Trust Is Not an Entitlement: Why Institutions Must Earn What They Expect (#768)
Trust is one of the most valuable assets an institution possesses.
It is also one of the most fragile.
We trust our doctors to act in our best interests.
We trust universities to pursue knowledge and uphold academic principles.
We trust professional organizations to represent their members.
We trust governments to exercise authority responsibly.
Most of the time, we extend that trust without giving it much thought.
Until something happens that causes us to question it.
What happens when an institution stops answering questions?
When leaders make consequential decisions without consulting those affected?
When requests for explanations are met with assurances that appropriate procedures were followed?
Does trust survive because an institution insists that it should?
Or must trust be continually earned?
These questions came to mind while reading a recent podcast interview with Professor Sim Sitkin of Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, published on October 26, 2026, under the title Why Do Institutions Lose Our Trust?
Professor Sitkin, whose research focuses on leadership, accountability, and institutional trust, offers some particularly important insights into why trust erodes and what institutions must do to preserve it.
His observations deserve attention from anyone who leads, works within, or depends upon an institution.
What Is Trust?
Professor Sitkin defines trust as:
A willingness to be vulnerable under conditions of uncertainty.
It is a deceptively simple definition.
Trust becomes necessary precisely because we cannot know everything, control everything, or protect ourselves against every possible outcome.
When patients enter a hospital, they trust that those caring for them possess the necessary knowledge and will act responsibly.
When students enter a university, they trust that their education will be guided by academic standards rather than commercial interests.
When faculty participate in shared governance, they trust that their representatives will listen, deliberate, and act in accordance with the institution's stated principles.
In each case, individuals accept a degree of vulnerability.
They surrender some control because they believe the institution deserves their confidence.
But that confidence is conditional.
Trust is not an obligation imposed upon those who are governed. It is a responsibility assumed by those who govern.
Institutions Are More Than Organizations
One of Professor Sitkin's most interesting observations concerns the distinction between an organization and an institution.
An organization becomes an institution when it acquires meaning beyond its immediate activities.
A university is not simply a collection of buildings, employees, and students.
A university represents an enduring commitment to education, scholarship, intellectual independence, and the public good.
A professional association is not merely an administrative body that collects membership fees.
A professional association represents the collective identity, standards, and aspirations of a profession.
Institutions possess legitimacy because people believe they stand for something.
That legitimacy creates expectations.
And when institutional behavior appears inconsistent with those expectations, trust begins to deteriorate.
This is why an apparently minor administrative decision can generate a disproportionately strong reaction.
The decision itself may not be the central issue.
What matters is what the decision reveals about the institution's values.
The Contradictions of Institutional Trust
Professor Sitkin identifies five inherent tensions that institutions must manage.
Institutions must provide stability while remaining adaptable.
Institutions must be inclusive while maintaining standards that inevitably exclude some individuals.
Institutions must deliver consistent services while responding to individual circumstances.
Institutions must exercise expertise and authority while allowing meaningful participation.
And institutions must protect confidential information while remaining transparent about their decisions.
These are genuine contradictions.
A university, for example, cannot conduct every personnel discussion publicly.
Confidentiality is sometimes essential.
But confidentiality surrounding personal information is fundamentally different from secrecy surrounding institutional decisions.
Likewise, academic expertise deserves respect.
Yet expertise does not eliminate the importance of consultation.
A university administration may possess the authority to make a decision.
That does not necessarily mean it has earned the confidence of those affected by that decision.
Authority determines who can make a decision.
Trust depends upon how that authority is exercised.
The distinction is fundamental.
The More Power We Have, the Less We Explain
Perhaps the most troubling observation in Professor Sitkin's discussion concerns leadership.
His research suggests that leaders frequently fail to provide adequate explanations for their decisions.
Why?
Because they do not have to.
An administrator can invoke institutional authority.
A committee can cite established procedures.
A governing body can declare that a decision has been finalized.
