Our guest today disagrees. Quite fundamentally. He has spent years studying how people actually make decisions — under pressure, in competition, in cooperation. And what he finds is that emotions don't cloud judgment. They are part of how judgment works. Trust is not a calculation with feelings getting in the way. Trust is a feeling — one that shapes the calculation from the start.

He has conducted experiments showing that a single hormone can make people more trusting than they should be. How mistrust becomes self-fulfilling. And how a toxic workplace doesn't just harm the people inside it, it spreads outward into society. He calls it social pollution.

Our guest is Eyal Winter, Professor of Economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the author of Feeling Smart: Why Our Emotions Are More Rational Than We Think.

In this conversation, Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and author of The Seven Rules of Trust, talks about what it actually takes to build trust at scale. We discuss why assuming good faith works better than suspicion, why civil conversation is rare online but does not have to be, and what the Nixon checkers speech teaches us about transparency. We also look at how organizations can recover from a trust crisis, and why, more often than people think, they can.

In this episode of TrustTalk, we speak with Dick Boer, former CEO of Ahold Delhaize and now a board member and advisor to several large companies, who led one of the world’s largest food retail companies through major transformations, including a global merger and the aftermath of a corporate crisis. He reflects on how trust operates at every level of retail, from food quality and sourcing to employees, customers, and society.

Dick Boer shares candid insights on the dilemmas leaders face when values collide with commercial pressures, why trust must be actively rebuilt after a crisis, and how leadership culture differs across countries. He also discusses the importance of purpose-driven leadership, the role of transparency with boards and teams, and why trust in leadership ultimately begins with building the right team.

Looking back on his career, he reflects on the hardest lessons he learned about trust, the importance of staying grounded as a leader, and why openness, honesty, and the courage to make difficult decisions are essential to maintaining trust over time.

In this conversation, David unpacks what he calls insularity: the homogenization of trust to the point where 7 in 10 people hesitate to trust someone who is simply different from them. He also explains why trust isn't disappearing overall but becoming dangerously uneven, with the gap between those who feel institutions work for them and those who feel the system is stacked against them widening every year.

We dig into why employers have become the unlikely safe harbour of trust, what "certainty bubbles" can teach businesses navigating uncertainty, and why trust brokering, helping groups understand each other rather than trying to change each other, may be the most realistic path forward in today's climate.

David also shares three things most people fundamentally misunderstand about trust: that just because you experience trust every day doesn't mean you understand how it works; that there are different kinds of trust, in ability, in motivation, in integrity, each granting a different licence to the people or institutions that earn them; and that trust is something you have to actively strategise around and build on purpose. It doesn't simply come from being a good company or doing your job well.

In this episode of TrustTalk, we speak with cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier of the CNRS in Paris and co-author of The Enigma of Reason. He explains why humans may be better at reasoning than we assume, why disagreement often turns on trust rather than logic, and what this means for science communication, polarization, and our ability to reason together.

Hugo Mercier also reflects on how confirmation bias can serve a useful function in group deliberation, why personal and local relationships often succeed where institutional messaging fails, and why, despite everything, he remains cautiously optimistic about our collective capacity to reason well.

This episode looks beyond Greenland to a bigger question: what happens when the world’s most powerful country starts behaving like an unreliable partner? International law, trade agreements, and security alliances only work if states believe others will still play by the rules when it no longer suits them. That belief is now under strain.

With Gregory Shaffer, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of International Law at Georgetown, we talk about power, coercion, and the quiet erosion of trust in international treaties. Is the U.S. still seen as a credible partner? Are rules giving way to pressure politics? And are we already sliding into a global order where raw power matters more than promises? This is not just a diplomatic story. It may be a systemic risk.

In this episode, Ruben Beijl, co-author of Time for Trust (Tijd voor Vertrouwen), discusses how trust is built through participation and erodes when participation is only symbolic. Drawing on his work with citizens’ assemblies, Ruben explains why people do not lose trust because they disagree with outcomes, but because their voices ultimately do not matter. He shows why disagreement can coexist with trust, while being ignored cannot, and why psychological safety is essential if people are expected to speak openly and honestly.

The conversation also explores why timing is crucial, why informing citizens is not the same as involving them, and why handing over real responsibility is often the hardest step for institutions. Ruben argues that trust grows when governments are willing to create genuine space for influence, even when that means giving up control and accepting uncertainty.

This episode offers a clear, practice-based look at trust as something shaped by everyday choices and institutional behavior, rather than by intentions alone.

He defines trust in practical terms: the likelihood of being cheated. When corruption is low and the rule of law applies equally, people learn that cooperation usually pays. That is why corruption is so destructive, it signals that some people are above the rules, and once that belief takes hold, trust quickly erodes.

Much of Denmark’s resilience, Gert explains, comes from long traditions of face-to-face trade and strong social norms. People learned that cheating carried social costs. That still matters today. Most people are what he calls “hard riders”: willing to cooperate and contribute. Trust survives because “tough riders” step in when someone breaks the rules, correcting behavior before it spreads.

The same logic applies to politics. High trust makes consensus possible. Citizens carry a lifetime record of successful cooperation — a “trust rucksack” — which makes compromise feel safe. Compared with the Netherlands, Gert sees Denmark as less polarized, partly because political dialogue remains strong even with extreme parties.

Strong institutions are just as important. Low corruption and real meritocracy allow people to believe the system is fair. In welfare states, this is crucial: citizens must trust that taxes are used well and that everyone who can contribute does so. When that balance holds, welfare becomes a form of collective insurance rather than a source of resentment.

Gert warns against over-control. Treating everyone as a potential cheat undermines trust and raises costs. As he puts it: 100 percent control equals zero trust. The biggest long-term risks for Denmark are creeping bureaucracy, centralization of power, and declining face-to-face interaction. Trust, he says, is like a winning sports team — it only lasts if you keep training. Once taken for granted, it can disappear faster than anyone expects.

Drawing on fieldwork and survey research in places such as Mosul, this conversation challenges the idea that trust in wartime is driven by ideology or belief. Instead, it shows how trust under extreme conditions is often pragmatic. Civilians compare dangerous alternatives and look for the authority that appears more predictable, less arbitrary, and more likely to follow its own rules.

The episode explores why predictability and procedural fairness can matter more than political values or formal freedoms. Even harsh systems of rule may generate compliance when courts function quickly, corruption is limited, and rules are applied consistently. This does not produce genuine legitimacy, but it can feel safer than alternatives marked by chaos or bribery.

We also discuss how civilians navigate situations of competitive governance, where states and armed groups both claim authority. Trust becomes relative rather than absolute and is shaped by everyday experiences with justice, security, and basic services. This form of trust is fragile and erodes quickly when governance becomes more coercive or unpredictable.

The conversation examines how military conduct affects civilian perceptions during active conflict. Civilians judge armed actors by perceived intent, proportionality, and communication. Harm that is poorly explained or left uncompensated can undermine trust, even when unintended, while material compensation often matters more than apologies alone.

Finally, the episode turns to post-conflict justice and reintegration. Externally imposed solutions often struggle to gain trust when communities are excluded from their design. While rehabilitation, apologies, and compensation can help rebuild social relations, there are limits shaped by the severity of past harm and time.

A central insight runs throughout the episode: trust in wartime is not about shared values or moral approval, but about survival and predictability when every option is risky.

We also dive into Twiddy’s pandemic playbook, where open communication became a lifeline; Itochu’s long-term social commitments, which contrast sharply with Western quarterly pressures; and the Financial Times’ transparent approach to generative AI, setting a new benchmark for media trust.

Together, these cases reveal patterns: leaders often misjudge crises, overlook human impact, and underestimate how long it truly takes to repair trust, yet the organizations that get it right show that trust can be a real competitive advantage.

We examine how post-2008 rules improved resilience but also created expectations that governments will always intervene. That expectation has its own dangers. If markets believe support is guaranteed, discipline erodes, and when the government reaches its limits, panic can spread even faster. Kathryn stresses that credible transparency paired with the ability to act remains essential. She highlights the successful stress tests after the financial crisis as a rare example where disclosure built trust instead of shaking it. Balance sheet strength, liquidity, and established human relationships continue to be powerful stabilizers.

We discuss the current political environment and the pressures facing central banks. The Federal Reserve’s independence, she notes, has always been fragile, designed to avoid short-term political influence over monetary policy. Once doubt about that independence grows, long-term inflation expectations and sovereign credibility can shift, which households eventually feel in the form of higher prices, interest rates, and economic uncertainty.

