The Tuesday That Taught Me Everything About Trust

The Tuesday That Taught Me Everything About Trust

What neuroscience, organizational theory, and lived experience reveal about building — and rebuilding — trust in 2025.

"It took one 30-minute meeting to realize I’d lost something I thought I had in spades: my team’s trust. Here’s what happened—and the exact steps to win it back in 2025’s high-change world."

About the Author

I’m Jeffrey V. Cortez — a former CIO/CTO with over 20 years leading high-performance teams across education, nonprofits, and enterprise IT. I’ve guided organizations through AI integrations, large-scale digital transformations, and $50M+ infrastructure projects. Holding an Executive Master’s in Technology Management from Columbia University, I’ve built trust as the foundation for change — whether aligning 200+ staff during platform migrations, securing funding for first-of-its-kind education programs, or advising boards on technology strategy.

The Morning It Happened

It wasn’t supposed to be a big meeting. Just a 30-minute Tuesday check-in with my team.

I had my coffee. My notes. Even what I thought was good news:

“We’re switching to a new project management system next month.”

I expected smiles. Instead:

First came the silence.Then, one by one, the cameras clicked off.Finally, a short message appeared in the chat: “Again?”

I pressed on, listing the benefits — faster load times, smoother reporting, built-in automations. But the air in the virtual room was heavy. A few people leaned back, arms crossed. Others stayed still, cameras dark.

And then it hit me: they weren’t reacting to software.They were reacting to me.

To them, this wasn’t a shiny upgrade. It was another shift in a year already full of late-night requests, moving priorities, and promises that didn’t always materialize as intended.

They weren’t resisting the platform.They were protecting themselves.

What Trust Actually Is — and Why It’s So Hard to Fake

We talk about “trust” so casually in leadership circles. It gets sprinkled into mission statements, echoed in kickoff speeches, printed on office walls.

But what is it, really?

Neuroscientists, organizational psychologists, and high-performing teams land on a strikingly consistent definition:

Trust is the confident expectation that another person or group will act in a way that’s consistent, fair, and aligned with your mutual goals.

That “confident expectation” is everything.It doesn’t come from a single inspiring meeting or a cleverly designed off-site. It’s born from a pattern of reliability your brain can actually predict.

From a neuroscience lens, every interaction is a micro-data point.

• When your actions match your words, your brain marks it as safe — lowering social threat responses and freeing mental bandwidth for creativity and problem-solving.

• When they don’t, your brain flags the mismatch as risk — triggering caution, protection, and sometimes withdrawal.

In plain language: trust is built when people stop bracing for disappointment.

And it’s mutual. Your team is collecting “trust data” on you every day… and you’re doing the same with them. That’s why trust isn’t about charm — it’s about consistency under pressure.

A quick example:Think of the colleague who always responds within 24 hours, even if it’s just, “Got it — I’ll get back to you by Friday.” Over time, you stop worrying whether they’ll follow through. Compare that to the person who sometimes delivers brilliant results… but disappears without warning mid-project. Who gets the high-stakes assignment?

Exactly.

In 2025’s high-change, high-noise environment, trust isn’t a “nice to have.” It’s the operating system that lets teams move fast without fracturing.

Trust: The Real Conversion Rate

Gallup, Deborah Rowland’s research on change leadership, and decades of behavioral neuroscience point to the same conclusion: trust is the primary multiplier for organizational outcomes.

Without it:

• Even your most visionary ideas stall.

• People comply, but they don’t commit.

• Innovation is replaced by quiet, risk-averse behavior.

In neurobiological terms, trust is built when the brain can reliably predict another person’s behavior (Cacioppo & Berntson, 2005). Every fulfilled commitment is a positive “prediction error” that strengthens cooperation. Every broken promise — especially without repair — is a negative update that erodes it.

And in today’s climate of hybrid work, AI disruption, and resource uncertainty, you can’t leave trust to chance. You need intentional systems to build it, sustain it, and — when necessary — repair it.

The Three Most Costly Myths About Trust in 2025

Trust gets romanticized in business books and leadership keynotes. But in practice, there are patterns that look like “trust-building” on the surface — yet quietly erode it over time. In 2025, these myths are especially dangerous because they feel right, but they backfire in hybrid, high-change environments.

1. The “Oxytocin Hack” Myth

You’ve probably heard it: “Just make people feel good — release that ‘trust hormone’ and you’re golden.”The truth? Chemicals can’t compensate for inconsistent behavior.

Think about it — you could run the most uplifting team retreat in the world, complete with laughter, vulnerability exercises, and perfect coffee. People will feel closer… for a moment.

But if, the next week, deadlines shift without warning or leaders skip commitments, that “trust hormone” crashes. The emotional whiplash doesn’t just reset trust — it makes people more guarded next time.

In neuroscience terms, oxytocin is a booster, not a foundation. It amplifies trust when consistency exists — but magnifies skepticism when it doesn’t.

