The Trust Training Trap

Why good intentions backfire — and what actually helps.

I’ve spent years in workplaces helping teams untangle conflicts, navigate breakdowns, and figure out how to move forward.

Here’s what surprises people most:

I almost never recommend a trust training.
In fact, when conflict is already active, that’s usually the last thing that helps.

Yes, models and workshops about trust can be useful. But when trust is low and people are already frustrated, a generic “trust session” often lands as tone deaf. You get polite smiles, quiet eye rolls, and an internal wish to have that hour back.

Leaders roll out trust sessions with good intentions: hoping a training will fix tension, miscommunication, or simmering resentment. But if the real, concrete behaviors undermining trust don’t change, nothing else will.

A Quick Reality Check

Picture this:

You’re on a team with low trust in your supervisor. You’ve been clear that you’re near burnout and working beyond your capacity. Several times a week, a new “urgent” task still lands on your desk, and you’re told to drop everything to handle it.

Then, in your one-on-one, your supervisor reprimands you for not advancing your long-term projects fast enough.

Now imagine sitting in a trust workshop.

How likely is it that talking about trust conceptually is going to fix the specific trust issue with your supervisor?

In scenarios like this, a generic training doesn’t just miss the mark. It can intensify frustration because everyone can feel that the real issue is being avoided.

Talking about trust in the abstract while the elephant sits in the room is demoralizing.

Why “Trust Trainings” Often Make Things Worse

When conflict is live and trust is low, a broad trust training can backfire in at least three ways:

1. It doesn’t get at the real problem.
Most trust issues aren’t about missing concepts. They’re about specific, repeated behaviors: broken commitments, mixed messages, unrealistic workloads, or a lack of follow-through. A generic session skims the surface and leaves the actual situation untouched.

2. It misdirects accountability.
People show up hoping the person causing the problem will finally “get the message.” But no one leaves with a clear, personal commitment to change. Monday looks exactly the same.

3. It drains goodwill.
Team members who are living with real pain points start to feel unseen. Sitting through slides about “building trust” while nothing changes can erode trust further — both in leadership and in future training efforts.

Importantly, I’m pro-training when the goal is to build shared language and skills on reasonably solid ground. I’m just not pro-training as a substitute for dealing with the behaviors that are actually breaking trust.

Start Here Instead: Get Specific About Behaviors

In The Thin Book of Trust, Charles Feltman defines trust as the assessment that someone’s past behavior helps you predict their future behavior—often through four lenses:

• Competence – skills, judgment, and self-awareness

• Care – considering how decisions impact others’ needs and constraints

• Sincerity – alignment between what’s said publicly and what’s done privately

• Reliability – kept commitments and proactive updates when things change

Whichever model you use, you end up in the same place:

Trust grows when trust-relevant behaviors change.

The key is specificity. “You’re not trustworthy” feels overwhelming. “I need you to flag delays early instead of surprising me at the deadline” gives them something concrete to do.

Real trust repair comes from concrete actions, repeated often enough that they become expected.

Four Questions to Build a Trust Repair Plan

Instead of starting with a workshop, start with a simple, behavior-focused repair plan:

1. Where is trust low—and between whom?
Is this between one person and their manager? Two peers? A whole team and a leader? Get clear on the actual relationships involved.

2. Which lens fits the issue?

• Competence: skills or judgment for the task; acknowledging limits

• Care: considering workload, stress, and priorities when making decisions

• Sincerity: gaps between what’s said and what’s actually done

• Reliability: missed deadlines, late changes, no communication

3. Name the pattern and the change.
Move from:

“What’s not working…”
to:
“What would work better (specific behavior next time).”

For example:

“When priorities change, I need you to shift expectations and deadlines accordingly.”

4. Set the follow-up.
Agree on when and how you’ll check in:

“Let’s revisit this in three weeks and see what’s working and what still needs adjustment.”

This is the direct route to improving trust. No trust falls required.

When Trust Trainings Do Actually Make Sense

Trust trainings aren’t the villain. They’re often just mistimed.

They work best after the real issues have been named and addressed directly. Once repair conversations are underway, training can shift from being a distraction to a reinforcement tool.

A well-timed trust training can help:

• Build self-awareness and skill.
  Helps people see how their everyday actions impact trust and gives them tools to respond differently.

• Create shared language.
  Provides concrete process and terms to discuss trust without it feeling abstract or accusatory.

• Practice strategies in a low-stakes environment.
  Lets people try new approaches, get feedback, and commit to specific behaviors.

Training should reinforce real change, not attempt to replace it.

Bottom Line

Trust isn’t rebuilt by theory; it’s rebuilt by behavior.

When conflict is active and trust is strained, a generic workshop is the wrong first move. A slide deck can’t fix what people are still afraid to name.

Start with specific behaviors, clear expectations, and real follow-through. Then, once repair is underway, use training to deepen awareness and reinforce new patterns of behavior.