Tag: trust

Oct. 1, 2026 | TRUST Pt. 5

Part 4 here.

Let’s consider one final example…

No_Two_3617 shares the following, which is actually quoting Diji: “HR is not your friend…HR exists to protect the company FROM you…The name itself is a confession: Human Resources. You are a resource. Like coal…You are an asset to be managed, extracted, and eventually replaced when you depreciate…The safe space trap HR loves to say, ‘My door is always open…You can tell me anything.’ Do not fall for this. This is not a therapy session but a deposition. When you go to HR to complain about a toxic boss, you think you are asking for help. What HR hears is ‘This employee is a liability. They are creating a paper trail that could lead to a lawsuit.’ HR’s job is not to fix the toxic boss (especially if that boss brings in revenue). HR’s job is to minimize the legal risk. And the easiest way to remove the risk is to remove you.”

Here, the complaint is that the individual is dehumanized by the organization and by HR in particular; in this person’s view, HR always sides with and supports upper management, even when there is exploitation.

It’s difficult to argue with the complaint about the unfortunate term “human resources,” and I’m not even going to try.

Instead, I’ll dial in specifically on the idea that HR will not (or cannot) hold upper management accountable.

(By the way, if the claim is that HR’s sole function is to protect against lawsuits, then I could argue that holding leadership accountable ALSO protects against lawsuits…but then I’d be intentionally missing the point of the complaint.)

Here, the reversal is obvious: be willing to hold everyone accountable, including those in formal leadership positions.

If you’re too intimidated to do this, that’s okay…but that means the lower-level employees are correct in their belief that you aren’t safe to talk to.

As with the other reversals, it’s simple but not necessarily easy.

Now, I understand that many will protest, “But wait! This is all perceptual! These people might be misrepresenting the situation!”

And that’s true. All complaints (in fact, all statements generally) are filtered through the perceptions of those reporting them.

But HR problems are leadership problems, and leaders must rise above the pettiness of always having to be right.

Sept. 30, 2026 | TRUST Pt. 4

Part 3 here.

Let’s explore another example from the dregs of Reddit…

Two. lilcroc2 describes a variety of workplace complaints, including bullying, unfair treatment, etc. The primary complaint about HR is that they listen to the concerns but do nothing.

Basically, the idea is that HR listens to concerns merely as a tactic to appease the discontented, with no intention of doing anything about them.

(Remember all the usual caveats about how I have no idea if this really happened, or if the story is being told accurately…)

Do the opposite: To build trust, respond somehow to every complaint.

Clearly, you can’t always do exactly what the employee is suggesting. But I’d argue that you always ought to adjust something.

When people express serious concerns, they may not always be correct about the nature of either the problem or the solution, but they are 100% correct about their feeling of discomfort.

And yes, I recognize this level of responsiveness is far easier when the company is smaller. But I’m not saying you have to be able to respond immediately.

If it will take time to review the complaint and put it into context alongside other complaints from that quarter…then just say that. Say whatever is true about what the process looks like and how you’ll respond (now or later).

And then do follow up later to let people know what happened with the concern they expressed, how it was considered, and what adjustments will be made, if any.

While we’re on this, I also have to point out that you gain a staggering amount of buy-in when you solicit suggestions and then fully implement them. (This applies to HR and all leaders alike.)

This is one of the most powerful ways to gain credibility in the eyes of employees, but it’s shockingly underutilized.

It’s not always fully possible, of course. Often, employees have suggestions that are impractical, usually for reasons that are invisible to them because they can’t see all parts of the organization. (It’s not their job to be able to do that.)

But even a partial implementation or adaptation of a suggestion goes a long way. And then don’t forget to give the employee who suggested it all the credit!

Okay, one final example tomorrow…

Sept. 29, 2026 | TRUST Pt. 3

Part 2 here.

If you want to send messages that contradict a narrative about HR being untrustworthy, then you need to do the opposite of the things people complain about.

Do this publicly and repeatedly, over extended periods of time.

To find some examples, let’s peruse the complaints of disgruntled employees in r/ToxicWorkplace on Reddit…

(By the way, posts are regularly removed, so if a link breaks, you’ll just have to take my word for it.)

((Oh, also—I have no idea whether these stories are true, but I’ve heard many stories like them.))

One. Sissy3463 reports a scenario with this progression:

1. HR initially ignored certain complaints.
2. Next, they held a team meeting for employees to express their concerns.
3. Afterward, they described employees’ complaints as inflammatory, disruptive, and abusive.
4. Finally, they asked employees to sign forms agreeing that they had made statements that were inflammatory toward management and abusive toward coworkers.

Again, I have no idea if this really happened or if the actions of HR are represented fairly or accurately.