2. The AI-Authored Empathy Myth

In the age of generative AI, leaders can now send out flawlessly written messages of care, recognition, and encouragement — without writing a word themselves. The problem? Trust isn’t just about what you say. It’s about whether your actions back it up.

I once saw a CEO send a heartfelt AI-polished note to the company after layoffs, full of gratitude and promises of support. The following week, employees discovered their budgets for professional development had been cut. The result? The letter became a running joke — and every future message, no matter how genuine, was met with cynicism.

AI can enhance communication, but it can’t fake follow-through. If your human behavior contradicts your machine-generated empathy, you’re accelerating distrust.

3. The Overpromise for Buy-In Myth

When leaders are under pressure to get a “yes” — whether for a new system, policy, or strategic shift — the temptation is to paint the rosiest possible picture. After all, short-term enthusiasm feels like progress.

But here’s the bill that always comes due: once people realize the promised timeline, impact, or ease isn’t real, they don’t just question that initiative — they question you.

I once inherited a project where the previous leader had promised a “seamless” six-week rollout for a major system migration. It took six months, with multiple setbacks. Even though I had nothing to do with the original promise, my updates were met with skepticism for months because the breach of trust had already happened.

Overpromising is like taking out a high-interest loan on credibility. You might buy excitement today, but you’ll pay it back — with interest — in doubt tomorrow.

Takeaway:

 If you catch yourself looking for a trust “shortcut,” stop. Instead, ask: “What is one action I can take this week that proves my words are true?” That’s the only hack that works — and it’s not really a hack at all.

Instead here are Seven Principles for Building (and Rebuilding)

Trust drawn from neuroscience, organizational behavior research, and real-world leadership practice:

1. Start With Strengths

(Gallup – “How to Be a More Effective Leader”)

The principle: Leaders earn trust when they understand and leverage their own strengths — and help others operate from theirs.

Story: When Angela became VP at a fintech startup, she resisted the urge to “hit the ground running” with her own agenda. Instead, she spent her first month in one-on-one conversations, asking a single question:

“What’s the one thing you can do better than almost anyone else here?”

She logged every answer, then reorganized project teams so each person’s primary work matched their strengths. Within a quarter, project bottlenecks cleared faster, morale improved, and “I trust leadership” scores in the employee survey jumped by 20%.

Reference point: Gallup’s CliftonStrengths framework shows that individuals who play to their strengths daily are six times more likely to be engaged and three times more likely to report an excellent quality of life.

How to apply:

• Map team strengths visually (Miro, whiteboard).

• Publicly align roles to those strengths.

• Make strengths the default lens for assigning work.

2. Lower the Threat Level in Change

(Deborah Rowland – “Get Your Team on Board with a Major Change”)

The principle: Change without context is interpreted as a threat. Threat triggers the amygdala, reducing cognitive resources for reasoning and collaboration.

Story: A software engineering team was told on a Friday afternoon:

“Starting Monday, we’re moving to a new coding framework.”

The response? Missed deadlines, slowed communication, and quiet resistance.

Months later, a different leader rolled out another change but started with the “why”:

• The market shifts driving the decision.

• The trade-offs considered.

• The areas where the team could choose their own approach.

By the end of the session, engineers were debating implementation details rather than whether to adopt.

Reference point: Rowland’s change model stresses “outside-in” (market realities) and “inside-out” (team voice) as core to successful adoption. Neuroscientific studies (Lieberman, 2013) confirm that perceived agency during change lowers defensive responses.

How to apply:

• Explain the “why” before the “what.”

• Invite input on how the change is implemented.

• Use the Toyota “5 Whys” to uncover and address resistance.

3. Align Structure With What You Say

(Conway’s Law)

The principle: Organizational structure inevitably shapes — and sometimes undermines — communication and system design.

Story: A national retailer’s CEO promised a “seamless customer experience.” Yet product and customer service teams used separate systems, held different KPIs, and rarely interacted. Customers received contradictory answers from each team.

When the company integrated both teams into the same Slack workspace, gave them shared metrics, and restructured reporting lines, the experience matched the promise. Customer satisfaction scores rose 15% in one quarter.

Reference point: Conway’s Law warns that if communication is siloed, system design will reflect that — and so will the customer experience.

How to apply:

• Audit your org chart alongside your tech stack.

• Ask: “Does this structure make our promises possible?”

• Realign at least one structural element to reinforce stated values.

4. Make Empathy Operational

(Wired to Care – Dweck – Portigal)

The principle: Empathy must be embedded in systems, not just expressed in conversations.

Story:During beta testing for a small-business accounting app, the product team didn’t just collect survey data — they sat with owners as they navigated the software.

One cafe owner hesitated every time she reached a “Business Type” drop-down list. When asked why, she said none of the options described her hybrid cafe-and-retail model. The team added a “Custom” field in the next build.