All may be legally or procedurally correct.
But none necessarily addresses the concerns of those who are asking questions.
Indeed, repeated assurances that procedures were followed may actually deepen distrust when the questions concern the substance of the decision rather than the procedures themselves.
Consider the difference between two responses.
The first:
We followed all applicable policies and procedures.
The second:
Here is what we considered, whom we consulted, what alternatives were available, why we made this decision, and how we addressed the concerns that were raised.
Both may describe the same decision.
Only the second invites understanding.
An explanation is not a concession of weakness.
It is an expression of respect.
And respect is essential to trust.
The Problem With "Trust Me"
Throughout my career teaching veterinary students, I frequently challenged the expression:
Trust me. I'm a doctor.
The phrase suggests that professional qualifications alone should be sufficient to command confidence.
I encouraged students to question that assumption.
Credentials establish that an individual has acquired particular knowledge and qualifications.
They do not establish that every judgment is correct.
Nor do they relieve professionals of the responsibility to explain their reasoning.
A good clinician should welcome thoughtful questions.
Why was this diagnosis made?
What alternatives were considered?
What evidence supports the proposed treatment?
What are the uncertainties?
These questions are not evidence of distrust.
They are part of responsible clinical practice.
The same principles apply to universities and other institutions.
Trust us. We are the administration.
Trust us. We are the experts.
Trust us. We followed the rules.
Such statements may be intended to reassure.
But when offered in place of substantive explanations, they can have precisely the opposite effect.
Trust cannot be demanded on the basis of a title, position, or credential.
Trust must be justified through conduct.
Silence Is Not Neutral
There is another dimension to institutional trust that deserves particular attention.
Silence.
When individuals raise legitimate questions and receive no meaningful response, silence becomes part of the institutional message.
It may not be intended as dismissive.
It may reflect competing priorities, administrative complexity, legal concerns, or simple organizational inertia.
But the effect on those awaiting answers can be profound.
A question unanswered for a week may be understandable.
A question unanswered for months raises different concerns.
Does the institution take the question seriously?
Does it recognize the questioner's legitimate interest?
Is the institution unwilling to explain its actions?
Or does it believe that those affected are not entitled to an explanation?
Whatever the reason, prolonged silence creates uncertainty.
And uncertainty, particularly when combined with unequal power, makes trust more difficult.
There is an important distinction between an institution being unable to answer a question immediately and an institution being unwilling to engage with the question at all.
The first can be explained.
The second threatens the relationship between the institution and its stakeholders.
Silence may protect an institution from immediate scrutiny, but it rarely protects its reputation for trustworthiness.
Shared Governance Is an Exercise in Trust
Universities provide a particularly revealing example.
Shared governance is built upon the proposition that institutional decisions benefit from the participation of those whose expertise, experience, and commitment sustain the university.
Faculty, administrators, staff, and students have different responsibilities.
They do not necessarily possess equal decision-making authority.
But meaningful participation requires more than the opportunity to endorse decisions already made.
Meaningful participation requires access to relevant information, opportunities for deliberation, and a reasonable expectation that questions will receive substantive answers.
A faculty committee may fulfill every procedural requirement associated with a decision.
But if its members have insufficient time or information to evaluate the implications, or if consultation occurs only after commitments have effectively become irreversible, the spirit of shared governance may not have been fulfilled.
Procedural compliance and meaningful governance are related.
They are not synonymous.
The same distinction applies to professional associations.
Members elect representatives because they trust them to exercise judgment on their behalf.
That responsibility includes accountability to those members.
Representation does not end when a vote is taken.
Nor does accountability end when a committee declares a matter closed.
A matter is not necessarily resolved simply because those in authority have stopped discussing it.
Can Trust Be Rebuilt?
Fortunately, Professor Sitkin's research offers a constructive path forward.
He identifies four essential leadership practices.
Explore.
Explain.
Experiment.
