Trust as a Workplace Practice: What We Miss When We Treat It as Optional

In many conversations about burnout, disengagement, and turnover, trust is implied but rarely examined directly. People say they don’t trust leadership, don’t trust HR, or don’t trust the system — and the conversation often stops there, framed as either cynicism or personal dissatisfaction.

But trust is not a feeling people either have or don’t have. It’s a set of behaviors, reinforced (or undermined) over time.

In a recent conversation on the Hard at Work podcast, I spoke with Minda Harts, whose most recent book focuses on trust as a practical, repairable component of workplace culture. Her framework doesn’t ask leaders or employees to be more “positive” or “resilient.” It asks them to be more intentional.

That distinction matters.

Why trust feels absent at work

In the episode, Minda points out that most people instinctively understand trust in personal relationships. When trust erodes with a partner or friend, we notice it immediately. We talk about it. We assess whether the relationship is sustainable.

At work, however, trust erosion is often treated as inevitable — something to endure rather than address. Many employees enter workplaces already braced for disappointment, assuming opacity, inconsistency, and power imbalances are simply “how things work.”

This normalization has consequences. When trust is missing, people become guarded. They stop asking questions, stop offering ideas, and stop taking interpersonal risks. Work becomes isolating. Workplace health erodes. Burnout follows.

Importantly, this isn’t just an employee experience problem. It’s an organizational one. Productivity, retention, and collaboration all suffer when people don’t believe their leaders will act with clarity, fairness, or follow-through.

Trust isn’t abstract — it’s behavioral

One of my favorite parts of Minda’s work is her insistence that trust be made concrete. Rather than treating trust as a vague cultural value, she identifies seven “trust languages” — specific ways trust is built or damaged through everyday actions.

These include transparency, security (psychological safety), demonstration, feedback, acknowledgement, sensitivity, and follow-through. While individuals may prioritize these differently, the pattern is consistent: trust erodes when expectations go unnamed and behaviors don’t align with stated values.

For example, organizations often say they value equity, flexibility, or internal growth. But employees pay attention to what is actually rewarded, promoted, and resourced. When words and actions diverge — even unintentionally — trust weakens.

Crucially, rebuilding trust doesn’t require perfection. It requires honesty. Naming uncertainty, explaining constraints, and acknowledging misalignment can preserve trust even during difficult moments like layoffs, reorganizations, or policy changes.

The role of leaders — and everyone else

Trust work is often framed as a leadership responsibility, and in many ways it is. Managers set the tone for whether people feel safe to speak, ask for clarity, or name concerns. Small behaviors — how feedback is delivered, whether commitments are kept, how decisions are communicated — compound quickly.

At the same time, trust is relational. Teams function better when everyone understands their role in maintaining it. That includes following through, communicating directly, and resisting assumptions when information is incomplete.

One of the simplest, and most underused, trust-building practices is also one of the most effective: asking people what trust looks like to them. Not as a performance exercise, but as a genuine inquiry. The answer often reveals actionable insights like clarity, feedback, and acknowledgment that cost little but matter deeply.

When trust can’t be repaired

Not all trust ruptures are recoverable. Rebuilding trust requires consistent demonstration over time. When harmful behaviors repeat, or when organizations refuse to acknowledge impact, employees are often left questioning their own perceptions.

In those cases, clarity is still valuable. Understanding that a system is unwilling or unable to change allows people to make informed decisions about their own wellbeing, rather than remaining stuck in self-doubt.

Trust in the workplace is not about comfort. It’s about coherence — between values and actions, between expectations and reality. When that coherence is missing, no amount of engagement surveys or culture slogans can compensate.

TL; DR: The ability to build trust is a critical leadership trait

Workplaces are changing rapidly, and many leaders feel pressure to return to what once felt familiar. But “normal” is not a stable reference point. Trust, on the other hand, can be.

Treating trust as a practice — something built through everyday choices — offers a more realistic path forward than nostalgia or control. It asks less about charisma or certainty, and more about consistency, clarity, and care.

Those may not be flashy leadership traits. But they are sustainable ones.

Many thanks to Minda Harts for sharing her expertise on the Hard at Work podcast – check out her book here, and listen to the episode wherever you get your podcasts.