The performativity of trust: Rethinking leadership in the age of managed credibility

Are today’s leaders spending trust faster than they can earn it?

We live in an era of high visibility and constant scrutiny. Credibility is no longer left to accumulate naturally; it is actively constructed and maintained through speeches, symbolic acts, ratings, partnerships, and public commitments. Perception can be shaped in hours through digital channels. This is the age of managed credibility, where trust is projected and priced before stakeholders have enough direct experience to verify whether it is real.

This is not inherently deceptive. In high-stakes environments, leaders must often perform trust to create the conditions in which it can later be earned. A newly appointed CEO must reassure investors before results can be delivered. A government entering climate negotiations must project reliability to secure agreements before implementation begins. The danger is that the performance becomes more visible, and more persuasive, than the reality it is meant to represent.

Trust behaves like a market where perception is liquid, perspective is slow, and volatility is high.

Trust today operates much like a political economy. Perception is the liquid currency of this market, fast-moving and easily traded. Perspective is the underlying value, slower to form and grounded in lived experience. Leaders can accumulate “trust capital” rapidly through perception management, but if the perspective value does not rise to match, they are trading on speculation.

The velocity mismatch between perception-building and perspective-building is a systemic leadership risk. Perception can be built in days through narrative, symbolic gestures, and visible commitments. Perspective takes months or years, shaped by repeated delivery and consistent stakeholder experience. Tools that accelerate perception can help leaders respond quickly and with precision, but they also widen the gap if the substance does not keep pace.

When perception runs too far ahead of perspective, the correction is often abrupt. We all remember how and when Boeing’s safety narrative collapsed when operational weaknesses were exposed. Climate finance pledges delivered instant diplomatic credit but are now measured against delivery timelines that span decades. The most damaging trust failures occur when the correction comes not just from internal stakeholders but from the public, regulators, or markets all at once. To manage this volatility, leaders need a portfolio that balances how trust is signalled, how it is experienced, and how it is guaranteed.

Managed credibility depends on balancing three forms of trust:

– Performative trust is the signalling of credibility through visible acts and narratives.
– Relational trust comes from consistent, fair, and transparent interactions with stakeholders.
– Institutional trust is embedded in governance, transparency, and enforcement mechanisms that ensure reliability beyond individual leaders.

Over-reliance on one form creates vulnerability. Performative trust without relational or institutional depth risks collapse when tested. Relational trust without performance may lack the reach to influence broader audiences. Institutional trust without performance can appear legitimate on paper but fail to inspire confidence in practice. The most resilient leaders ensure these forms reinforce each other and operate on timelines that keep perception and perspective in sync.

Quick diagnostics:
– If our communications went silent for a month, would our credibility still persist? (Performative)
– Do stakeholders describe our conduct as fair when decisions go against them? (Relational)
– Can a process deliver the same standard when we are absent? (Institutional)

A three-step discipline for closing the trust gap to keep perception and perspective aligned
Leaders today are constantly in the spotlight and are called upon to earn authority without control. Economic and social change demands leadership by consent rather than by control. What we perceive as good leadership tends to be created by leaders, followers, and the context and purpose of the organisation, it is a collective rather than individual responsibility.

Step 1: Listen with intent to earn consent and match signals with lived experience
We talk about trust because it is a precious and scarce resource. One can question the term “empathetic leadership”. Leaders who practice “empathetic leadership” listen attentively, placing their complete focus on the person in front of them without getting distracted. They spend more time listening than talking because they want to understand the difficulties others face, which helps give those around them the feeling of being heard and recognised.

Empathetic executives and managers realise that the bottom line of any business is reached through people. Therefore, they have an attitude of openness and understanding of the feelings of their team members. When we listen to the emerging needs of the workplace we step into the most relevant and useful roles and make relevant and valuable contributions both when leading and when following. Members of organisations who are sensitive to people’s reactions trust themselves and each other. They build and nurture trusting relationships and allow the future to emerge organically.

No heroic leader can resolve the complex challenges we face today.

Step 2: Translate values into visible behaviour and day-to-day practice
Trust is a key ingredient of successful leadership. Trusted leaders are the guardians of the values of the organisation. Trust can release the energy of people and enlarge the human and intellectual capital of employees.

In a trusting environment when we are committed to our shared purpose we play active roles both as leaders and as followers.

Leaders serve as role models for their followers and demonstrate the behavioural boundaries set within an organisation. The desired behaviour is reinforced through culture and through socialisation of the newcomers. Employees learn about values from watching leaders in action. The more the leader “walks the talk”, by translating internalised values into action, the higher level of trust and respect they generates from followers.

Step 3: Extend trust beyond the organisation and coordinate it across the wider ecosystem
To help bridge the trust gap we recognise that organisations need to work with wider society to identify practicable, actionable steps that businesses can take to shape a new relationship with wider society: a new ‘settlement’ based on mutual understanding and a shared recognition of the positive role that business plays in people’s lives.

To create such a settlement, businesses need to see themselves as part of a diverse, interconnected and interdependent ecosystem, one that involves government, regulators, individual citizens and partners. Trust within and across this ecosystem is key to its long-term sustainability and survival. Therefore, trust needs to be restored to the heart of the business world.

