7 Trust

In a digital economy, trust goes well beyond being a soft cultural value. Organisations that understand how trust is engineered will outperform those that take it for granted, or assume it’s in place ‘by default’.

Trust is an essential foundation of both society and organisational life.

As digital technologies transform how people interact, transact, and collaborate, the nature of trust itself is shifting — from reliance on local relationships and institutions toward trust in unknown others, mediated by platforms, reputation systems, and increasingly, blockchain-based infrastructures.

To maintain consistency with the module, this chapter contains just two topics:

1. Distributed Trust: how trust has changed over time and how technologies like blockchain enable new trust relationships.

2. Presentation: because trust also matters when teams communicate: the ability to build credibility, clarity, and confidence is core to strategic implementation.

Notice that these two topics are covered in this Pressbook chapter to maintain alignment with the module workshop content.

This chapter integrates conceptual, technological, and practical elements of trust — helping leaders understand how trust operates both in digital ecosystems and in team-based communication environments.

7.1 Distributed Trust

Trust underpins exchange, cooperation and innovation. Without trust, markets stall, organisations fragment, and digital transformation fails. Emerging technologies are reshaping how trust is created and sustained. Drawing on Rachel Botsman’s work ‘Who Can You Trust?’ (2017), this topic explores how trust has evolved, how technology mediates trust today, and how Web 3.0 and blockchain contribute to a new model of distributed trust.

Botsman defines trust as:

‘a confident relationship with the unknown.’

Trust is not blind optimism; it is a mechanism that allows us to take risks in situations of uncertainty. When we board a plane, use online banking, or transact with a stranger, we are placing trust in systems, processes and people we cannot fully verify ourselves.

7.1.1 Evolution of Trust

Trust has evolved alongside the scale and complexity of society. Rachel identifies a shift across three broad phases:

1️⃣ Local Trust

In early societies, trust was personal and relational. It was built through repeated interaction within tight-knit communities. Reputation travelled by word of mouth. Accountability was immediate and social.

Trust was slow to build but difficult to fake. However, it did not scale easily beyond local networks.

2️⃣ Institutional Trust

As populations expanded and trade globalised, trust migrated to institutions. Governments, banks, legal systems and corporations became intermediaries that reduced uncertainty. Contracts, regulation, insurance and brand legitimacy replaced personal familiarity.

1. Institutional trust enabled:
2. Mass industrial production
3. National and global financial systems
4. Large-scale employment structures
5. Standardised rules of exchange

For much of the twentieth century, institutional trust dominated. However, in many societies, confidence in institutions has weakened due to financial crises, political instability, corporate misconduct and information asymmetry.

3️⃣ Distributed Trust

In response, a new model has emerged: distributed trust. We increasingly trust:

1. An Airbnb host we have never met
2. A rideshare driver identified only by a profile
3. Sellers on eBay
4. Strangers funding projects on Kickstarter

This is not naïve trust. Moreover, it is technologically mediated trust. Reputation scores, identity verification, peer reviews and transaction histories reduce perceived risk. Trust shifts from traditional authority to networked systems. Importantly, distributed trust does not remove institutions entirely; it reshapes their role. Platforms become the new trust brokers, bringing both opportunities and challenges as shown in Figure 7-1.

7.1.2 Technology and Trust

Technology changes where trust resides, rather than eliminating the need for trust. In Web 2.0 environments, platforms create trust through socio-technical mechanisms:

1. Reputation systems: Ratings, reviews, badges and feedback loops.
2. Radical transparency: Visible transaction histories and performance data.
3. Identity layers: Profiles, verification processes, biometric authentication.
4. Escrow and dispute resolution: Structured conflict management.
5. Network effects: Large user bases signalling legitimacy.

These systems lower friction in transactions and accelerate adoption. However, they also introduce new dependencies.

From Peer Trust to Platform Trust

While users appear to trust one another, they also trust the platform’s algorithms, governance policies, information security and incentive structures. This creates concentration of power. Platform owners can alter rules, manipulate visibility, or extract value from user data. Trust therefore becomes layered:

1. Trust in other participants
2. Trust in the platform
3. Trust in the technology infrastructure

Botsman argues that modern trust systems combine:

• Competence trust (Can they do what they promise?)
• Integrity trust (Will they act fairly?)
• Empathy trust (Do they understand and care?)

Digital systems often strengthen competence trust (predictability, automation) but may weaken empathy trust unless designed deliberately.

