Transparency on Microsoft Defender for Office 365 email security effectiveness
July 18, 2025[Launched] Generally Available: Node auto-provisioning support in AKS
July 18, 2025
In this second blog in the People Success Elements series, we continue to dive deeper into the modern work experience and let survey responses from over 6.8M employees across more than 235 companies from 2022 – 2025 reveal why worker trust has waned and – importantly – how leaders can earn it back.
In today’s workplace, even amid strong financials, many companies are navigating difficult decisions like layoffs and policy shifts—often without clear communication. The challenges faced by company leadership today are daunting , and stakeholder confidence in executive teams’ ability to handle them is reportedly at an all-time low1. Only 24% of employees say they trust senior leadership1.
The Disconnect Between Words and Actions
The most perplexing part of current trust challenges? It’s unfolding during a time of economic growth. Traditionally, trust dips during recessions or scandals. But today, the stock market has hit all-time highs, and there’s a labor shortage, yet workers still face layoffs and abrupt policy shifts2. That contradiction can significantly strain employee trust and morale.
Across nearly all industries, the layoffs haven’t spared any sector2. And when there’s no real transparency around the decisions, people are left confused and anxious, which only deepens mistrust.
Return-to-office policy shifts, especially when implemented without employee input, have become a flashpoint for internal tension—highlighting the importance of inclusive decision-making. Nearly 75% of executives admit these mandates have caused internal conflict2.
Moments like this break what’s called the “psychological contract,” an implicit understanding that employees have about what they owe the company and what the company owes them. Psychological contracts are tacit, not just unspoken but unconscious, and not clearly articulated in people’s minds until the moment they are broken3. Breaches can be driven by organizational factors such as low initial trust, employer reneging, value misalignment between employee and organization, organizational change, lack of support or fairness, and internal politics. Positive organizational practices can reduce breach perceptions, while negative actions increase them3.
To cultivate a healthy relationship, today’s workforce requires a human-centric approach which fosters a deeper understanding of personal needs such that people care enough about their job and company to put in extra effort, thought, and creativity; to be proactive; to engage in extra-role behaviors4.
The Perception of Leadership
Recent research found that people across the board – from boards of directors to frontline employees – doubt that executive teams can juggle today’s disruptions and still put the enterprise’s interests above their own1. Employees may perceive leadership as disconnected or overwhelmed by today’s challenges. And to be fair, leaders have been dealing with “precedent-setting” disruptions lately, from global crises to rapid tech changes, which means they’re often trekking through uncharted territory1.
People need to believe their leaders have the experience and capability to handle challenges and keep the company on track.
Further, Confidence in Leadership and Company Prospects (I am excited about ‘s future) have a very strong correlation (with Pearson r values > .84)5, meaning that when employee confidence in leadership is low, so is their excitement, further eroding their loyalty to the company.
No doubt, the past few years have been challenging with pandemics, social and political upheaval, AI acceleration, and more. Even strong leaders are flying without a playbook. But employees aren’t looking for perfection. They’re looking for humane treatment, honesty, and respect1.
When decisions appear inconsistent and messaging feels out of touch, employee confidence in leadership’s priorities and alignment begins to erode.
And here’s where leadership’s opportunity begins.
Rebuilding Trust: How Leaders Can Get It Back
So, how do you rebuild something as fragile and essential as trust? Here are four research-backed strategies that start at the top and ripple throughout the organization:
- Radical Transparency
People don’t expect you to have all the answers, but they do expect the truth through honest, two-way communication. That means holding regular town halls, offering open Q&A sessions, and addressing hard questions head-on—especially around layoffs and restructuring, big policy changes or tech rollouts.
Our recent data highlights the importance of transparency. Trust in Decision Making (Overall, I am satisfied with how decisions are made at <COMPANY_NAME>) is the strongest correlate (with a Pearson r of .91) of Confidence in Leadership5. In other words, lack of clear explanations has a strong, negative effect on trust in leadership.
Think of transparency like internal “forward guidance.” Just like companies signal forecasts to investors, leadership can communicate potential changes early, honestly, and with context. Being upfront with upsetting news is rarely easy or comfortable, but people appreciate being told rather than being surprised.
- Visible Accountability and Fairness
Nothing erodes trust like “rules for thee, not for me.” To rebuild trust, leaders must hold themselves accountable just as they do others.
One bold idea emerging is pay transparency at the top, making executive compensation public and clearly linked to performance2. Employees aren’t naïve; they notice when a company is belt-tightening for everyone except the C-suite. Disparities in compensation during times of cost-cutting can impact perceptions of fairness and trust2. Our 2025 findings show that the correlation between Compensation Rewards (I am fairly compensated for the work that I do) and eSat has grown substantially (from a Pearson r of .68 in 2022 to .83 in 2025)5. Job security concerns may be making fair pay a more crucial factor for engagement.
Fairness is often best demonstrated when leadership strives to hold itself accountable to the same values that are expected from staff.
If “people first” is a core value, maintaining consistency in programs that advance equity and inclusion is essential. Quietly scaling back such efforts can create misalignment between mission and execution, undermining credibility. Recent findings show that Diversity Commitment (Top leaders demonstrate a visible commitment to diversity) has seen an uptick in strength as a driver of eSat (from a Pearson r of .58 in 2022 to .72 in 2025)5. People expect to be treated fairly, and this becomes increasingly essential in an ever more diverse work world.
