As author Frank Sonnenberg said, “Trust is like blood pressure. It’s silent, vital to good health, and if abused, can be deadly.”
In a destabilizing world full of competing pressures—social grievance, political distrust, economic uncertainty, and rapid AI‑driven change—trust is one of the only scalable advantages business leaders can still control.
In the past two years, global trust has pulled inward: according to the Edelman Trust Institute, people increasingly believe leaders purposely mislead them, and 70% say they hesitate to trust those with different values or information sources, retreating into closed circles at work and at home.
In this environment, leaders won’t regain commitment with empty slogans or perks. They will do it by making decisions that are predictable, fair, and visibly aligned with people’s interests.
That’s what Sandra Sucher, professor of management practice at Harvard Business School, argues leaders must do now. Sucher has spent her career, including twelve years at Fidelity Investments as Chief Quality Officer, studying trust not as a soft sentiment, but as a measurable, behavioral system that leaders can deliberately build or quickly destroy.
No organization tracks trust more closely than the Edelman Trust Institute, where Sucher serves on the advisory board. From 2023 to 2026, Edelman’s Trust Barometer has captured a striking shift: society is moving from polarization, to grievance, to insularity.
Edelman's 2025 Trust Barometer focused on what they call a ‘crisis of grievance.’ “People aren’t just divided. They’re angry,” said Sucher. “That shift from ‘we disagree’ to ‘I actively dislike you’ is now a powerful force in society.”
Sucher emphasizes that misinformation and disinformation escalate this destabilization in different ways: misinformation spreads unintentionally, while disinformation aims to deceive. Both erode trust in foundations people once relied on.
Past cycles of polarization have now deepened into emotional volatility, fear, and a sense of abandonment by institutions. We are becoming markedly less willing to trust across difference.
“People follow leaders who take their interests into account,” she explains. “That’s not partisan. That’s how trust works.”
Despite global turbulence, workplaces have long functioned as a kind of “safe zone.” As Sucher notes, workplaces bring together people with varied backgrounds but a shared purpose, creating a buffer that neutralizes some friction.
But the external environment is starting to breach that boundary. Employees increasingly carry elevated emotional temperatures, concerns about fairness, and anxiety about their future.
People worry about:
Discrimination and belonging
Job security and reorganizations
Automation and AI threatening their future employability
Whether leadership will make decisions that harm them
"[Business] leaders need to do a much better job of explaining what we are trying to accomplish here,” said Sucher. Between political turmoil, economic volatility, and AI disruption, employees have become less able than ever to articulate the strategy of their own organizations.
“They don’t know the go‑to‑market approach, the intended outcomes, or the logic behind major decisions. And when people operate in a ‘mission and vision vacuum,’ they become unmoored. They can’t understand or predict what’s coming next."
As trust collapses outward and consolidates inward, employers inherit a new role: trust-broker. For many people, the workplace is now the only institution they still expect to bridge divides.
Sucher’s work is distinctive in that she treats trust as a process rather than a feeling.
“Trust is a willingness to be vulnerable to other people’s actions and intentions,” she explains. “You can’t command it. You earn it based on how your actions affect someone else’s life.”
One of the most intuitive ways to understand trust comes from negotiation. In Beyond Reason, Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro describe the core concerns people bring into every relationship:
Appreciation—Am I recognized for what I do well?
Affiliation—Do I belong here?
Autonomy—Do I know what I can do independently, and where the boundaries are?
Status—Is my expertise recognized where it’s warranted?
Role—Does my role allow me to meet these needs?
“Trust requires flipping the typical business-outward perspective,” Sucher says. “It’s not about our goals, metrics, or objectives. It’s what the other person needs from you in order to trust.”
Trust operates on two levels:
Organizational trust—Are systems fair, consistent, and transparent?
Interpersonal trust—Do your daily behaviors show competence, respect, and care?
Sucher’s guiding principle: leaders must view trust from the standpoint of the trusting party. What does this person need to trust me?