Kate Judge also touches on her work on the middleman economy, describing how long supply chains and platform-based systems create efficiency but reduce direct connection. Efficiency comes with fragility, and the loss of human connection makes trust harder to form and easier to lose.

Toward the end of the conversation, we move to Europe and the debate over Eurobonds. She explains that shared debt across EU member states could deepen trust and strengthen the financial system if supported by genuine political commitment. At the same time, linking national financial destinies increases scrutiny and potential friction. Trust and vulnerability rise together, and success would depend on a shared willingness to stand together in good times and in crisis.

Her core message is straightforward: trust makes finance work until the moment it breaks, and rebuilding it is far harder than maintaining it. Real stability comes from credible commitments, transparency paired with action, and deeper human and institutional relationships.

He refers to striking examples: from the Dutch childcare benefits scandal (het Toeslagenschandaal), where automated systems falsely labeled thousands of families as fraudsters, often targeting those with foreign-sounding names, to the Volkswagen emissions case, Germany’s Wirecard collapse, and earlier accounting scandals such as Arthur Andersen. These moments, he argues, are not just technical failures but moral ones: “Institutions must first acknowledge what went wrong, in detail, and explain the logic that led to it. Only then can corrective actions sound credible.” They show how technology, bureaucracy, and misaligned incentives can devastate public trust together.

Chris also discusses the fine line between control and trust inside organizations. After Covid, many leaders demanded employees return to the office without consultation, framing control as discipline rather than dialogue. Absolute trust, he insists, grows when people are given a voice and when leaders show vulnerability, asking for people’s opinions, and showing how those opinions shape their decisions.

From the Tylenol crisis of the 1980s to modern corporate and political scandals, Chris’s message is consistent: trust is rebuilt only through visible accountability, transparency, and shared ownership of mistakes.

Drawing on his New York Times op-ed, Dan reflects on how the Justice Department’s credibility weakened during the Trump years as prosecutors and FBI agents faced political pressure and courtroom integrity gave way to partisanship. He discusses how prosecutorial choices shape people’s sense of fairness, why complete transparency isn’t always possible, and how difficult it is to remain accountable without turning justice into a political issue.

This conversation offers a clear and honest examination of what happens when trust in law enforcement begins to erode, and why the integrity of prosecutors is crucial to maintaining any democracy grounded in the rule of law.

The conversation explores the uneasy boundary between law and politics. Sumption reflects on the long history of the U.S. Supreme Court as a political actor, from the Lochner era’s resistance to worker protections, through clashes with Roosevelt’s New Deal, to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision on school segregation. He examines the controversies of Roe v. Wade and its recent reversal, warning that both decisions undermined trust in different ways.

Lord Sumption also considers how courts respond when politics fails, the role of judicial appointments in shaping independence, and why democracies today struggle with expectations they cannot meet. Despite widespread skepticism, he insists that neutrality is not a myth: judges can set aside personal opinions, and trust in courts depends on their ability to do so.

This episode offers a sobering yet hopeful look at the fragile balance between courts, politics, and public trust and why defending judicial neutrality is essential for the future of democracy.

The conversation begins with two striking images from Mayer’s FINT talk: HAL 9000, the eerily calm AI from the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey", and the Shoggoth, a chaotic, shapeshifting creature recently adopted as a meme in AI circles. Mayer uses these metaphors to illustrate a central dilemma: as AI systems become more powerful and autonomous, how do we trust something we don’t fully understand?

Mayer introduces the concept of state-level suspicion, based on research by Bobko, Barelka, and Hirshfield. He explains that suspicion isn’t just a gut feeling; it’s a cognitive state involving uncertainty, heightened awareness, and the perception of possible harm. Far from being purely negative, suspicion may serve as a protective and even constructive force in complex organizational settings.

A major focus of the episode is what Mayer calls Organizational Dissociative Identity Disorder (ODID). In this phenomenon, organizations send conflicting signals to employees, behave inconsistently, or act as if they have “multiple personalities.” Whether caused by mergers, mission drift, or rogue internal actors, ODID can undermine trust and leave employees feeling destabilized. Roger discusses how AI can further complicate this dynamic when its decision-making processes are opaque or misaligned with human expectations.

Roger Mayer previously appeared on TrustTalk in our March 13, 2024 episode, where we explored the foundations of his trust model. In this follow-up conversation, we focus on the emerging tensions between trust, technology, and organizational coherence.

Evenett reflects on the shift from trade as a cooperative force to trade as a geopolitical weapon. Governments increasingly use export controls and trade restrictions to serve foreign policy and national security goals, and global institutions like the WTO are struggling to keep up. The WTO, once a cornerstone of global trade, is now weakened, especially in areas where rules on export controls are thin or unenforceable.

He also examines the fallout from recent U.S. policies, particularly the “America First” agenda, which has eroded trust in the U.S. as a reliable trading partner. On the business side, Evenett notes that companies operating across borders are placing a growing premium on reliability. In today’s unpredictable world, trust has become a competitive advantage.

While some global trade remains essential—such as in raw materials—many firms are beginning to favor regional supply chains where political stability and trust are stronger. Evenett believes that rebuilding global trust won't necessarily require new institutions but rather a government recommitment to stable, predictable trade policies. He sees promise in smaller coalitions of like-minded countries forming “oases of stability” in an otherwise fragmented trade landscape.

His closing advice to future policymakers: spend more time understanding how businesses work. Trade policy detached from commercial realities risks is doing more harm than good.

Eliot recounts his unconventional path into investigative journalism, his motivations for launching Bellingcat, and the organization’s mission to make evidence-based inquiry accessible to all. He reflects on the fragile state of public trust, the manipulation of truth in the digital age, and the ethical tightrope walked by journalists today.

This conversation dives into the challenges of verifying facts in a landscape shaped by AI, deepfakes, and engagement-driven algorithms—and offers a hopeful vision for how transparency, critical thinking, and a new generation of citizen investigators can safeguard the future of democratic discourse. A must-listen for anyone passionate about the power and purpose of investigative journalism in turbulent times.

Musa takes us inside the contradictions of elite spaces—like universities, corporate boardrooms, and media—where people often speak the language of progress and justice but still benefit from systems of inequality in quiet, everyday ways.

He shares a revealing example from the book: in many affluent, progressive households, both partners work full-time and embrace feminist values. But maintaining that lifestyle often relies on hiring others, usually women from less privileged backgrounds, including undocumented immigrants, to handle childcare, housework, and elder care. These workers are often paid low wages and have little job security, which helps make the dual-income model financially sustainable. It raises uncomfortable questions about whose labor supports the professional success and ideals of equality in these households.

We also talk about how the word woke, which began as a call within Black communities to stay alert to injustice, has been pulled into today’s culture wars. Musa explains that while the term was once embraced by progressives, it’s now often used as a political weapon. For some, woke signals awareness and moral concern; for others, it's become shorthand for elitism or overreach. He compares this shift to what happened with “political correctness” in the 1990s: both terms started with good intentions, but eventually became lightning rods in debates that often say more about power and identity than the issues themselves.

The conversation turns to DEI programs (Diversity, Equity & Inclusion), which Musa says often do more for those already thriving in elite spaces than for those facing real structural barriers. Instead of leveling the playing field, these initiatives can reinforce existing hierarchies—especially when they focus more on image than impact.

He also challenges the idea that people distrust institutions just because of fake news or social media. In many cases, people feel left out or ignored—not because they’ve been misled, but because the institutions don’t actually reflect their values or serve their needs. So what would it take to rebuild trust? Musa argues it’s not about using the right buzzwords—it’s about real accountability, more equal access to power, and practical policies that improve everyday lives.

Anat explains that much of the financial system operates on the illusion of oversight and accountability. While many believe that governments, regulators, and boards are safeguarding the public interest, the reality is often one of regulatory capture, corporate self-interest, and systemic opacity. She challenges listeners to rethink assumptions about “checks and balances” in modern capitalism.

She also reflects on the role of academics and public intellectuals in holding power to account. While research often stays behind paywalls or within elite circles, Admati calls on scholars to engage more directly with public discourse—and describes the resistance they often face when challenging the status quo. The conversation covers trust, leadership, corporate governance, and the failures of financial reform. Anat argues that effective change requires more than technical fixes—it requires moral courage, transparency, and a willingness to challenge institutional convenience.

Joel highlights that leaders often assume they act fairly, but employees may perceive things differently. Research shows that workers who feel disrespected during layoffs are 17 times more likely to sue, and similar patterns exist in medical malpractice cases. He stresses that clear, respectful communication and follow-up are key to ensuring fairness is both real and perceived.