Weeks later, that same owner referred three other business owners to the platform — citing “they listen” as the reason.

Reference point: Market leaders like Amazon have institutionalized empathy through “working backwards” from the customer — a process backed by research showing that perceived empathy increases oxytocin, improving cooperative behavior.

How to apply:

• Observe, don’t just ask — users often can’t articulate pain points.

• Make at least one process change directly from an empathy insight.

5. Storytell With Evidence

(Good Leaders Are Great Storytellers)

The principle: Stories trigger emotional engagement; evidence confirms credibility. Together, they’re trust accelerators.

Story:An environmental nonprofit was pitching a corporate donor on funding a reforestation project. The director began with the story of a single farmer whose livelihood was restored after planting 200 trees. Then she showed longitudinal data proving the same outcomes across 42 villages.

The donor funded the full program.

Reference point: Studies in cognitive psychology (Zak, 2015) show that stories with emotional arcs increase oxytocin levels, which correlate with prosocial behavior — but retention improves when paired with data.

How to apply:

• Lead with a single, vivid story.

• Anchor it with relevant metrics.

• Keep the story-data-story rhythm consistent.

6. Keep Small Promises Public

(Working Backwards – Sprint)

The principle: Trust builds fastest through visible, repeatable delivery on small commitments.

Story:A product manager ended every meeting by listing three micro-promises in the team’s shared Slack channel — each with a name and deadline. The same thread was updated when each task was completed.

Over months, the ritual became a cultural norm. When the manager promised a major deliverable, no one doubted it — because the pattern was already proven.

Reference point: Behavioral reinforcement theory explains that consistent small wins create “trust momentum,” making larger asks easier to accept.

How to apply:

• Keep commitments visible in a shared space.

• Close the loop publicly.

• Avoid vague timelines; always include dates.

7. Repair Trust With Cost and Clarity

The principle: After a breach, sincerity is measured by the resources you commit to the repair and the transparency of your fix.

Story:A SaaS firm missed a promised feature launch. The VP issued a public note:

1. Naming the exact date missed.

2. Explaining the breakdown in process.

3. Offering three months of free service to all affected clients.

Most clients stayed — not because they forgot, but because they believed the lapse wouldn’t recur.

Reference point: Research on trust repair (Kim, Ferrin & Cooper, 2004) shows that effective recovery requires both substantive action and process change, with greater sincerity signaled when the repair costs the violator something tangible.

How to apply:

• Admit the miss clearly.

• Show what’s changed.

• Offer a remedy proportional to the impact.

The Turnaround

Back to that Tuesday. I didn’t rebuild trust with one apology. I rebuilt it through weeks of visible, deliberate action:

• Mapping team strengths.

• Involving people before finalizing decisions.

• Aligning communication with our stated values.

• Closing every commitment loop in public view.

A month later, in our retrospective, the same teammate who typed “Again?” wrote:

“This time, it felt different. You told us why. You kept showing up. I believe we can make this work.”

A Final Thought

Trust doesn’t demand perfection.It demands proof — over and over again.

In 2025, with hybrid teams, AI-driven change, and constant noise, trust isn’t just a “nice to have.” It’s your operating system. Without it, even the smartest strategy stalls. With it, you can navigate any disruption — and take your team with you.

What about you?What’s one moment when you realized trust was missing in your work — and what did you do next? Comment and share your experience.

References

1. Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (2005). Social Neuroscience:: Key Readings. Psychology Press. https://amzn.to/46WDLEi

2. Gallup. (2021). CliftonStrengths for Managers. Gallup Press.: https://store.gallup.com/product/cliftonstrengths-for-managers/01tPa00000Qh7P8IAJ

3. Rowland, D. (2017). Still Moving: How to Lead Mindful Change. Wiley. https://amzn.to/41BatYb

4. Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. Crown. https://amzn.to/45hEhvx

5. Conway, M. E. (1968). How Do Committees Invent? Datamation. https://www.melconway.com/Home/pdf/committees.pdf

6. Patnaik, D. (2009). Wired to Care: How Companies Prosper When They Create Widespread Empathy. FT Press. https://amzn.to/46VHKAZ

7. Portigal, S. (2013). Interviewing Users: How to Uncover Compelling Insights. Rosenfeld Media. https://amzn.to/410wsI4

8. Paul B Armstrong. (2020). Stories and the Brain: The Neuroscience of Narrative. https://amzn.to/4fGQzRI

9. Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., & Cooper, C. D. (2004). The repair of trust: A dynamic bilateral perspective. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 404–422. https://journals.aom.org/doi/full/10.5465/amr.2009.40631887

10. Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days. Simon & Schuster. https://amzn.to/3JwEoKV

11. Bryar, B., & Carr, B. (2021). Working Backwards: Insights, Stories, and Secrets from Inside Amazon. St. Martin’s Press. https://amzn.to/415M2lB