Uncertainty heightens emotion. People react strongly when they lack predictability, clarity, or control. Sucher’s research highlights three leadership strategies that restore trust during volatile periods.
During the 2020 pandemic, Twiddy & Company—a vacation rental business in North Carolina—modeled this through what they called information equity. Leaders clearly communicated:
What they knew
What they didn’t know
What people could expect
How pay decisions or layoffs would be determined
The result was striking. While the hospitality industry saw roughly 95% turnover, Twiddy experienced just 20%.
In an insular environment, predictability isn’t merely comforting—it is one of the few forces that can reopen people’s willingness to trust beyond their inner circle.
Many organizations today operate in a “mission vacuum,” where employees cannot articulate what the company is trying to achieve. Sucher stresses that clarity of purpose is one of the strongest trust‑building forces available to leaders.
“Trust is built through consistent, fair, transparent action,” Sucher says. “One decision, one conversation, one moment at a time.”
Employees need to understand:
Why they’re here and why their work matters
How success is defined—what “good” looks like
How their contributions fit into the whole
In hybrid and digital environments, these grounding conversations often get lost. Leaders must be intentional and communicate more than they think they need to.
For some leaders, trust is intuitive. “For others,” Sucher says, “it’s difficult because they think of trust as a feeling and we’re taught you can’t control other people’s feelings. But you can control your actions, and trust is grounded in actions.”
That makes trust measurable. And organizations are already measuring it in different ways, even if they don’t label them that way:
Climate and engagement surveys
Exit interviews
Customer feedback loops
A fintech bank in Kazakhstan, for example, calls 30,000 customers a month within 30 minutes of a transaction to ask: “Would you recommend us—and why?” The responses reveal real-time friction points, emotional experience, and whether current products have earned enough trust to justify future ones.
“People will never buy your next product if they don’t trust your current product,” the CEO told Sucher.
Sucher’s four trust dimensions offer a framework for measurement:
Competence—Do we know what we’re doing?
Motives—Do we take people’s interests into account?
Fairness—Do people feel treated consistently and ethically?
Impact—Do our actions improve people’s lives?
Simple questions mapped to these dimensions allow organizations to treat trust as actionable, not abstract.
Trust is built through consistent, transparent, fair actions—especially in destabilizing times. As social anger intensifies, trust in institutions falters, and AI reshapes expectations, leaders face both a responsibility and an opportunity.
People trust leaders who take their interests into account. Those who act predictably, ethically, and with clarity can rebuild it.
By Sandra J. Sucher & Shalene Gupta (Harvard Business School)
Competence: Can you do what you say you will do?
Example: Delivering a product on time and as promised. A leader who consistently follows through on commitments, even small ones, signals reliability.
Red flag: Overpromising and underdelivering erodes trust quickly.
Motives: Whose interests are you serving?
Example: Prioritizing employee well-being during a crisis, even at short-term cost. Leaders who explain the “why” behind decisions and show genuine care build trust.
Red flag: If people sense self-interest or hidden agendas, trust evaporates.
Means: Are your processes and behaviors fair and ethical?
Example: Applying promotion criteria transparently and consistently. Handling layoffs with empathy, clear communication, and support for those affected.
Red flag: Perceived favoritism, secrecy, or inconsistent treatment undermines trust.
Impact: Do your actions create positive outcomes for all stakeholders (including employees)?
Example: Measuring and addressing the real-world effects of organizational decisions. Leaders who check in after a major change to see how people are coping and adjust course if needed.
Red flag: Ignoring or minimizing harm, even if unintentional, damages trust.
Why it matters: Organizations that score high on all four elements are more likely to attract talent, retain customers, and weather crises. Those that fall short risk disengagement and decline.
Shaffer, E. (2021). The trust gap: The impact on employees in Europe. Catalyst.
Edelman Trust Institute. (2025). 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer: Trust and the crisis of grievance.
Edelman Trust Institute. (2026). 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer: Trust amid insularity.