Trust as a Design Challenge

For organisations, trust is no longer a soft cultural variable; it is a strategic design question. Leaders must ask:

1. How transparent should we be?
2. How much control should users have over their data?
3. Where should decision rights sit—centralised or distributed?
4. How do we respond when trust breaks?

Note the similarities with the principles of Openness introduced in Chapter 6. Trust can scale quickly in digital environments. But the same applies to distrust. Negative reviews, data breaches or algorithmic bias can erode legitimacy rapidly, and cause reputational damage that is neither quick nor easy to repair.

Technology has transformed trust by:

1. Providing reputation mechanisms in the form of ratings and reviews.
2. Storing transactional histories, or audit trails of every transaction.
3. Matching people through platform based algorithms
4. Using identity verification tools and technologies
5. Enabling data transparency, or equally information privacy facilities
6. Applying smart contracts to automate agreements

This shifts trust from ‘trust the institution’ to ‘trust the system.’ which in turn brings its own hazards.

Digital trust is not automatic;  it is engineered. And the components to facilitate that engineering are improving over time.

7.1.3 Web 3.0 and Blockchain

The evolution of trust aligns with the evolution of the web, as shown in Figure 7-2.

Blockchain as Trust Infrastructure

If Web 2.0 concentrated trust in digital platforms, Web 3.0 begins to ask a different question: what if trust could be embedded directly into the infrastructure of exchange itself?

Focusing on permissioned blockchain operating across business networks, Palfreyman in ‘Business Blockchain’ (2018) explains that to understand this shift, it helps to step away from cryptocurrency headlines and return to a simple business reality.

Organisations do not operate in isolation; they operate in networks. Assets which are either tangible (e.g., vehicles and property), or intangible e.g., (intellectual property, bonds or digital rights) move across business networks in exchange for payment. Each participant keeps their own ledger, recording what they own and how ownership changes over time.

This familiar system has served commerce for centuries. Yet it is slow, inefficient and vulnerable. Every organisation maintains its own version of the truth. Records must be reconciled. Disputes arise. Intermediaries are required to validate and audit transactions. Cost accumulates. In a digital economy that operates at near real-time speed, this fragmented ledger model begins to show strain.

Blockchain proposes a different approach.

Rather than each participant maintaining a separate ledger, members of a business network share a single ledger that updates whenever a transaction occurs. Instead of reconciliation after the fact, agreement happens before the record is written. Once written, the transaction cannot be altered. Privacy services ensure that each participant sees only the information relevant to them, while the integrity of the record remains protected through cryptography.

To make this more concrete, imagine three network participants let’s call them Peter, Susan and George who share a ledger of vehicle ownership. Peter agrees to transfer his car to Susan once she pays him £500. When payment is received, the network confirms the transaction. If consensus is reached, ownership transfers automatically and all copies of the ledger update simultaneously. If agreement is not reached, the payment is returned. George may see that a transfer occurred, but not necessarily the financial details. The transaction becomes permanent and tamper-resistant. Behind this seemingly simple process sit four fundamental components of business blockchain.

1. The shared ledger, which records who owns what.
2. Smart contracts embed the rules governing asset transfer — specifying when and under what conditions a transaction executes.
3. Privacy services implemented through cryptography, secure transactions and control who can view which elements of the record.
4. Consensus mechanisms determine how network participants agree that a transaction is valid before it is written to the ledger

Together, these components reconfigure trust. In traditional systems, trust resides in central intermediaries, normally banks, clearing houses, auditors, regulators.

In blockchain-enabled networks, trust is distributed across the participants and embedded into the process of verification itself. Regulators and auditors can even be integrated into the same shared ledger environment, gaining controlled visibility without requiring separate reconciliation processes

This shift does not eliminate trust. It relocates it.

Participants no longer rely solely on institutional authority. Instead, they rely on cryptographic integrity, agreed governance rules and shared process visibility. Transactions can occur near-instantaneously. Complex, multi-party processes — such as letters of credit in international trade — can be simplified through shared asset tracking and automated conditional payment. Audit overhead can fall as controlled access to the ledger reduces duplication of effort. Counterfeit risk can decrease when provenance is permanently recorded. Disputes can be resolved against a transparent and immutable audit trail.

In this sense, blockchain strengthens distributed trust across a business network by aligning all participants around a shared, tamper-proof version of events.