The discussion also explores trust and control, noting that leaders who involve employees in decision-making and explain their reasoning gain more engagement. Joel warns that job insecurity and uncertainty make fairness even more important, as people become highly sensitive to how they are treated during tough times.

With the rise of remote work and AI-driven decisions, fairness challenges are growing. Remote employees may feel disconnected, and algorithm-based decisions can seem opaque. Leaders must actively communicate, clarify processes, and ensure transparency to maintain trust in these evolving environments.

Joel’s key takeaway: Fairness is an investment that prevents bigger problems later. Leaders who cut corners on transparency and respect may save time in the short term, but they risk distrust, resistance, and legal issues in the long run. His advice? “Pay a little now, or pay a lot later.”

Hernandez passionately illustrates how immigrants are woven into the fabric of our daily lives. He paints a vivid picture, asking listeners to think about their day—from breakfast to bedtime. The foods on our tables, the music that moves us, and the products we buy are all enriched by immigrant contributions. If we removed foods introduced by immigrants, more than half of our grocery carts would be empty. The music that makes us dance, cry, and celebrate—whether salsa, rock, or hip-hop—owes its vibrancy to immigrant cultures. Immigrants shape our tastes, our sounds, and our experiences, making life richer and more colorful.

Challenging the notion that immigrants compete with native-born workers, Hernandez reveals the opposite: they complement the workforce, making economies stronger and more innovative. He shares compelling evidence that immigrants are more likely to start businesses, create new jobs, and drive technological advances. They pay more in taxes than they receive in public services, giving back to the very communities that sometimes fear them.

Hernandez argues that the debate on immigration shouldn’t be about insiders versus outsiders but about seeing immigrants for who they truly are—people who bring hope, hard work, and heart to our societies. He criticizes the common narrative that frames immigrants as victims needing help, pointing out that this approach is politically ineffective and patronizing. Instead, he urges us to see immigration through a new lens—not as charity or humanitarian aid but as an economic opportunity that benefits everyone. He emphasizes that immigrants bring investment, innovation, and energy, helping economies grow and societies thrive. By recognizing the value immigrants add, we move beyond a narrative of pity or fear and toward one of shared prosperity.

He shares the personal story of an undocumented barber in Philadelphia—an incredibly talented man with $200,000 saved to start his own business but unable to do so because of his legal status. This isn’t just about one man’s dream; it’s about the potential we lose when we reduce immigrants to stereotypes or political pawns. It’s about the jobs not created, the taxes not paid, and the communities not enriched because of restrictive immigration policies.

Through his passionate words and powerful stories, Hernandez invites us to rethink the way we see immigration—not as a problem to be solved but as an opportunity to be embraced.

She explains that trust between companies is based on two things: competence (can they do the job?) and goodwill (do they have good intentions?). To help businesses understand whether their trust in a partner is justified, she developed a tool that measures trust, perceived performance, and satisfaction. This tool helps companies spot warning signs before problems arise.

Dominika also warns that long-term partnerships can lead to complacency, where companies stick with familiar partners instead of looking for better opportunities. She discusses “hostage arrangements,” like shared investments, that make it costly for businesses to break trust. But if trust only exists because of financial ties, is it really trust?

This episode challenges common ideas about trust in business and highlights why companies should regularly check whether their partnerships are truly working in their favor.

A key theme of the discussion is the role of time in building and eroding trust. Eyal explains that trust is not a one-time decision but a process that unfolds over time. He introduces the concept of timing in trust, showing how it matters when trust is given, how long it takes to build, and how quickly it can collapse when betrayed. Trust in institutions, for example, is accumulated through repeated positive interactions but can be destroyed in an instant by a single failure or scandal. This is why governments, companies, and even personal relationships must continuously maintain trust—because it is never fully secured.

Using the example of choosing a flight, Eyal illustrates the difference between routinized trust, where we simply assume things will work, and informed anticipation, where we actively evaluate risks based on past experience. This distinction, he argues, is crucial in understanding how modern society navigates trust in science, medicine, and politics.

He also explores how expertise has become deeply entangled with politics, making public confidence in institutions more fragile than ever. He explains why mistrust isn’t necessarily a problem, it’s often a rational response to systems that have historically failed certain groups. He highlights research on long Covid patients, showing how their trust in doctors is shaped by personal experiences, rather than blind faith in medical authority.

A particularly provocative argument Eyal makes is that trust itself has become commercialized. Consulting firms, governments, and corporations actively sell trust as a product, offering frameworks and training to "restore trust" in workplaces and institutions. But does all this talk about trust deepen the crisis instead of solving it?

Tina describes trust as a "magic concept"—a powerful yet abstract idea driving organizational change. By using trust as a framework to critically evaluate and reshape control systems, organizations across Denmark and Scandinavia have developed approaches that enhance trust rather than erode it. For instance, Danish municipalities have replaced rigid purchaser-provider models with collaborative frameworks that engage employees and improve outcomes.

A central theme of the conversation is whether granting more autonomy weakens control or strengthens trust. Tina argues that autonomy, when paired with accountability and co-created control systems, can reinforce trust. However, she acknowledges the challenges, particularly for employees unaccustomed to navigating greater freedom. Leaders must actively address trust breaches and provide support to create an environment where trust and control complement one another.

Looking to the future, Tina discusses how global challenges like fiscal pressures and workforce retention are shaping trust-based reforms. She highlights examples from the COVID-19 crisis, where granting trust during uncertainty spurred innovative solutions, such as Denmark’s outdoor teaching and online schooling.

For those intrigued by the interplay of politics, war, and peace, this conversation offers sharp insights and historical perspectives illuminating how alliances are forged and fractured. Ned Lebow reflects on the lessons of history, from Cold War divisions to the present-day struggles for strategic autonomy in Europe, providing a roadmap for navigating the complexities of international trust in an increasingly unstable era.

If you’re passionate about understanding the forces shaping our world—whether it’s the push and pull of diplomacy, the challenges of leadership, or the role of trust in global cooperation—this episode is for you. Join us as we explore what’s at stake for peace, security, and the future of international alliances in these turbulent times.

Adam reflects on how religious communities traditionally provide a shared basis for confidence through common rituals, beliefs, and practices. Beyond this, religion introduces a “vertical axis” of meaning, linking individuals to something greater than themselves, which allows them to trust those beyond their immediate circles. He explores how this orientation fosters trust across boundaries and strengthens communal bonds.

Addressing current challenges, he expresses concern over the entanglement of religion and politics, particularly where nationalism and religious identity merge. This fusion, seen in various countries, often intensifies divisions, fostering exclusion and mistrust rather than unity. He points to examples in Israel, the United States, and India, suggesting that this trend risks further polarizing societies.

Adam also critiques the Western emphasis on individual rights, arguing that this focus can overlook the human need for belonging and community. In discussing his article The Tragedy of Human Rights, co-authored with David Montgomery, he explains that while human rights are essential, they often privilege individual autonomy over collective well-being. He shares an example from Uganda, where local communities prioritized reintegrating former child soldiers to promote communal healing, contrasting with Western approaches that focus on punitive justice.

Reflecting on modern society’s complexity, he notes that the many roles people assume today—such as family members, professionals, and community participants—allow for "hiding" different parts of themselves, which was less common in smaller, more tightly-knit communities. This complexity makes trust more necessary, yet more challenging to achieve, as shared understanding and common values are increasingly fragmented by social media and individualism.

Adam concludes by portraying trust as a “generative” force that can build new futures, not only on a personal level but also with political implications. Through his work with CEDAR, an NGO focused on community engagement across differences, he shares how an openness to others can bridge divides, foster social resilience, and reduce conflict.

Anne also discusses the importance of body language in fostering trust, the role of curiosity in high-stakes negotiations, and how cultural differences impact leadership and relationships. She offers a powerful analogy comparing trust to music, emphasizing the significance of pauses—moments that allow relationships and trust to grow.

Join us as Anne reflects on her career journey, from working in European diplomatic circles to leading teams at Heineken Cambodia, highlighting the importance of authenticity, relationships, and intuition in leadership. This insightful conversation sheds light on how trust can bridge gaps across cultures and lead to meaningful, sustainable outcomes.

Listeners will learn how trust, both in past experiences and in current healthcare providers, plays a critical role in how patients respond to treatments. Finally, Andrea touches on future research opportunities, including how the placebo effect can be better integrated into clinical practice to improve patient outcomes and reduce medication use. This insightful conversation offers a deep dive into the psychology of medicine and the vital role trust plays in healing.

