Building trust in post-challenge communities

I once worked with a team that was, quite frankly, toxic. The same two team members routinely derailed meeting agendas. Eye-rolling was a primary form of communication. Side conversations overtook the official discussion. Most members had disengaged, emotionally checking out while physically present. Trust was nonexistent. This wasn't just unpleasant—it was preventing meaningful work from happening. The transformation began with a deceptively simple intervention: establishing clear community agreements. Not generic "respect each other" platitudes, but specific behavioral norms with concrete descriptions of what they looked like in practice. The team agreed to norms like "Listen to understand," "Speak your truth without blame or judgment," and "Be unattached to outcome." For each norm, we articulated exactly what it looked like in action, providing language and behaviors everyone could recognize. More importantly, we implemented structures to uphold these agreements. A "process observer" role was established, rotating among team members, with the explicit responsibility to name when norms were being upheld or broken during meetings. Initially, this felt awkward. When the process observer first said, "I notice we're interrupting each other, which doesn't align with our agreement to listen fully," the room went silent. But within weeks, team members began to self-regulate, sometimes even catching themselves mid-sentence. Trust didn't build overnight. It grew through consistent small actions that demonstrated reliability and integrity—keeping commitments, following through on tasks, acknowledging mistakes. Meeting time was protected and focused on meaningful work rather than administrative tasks that could be handled via email. The team began to practice active listening techniques, learning to paraphrase each other's ideas before responding. This simple practice dramatically shifted the quality of conversation. One team member later told me, "For the first time, I felt like people were actually trying to understand my perspective rather than waiting for their turn to speak." Six months later, the transformation was remarkable. The same team that once couldn't agree on a meeting agenda was collaboratively designing innovative approaches to their work. Conflicts still emerged, but they were about ideas rather than personalities, and they led to better solutions rather than deeper divisions. The lesson was clear: trust doesn't simply happen through team-building exercises or shared experiences. It must be intentionally cultivated through concrete practices, consistently upheld, and regularly reflected upon. Share one trust-building practice that's worked well in your team experience. P.S. If you’re a leader, I recommend checking out my free challenge: The Resilient Leader: 28 Days to Thrive in Uncertainty  https://lnkd.in/gxBnKQ8n

When we launched 40 Communities just over a year ago, we were clear about one thing from the start: lasting impact must be built with communities, not for them. Year One has only deepened that conviction. In Western North Carolina, we stepped in after Hurricane Helene, where restoring connectivity was urgent, but so was understanding what local leaders already knew about their community’s needs and opportunities. In Mumbai, our first international 40 Communities site, we are building on Cisco’s 30-year presence in India. In both locations, we have worked in partnership with the local community to align on priority issues and shape activations. Different geographies. Different contexts. Shared lessons. Listening sits at the center of the work. When we approach with humility and take the time to understand who is already leading and where momentum exists, we can amplify local efforts and accelerate progress already underway. Proximity matters just as much. When we choose to embed ourselves in a community and stay engaged over time, the quality of our partnership deepens. That consistency builds trust, strengthens accountability, and reinforces long-term commitment. And focus is essential. We are most effective when we concentrate on where Cisco can uniquely contribute, including connectivity, digital skills, support for entrepreneurs and small businesses, and cyber resilience. I am grateful to the leaders on the ground and across Cisco who continue to shape this work with insight and candor. My latest blog brings together many of their perspectives on what it takes to build long-term, locally rooted partnerships. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/gAmTrv4t Brian Tippens, Christian Bigsby, Erin Connor, Harish Krishnan

Communities are the new webinars. Crowded. Passive. And everyone's quietly disengaging. We joined for connection. But we ended up in a chat thread with 2,000 strangers and a few fire emojis. The truth? Transformation rarely happens in broadcast mode. It happens in tiny, high-trust groups where people 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 show up for each other. The kind where someone follows up and says: "Hey, you said you'd launch that landing page last week—what's the status?" That's where real progress happens. When we turn 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 into 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. Because most people don't need another community group. They need a pod of 4 who hold them to their word—and help them move forward. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝗜 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀? 1. 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀 — Groups small enough where everyone has a voice and absence is noticed. Where "community" isn't just a euphemism for "audience." 2. 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 — Regular check-ins with consequences (even if just social pressure) for missed commitments. Praise for execution, not just intentions. 3. 𝗣𝗲𝗲𝗿-𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵��𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘀 — Members who understand your challenges because they've recently overcome them, not beginners or gurus too removed from your reality. 4. 𝗖𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀 — Specific, measurable milestones that members work toward, not just endless discussion or consumption of content. 5. 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 — Real examples of members who entered with specific challenges and emerged with concrete results, not vague promises.