However, it is important to distinguish between blockchain as a business infrastructure and cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. Bitcoin was the first large-scale application of blockchain technology, designed primarily for anonymous peer-to-peer value exchange. Business blockchain, by contrast, typically operates across known participants within defined networks. Governance, identity and compliance are structured rather than anonymous.

From a strategic perspective, blockchain therefore represents more than a technical innovation. It represents a redesign of how trust flows through organisational ecosystems.

If Web 2.0 platforms centralised trust in corporate intermediaries, Web 3.0 architectures aim to embed trust in shared processes and distributed ledgers. For organisations implementing strategy in a digital world, the critical question is not simply “Should we use blockchain?” but rather:

1. Where in our business network is trust slow, costly or fragile?
2. Where do reconciliation and verification consume disproportionate effort?
3. Where would a shared, tamper-proof record change the economics of exchange?

Blockchain does not solve every trust problem. But when applied to the right business use case, it can save time, increase efficiency, reduce risk and strengthen trust across network participants.

In the broader arc of trust evolution, blockchain represents a move from trusting institutions, to trusting platforms, to trusting shared digital infrastructure. Whether this becomes the dominant model of exchange remains uncertain. What is clear is that trust is no longer solely social or institutional — it is increasingly architectural.

7.1.4 Case Study The European Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet

The European Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet illustrates how distributed trust can operate at societal scale (European Commission, 2024).

Traditionally, identity verification is fragmented. Citizens repeatedly prove who they are using passports, licences or paper documents. Each organisation verifies and stores its own records, creating duplication, inefficiency and increased cyber risk.

The EUDI Wallet proposes a different model. Citizens hold a secure, government-recognised digital identity in a personal wallet. Verified credentials including proof of age, qualifications or residency can be shared selectively. For example, an individual can prove they are over 18 without revealing their full date of birth, or share a digitally verified university degree without the employer contacting the issuing institution.

Trust shifts from repeated institutional verification to shared digital infrastructure. Credentials are cryptographically secured and tamper-resistant, while privacy services ensure individuals control what data is disclosed.

The result is a model of distributed trust:

1. Users control their identity data.
2. Organisations rely on verified, interoperable credentials.
3. Governments provide governance and standards rather than repeated manual checks.

The EUDI Wallet demonstrates how identity as a foundational asset in the digital economy can move from fragmented institutional control to network-enabled, user-centric trust infrastructure.

7.1.5 Organisational Implications

For organisations implementing strategy in a digital world, trust has several implications:

1. Trust is a strategic asset. It influences adoption, customer loyalty and ecosystem participation.
2. Trust can be designed. Through transparency, distributed decision-making and secure data practices.
3. Trust must be monitored continuously. Digital environments amplify both trust and distrust.
4. Distributed trust challenges legacy hierarchies. Authority shifts toward networks and shared governance models.

Trust intersects with openness (Chapter 6), psychological safety (Chapter 5), and operational excellence (Chapter 8). It is not an isolated concept; it is an organising principle.

7.2 Presentation Preparation

7.2.1 Why Preparation Matters

Trust also matters when communicating ideas. Strategic insight is meaningless if not communicated clearly and persuasively.

There are many quotes we could choose from about the importance of preparation, including:

Failing to prepare is preparing to fail  (Benjamin Franklin)

Planning is indispensable (Eisenhower)

Intent is not enough without hard work (Drucker)

Good, thorough and diligent preparation will help you:

1. Builds trust, credibility and authority with your audience.

2. Create clarity of argument, avoiding ‘strategy speak’ or gobbledygook.

3. Ensure your advice is compelling, and answers the strategy challenge set by your organisation.

4. Be confident and credible in your presentation delivery.

7.2.2 Structure and Objectives

It’s worth targeting your presentation clearly by recalling what we are doing and how we can do this effectively,

1. Your presentations targeted at your Organisation Sponsor, but
2. Don’t forget other panel members (not so familiar with your challenge) have an equal vote.
3. Show empathy for the user and / or business partner(s)
4. Deliver clear, actionable advice
5. Use tools from the module (axes, signatures, trajectories, information, OS Canvas, etc.)
6. Be structured with a clear beginning, middle and end.
7. Assign speaking roles intentionally depending on team member specific interests

To maximise impact, your presentation would typically follow the well tested flow:

Opening: hook / strategic challenge / framing

Core: analysis + insights + recommendations

Close: memorable summary + call to action

7.2.3 Storytelling, Impact & Media

Strong presentations use:

1. Storytelling (narrative arcs, examples, metaphors)

2. Visuals as opposed to text-heavy slides

3. Confident, warm, friendly and (above all) clear delivery

4. Impactful openings and closings

5. Creative elements (role play, animation, video)

6. Visual simplicity

7. Clear linkage to the sponsor’s needs

These build trust by demonstrating alignment (with the challenge) mastery and empathy.