She also discusses her use of motivation theory, which distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. According to this theory, employees perform better when their basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—are met. Frédérique explains how these needs are influenced by control systems and how this balance affects both trust and motivation within organizations.

Frédérique highlights the multifaceted nature of trust, noting that it is context-dependent but guided by a universal sequence: a trustor assesses the trustworthiness of a trustee and decides whether to take a trusting action based on that assessment. She explains that while trust is influenced by situational factors, there are common elements across different contexts, which makes trust a universal yet complex phenomenon.

As the discussion concludes, Frédérique reflects on the challenges faced by young researchers studying trust. She believes that identifying and challenging deeply held beliefs about trust and control will be crucial for advancing trust-based governance. While this is high-risk research, she encourages young professionals to question the status quo to drive meaningful change.

He also examines the growing polarization of trust along party lines, with Democrats and Republicans displaying contrasting levels of trust in institutions like the media, police, and higher education. This polarization complicates efforts to address institutional reform and governance, making it harder to find common ground. He emphasizes how declining trust affects daily life, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, where mistrust in public health institutions led to widespread misinformation and vaccine hesitancy.

Henry highlights the role of economic inequality in eroding trust, arguing that rising inequality and increasing diversity have fostered a sense of distrust and division among Americans. To rebuild trust, he advocates for stronger local media, improved civic education, and initiatives like citizens' assemblies that encourage dialogue and understanding across divides. He also emphasizes the importance of addressing systemic issues to build trust at a societal level, suggesting that focusing on fairness, institutional performance, and civic engagement is key to fostering a more trusting society.

As the discussion concludes, Henry reflects on the challenges facing young researchers studying trust. He suggests that while there is some understanding of how to build trust on an individual level, more research is needed on how to foster trust on a larger, societal scale. His insights offer a thoughtful exploration of the complexities surrounding trust in American democracy and potential strategies for rebuilding it.

Throughout the interview, Sidney provides practical examples to illustrate his points. He cites the Apollo 13 mission as an example of successful crisis management through trust in frontline operators and focusing on what is working rather than what is broken. He discusses the importance of including multiple stakeholder perspectives to learn and improve organizational practices. When addressing severe cases like a dam breaking due to government negligence, Dekker argues for a restorative approach to accountability. This involves truth-telling, repentance, and actions to repair harm and address the needs of affected individuals.

He also connects his views to Kant's philosophy, suggesting that while past actions cannot be undone, the relational consequences can be addressed through restorative practices. He reflects on recent incidents of inappropriate behavior in organizations, stressing the need to address broader sociological issues rather than just individual behaviors. Trust, built on compassion and empathy, is fundamental to fostering a just and safe organizational culture. Sidney concludes by emphasizing the importance of trust in both professional and personal contexts, highlighting its role in collective success and his commitment to promoting restorative justice in organizational safety practices.

He highlights the need to understand trust as expanding networks that increase in complexity., describing trust as information that flows through these networks and levels, allowing for the measurement of trust attitudes in various contexts.

He also introduces the concept of the circular trust loop, consisting of three transformational processes: regaining, rebuilding, and renewing trust. These processes help restore trust in individuals and societies, especially in the face of current global conflicts and uncertainties.

Addressing the integration of biological aspects of trust, Schoppen acknowledges Paul Zak's research on the neurochemical oxytocin but emphasizes the need for a broader, multidimensional approach. He introduces his “integrated multilevel trust framework”, which considers trust from a molecular to a global scale, addressing challenges such as the climate crisis. He further breaks down the cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses that shape trust today. He provides examples, such as hiring decisions, to illustrate how these responses influence our interactions and decisions based on trust.

Discussing the future of trust and AI, Erik raises concerns about whether AI will trust humans rather than the other way around. He explains that AI processes information much faster and more logically than humans, potentially perceiving us as untrustworthy and irrational. This shift necessitates a new field of research on trust in the context of AI.

Zuleeg reflects on the EU’s creation to foster trust among member states through cooperation, laws, institutions, and economic interdependence. However, he notes that recent challenges have decreased trust due to increased diversity and complex crises. He introduces the concept of “cognitive dissonance”, where unrealistic views lead to ineffective actions, and discusses "permapolycrisis," referring to ongoing overlapping crises. He argues that crises can foster trust if faced collectively, as seen during COVID-19 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, though unity is harder in international relations with the US or China.

Zuleeg criticizes the "collective progress illusion," where Europe’s actions are insufficient to meet major challenges. He calls for honesty about the difficult, costly nature of overcoming these challenges, using climate action as an example, and emphasizes strategic planning and involving citizens in long-term solutions. Addressing far-right and populist movements, Zuleeg describes these "anti-parties" as opposing policies without offering solutions. He stresses that democratic leaders must prove democracy can handle complex problems by being honest, admitting mistakes, and emphasizing collective action.

Zuleeg touches upon the role of think tanks like EPC in an environment where facts matter less. He emphasizes producing and explaining facts, adapting to the competitive information marketplace, and engaging in accessible debates. He notes the challenge of ensuring proposed solutions are practical and effective. On EU expansion, he argues that trust is impacted by the. Promises to new members must be credible, but reforms are necessary to ensure the EU functions effectively. He highlights the Western Balkans’ prolonged accession process as a trust issue. Finally, Zuleeg discusses EPC’s future challenges, including adapting to policy developments, crises, and new technologies. Attracting high-level analysts and dealing with technological changes, such as artificial intelligence, are key.

Jim discusses how these theories uniquely apply to family businesses, highlighting the challenges and opportunities in balancing tradition with the need for innovation and sustainability. He addresses the paradox of legacy; while it provides continuity and a strong cultural foundation, it can also become a source of strategic inertia, limiting entrepreneurial behavior. Jim emphasizes the importance of co-creating legacy, where each generation decides which values and traditions to retain and which to adapt. He also touches on the concept of social emotional wealth (SEW), which leads family businesses to prioritize family benefits over purely financial returns.

The interview explores the psychological traits of good stewards, including needs for personal growth, achievement, affiliation, and self-actualization. Jim explains that businesses can cultivate stewardship by sharing responsibility and opportunities for growth rather than imposing control. He highlights the evolving landscape of business, where sustainability and multiple performance measures among stakeholders are becoming increasingly important. He calls for more research into the dynamics of trust, especially how to restore it once broken, and the distinction between low trust and distrust.

Steve's academic research, influenced by Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow," examines how System One (fast, intuitive thinking) and System Two (slow, deliberate thinking) processes affect trust decisions. He applies this framework to consumer trust, explaining that low-stakes decisions often rely on fast thinking, where simple rules of thumb and heuristics guide choices. In contrast, high-stakes decisions require slow, deliberate thinking, where individuals weigh the evidence and consider potential risks more carefully.

He explains the concept of trust games, which provide a more nuanced, risk-based measure of consumer trust compared to traditional surveys. These games, involving real money, offer insights into consumer behavior towards brands, demonstrating how people use different cognitive processes when trust is at stake. For example, participants might make quick, intuitive decisions in familiar, low-risk scenarios, while they engage in more deliberate, thoughtful decision-making in high-stakes situations.

Steve also discusses the practical implications for businesses. For quick, intuitive decisions, companies can leverage simplicity and familiarity to build trust, using elements like simple logos, straightforward messaging, and user-friendly websites. For more deliberate decisions, businesses need to provide detailed, reassuring information and emphasize their reliability and regulatory compliance. He explains that in high-stakes scenarios, consumers are more likely to trust companies that demonstrate transparency and accountability.

He addresses the challenge boards face in turning abstract trust concerns into actionable strategies. He advocates for a unified framework across all business units to ensure trust is an integral part of business strategy and evaluation. He shares examples of successful implementations, such as Tesco's approach to pricing and McDonald's efforts to rebuild trust over decades.

Steve concludes by highlighting the ongoing challenge of maintaining precision and discipline in trust research. He stresses the need for practical applications of academic insights to solve real-world problems, using the example of how Boeing could apply trust research to rebuild its reputation after a series of accidents.

Joe discusses how trust plays a crucial role in the interaction between the public and law enforcement. He differentiates trust from legitimacy, explaining that while legitimacy concerns the acceptance of authority and its inherent power, trust focuses more on managing the vulnerability associated with this power. Hamm emphasizes that trust in police is significantly influenced by the public’s perception of potential internal harms (e.g., misuse of authority or excessive force) rather than just the external harms (like crime) that police are expected to protect against. His studies highlight variations in how different racial and ethnic groups perceive these harms and trust law enforcement.

