© 2025 James Hardie – Course Correction Consulting Ltd. The EASE Framework™ is a proprietary model developed by James Hardie to support the creation of psychologically safe, empowered, and strategically aligned teams. All rights reserved.
.svg)
.svg)
The popular TV show The Traitors can reveal lots about trust and betrayal, but it is only a game, or is it? Trust is the quiet engine of coordination and learning at work, which is why betrayal feels uniquely painful, it violates our expectation of safe vulnerability. Networking rooms and cross-functional teams compress months of relationship building into minutes. Under pressure, we lean on fast reads, coalitions, and vibes.
Trust is the decision to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations, which enables learning and speed at work. Betrayal hurts more than ordinary loss because it violates moral and identity expectations inside a relationship, and people are especially averse to social risk. Calibrate trust with small bets, explicit norms, and evidence loops. Repair competence and integrity failures differently. Use skepticism to test, not to wall off, because sustainable scale depends on trust that is earned in public.
The popular TV show The Traitors can reveal lots about trust and betrayal, but it is only a game, or is it? When networking have you ever noticed how tiring this can be as you build fast friends? Trust is the quiet engine of coordination and learning at work, which is why betrayal feels uniquely painful, it violates our expectation of safe vulnerability. Networking rooms and cross-functional teams compress months of relationship building into minutes. Under pressure, we lean on fast reads, coalitions, and vibes.
Psychological contracts are real, though often not written down. When growth gets messy, leaders need clarity, stronger teams, and a proactive climate where leadership thrives at every level. This piece examines why trust is central to that project, and why its breach hurts more than ordinary risk. The argument is deliberately challenging. Alongside core hypotheses, you will find counterpoints that keep the claims honest.
If we want to LEAD with EASE then Trust is a critical element across the whole concept.
Networking rooms and cross-functional teams compress months of relationship building into minutes. Under pressure, we lean on fast reads, coalitions, and vibes. That is exactly why The Traitors lands: it dramatises the shortcuts we all use at conferences, pitch nights, and project kick-offs. If growth feels messy, the same trust mechanics can either unclog or snarl your team and your pipeline.
1) Swift trust is useful, and brittle.
In new teams and first-time meetings we default to “swift trust,” built on roles, reputations, and early signals rather than shared history (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996). Great for momentum, fragile under stress. Treat first impressions as hypotheses, not verdicts.
2) We overrate our lie-detection skills.
Confident reads of “micro-tells” feel smart, but meta-analysis shows humans detect deception only slightly better than chance (Bond & DePaulo, 2006). In hiring, sales, or partnership talks, conviction is not the same as accuracy.
3) Betrayal aversion distorts decisions.
People often choose a worse option to avoid the chance of being played (Bohnet & Zeckhauser, 2004). At work this looks like over-control, under-delegation, or avoiding promising partnerships because the “what if” looms larger than the upside.
4) Coalitions beat facts when identity heats up.
Once a team or event clusters into camps, functions, firms, cliques, Social Identity Theory predicts in-group favouritism and scapegoating (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Truth-seeking quietly gives way to belonging-seeking. In groups and out groups, othering, Us and Them statements.
5) Error management skews us toward paranoia.
Under ambiguity we often pick the “safer” error, assume threat, because the sting of being duped feels worse than a false alarm (Haselton & Nettle, 2006). In practice: reading caution as hostility, or healthy dissent as disloyalty. Loyal dissent may in fact be our greatest ally.
6) Exclusion harms performance fast.
Cold-shouldering a colleague or freezing out a newcomer hurts more than most managers expect; ostracism degrades mood, reasoning, and self-control (Williams, 2007). The silent treatment is not neutral, it is corrosive.
Trust lowers coordination costs, speeds learning, and enables candid error reporting. Psychological safety, people feeling safe to take interpersonal risks, predicts better team performance and faster problem detection (Edmondson, 1999). In short: trust is not soft. It is an operating system we all have and value.
Run “small bets” trust loops.
Offer, then test, with low-stakes reciprocity: a timely intro, a draft shared early, a bounded pilot. Judge consistency over theatrics.
Make norms explicit, fast.
At kickoff, agree the rules of challenge, decision, and repair. In a networking setting, be clear on intent: “I’m exploring X, here’s what a good next step looks like.”
Audit evidence together.
Use two questions: “What would change my mind?” and “What would change yours?” Then look. This cools coalition heat and keeps you in shared reality.
Name behaviours, not character.
Call out the action, missed deadline, vague brief, not identity. It reduces the fundamental attribution error and keeps the door open for course correction.
Close triangles.
Side chats drive The Traitors and derail teams. If a concern involves someone, bring it to the room where the work lives. Fewer secrets, fewer stories.
Repair with specifics and follow-through.
A functional apology acknowledges impact, accepts responsibility, explains without excuse, and offers a concrete remedy. Then, frankly, some boring reliability.