Believing there are Equal Opportunities (Regardless of background, everyone at has an equal opportunity to succeed) also had a strong increase (from a Pearson r of .58 in 2022 to .72 in 2025) predictor of eSat5. When employees feel the playing field is level, they’re far more likely to trust leadership’s intentions6.
- Co-Creation Over Command-and-Control
Here’s one of the most underutilized tools for restoring trust: involvement.
Too many major workplace decisions are still made in executive silos. Employees have great ideas, and high motivation to participate in decisions that affect them especially around hot-button issues like remote work, wellness benefits, and tech tools. Our data shows that when people have Job Empowerment (I feel empowered to make decisions regarding my work) they are 2.8x less likely to leave than those who don’t5. So why not ask?
The return-to-office transition has shown how top-down decisions, even when well-intentioned, can create unintended challenges when employee perspectives aren’t fully considered. Nearly three-quarters of executives admit strict mandates have created internal conflict2. RTO is a prime opportunity to build trust by valuing employee input. Whether it’s surveys, cross-functional advisory panels, or policy pilots with built-in feedback loops, employee involvement fosters buy-in.
- Consistency and Unified Messaging
This one’s deceptively simple but mission-critical: say what you mean and do what you say.
When employees hear an executive saying one thing, and another contradicts it, or see decisions being reversed soon after they’re announced, the back-and-forth can chip away at credibility.
The fix? Align messaging across leadership. Push back when mixed signals arise. Advocate for sticking to decisions unless new input justifies a change—and when that happens, explain why. Our data shows that Communication Flow (There is a good flow of communication between leadership, departments, and teams) is a strong driver of Confidence in Leadership (with a Pearson r of .74) and eSat (with an Pearson r of .69) 5. Key messages should be transparent and reliable through every level of management and across the organization.
Of course, there’s a balance between communicating decisions early even if they might change versus waiting until decisions are final. But there are no trade-offs for aligning communication across the organization. Consistency over time builds trust.
Don’t Underestimate Empathy and Humility
While powerful, these four strategies may fall flat without the right tone. To be successful each of these strategies must be carefully planned and executed with compassion, humility and authenticity.
Preserving the psychological contract comes down to showing that you truly care. Our data show that Care (At work, I feel cared about as a person) has been a steady driver since 2022 of eSat and Recommend (with Pearson r values of .83 and .78 respectively) 5. Showing you care starts with empathy, and empathy starts with listening. We found that people who have Inclusive Leaders (Leaders at value different perspectives) are 2.8x less likely to leave than those who don’t5.
When employees raise concerns about workplace changes, like Return-to-Office mandates or AI adoption, don’t just “acknowledge” them, find ways to address concerns. Empathy is saying, “I hear you, and here’s what we’re doing with your feedback.” Feeling well supported by leadership, Company Support (I feel well supported by at this time) has a meaningful relationship with Confidence in Leadership (with a Pearson r value of .86) and eSat (with a Pearson r value of .87) 5. It goes beyond feeling heard – it’s about seeing action.
And humility? That’s admitting when leadership gets it wrong, by owning past missteps and using them as learning moments, e.g., “We tried X and it didn’t work—here’s what we’re doing differently.”
Employees don’t expect flawless leaders in turbulent times, but they do expect honest ones1.
The Long Game: Why Trust Matters Now More Than Ever
The truth is, once trust is broken, it doesn’t bounce back overnight.
But it can be rebuilt—deliberately, consistently, and humanely. So, whether you’re navigating reorgs and layoffs, launching AI, reworking hybrid policies, or redefining values, remember this: Trust isn’t restored through a memo. It’s rebuilt one conversation, one decision, one act of empathy at a time.
And in a world that’s changing faster than ever, trusted leadership is a necessity.
References
1 Harvard Business Review. (April 28, 2025). Executive Teams Are Losing Stakeholders’ Confidence. Here’s How to Get It Back.
5 The 2025 engagement and attrition key driver refresh and longitudinal analysis determined the top predictors of engagement (across 235 customers) and voluntary attrition based on LinkedIn Glint survey scores in 2022, 2023, and 2025 representing 6.8 million employee survey responses.
Engagement: As these data variables are continuous, Pearson’s r was used to measure the correlation strength of the linear relationship between People Success “critical needs” (25 survey items that measure employee experiences aligned with the six People Success Elements) and the six engagement outcome items (eSat, Recommend, Manager, Belonging, Retention and Intent to Stay). The r values for each item were aggregated and averaged across all customers for each year reported.
To calculate meaningful change from year to year, we examined the delta in r value for each item-outcome pair over the 3-year period. Then, we calculated the correlation percentile splits to determine the top 33 percent (r value YoY deltas from .10 up to .25) and bottom 33% (r value YoY deltas below .05). We comment here only on those items and their outcomes with r value deltas in the top third, noted as “top predictors” or “strong drivers” of the outcome(s) and whether the change is trending up or down.
Attrition: Only survey item responses from at least 15 LinkedIn Glint customers who’ve had at least 80 voluntary terminations between survey administrations were included in this study. “Attrition Multipliers” were formed by comparing favorable vs. unfavorable survey responses scores from those voluntary termed employees for each of the People Success “critical needs” items. Aggregate analysis involved averaging the attrition multipliers per item at a customer level, filtered by n size for each of the three years in this longitudinal study.