One Truth: Trust Is Dynamic

Here’s the headline version of what organisational research actually says about trust in teams.

Source: Trust in work teams: Author(s): Ana Cristina Costa, C. Ashley Fulmer and Neil R. Anderson: Journal of Organizational Behavior , February 2018, Vol. 39, No. 2, Special Issue: The JOB Annual Review (February 2018), pp. 169-184

‍

1️⃣ Trust = “I’ll take a risk with you”

‍

The most widely cited definition of trust comes from Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995). They describe trust as:

A willingness to be vulnerable based on positive expectations of another’s intentions or behaviour.

That word — vulnerability — is doing a lot of work.

Trust isn’t comfort. It’s not liking someone. And it’s definitely not the absence of doubt. 

Trust exists precisely because something could go wrong. When I trust a teammate, I’m choosing to act despite uncertainty: to share information early, to depend on their delivery, or to speak honestly instead of defensively.

This reframing matters for leaders. Trust doesn’t grow because people feel relaxed. It grows because people repeatedly take small, visible risks — and those risks are handled well.

‍

2️⃣ Trust rests on three judgements

‍

Most trust decisions boil down to three ongoing assessments:

• Ability – Can you actually do what’s required?
  
  
• Benevolence – Do you have my interests (and the team’s) at heart?
  
  
• Integrity – Do you act consistently and keep your word?

These aren’t abstract values. They’re practical, lived judgements formed through day-to-day interactions.

• Miss a deadline? That’s an ability signal.
• Throw someone under the bus? Benevolence takes a hit.
• Change the rules quietly? Integrity erodes.

Crucially, these judgements drive trust — and trust then drives behaviour. When people believe others are able, well-intentioned, and principled, they’re more willing to take interpersonal risks. When any one of those pillars weakens, risk-taking contracts.

‍

3️⃣ Trust has two forms

‍

Therefore researchers often distinguish between two types of trust (notably McAllister, 1995):

• Cognitive trust – “I believe you’re reliable and competent.”
  
  
• Affective trust – “I believe you genuinely care and mean well.”

Both matter, but they show up differently depending on the work.

Cognitive trust tends to dominate in professional, task-focused settings — especially early on. It’s about predictability, follow-through, and shared standards. Affective trust develops more slowly and is rooted in emotional bonds, mutual care, and goodwill.

High-performing teams usually have both. But they don’t always need them in equal measure. A surgical team, a flight crew, or a temporary project group can function extremely well with strong cognitive trust and relatively little emotional closeness — as long as reliability is high.

‍

4️⃣ Trust is dynamic, not a trait

‍

One of the biggest misconceptions about trust is that it’s something people have.

In reality, trust behaves more like a feedback loop:

I take a risk → I observe what happens → my trust updates

Every interaction nudges trust up or down. Delivering on a commitment reinforces it. A missed signal weakens it. Silence after a concern can undo weeks of progress.

This has important implications. One trust exercise doesn’t “fix” trust. Trust must be continually reinforced through everyday behaviour

Trust isn’t built in workshops. It’s built — or broken — in meetings, handovers, decisions, and follow-through.

‍

5️⃣ Swift trust is fragile

‍

Interestingly, teams don’t always start from zero.

Temporary, professional, or virtual teams often begin with swift trust — an assumption of trust based on roles, credentials, or shared professional norms. The unspoken agreement is: “We’re all professionals here.”

This allows teams to move fast. But swift trust has a short half-life.

Because it relies heavily on assumed ability and integrity — not yet on benevolence — it is quickly confirmed or destroyed by what happens next. Missed commitments, vague communication, or unclear ownership can cause trust to collapse just as quickly as it appeared.

Swift trust is efficient. It’s just unforgiving.

‍

6️⃣ Trust helps performance — but it’s not magic

‍

There is strong evidence linking trust and performance, collaboration, and employee engagement. 

Teams with higher trust tend to share information more freely, coordinate more effectively, and adapt faster.

But the relationship is not simple.

Research shows that:

• the strength of the trust–performance link varies by different tasks
• timing matters (early vs. mature teams)
• measurement is messy and often over-simplified

Which makes trust a poor candidate for universal claims like “trust fixes everything.”

A more accurate view is this: trust is an essential enabler, not a cure-all.

It creates the conditions for good work — but it doesn’t replace clarity, competence, or accountability.

A useful corrective to the usual LinkedIn wisdom — and a much better starting point for leaders.

‍