In busy rooms and new teams, trust is not a vibe. It is a series of small, observable promises kept, calibrated quickly, and repaired on purpose. The show gamifies our shortcuts; work rewards those who slow them down just enough to choose better.
The evidence base is robust. Trust predicts learning behaviours and performance because it lowers interpersonal threat, which enables candour, help seeking, and intelligent risk taking (Edmondson, 1999; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Classic models parse trust into ability, benevolence, and integrity, which together shape the decision to accept vulnerability to another person or unit (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). In young teams and networking contexts, people lean on “swift trust,” importing expectations from roles and early signals before history accumulates (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996). This gives momentum, yet remains fragile.
Counterpoint: Agency theory reminds us that monitoring and incentives can substitute, at least partly, for trust. In high stakes, low familiarity contexts, tight contracts, audits, and escrow may outperform relational bets. Our control mechanisms carry transaction costs and can crowd out the very candour that learning requires.
Betrayal is not just loss, it is a violation of moral expectation inside a relationship. Economically, people demand a premium to accept social risk relative to impersonal risk, a pattern labeled betrayal aversion (Bohnet & Zeckhauser, 2004). Psychologically, exclusion and broken promises threaten belonging, self esteem, control, and meaning, producing immediate affective pain and short term cognitive depletion (Williams, 2007). In plain terms, the mind treats betrayal as both a security breach and an identity wound.
Counterpoint: Some individuals show lower betrayal sensitivity, often because of prior exposure to volatile markets or cultures with strong contractual norms. In such settings, teams can function with cooler, more transactional ties. The trade off is slower learning when problems are interpersonal rather than technical. Politicians may be a good example with shifting loyalties and eternal compromise.
Humans overestimate their ability to detect deception, with accuracy barely above chance across hundreds of studies (Bond & DePaulo, 2006). That means conviction is a poor proxy for truth and some people will exploit this. A better approach is to separate competence violations, missed targets due to skill or resource gaps, from integrity violations, deception or value conflict, and then repair differently. Evidence shows apologies and concrete remedies help after competence failures, while integrity breaches require stronger signals, restitution, and time to rebuild credibility, if at all (Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004).
Counterpoint: Apologies can be strategic theatre. Without visible process change and external verification, repair efforts may simply reset the cycle of hope and disappointment. Scepticism is not cynicism, it is the discipline of insisting on observable behaviour change.
Teams tilt toward in group narratives once coalitions form, often privileging belonging over truth seeking (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Networking events amplify this because swift trust plus identity cues drives rapid clustering. The fix is procedural, not charismatic. Make norms for challenge explicit, agree how decisions will be made, and set a repair protocol before you need it. These practices cool identity heat and preserve shared reality.
Counterpoint: Strong identities also create speed and grit. Elite sales teams and high reliability crews depend on deep in group commitment. The risk emerges when identity outruns evidence. Leaders must alternate between belonging cues and evidence checks.
Aristotle writes that character is destiny, and that stable relationships require trustworthiness as a practiced virtue, not a claim. Confucian thought centres on reliability in word and deed, as the groundwork for social harmony. Both traditions view trust as a moral practice, not a tactic or politics, which aligns with modern findings, integrity signals are disproportionately powerful in trust decisions (Mayer et al., 1995).
Consider a product outage followed by incomplete disclosure. Even when service resumes, customers often churn more after the partial truth than after a fully transparent failure. The betrayal is not the outage, it is the inference that the partner may not safeguard their vulnerability next time. Repair that focuses on competence, extra testing, without acknowledging the integrity breach, selective disclosure, rarely restores the account. This pattern mirrors the competence versus integrity asymmetry in trust repair research (Kim et al., 2004).
Trust is not universally good, though it can be incredibly powerful. Over trusting invites exploitation, under trusting stalls coordination. Flattery can distort trust. Culture, power asymmetries, and industry norms shape what is feasible. In some contexts, deterrence and verification are essential. The useful stance is disciplined calibration, not romanticism. Even so, when the goal is scalable collaboration in messy growth, trust remains the cheapest way to move intelligence through a system. That is why betrayal cuts so deep. It does not only change how we feel, it breaks the operating assumptions that make work possible.
How much trust is enough before a big deal?
Enough to run a reversible pilot with shared metrics. Add verification where exposure is high.
Can we design for low trust environments?
Yes, modularise commitments, shorten feedback cycles, and increase external verification, then let earned trust expand scope.
How do we repair after a values breach?
Acknowledge impact, accept responsibility, offer restitution, and change processes under third party or transparent scrutiny.
Does psychological safety make teams soft?
No, it clarifies that hard problems can be named without social punishment, which raises the bar on performance discussion.
Bohnet, I., & Zeckhauser, R. (2004). Trust, risk and betrayal. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55(4), 467–484.
Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership, meta analytic findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 104–118.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 166–195). Sage.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all, a cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks, Cole.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.