Joe also talks about trust in the context of environmental contamination, specifically referring to a case involving Dow Chemical in Michigan. He illustrates how high levels of trust in Dow Chemical led the local community to underestimate the risks of dioxin contamination in nearby waters, which, in turn, affected their engagement in protective behaviors like avoiding consumption of contaminated fish. This part of the discussion underscores the complex impact trust can have on public health behaviors and risk assessment.

Joe advocates for bridging the gap between academic research on trust and its practical applications. He suggests that media platforms like podcasts can facilitate better communication between researchers and practitioners, potentially leading to more effective trust-building strategies in various sectors.

They show the importance of proactive risk management, advocating for a strategy that involves staying ahead of potential threats to protect the company's reputation and maintain trust. They discuss the necessity of a "trust but verify" approach and highlight the value of clear, enforceable rules over ambiguous principles to ensure consistent corporate behavior, reflecting on how these practices integrate into a company's DNA.

Peter shares his cautious stance on using communication experts during crises, stressing the conflict between the need for transparency and the potential legal repercussions, advocating for a balanced approach to crisis communication.

A significant focus is given to the practical application of the Three Lines of Defense model in risk management, emphasizing the need for active involvement and regular checks across company units to prevent crises effectively.

The podcast wraps up with reflections on the evolving business climate in the Netherlands, particularly discussing the challenges posed by the disconnect between business expectations and governmental actions. They explore how different corporate governance approaches, like the stakeholder model prevalent in Europe, impact business operations and decision-making, particularly in contrast to the shareholder-focused models in the UK and the US.

Marion discusses the challenges of feeding a growing global population and the misalignment between food companies' profit motives and the need for sustainable, healthy food access for all. She advocates for a more diverse and regulated food industry to ensure environmental sustainability and public health. Addressing the controversy surrounding GMOs, she criticizes the food industry for eroding public trust through lack of transparency and misrepresentation of GMOs' role in feeding the world.

She underscores the importance of sustainability in the food system and the obstacles faced due to the industry's resistance to practices that may reduce profit margins. She encourages governmental pressure on the food industry to adopt better practices for the greater good. Discussing food choices, Nestle emphasizes the simplicity of maintaining a healthy diet through sensible eating habits and advocates for government and societal efforts to combat obesity by transforming the food environment.

Finally, Marion addresses the need for focused research on making healthy foods accessible and sustainable, highlighting the importance of addressing climate change through food production. Her ongoing commitment to writing and research reflects her dedication to improving food systems and public health. The interview illuminates the complexities of trust, food politics, and sustainability, emphasizing the need for informed action and advocacy to foster a healthier, more equitable food system.

Roger Mayer responds to criticisms by underscoring the intentional simplicity and broad relevance of his trust model, which was designed with minimal variables for wide applicability, including unexpected fields like AI and robotics. He acknowledges the trade-offs of this approach but values the model's capacity to spark debate and advance scientific discourse

He also previews his upcoming book, "A Research Agenda for Trust: Interdisciplinary Perspectives," aiming to facilitate interdisciplinary research in trust. Additionally, he explores trust in autonomous technology, distinguishing between trust in the technology itself and its creators. He revisits his 1995 trust model in the context of government trust, introducing a new measure assessing vulnerability.

Mayer explores the often-overlooked dimension of police officers' trust in the public, underscoring the importance of bidirectional trust. He unveils that officers are inclined to engage more openly and take proactive measures when they sense a higher degree of trust from the public. This viewpoint pivots the conventional emphasis from how much the public trusts the police to a more reciprocal understanding of trust, where the perceptions of law enforcement about public trust play a crucial role.

He also addresses the challenges faced by university research, critiquing the excessive focus on production over impactful, meaningful research. He advocates for a balance between theoretical exploration and practical application, urging researchers to ensure their work contributes tangibly to society. This approach, he suggests, is essential for bridging the gap between academic research and real-world societal benefits, particularly in the field of trust.

Van den Bos's research goes further to explore the detrimental effects that perceived unfairness can have, such as fostering distrust and societal polarization. He provides a comprehensive perspective on these issues, emphasizing the need for early intervention in societal conflicts. By advising authorities and citizens to remain vigilant to societal dynamics, recognize and validate the concerns of various community members, and ensure these concerns are met with understanding and appreciation, he offers a pathway towards mitigating these negative impacts.

Moreover, Van den Bos stresses the importance of adopting normative standpoints that reinforce democratic values, including peaceful and respectful treatment of one another and the maintenance of the rule of law. He acknowledges the imperfections in societal institutions, such as the legal system, but advocates for continuous efforts to enhance their functioning. This balanced approach is crucial for maintaining the fabric of a democratic society, even if it means accepting some losses as the cost of upholding fundamental values. Through this lens, Van den Bos provides a logical and informative framework for addressing and preventing the issues of distrust, polarization, and conspiracy thinking that can arise from perceived unfairness.

He provides perspective on the vital role of values in shaping trust relationships. Through Sitkin's study involving a Dutch court, we learn how value incongruence between groups can lead to a breakdown in communication and trust, explaining the processes of rebuilding trust, and focusing on shared values and perspectives.

Sitkin also touches on the role well-crafted control systems play in cultivating trust, drawing parallels from Ideo's approach, which harmonizes such systems with company ethos to reinforce trust. Furthermore, he provides insight into his forthcoming research, which seeks to consolidate the fields of trust and distrust into a unified theory.

He emphasizes that competence alone is insufficient for trust to flourish, leaders must demonstrate benevolence and an understanding of their team's perspectives and values. He discusses the "tipping point" of trust, a critical juncture where accumulated missteps can erode trust beyond a simple fix, stressing the importance of early recognition and intervention to prevent distrust from becoming entrenched.

Additionally, he touches on the impacts of immediate actions versus systemic changes on trust, the critical role of understanding in building trust, and the importance of relational leadership behaviors.

Finally, we wrap up our conversation with a look towards the future. Sim Sitkin, alongside colleagues, is pioneering a general field theory to integrate research on distrust, trust, and generalized trust, aiming to illuminate the future landscape of trust in our rapidly evolving world.

Furthermore, Covey makes a distinction between leadership and management. While management often pertains to processes and objects, leadership is about guiding and inspiring people. He posits that individuals do not want to be merely managed; they wish to be led, trusted, and inspired. To this end, Covey introduces the idea that leadership is akin to stewardship, highlighting responsibility over rights. This perspective calls on leaders, especially those at the CEO level, to view their roles as stewards who model behavior, extend trust, and inspire those they lead. Concluding his insights, Covey commends the TrustTalk podcast for amplifying the essential conversation around trust, underscoring its pivotal role in today's world.

He challenges the conventional wisdom that leaders should only engage in face-to-face diplomacy when their interests are already aligned. He introduces the idea of "security dilemma sensibility" in international relations, challenging the notion that uncertainty inevitably leads to competition and distrust. He emphasizes the need for leaders to understand the defensive motivations of others and break the cycle of misperceptions to promote cooperation and trust.

Nick Wheeler delves into the possibility of developing social bonds and trust in the absence of face-to-face interaction. Drawing from Randall Collins' work, he suggests that weaker social bonds can indeed be formed without physical proximity, particularly through textually mediated interactions. He highlights the importance of shared security dilemma sensibility and shared mood in this context.

He shares a cautionary tale from Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" to illustrate the limits of trust in transactional relationships. He argues that trust based solely on individual calculations of benefits and risks can quickly erode when the context changes.

Shifting his focus to India-Pakistan relations, Wheeler examines the trust dynamics between leaders like Vajpayee and Sharif, emphasizing the importance of "trust, capacity, vulnerability" in assessing whether leaders can fulfill their promises and commitments. He also highlights the complexity of trust and opportunism in adversarial relationships.

The discussion continues with an exploration of the role of interpersonal dyads in changing conflict situations. Wheeler underscores the significance of leaders being able to deliver on their commitments and the challenges of scaling up trust beyond individual relationships. He emphasizes the need to embed trust within decision-making processes and society itself to address future uncertainty.

Finally he touches upon his upcoming book with Marcus Holmes, "Personal Chemistry: Social Bonds and International Conflict." The book aims to demystify the concept of personal chemistry in international relations by developing a theory that explains why leaders sometimes establish positive interpersonal relationships and sometimes do not. Through case studies, they aim to shed light on the factors influencing leaders' relationships and trust dynamics in diplomacy and conflict resolution.