As Stephen M.R. Covey once said:

“Contrary to what most people believe, trust is not some soft, illusive quality that you either have or you don’t; rather, trust is a pragmatic, tangible, actionable asset that you can create.”

Trust, sentiment, reputation: a measurement framework

Too often an ongoing measurement of trust is missing when companies are developing a strategic view of how they are perceived in the world.

One reason for this is that many business decision-makers do not fully understand how sentiment, reputation and trust differ; and as a result, they do not appreciate the unique contribution trust makes in assessing as well as enhancing the growth potential of their company.

In particular, trust’s relation to a more permanent state of mind, and its power to mitigate the risk (financial and otherwise) associated with purchasing decisions, gives it unique tactical importance, particularly when it comes to the lower reaches of the purchase funnel. Trust’s connection to the future makes it more actionable than both reputation and sentiment. Finally, again in contrast to reputation and sentiment, trust’s domain of relevance and importance extends well beyond communications and marketing. Understanding the full power of trust can help a company transform its business model as well as create new categories and markets.

To be clear, we are not recommending that trust replace either sentiment or reputation as a fundamental brand/company health dashboard metric. All three together comprise a set of measures that companies should employ to better understand both the impact they are currently having in the world and their future growth potential. But, if you only measure sentiment and reputation and not trust, you are leaving a lot of explanatory and predictive power on the table. In essence, you will be looking at only two dimensions within what is a three-dimensional space, creating a state of indeterminacy regarding exactly where you stand.

Recap of operating routines

First, measure perception and perspective separately. Public sentiment, analyst ratings, and media coverage are not the same as stakeholder experience. Treat divergences as early warnings.

Second, protect internal trust as carefully as external reputation. Employees, partners, and communities are critical reserves that can stabilise credibility during external shocks.

Third, align institutional mechanisms with the promises made in performance. Governance systems, audits, and delivery milestones should be designed to convert performative trust into durable, earned trust before the gap becomes unmanageable.

Bottomline

In the age of managed credibility, performance and authenticity are not mutually exclusive. It must be matched by substance

Leaders cannot avoid performing trust. In many cases, the performance is what allows progress to begin. But performance should be treated as a bridge to proof and not as a destination. When perception is aligned with perspective, trust becomes a renewable form of capital, one that can weather scrutiny, adapt to change, and outlast individual tenures.

The most dangerous question in leadership is not: “Do people trust me?” It is: “Do they trust me for the right reasons, and will they still trust me when they see everything?”

This article is the expressed opinions and collaboration between two senior-level industry board professionals on their views and perceptions on the subject matter:

KRUTHIKA ANASTASIA BALA
Managing Director, Resources Now

Kruthika brings over twenty years of experience in growth and leadership across strategy, revenue, process and people with a particular focus on industrial, energy, natural resources and sustainability. She has led strategic initiatives in fast-paced, complex organisations with deep expertise in international consulting and advisory roles, she is a trusted advisor in solving complex business challenges. In addition to her advisory board roles, she also serves as the Head of Energy Transition and Critical Minerals for Lean in Equity & Sustainability and as

Vice-Chair of the Women’s Energy Network Alliance.
Contact details: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kruthikabala/

Geoff Hudson-Searle is a senior independent digital non-executive director across regulation, technology, and internet security, C-Suite executive on private and listed companies, and serial business advisor for growth-phase tech companies.

With more than 30 years of experience in international business and management he is the author of seven books: Freedom After the Sharks; Meaningful Conversations; Journeys to Success: Volume 9, GOD in Business, Purposeful Discussions, The Trust Paradigm and Scars to Stars Volume 3, plus lectures at business forums, conferences, and universities.

He has been the focus of radio/podcasts and TV with London Live, Talk TV, TEDx and RT Europe’s business documentary across various thought leadership topics and print media with The Executive Magazine, Headspring/FT, Huffington Post, The Sunday Times, Raconteur, AMBA, BCS, EuropeanCEO, CEOToday across his authorisms.

A member and fellow of the Institute of Directors, associate of The Business Institute of Management, a cofounder and board member of the Neustar International Security Council (NISC) and a distinguished member of the Advisory Council for The Global Cyber Academy. He holds a master’s degree in business administration. Having worked for corporate companies Citibank N.A, MICE Group Plc, Enigma Design, MMT Inc, Kaspersky Laboratory, Bartercard Plc, and RG Group around the world, Geoff has vast international experience working with SME and multinational international clients. International clients with which Geoff has worked include the British Government, HP, Compaq, BT, Powergen, Intel, ARM, Wartsila Group, Atari, Barclays Bank, Societe Generale, Western Union, Chase and Volvo.
Geoff has worked in a broad range of industries including software, technology and banking which has given him a range of different experiences and perspectives of what can work, the importance of good people, process and how these can be applied and amplified to deliver results in different scenarios and paradigms. Geoff is known for bringing in a fresh viewpoint and sometimes challenging the status-quo with a strategic approach delivering successful change management programmes and launching companies and products internationally that deliver results.

Geoff’s areas of expertise lie in brand strategy, business communications, business integration, business development and improvement, capital raise activities, pre-IPO planning, capital raise transactions, M&A with full P&L responsibility, which ideally equips him to strengthen global companies, develop SME and international business, and marketing strategies.

The Trust Paradigm
At Amazon in all formats including Audible: BUY NOW
LinkedIn: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/geoffsearle