From lo-trust to no-trust.
It used to be that there were two kinds of people: high-trusters, who were prepared to trust until given a reason not to, and low-trusters, who believed trust had to be earned. Both positions, however different, offered a workable foundation for connection and exchange.
Not anymore.
Research from MHP Group (a UK-based public affairs and communications firm) shows how a third of adults are Super-Distrusters. Their starting point is not high-trust or low-trust. Rather it is to distrust everything. Their numbers look set to grow.
Super-Distrusters defy caricature and lazy stereotypes. They are not just right-wing, uneducated NIMBYs. Super-Distrusters cut across left and right, young and old, affluent and not. They have degrees. Sure, they can be found in the suburbs of Ohio and Leeds—but they are just as likely to be seen sipping matcha in Brooklyn or tapping away in Shoreditch co-working spaces.
Distrust is not a marginal phenomenon. Nor it is a British one. It is widespread, cultural and systemic.
It is tempting to explain away the distrusters as people “pulled” into the orbit of provocateurs, conspiracists and malign online influencers. Tempting, but wrong. Many have been pushed. Pushed by institutions that dismiss their legitimate concerns as petty complaints; by politicians who view their scepticism as ignorance; and by businesses whose interactions with them increasingly feel like enforcement, rather than service.
Many Super-Distrusters believe ‘the system’ sees them as the problem, one rigged against them. Few things erode trust faster than being patronised by those who claim to know better.
For leaders and communicators, the implications are significant. Persuasion works best when audiences assume the communicator is broadly capable, honest and aligned with their interests. Those assumptions can no longer be relied upon. Messengers and their messages are now examined not for coherence but motive. What aren’t they telling me? Where’s the trick?
Part of the challenge for today’s leaders and communicators is recognising what trust is. It is often seen as a moral attribute, a social nicety and about truth. Not so. Trust is a bet. How confident we feel about predicting someone else’s future actions determines our trust in them. People tend to trust to the extent they feel confident a communicator possesses competence, integrity and, ideally, benevolence. Yet these qualities are in decline. In an increasingly distrusting world, logic alone is insufficient. As one observer at the recent COP30 summit in Belém noted, “bringing facts to an emotional fight” never works.
Influence is crucial to effective leadership and communication. Yet influence and persuasion can’t thrive on a foundation of distrust. Work needs to be done to rebuild the foundations of trust in society and business. Three ideas seem important.
First, we need to remind ourselves that trust is a contact sport. It grows through human connection, not automation. AI can accelerate transactions and carry out tasks but it cannot look you in the eye, smile warmly and shake you by the hand. Yet.
Second, governments, institutions and firms must stop problematising the public. People want to be heard, not corrected. To dismiss scepticism is to entrench it.
Third, realise that trust is a gift and leaders need to be the first movers. Transparency should be offered before it is demanded; assistance provided before it is requested. The social contract of trust is steeped in reciprocity: give and take. Note the order. Giving comes before taking. Ignore this at your peril.
Distrust has become the defining issue of the age. Influence and persuasion remain the defining skills needed to succeed. For influence and persuasion to thrive leaders and communicators need to start work restoring the conditions that make persuasion and change possible. We need to address the Great Untrusting,
For those who get this right, the opportunities will be significant.