In the podcast interview, we cover various aspects of trust. She begins by addressing the challenge of translating theoretical trust research into practical solutions, noting that academia often values theoretical contributions over solving real-world issues. To bridge this gap, she advocates for interdisciplinary research that tackles critical trust problems and suggests collaboration with industries and non-governmental organizations. She also highlights the importance of practitioner-oriented journals to make research accessible. Nicole notes the emergence of a trend towards valuing research impact and relevance in academic work, particularly with interdisciplinary efforts addressing significant challenges.

Vulnerability's role in trust is another key topic. Nicole emphasizes that trust involves a willingness to be vulnerable based on positive expectations. Trust is most pertinent in uncertain and risky situations. An interesting paradox arises where high-trust relationships create a subjective sense of security while making individuals objectively vulnerable. She highlights the importance of understanding vulnerability's bright side, including its role in fostering connections, innovation, and resilience.

The interview further delves into the challenges of establishing trust across cultural boundaries. Gillespie co-authored a paper exploring trust dynamics between German supervisors and Chinese supervisees. The research highlighted the clash of cultural expectations, particularly regarding hierarchical relationships. Chinese employees often entered with high initial trust due to cultural expectations, while German supervisors focused more on task-oriented dynamics. The misalignment led to disillusionment and challenges in maintaining trust.

Lastly, Gillespie touches on the significance of trustworthy AI. She was part of a paper outlining a model for ensuring trustworthy AI. While acknowledging the rapidly evolving landscape of AI, she explains the six dimensions of the model: organizational alignment, data integrity, system robustness, security, legal compliance, and ethics. Gillespie emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach, integrating these dimensions to ensure responsible and trustworthy AI use.

The interview concludes with a focus on the future of trust research. Gillespie highlights the evolving nature of technology, particularly AI, and its impact on trust relationships. She suggests exploring how emerging technologies affect trust dynamics, polarization, and societal relationships. As she commends the podcast host for his dedication to discussing trust-related topics, Gillespie underscores the importance of continuous research and dialogue in understanding and maintaining trust in an ever-changing world.

He explains that historically, the legal system relied on a sanction-based model, threatening punishment to ensure compliance. However, behavioral science research has shown that building trust between the public and legal authorities is a more effective approach to gaining compliance and cooperation. Trust allows for a more cooperative relationship between the population and law enforcement, leading to an increased willingness to cooperate, provide information, and engage with the community, which aids in crime control.

The concept of procedural fairness plays a significant role in building trust in legal authorities. People want to be treated with dignity, respect, and have decisions and policies explained to them. Research suggests that procedural fairness is more important in determining trust in authorities than the actual outcomes of their decisions. Additionally, trust is not solely about neutrality and rule-based procedures, but also encompasses relational aspects, such as sincerity, benevolence, and taking into account the needs of the people being dealt with.

Tom argues that trust in legal authorities leads to not only compliance but also contributes to building the viability and strength of communities. A trust-based system promotes engagement, social connections, and active participation in community governance and activities. This, in turn, can reduce the need for constant surveillance and policing, making the community more self-regulating and self-sustaining.

He notes that implementing procedural justice in policing and courts has shown positive outcomes in various communities. Improving the internal climate of law enforcement, as well as how officers are treated by their superiors, can positively impact how they treat the public, ultimately leading to enhanced procedural fairness and trust in the community.

Furthermore, Tom argues that procedural justice is a widely accepted and agreed-upon concept across different ethnic, cultural, and economic groups. It is seen as a universal feature that fosters trust in legal authorities. While primarily studied in advanced industrialized societies, the principles of procedural justice have been found to hold true in various contexts.

However, despite the declining trust, he argues that people are unlikely to disengage from online activities. The internet has become deeply integrated into modern life, and essential tasks, such as banking and shopping, heavily rely on online tools. People have grown dependent on the convenience and efficiency offered by internet-based services, even if they express reservations about trusting the companies providing them.

The conversation also explores several contributing factors to declining trust. Historical events, such as the Vietnam War, Watergate scandals, and economic recessions, have eroded trust in institutions over time. The internet has amplified these trends by providing access to information about institutional shortcomings, fuelling suspicions and concerns about trust.

Political polarization is another influential factor. The rise of right-wing nationalist organizations, combined with politics becoming a divisive battleground, has led to heightened mistrust among citizens. Additionally, frustrations arise from the perception that governments are inept in addressing major societal challenges, such as climate change, misinformation, and the pandemic.

Notably, trust is portrayed as a transactional calculation. Individuals weigh the potential benefits of an interaction against the compromises it might entail. Trust, in this context, becomes context-specific and contingent on various factors, reflecting a complex interplay of motivations and perceptions.

Lee discusses the research methodology employed to study trust. Given the declining response rates to phone polls, online surveys have become more prevalent. Ensuring representative samples is crucial to obtain accurate insights into trust levels. However, some individuals distrust survey-givers, which may lead to incomplete data representation.

He discusses the echo chamber argument, where people seek information that aligns with their views, but his data shows that highly motivated partisans from both the activist left and right actively engage with diverse information, including opposing views, to strengthen their arguments and understanding of the political landscape. Partisanship, civic engagement, and commitment to the political system play a significant role in determining the information people seek.

The interview touches upon the role of academia and research in understanding trust. Different researchers focus on various aspects of trust, ranging from political culture and democratic institutions to corporations and macroeconomics. Understanding the complexities of trust in its various forms and contexts remains an ongoing area of exploration.

The interview focuses on the application of blockchain in enhancing trust in specific contexts, using the example of Walmart implementing a blockchain-based solution to improve food safety within its global supply chain. The guest speaker emphasizes how blockchain can overcome trust barriers and inefficiencies, leading to enhanced trust and improved outcomes.

The conversation also delves into the potential of blockchain technology to bring about freedom from corporate and government power, while acknowledging the risk of empowering criminals. Kevin highlights the importance of blockchain as a part of rebuilding trust in society, by providing transparent and decentralized systems for verifying information and maintaining integrity. He sets out the value of cryptocurrencies, bitcoin, with an emphasis on how blockchain technology provides trust through the integrity and transparency of the ledger. The interview concludes with a discussion on the viability of blockchain technology, the collapse of centralized platforms like FTX, and the comparison between the telecom industry and blockchain.

Corruption tends to thrive in societies with low levels of trust and high levels of inequality. In highly corrupt environments, resources for public goods such as education and healthcare are diminished. Moreover, individuals in such societies often prioritize their own well-being and may support corrupt leaders from their own group. Punishing corrupt individuals alone is insufficient, as new corrupt actors will likely take their place. The guest emphasizes that reducing corruption requires widespread public education.

The rise of nationalism globally signifies a decline or stagnation in trust. Nationalism reflects particularized trust, where individuals trust only those who are similar to them. It often entails perceiving those different from oneself as threats to the desired social order. Countering the rise of nationalism is challenging and requires long-term efforts, including education and generational change. Political trust presents a similar challenge, as opposing sides tend to view each other as enemies.

Our guest expresses concerns about the growing nationalism trend worldwide. Notably, Sweden, a country known for its tolerance, experienced the rise of nationalist parties advocating for stricter immigration policies and emphasizing divisions between natives and foreigners. The United States has also seen immigration become a major political concern. Troublingly, in some cases, immigration opposition gained more support for certain political parties than they lost on other issues such as abortion. The rise of nationalism presents complex challenges without immediate solutions.

Throughout our conversation, we explore the multifaceted nature of trust, its relationship with corruption and nationalism, and the difficulties associated with addressing these issues. The guest's insights shed light on the dynamics shaping trust in societies today.

The interview also discusses a study that suggests women are less prone to losing trust and more likely to regain trust even after repeated transgressions. Marguerite attributes this to women's optimism and relationship-driven nature. However, she notes that personal experiences and the frequency of trust violations can influence individual responses.

When it comes to balancing trust and empathy with making sound business decisions, Marguerite mentions the importance of trust but verify approach. She emphasizes the need to gather all relevant information, maintain competence and confidence, and have realistic self-awareness. Building trust with underrepresented groups requires leaders to foster an inclusive and belonging culture. In her former role at Aon Holdings, trust is vital in providing risk and insurance solutions to clients. We talk about a recent report on sexually transgressive behavior in a TV show and the importance of independent and unbiased investigations to maintain trust. She offers advice to young women aspiring to leadership roles in underrepresented industries, the importance of continuous learning, asking questions, making oneself visible, and believing in oneself.

The interview delves into the puzzle economists faced in explaining cooperation and altruism, emphasizing that most people are inherently cooperative, except for economists who are trained to be self-interested. The importance of cooperation, fairness, and altruism in human nature and society is highlighted, drawing from Robert Frank's book on the baseline economic model.

