to how change processes are structured.

Generally speaking, the best kinds of change processes are those characterized by leader openness and active employee participation.

First, think about how you’re framing the message. If people see what you’re proposing as just “change for change’s sake,” they’re going to be less supportive than they would be if the message was “we’re making X change to improve Y situation.” Be honest with employees, providing a clear rationale for the proposed change, and highlight its benefits. Communicate how change can give them a chance to grow and learn, and improve job satisfaction.

Second, ask what's making people resistant to a proposed change -- in particular, what they’re afraid of losing. Employees could be unsure as to why the change is being pursued, unsure of how it will impact their workloads or autonomy, or unsure of the organization’s ability to successfully implement the change.

Lastly, demonstrate some follow through, adjusting proposed organizational changes based on employee feedback.

The importance of openness and participatory processes cannot be overstated here. When leaders aren’t open about their thoughts, employees can come to feel that they’re concealing the real reasons for a change. By contrast, when leaders are open, employees feel a sense of psychological safety. And when employees are actively involved in organizational change processes, the result is often not just better decisions, but more positive attitudes toward change overall.

Join the conversation here!