7.2.4 Practical Guidance

Key preparation steps:

1. Choose your media (PowerPoint, video, hybrid, or none).

2. Define speaking roles and transition cues between speakers

3. Rehearse at least once.

4. Prepare for the question-and-answer session.

5. Ensure the presentation is 10 minutes or less for the practice session, 15 minutes or less for the final presentation.

6. Support each other to deliver a compelling collective performance.

Your aim is not perfection. Things always go wrong. It is to communicate clearly under supportive conditions.

7.2.5 Case Study (Synthetic) — Team Vector

Team Vector prepared poorly for their presentation. Their slides were word-heavy, roles were unclear, and they exceeded the time limit.

For their next attempt:

1. They structured the narrative

2. Built a simple visual story

3. Rehearsed twice, and then once more!

4. Assigned clear roles aligned with team member interests.

5. Practised the opening line over and over again until it was perfect, from memory

6. Tightened recommendations and removed all jargon.

Outcome: delivery improved, the sponsor understood their advice, and the team felt more confident.

7.2.6 The Power of Feedback

Feedback is essential for growth, and trust underpins both the giving and receiving of constructive feedback. The purpose of feedback is to help the presenting team:

1. Make the presentation as clear as possible to the audience

2. Improve delivery, including removing of confusing or overly technical terms.

3. Refine how the strategic analysis is presented, ensuring it’s not too superficial nor too detailed.

4. Help build team confidence, effectively building on what went well

5. Learn collaboratively through mutual respect and support.

To maximise the value of feedback, when given, it should be:

1. Empathetic: ask yourself ‘how would I feel if I received this feedback?’

2. Specific: so the person receiving the feedback knows exactly what you mean.

3. Actionable: the receiving person needs to be able to use the feedback to change their presentation / technique.

4. Balanced: feedback can never be all positive, nor all negative. Balanced feedback enables the recipient to build upon what worked and fix what did not!

5. Improvement focused: after all, the whole purpose of feedback is to help improve!

7.2.7 Making the Most of Feedback

On the other side, the receiving team should:

1. Receive feedback with an open mindset, always avoiding defensiveness

2. Reflect individually and collectively. Presentation is a ‘team sport’ and the best changes are made together.

3. Classify themes (structure, content, delivery, impact). This will help action the improvement suggestions.

4. Iterate their presentations, realising that multiple small changes may be more effective than one ‘big bang’ update.

5. Use feedback for future professional communication. The exercise is fully representative of a ‘real work’ situation, so the learnings you take away will be useful throughout your career.

Feedback accelerates capability development, but only when received without defensiveness.

7.2.8 Case Study (Synthetic) — Team Horizon

Team Horizon received consistent feedback over three weeks:

‘Slides too dense.’ | ‘Message unclear.’ | ‘More confidence needed.’

Instead of feeling discouraged, they:

1. Simplified their slides

2. Clarified their narrative, removing technical answers strategy speak

3. Practised delivery techniques, realising that preparation is key.

4. Implemented storytelling elements, to engage their audience.

Their final presentation was concise, impactful, and persuasive — a leap driven by open, trusted feedback.

7.3 Chapter Summary

Chapter 7 examines trust in two contexts: the digital systems that enable distributed trust, and the interpersonal dynamics that shape effective communication. Distributed trust, enabled by platforms and blockchain, is reshaping how individuals and organisations interact. Within teams, trust underpins preparation, feedback, and communication quality.

Together, these perspectives show that trust is not abstract — it is a design choice. Digital systems create trust at scale; teams create trust through preparation, honesty, and constructive feedback.

7.4 References

1. Botsman, R. (2017). Who Can You Trust? PublicAffairs.
2. Palfreyman, J. (2018). Business Blockchain: Unlocking Transformational Potential
3. European Commission (2024) EU Digital Identity Wallet. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EUDIGITALIDENTITYWALLET/pages/694487738/EU%2BDigital%2BIdentity%2BWallet%2BHome