Early hunter-gatherer societies faced the trust dilemma and developed accounting systems, language, and legal systems to facilitate trust and cooperation as communities expanded.

The complexities of apologies are examined, emphasizing the need for them to carry a cost or commitment to be effective. The experiment involving Bill Clinton's apologies showcases the trade-offs between likability, respect, and authority for politicians. The cost associated with trust-building, such as in apologies, is emphasized, with costly apologies proving more effective in restoring trust.

In cooperative dilemmas like climate change, trust plays a crucial role, as coercion is impractical at the international level. The Paris Climate Accords' approach of transparency to foster trust, accountability, and positive behaviors is discussed.

The relationship between trust and contract enforcement is explored, noting that while trust and contract enforcement often go hand in hand, excessive rules in contracts can hinder trust-building by limiting vulnerability and risk-taking. The importance of including trust-building mechanisms in economic development is emphasized, as the absence of trusted institutions hinders poverty alleviation and overall progress.

The interview sheds light on the significance of trust in economics, drawing from game theory, behavioral economics, and historical perspectives. It underscores the role of trust in cooperation, apologies, climate change, and contract enforcement, and emphasizes the need to prioritize trust-building in educational curricula and economic development efforts.

In the United States, lobbyists must register and disclose certain information about their activities under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. In Europe, regulations have been introduced, but they vary by member state, and The Netherlands has been slow to regulate lobbying. The European Commission has rules in place that prohibit former commissioners or high-level professionals from acting as lobbyists for a specific party for a specific period after leaving their position.

However, there are still stereotypes and misconceptions about lobbying that can impact the perception of the profession as a whole. When people view lobbyists as only representing big corporations or having questionable motives, it can be challenging to establish trust. That's why it is crucial to educate the public and policymakers about the diversity of actors involved in lobbying and how it operates to foster trust and create a more positive image of the profession.

Ultimately, building trust is an ongoing process that requires open and honest communication and a commitment to ethical practices. NGOs, governments, and municipalities also engage in lobbying activities, and the growth of lobbying activities in the Netherlands is in the municipalities and provincial decision-making levels. By promoting transparency, integrity, and access, lobbyists can build and maintain trust with decision-makers and the public.

She argues that organizations should focus less on rules and compliance programs and more on building ethical decision-making capacity. They should bring in the wisdom of the collective and have debates about gray areas to jointly make decisions based on the collective's wisdom. Rather than treating ethics as a fundamental black-and-white issue, she suggests building thoughtful capacity for ethical reasoning among the workforce and in society in general.

We talk about Elon Musk's decision to lay off the director of Ethics, Transparency and Accountability at Twitter, she believes that he may have underestimated the complexity of content moderation and is now facing the consequences of his decision.

She raises the topic of transparency and questions the notion that more transparency leads to more trust in businesses, despite the increase in the level of information available about corporate conduct over the past two decades. She argues that that businesses need to change how they think about ethics and be more transparent and honest, while also being more restrained in what they promise to achieve. She suggests corporations should have a more focused strategy on what they can and cannot solve and stop exaggerating and spinning a story to deflect scrutiny. Finally, she explains how leaders can navigate ethical dilemmas and make decisions in the best interest of their organization.

Jan then goes on to outline the top three things that organizations can do to foster team spirit through trust: intent, system, and power balance. He stresses that all three are critical in building a team that trusts one another. Furthermore, he explains that control is the antithesis of trust and details how organizations can transition from a culture of control to a culture of trust. Jan recommends providing employees with professional freedom and setting clear expectations instead of micromanaging them, as studies show that this approach can be more effective in motivating employees than having a task-based manager watching over their shoulders.

The connection between trust and the legal profession is not a simple one. In legal literature, the concept of trust typically pertains to confidence in (legal) institutions, such as courts, judges, or "the legal system." Legitimacy is often used as a synonym for trust, despite its unclear relationship with trust in broader literature from other disciplines. The terms trust, rule of law, and legitimacy are used interchangeably without specifying their drivers or consequences, leading to a lack of clarity in their practical implications.

Esther discusses the challenges of creating trust in contractual arrangements, particularly in complex IP licensing and patent pool agreements. They explore the balance between creating clarity and legal certainty while leaving room for innovation and open communication to build trust. She suggests that clear milestones can be imposed at the beginning of the contract, but renegotiation and mediation can be used when more space is needed. The use of alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation, can help to maintain good long-term relationships and build trust. She highlights the importance of considering the context in determining the effectiveness of rules and contracts. They suggest that differences in outcomes may be related to variations in empirical research and theoretical work, as well as factors such as the type of collaboration, contract, actors involved, and geographical scope.

Esther van Zimmeren believes that legitimacy, fairness, and procedural justice are important considerations for trust in an organization or institution, especially in a regulatory governance context. She talks about the Unified Patent Court in Europe, which has promising rules for fairness and impartiality but faces challenges in terms of the independence of its technically qualified judges who work part-time for patent firms. She emphasizes the need to look at specific examples rather than general concepts when discussing trust in the legal system.

In the area of digital transformation, she notices significant changes to businesses, from moving key functions to the cloud to creating new digital offerings and ways to not overlook the role of trust. She talks about a cultural change project by KPMG, conducting interviews and workshops with key stakeholders to identify challenges and desired outcomes, leading to a better understanding of the steps needed to create a culture of trust and accountability.

Trust is crucial not just for established relationships. It’s also especially vital between strangers with no responsibility toward each other outside of a single interaction. Psychologists found “excessive” trust rates rising much higher than anticipated, given people’s aversion to risk and rather cynical expectations of their peers’ trustworthiness. Many trust even though they expect their trust not to be honored.

David is most well-known for the Dunning-Kruger effect when a person's lack of knowledge and skills in a particular area causes him to overestimate his own competence.

We talk about the 1986 negotiations between Reagan and Gorbachev, both walked away from a potentially historic agreement that would have eliminated nuclear threats. They famously walked away from a deal because they couldn't get themselves to trust one another.

Despite decades of research into trust measuring individual trust remains unsatisfying due to problematic survey questions that are used to measure social trust. There are two main methods used to measure trust, surveys and behavior observation. Surveys ask for people's judgments about trust, while behavior observation looks at behaviors based on trust. The trust game is an example of the latter, where trust is measured by the amount of money sent from the trustor to the trustee and how both parties behave.

He suggests that non-alignment between the many surveys by organizations Like Edelman, Pew, and major consultancies like Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG may be due to different survey questions, different time points for data collection, and different samples. The OECD guidelines on measuring trust are helpful but could be updated with more recent knowledge. He believes that even though trust is emotional and subjective, it should still be quantified, and mentions his research on audio responses to measure trust. He also points out that definitions of trust are often detached from measurements of trust and discusses his work on finding a better fit between the definition and measurement of trust. Finally, he reflects on the possibilities AI gives researchers to handle larger amounts of data in a shorter time, thus proving more in-depth research results.

To maintain trust in science. Scientists should actively address issues like science publications that become more focused on ranking and commercialization rather than the content of the research or industry-sponsored research.

He is a frequent user of social media platforms such as TikTok, Twitter (he is called "The TikTok Scientist"), and LinkedIn to disseminate scientific insights.

When talking about ChatGPT he advocates soul searching about what is the purpose of the texts we produce in science, asking ourselves, why do we produce it in the way that we produce it? Why is it valuable to write, understand, read, to critically reflect? And what is it that the machine can do and what is it that it can't do?

As to AI-generated output, he believes that traditional methods of evaluating research are not enough to establish trust, suggesting the need for an “extended peer community" involving a broader range of people and stakeholders in the evaluation process.

The Internet has brought us numerous free services like contacting people, creating online content, video conferencing, sharing videos, communicating, and working online, but it comes at a price, as the data we put online, some of it very personal, raises privacy issues, makes us vulnerable to cyberattacks and results in a concentration of power in large companies and governments. He talks about trust and the privacy paradox and the “flip side” of free services that internet provides.

The way to grow trust is through technology and regulation, giving the example of the automobile industry where in the 60ties there were no safety regulations until Ralph Nader’s book in 1965 “Unsafe at Any Speed”. He talks about the European GDPR Directive, the Data Sphere Initiative, the privacy paradox, and contact tracing apps like the Ehteraz app Qatar required people to use during the Soccer World Cup.

Asked about the Internet of Things (IoT), says Michael that he doesn’t think all of the lessons of the Internet of websites and services online have been learned.