Of course, we could get into various possible interpretations…

• Perhaps the listening session was really just a way to pinpoint discontented employees and then reprimand them?
• Perhaps HR genuinely did want to better understand employees concerns, but then discontented individuals began screaming threats of violence?
• Perhaps the entire story was fabricated to win fake Internet points?

We weren’t there, so we have no idea.

But it doesn’t really matter. The point is that HR’s alleged actions were perceived as a trap.

The fact that the context was an exercise ostensibly designed to build trust (i.e., identify concerns so that they can be resolved) makes it that much more combustible.

So, what’s the “anti-complaint” here? What statements and actions would completely contradict the narrative?

The first complaint was that HR ignored some problem or concern.

Do the opposite: Respond to all concerns in some way. Even if the response doesn’t give the employee what they want every time, it’s still preferable to ignoring the concern.

The second complaint was that HR tricked discontented employees into revealing themselves, then punished them.

Do the opposite: Obviously, never use data collection to target individuals who express concerns.

If trust is low, then take action to both assure and ensure anonymity. Provide options for sharing feedback that make it impossible to identify which individual expressed a particular concern.

If trust is moderate or high, then anonymity may not be necessary. (Ideally, you are building a culture of trust and psychological safety, such that everyone feels comfortable expressing concerns.) In that case, you can reward individuals for expressing concerns, especially when it leads to important improvements.

Okay, this took up more space and time than I expected. I’ll consider another example tomorrow…

Sept. 28, 2026 | TRUST Pt. 2

Part 1 here.

Okay, let’s talk more about building trust…

First of all, if your HR personnel truly are just the handmaidens of an unethical leadership team, then you aren’t trustworthy, and employees shouldn’t trust you.

(If this is the case, then this series of posts isn’t really for you. These are all about genuine ways to convey trustworthiness, and there are no genuine ways to mislead or trick people into trusting you.)

But let’s assume you really do have the entire organization’s best interests in heart—including employees, leadership, business performance, everything…

The solution boils down to publicly saying and doing things that send that message. As I said last time, the only way to build trust is to behave in a trustworthy fashion.

This approach works even if you’re starting out with a negative reputation. If you consistently and persistently do things that are incompatible with any narrative about you, eventually the narrative is the thing that breaks down.

Examine every aspect of HR communications and interactions, and ask, What message does this send about whether we have everyone’s best interest at heart?

Pro-Tip: You can ask employees for this specific feedback too!

If it doesn’t send the message you want, then your team needs to have a conversation about whether and how it should be modified.

That’s it.

Again, deceptively simple.

Of course, the only way to pull this off is to partner closely with upper management. After all, that is where the real distrust lies.

If HR sends constant trust-building messages through both words and actions, but leadership does the opposite, then this whole exercise comes across as a trap to get employees to let their guard down.

Okay, that’s the general idea. Next time, I’ll look at examples from real-life complaints about HR…

Sept. 27, 2026 | TRUST Pt. 1

I see a lot of posts online describing HR as the “handmaidens of upper management,” part of a “surveillance state,” or similar.

Where does this narrative come from?

Obviously, employees have had experiences where they felt like HR burned them. In addition to being posted online, these stories become part of many organizations’ oral traditions, sometimes continuing on even when no one involved is still employed at the firm!

What would it take to get employees to trust HR?

Well, you’ll probably never convince a Reddit mob, but at your own organization, there’s only one possible answer, and it’s deceptively simple: you build trust by behaving in a trustworthy fashion.

Colloquially, we often describe trust as a binary (“I trust them” or “I don’t trust them”). But the truth is it’s a continuum.

Additionally, your level of trust in someone is continually updating based on each experience you have with them…

• When they do something slightly untrustworthy, your trust in them decreases a bit
• When they do something moderately trustworthy, your trust in them increases somewhat
• When they do something extremely untrustworthy, your trust in them plummets
• Et cetera

In this way, we continually update our trust in others based on evidence they provide that they should (or should not) be trusted. That evidence consists of statements but more so their behaviors.

Additionally, these updates are cumulative, meaning all previous interactions also feed into the current trust level, at least to some extent.

Based on this, the idea that you can immediately forgive someone or instantaneously choose to begin trusting them again, like flipping a switch, is a fantasy that only exists in fiction. (Actually, certain psychological conditions may enable this, but that’s not a good thing.)

So, back to the question: How do you get employees to trust HR?

Presumably, if they don’t trust HR, it’s because…

1. They’ve been burned (or at least that’s how they feel), and/or
2. They’ve heard stories of others getting burned, and they worry it’s going to happen to them.

Repairing that—especially if you don’t believe you did mistreat anyone in the first place—requires humility and patience.

I’ll get into more specifics next time…