Execute.
First, leaders must explore the concerns of those affected by their decisions.
This means listening without assuming that disagreement reflects ignorance, hostility, or resistance to change.
Second, leaders must explain.
Not merely announce conclusions, but explain the reasoning, competing priorities, uncertainties, and alternatives.
Third, institutions must be willing to experiment.
Not every decision will prove correct. Good leadership requires the humility to recognize that circumstances change and that better approaches may emerge.
Finally, institutions must execute their decisions competently while remaining accountable for the consequences.
These principles are not complicated.
But they require something that institutional hierarchies do not always encourage.
Humility.
The willingness to acknowledge that authority does not confer infallibility.
The willingness to admit that an earlier decision may have been imperfect.
And the willingness to recognize that those who ask difficult questions may be contributing to institutional improvement rather than obstructing it.
Questioning Is Not Disloyalty
There is a troubling tendency within some institutions to interpret persistent questioning as opposition.
An individual who repeatedly requests information may be perceived as difficult.
Someone who challenges an administrative decision may be characterized as disruptive.
A faculty member who insists upon meaningful consultation may be accused of undermining institutional unity.
But this interpretation reverses the relationship between trust and accountability.
Questioning is not necessarily evidence that someone has lost faith in an institution.
It may be evidence that the individual cares deeply about its future.
Indeed, indifference may be a far greater threat.
People who no longer believe an institution can improve often stop asking questions altogether.
They disengage.
They withdraw.
They cease to participate.
And eventually, the institution loses something more valuable than agreement.
It loses commitment.
Constructive criticism is therefore not the enemy of institutional trust.
Constructive criticism is one of the mechanisms through which trust can be sustained.
The Courage to Be Humble
Near the conclusion of the podcast, Professor Sitkin introduces a particularly appealing idea:
Have enough confidence to be humble.
It is a powerful description of good leadership.
Confident leaders do not need to pretend that every decision is perfect.
Confident leaders do not need to regard questions as challenges to their legitimacy.
Confident leaders do not need to hide behind procedures when substantive explanations are warranted.
Instead, they can acknowledge uncertainty, invite different perspectives, and demonstrate a willingness to learn.
Professor Sitkin also emphasizes the importance of seeking out people who disagree with us.
Not simply to persuade them that we are right.
But to learn from them.
This is an especially important lesson for universities.
Institutions devoted to intellectual inquiry should be particularly comfortable with questions, disagreement, and the possibility of being wrong.
After all, the advancement of knowledge depends upon precisely these qualities.
An institution that encourages critical thinking in its classrooms but discourages it in its governance risks contradicting its own educational mission.
Trust Must Be Earned Every Day
Institutional trust is not a permanent asset.
Institutional trust cannot be secured indefinitely through reputation, historical achievement, professional credentials, or administrative authority.
Institutional trust must be maintained through consistent behavior.
Through honesty.
Through transparency.
Through meaningful participation.
Through accountability.
And, perhaps most importantly, through a willingness to answer questions.
There will always be difficult decisions.
There will always be competing expectations.
There will always be occasions when an institution cannot satisfy everyone.
But dissatisfaction with a decision does not inevitably produce distrust.
People can accept disappointing outcomes when they believe the process was fair, their concerns were heard, and the reasoning was explained.
Conversely, even a defensible decision can damage institutional trust when it is accompanied by secrecy, dismissiveness, or prolonged silence.
This is the central lesson I take from Professor Sitkin's discussion.
Trust is not demonstrated by the absence of questions.
It is demonstrated by an institution's willingness to answer them.
And perhaps the most important question any institutional leader should ask is not:
Why don't people trust us?
But rather:
What have we done to deserve their trust?
Reference
Sitkin, S. B. (2026, October 26). Why Do Institutions Lose Our Trust? Interview with Sarah Kern. Fuqua Insights Podcast, Duke University, Fuqua School of Business.
Comments