He speaks about his research into the role of trust and power in two types of inter-organizational relationships, vertical relations (supply chain) and horizontal relations (M&A, joint venture, cooperations), the “system” or “institutional” trust in liberal capitalist countries (like in the UK) versus coordinated capitalist countries (like in Continental Europe).

In the case of acquisition transactions, two organizations need to be integrated, it is not uncommon that one side distrusts the other (job loss, uncertainty) and why is it that many M&A transactions or joint ventures fail, due to lack of trust? In organizational trust you need to see real persons who represent an organization: if it is an abstract organization and you would not associate any human face with it, it is very difficult to trust.

Too much trust is dangerous too: the global financial crisis of 2008 was for a part caused by too much trust in financial advisers (“blind trust”).

He reflects upon organizations that say they do not need trust because they can control and monitor operations more closely by technical means (surveillance, video, etc), wondering whether trust becomes obsolete (he thinks it is not).

When asked about the eroding political trust he talks about the rise of populist politicians and the distrust they foster against institutions as well as media to gain power, the elite losing sight of the views of ordinary people, being unresponsive and unaccountable, which has led to a crisis of trust in political institutions. We talk about information distortion, conspiracy theories, and the imperviousness of fact-checking and evidence.

He counters China and Russia’s arguments that liberal democracy is an obsolete system, and talks about Putin’s Ukraine war and the effects that any outcome will have on other conflicts in the world, the Biden election win denial in the US, people’s disenchantment with European institutions for not delivering.

Engaging with stakeholders builds trust. He mentions the example of the Nestlė CEO who reached out to environmentalists to talk about renewable raw materials and how to use that, trying to fully understand their point of view. He likes a quote from one of the interviewed CEOs: do you want to have a team of stars or do you want to have a star team?

He talks about his move from performance-oriented sports psychology towards developing coaching as a transformational dialogue where trust is the foundational premise. The focus is on developmental issues, where clients or dialogue partners struggle with themselves or specific challenges they are faced with. The perspective of “dialogue coaching” can be described as fellow-human companionship: dialogue guides – a professional coach or colleague or a friend – support their dialogue partner by including themselves in the dialogue as a collaborative and co-reflecting partner.

In this interview, he talks about an old mechanism for academics to build trust, the footnote, and the damaging effect hiding scientific work behind paywalls has on public access to information. Global cooperation did produce unintended positive effects on global warming as he explains the Montreal Protocol did by storing billions of tonnes of carbon stored in plants that would otherwise be in the atmosphere. He talks about the “replication crisis” in science, flawed studies, experiments that fail to replicate, the effect of too much media attention, and a lack of self-criticism and self-evaluation. And about the cost of averting climate breakdown: the “2%-More-Rule”: if humanity invests just an extra 2% of Global GDP in developing eco-friendly technologies and infrastructure every year, this would be enough to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Trust is an important element in diplomacy mentioning three famous examples in history. Trust in diplomacy should be distinguished from trust in nations.

He talks about the role of disinformation during World War II. Russia was not the only country using disinformation (“maskirovka”) in warfare. General Patton of the Allied Forces staged a non-existent army in Kent, including radio traffic as if it was a real army to strengthen the German belief that an allied invasion would start in the French Port of Calais.

He comments on Stanford professor Larry Diamond’s view that we see a trend of a “democratic depression”, about deterrence and realist models of International relations assuming that trust is in short supply.

But there are examples of successful trust repair. Who remembers Japanese-based platform business Recruit Holdings, who after a scandal showed how to repair broken trust, or the PWC gaffe from 2017, where employees mixed up the winner's envelope, as a result of which La La Land was announced the Oscar winner, instead of Moonlight. Both did a remarkable job in restoring trust. In the interview, she explains what it took to restore those trust failures.

She talks about a study by Kurt Dirks who found that the NCAA basketball team won the most games due to the trust they had in their coach and about the way politicians can restore broken trust, about creating a trusted work environment for women, and the four attributes of trust repair.

In economics transactional trust is important, it is the glue that holds our economic, political, and community systems together.

Broken trust in social media is not less of a research subject. Lying, cheating and dishonesty are as much a part of organizational dynamics as they are among the fleeting relationships in social media. So the phenomena are more similar than they are different.

Trust in negotiation is about telling the truth, but not giving away your bargaining position, not using tactics that are intended to emotionally manipulate the other party like lies or dirty tricks or sneaky tactics. And about following through and honoring your promises and commitments both on their part and on your part.

Due to laws and strict regulations, the company has very limited space to respond to questions that arise around the vaccine and its availability. The company does its best to produce the vaccine and maintain its quality on a non-profit basis during the pandemic. He replies to the question about compulsory licensing. In his view, complex manufacturing processes and quality issues make it very hard for anyone else but trusted partners to produce the vaccine.

Producing a vaccine a little more than a year after the breakout of the pandemic is a remarkable achievement of science.

Growing distrust in society also affects the pharmaceutical industry. He talks about the role of his department to discuss with politicians issues about cost-benefit and how medicine is produced.

(The interview took place on April 26, in the middle of the second coronavirus wave)

She frames the term “Hippocratic Oath” making people more conscious of the actual decisions taking place in the design of blockchain. She talks about the bitcoin blockchain technology and the competitive process in bitcoin mining which creates a game that assumes a race for profit.

#blockchain #bitcoin #technology #politics

The interview covers also his newly published book “The Wolf at the Door” which he wrote with Michael Graetz, about rising inequality as a threat to democracy.

In this interview, both reflect on the importance of risk management, the challenges, and the opportunities, and its relation with trust. They talk about the “Three Lines of Defence model”, IP risks, and the importance of resilience. They describe the “Catch-22” situation risks managers find themselves in, as risk management is too-often treated as a matter of compliance., whereas internal audit is -especially in the US - focused on financial control.

Marketing is not just advertising, or how to sell a product or service via social media or communication. At business schools, students learn that marketing communication is the final step in the marketing process. It is about understanding the target customer sufficiently well, their goals, problems, or needs. Trust is essential for that understanding. You have to find a way to trust what the consumer is telling you so that you can be confident that your solution will solve their needs.

Generation Z, when asked are there any brands or business you trust, they will talk passionately about a handful of organizations. Kent speaks about the “wack-a-mole” challenge in marketing, the efforts of truthfully communicate with your customers, the role of influencers, about honesty and sincerity, and the relation between trust and transparency. Trust is about making sure you understand the other party's motives, that you believe they have your best interests at heart, and telling you the truth and keep your promises.

From a public-health perspective, the nationalistic races between countries that can vaccinate first are completely irrelevant. Vaccination is not just a matter of implementation as careful research and data are necessary to keep up with new mutants of the vaccine, as are questions about who can produce the vaccines, syringes, and other equipment and who can effectively distribute the vaccines and who can do coaching, and providing information on who gets the first and second shot, all things that are very tough to organize, due to the fact that each state and country have their own health systems. This requires a lot of planning, which is not a trivial undertaking.

The new mutant variations of the virus that appeared in the UK, South Africa, Nigeria and parts of Europe lead us into a “Darwinian game”. Those vaccine variants may cause a dramatic rise in infections, but the good news is that given current science pharma companies need potentially as short as 6 weeks to produce new vaccines that protect against those new virus mutations.

Public health is good at dealing with science and molecular biology and genetic engineering, but where it is not so good at is the science of human behavior. His biggest concern is how local and national leaders can inspire trust while facing distrust anywhere in the world and how they might be unable to motivate people to change their behavior and to protect themselves and everyone else and at the same time realize that until everyone is protected we all remain susceptible to the virus.

We talk with Rick about the relationship between blockchain, artificial intelligence, internet of things and the role of trust. Blockchain adds a trust layer on data. Do we need to embrace or fear AI? What role plays LTO Network in providing trust to parties who share information and collaborate?

How much influence do we have on data owned by Data Management Platforms? Companies should set clear principles on how they use customer data and should be transparent with regard to artificial intelligence and the way customers can control their data.

Without trust, nothing works

We also dive into Twiddy’s pandemic playbook, where open communication became a lifeline; Itochu’s long-term social commitments, which contrast sharply with Western quarterly pressures; and the Financial Times’ transparent approach to generative AI, setting a new benchmark for media trust.

Together, these cases reveal patterns: leaders often misjudge crises, overlook human impact, and underestimate how long it truly takes to repair trust, yet the organizations that get it right show that trust can be a real competitive advantage.

Join us as we navigate the complexities of trust with those who study it, build it, and challenge it.