Trust is a risky business, a “calculated exposure” to the behaviors and influence of another (Hancock et al., 2011). Yet, as Hobbes (1651) contended, trust is one of the essential ingredients that holds societies together. Trust, however, is an evolutionary phenomenon, leading us to rely on instincts that served us well when physical danger abounded, but can be maladaptive in today’s office spaces where pausing a beat to assess the environment leads to better outcomes (Giphart & van Vugt, 2018).
Who Do We Trust and Why?
On the surface, it makes sense to trust people who demonstrate high moral character, exhibiting traits like honesty, conscientiousness, dependability, fair play, generosity, and a dependable work ethic (Aquino & Reed, 2002). In our personal lives, romantic partners and close-knit friends tend to check these boxes; however, when we enter the precarious world of work, we may find ourselves trusting in big talkers, over-promisers, and those we perceive as powerful. Research shows we often place our trust not with the people who have rightfully earned it but with those we perceive as possessing authority and influence, sometimes naively believing they have our best interest at heart (den Nieuwenboer et al., 2023; Mooijman, 2023). Harkening back to high school, when sizing up groups at the office, we are more likely to trust those we identify as ingroup members or the “cool kids,” instead of gifting our confidence to independent thinkers and those who push back on the status quo (Hancock et al., 2023).
Both bad followers and empowering leaders can go astray when they place trust in the untrustworthy, often with dire consequences.
Bad Followers and Social Learning Theory
Bad bosses make the newsreel when dubious behavior hits the headlines. Yet, such calamity is not possible without a host of what Solas (2019) refers to as “bad followers,” or employees who participate in wrongdoings, cover up misdeeds, and look the other way when transgressions occur. This phenomenon can partially be attributed to Social Learning Theory, or our propensity to emulate the behaviors around us, especially when such behaviors reap positive outcomes (Bandura, 1977).
However, when cultures are crafted that reward gossip, backstabbing, and sabotage as successful strategies for climbing the corporate ladder, securing raises, and garnering accolades, these behaviors are adopted as norms, leading to widespread moral disengagement (Khan et al., 2022). In such environments, ringleaders’ rhetoric is regarded as gospel, and whistleblowers, those who speak up against injustices and call out misdeeds, are villainized when their only crime is what Devine and Maassarani (2011) refer to as “committing the truth.” In an act of survival, betting on the stronger player to win, new employees place their trust in the powerful inner circle, willing to rewrite their own ethical code in order not to be targeted next (Near & Miceli, 1985). As part of that self-preservation, they may purposefully withhold information from those perceived to be on the outside, making it more difficult for ethical newcomers to decipher the real story or know who or what to trust (Weng et al., 2020).
Empowering Leaders May Unknowingly Empower the Wrong People
Books on the impactfulness of empowered leadership flank the walls of local booksellers and squeeze out the competition on bestseller lists, and though the promises are real and well documented, leading to enhancements in creativity and innovation, there is a dark side of the equation often excluded from the narrative (Alif & Nastiti, 2022). Counterintuitive to logical thought, sometimes empowerment leads to mayhem instead of ingenuity and growth. This flip of the script occurs when a well-meaning leader gives trust and leeway to those not equipped to lead and, even more alarmingly, they use their power grab to push down those around them.
Specifically, Yam (2011) and colleagues found that when empowered leaders give unearned trust and influence to subordinates with a “weak moral identity” and a “strong desire for dominance,” they are likely to use this newfound trust to sully the reputation of those they perceive as threatening their power, including the leader herself. Therefore, unwittingly, the leader who was attempting to flatten the hierarchy in an attempt to amplify more voices ends up flattening herself and eroding the moral integrity of the larger group.
The Dark Triad and Tetrad as an Explanation for Immoral Conduct
Sometimes, these aforementioned bad followers are simply trying to soothe their insecurities by denigrating others who threaten their dominance, but other times something more dubious is brewing. There is the Dark Triad of personality encompassing narcissism (grandiose and entitled), Machiavellianism (manipulative and cold), and psychopathy (impulsive, callous, thrill-seeking coupled with low levels of empathy and anxiety), examined by Paulhus and Williams (2002). Though each encompasses distinct characterizations, they all present with various levels of duplicity, coldness, and self-promotion — eliciting others to trust them at their own peril.
Though most are familiar with the Dark Triad, fewer are aware of the Dark Tetrad, which highlights the new addition of sadism, characterized by taking pleasure in others’ pain and found to be the most predictive personality maladaptation associated with workplace bullies who evoke trust in their targets only to later use the disclosures against them (Fernández-del-Río et al., 2021; Fernández-del-Río & Ramos-Villagrasa, 2022).
Fine Tuning Our Trust Meter
When I reflect back on some of my biggest professional regrets, many stem from trusting the wrong people, placing confidence and eliciting advice from colleagues I later discovered were more interested in wrangling power through manipulating and burying the truth than meeting the organization’s mission. So, how do we fine-tune our trust meter when we have trusted the untrustworthy?
- Question Your Gut Instinct: Our instincts served our ancestors well, keeping them vigilant to prowling beasts of the night. Yet today, the bustling pace of the workplace sometimes leads us to make snap judgments, relying on our gut, when it would be wise to pause and more carefully assess the landscape (Giphart & van Vugt, 2018).
- Morality Trait Identification: When considering who to trust, it is helpful to examine their character against some of the 19 morality traits identified by Aquino and Reed (2002): Including caring, compassionate, conscientious, considerate, dependable, ethical, fair, forgiving, friendly, generous, giving, hardworking, helpful, honest, kind, loyal, religious, trustworthy, and understanding.
- Know the Pitfalls: A person’s perceived powers and sphere of influence can distort perceptions of trustworthiness (Mooijman, 2023). When finding yourself quick to trust someone you just met, ask yourself if their position on the hierarchy is encouraging undo disclosure, and then refer back to Aquino’s and Reed’s (2002) morality traits.
- Withholding Information: A common marker of untrustworthiness is the withholding of information for selfish reasons. In such a scenario, a manager or co-worker conceals pertinent details or documents necessary for decision-making in order to sway the outcome for personal gain (Weng et al., 2020). A helpful reality check is to heed Adichie’s (2009) warning of “the danger of a single story” and contemplate three questions I often pose to my college students: Whose voices are heard? Whose voices are silenced? Why does it matter?
- Maintain Your Boundaries: Work is not your family, though some organizations like to evoke the metaphor. A careful collection, built over time, of trusted co-workers who stretch your thinking and encourage your creativity is a win. However, exercising caution in self-disclosure and critically evaluating information from colleagues who haven’t yet earned your trust creates a boundary that helps to ward off harm.
Kindness is an offering to be given with abundance, yet trust is a sacred gift bestowed on a select few who earned the recognition. Remember, you can be kind to someone you do not trust.