48% of employees say they work in a ‘low-trust’ workplace. Wherever I go, Dublin, Dubai, Detroit, the story’s always the same: Trust is never shattered all at once. It’s leaked. 💬 Vague feedback 📆 Missed follow-ups 👀 Quiet eye-rolls in meetings And once it’s gone: ❌ People check out long before they quit 📈 Innovation stalls 🐌 Speed slows But here’s the good news: Trust isn’t a feeling. It’s a system. Built through repeatable behaviours — using frameworks anyone can learn. Here are 7 science-backed ways to build trust your team can feel, follow, and fight to keep: 🧠 The Trust Equation ↳ Credibility + reliability + intimacy, divided by self-interest ✅ Track promises visibly. Follow through fast. �� The 5 Behaviours of a Cohesive Team ↳ Trust is the first brick ✅ Start meetings with real check-ins before diving into work. 📈 Radical Candour ↳ Challenge directly, care personally ✅ Give honest feedback with heart — not just sugar-coated praise. 🧬 The SCARF Model ↳ Protect what people value most ✅ Explain the “why” early. Certainty builds calm and trust. 🌊 The 5 Waves of Trust ↳ Self-trust starts the ripple ✅ Close one integrity gap before asking others to follow. 🪜 The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety ↳ Trust climbs when fear steps aside ✅ Thank people publicly when they speak up or disagree. 🧪 The Neuroscience of Trust ↳ Trust lives in behaviour, not belief ✅ Praise effort in the open. Visibility strengthens connection fast. Trust doesn’t rebuild itself. But it can be rebuilt. Deliberately, consistently, and with the right systems in place. These seven aren’t theory. They’re proven tools. Use them well. And you won’t just rebuild trust. You’ll compound it. ♻️ Repost for your network (and look ridiculously clever while doing it.) Follow 👋 David Meade Keynote Speaker for science-backed strategies you can use this week.

Most communities don’t speak in strategies or frameworks. They won’t always tell you directly – but after years of listening in living rooms, church halls, youth clubs and car parks – these are the things I hear most often: 1. “Don’t speak for us – speak with us.” We don’t need more people translating our experiences. We need people who sit alongside us and ask. 2. “Be honest about what you can’t change.” Trust grows when you’re upfront about constraints. False hope damages relationships more than truth ever will. 3. “Don’t disappear when the pilot ends.” Communities have seen too many projects arrive with energy and leave quietly when funding runs out. 4. “Respect our time like you respect your budget.” People are working shifts, caring for family, juggling life. Showing up is a cost. A thank you, a voucher, food on the table – it matters. 5. “Invite us in early – not when it’s nearly finished.” If the question comes after the plan is written, that’s not co-design – it’s approval. 6. “Close the loop.” Tell us what happened. What changed. What didn’t. Silence after engagement is one of the quickest ways to lose trust. None of these are loud demands. They’re quiet expectations. And when we listen to them, engagement stops being a process – and starts becoming a relationship. #CommunityEngagement #CoDesign #CoProduction #CommunityPower #Participation #DoingWithNotTo #PublicServices

Here’s what I keep coming back to 👇 Organizational capacity isn’t just about newsroom size — it’s about relationships and networks that carry credible news into new spaces. 🤝 Partnering with creator-model journalists is a smart investment for funders who want to build connection and open lines of communication across difference. These journalists-turned-creators are equal parts news reporter and trusted messenger — and every local information commons needs more verified voices doing this work. Yes, it can be tricky — creator-model journalists are harder to find locally, and follower counts don’t tell the full story. But that’s exactly why funders should lean in, not back away. When funders do lean in, as API has since last year, the impact goes beyond reporting. 👀 Just look at Factchequeado’s work (🔗 https://lnkd.in/enEsPDi3): They’ve trained Latino content creators to spot and counter misinformation. They’ve moved beyond reporting, beyond translation. They’re building a coalition. They’re changing the local news narrative for an entire community. 🛠️ So, funders, what’s your first next step??? Use this Trust Toolkit from Lenfest Institute for Journalism, Trusting News, Project C: 🔗 https://lnkd.in/eqmQmRi9 Because supporting creator-model journalists and their local news organization counterparts can 1️⃣ bring real impact to neighborhoods across the country, 2️⃣ invite residents back into trusting relationships with local news AND 3️⃣ encourage a sense of belonging for residents within their communities. Forgive the plea, but real talk: Building trust takes all of us, — funders, newsrooms and creators — growing capacity, together. 🌱

I cannot stress enough how important transparency has been for our operations in Gaza — especially when it comes to distributing food parcels. By sharing the contents of each food parcel beforehand and publishing the price paid, we achieve several key things: The community feels invested and informed. They know exactly what they will receive, and worries like “Did someone take something from my parcel?” are eliminated. The team is held accountable. If an item is missing, it’s clear immediately — transparency isn’t just for the community; it’s for us to maintain standards. Other organizations in the field can learn from and benchmark our work. In a context where ethics are often questioned, especially during a crisis like Gaza, this provides a data point for accountability and efficiency. Of course, transparency has its limits. For example, we cannot publicly list the names of beneficiaries due to privacy concerns and regulatory restrictions. But we share what we can control, and every step we take introduces the community to greater clarity and trust. I’m also exploring additional ways to increase transparency. One idea: showing the amount we pay our staff. Would this add value for the community, or is it unnecessary? I’d love to hear your thoughts. 💬 What solutions have you seen work in high-pressure humanitarian contexts to build trust and accountability? #Gaza #HumanitarianAid #Transparency #Accountability #FoodDistribution #NonprofitLeadership #CommunityTrust

Building trust is more important than building technology. When we began Commonlands work in rural Uganda, our first instinct was to focus on the tech — the maps, the certificates, the microloan platform. It made sense. Technology could scale solutions faster, streamline processes, and offer transparency. But without trust, even the most advanced tools are useless. Many had seen outsiders arrive with promises before—only for those promises to vanish, leaving communities worse off. Why should they trust us? We had to earn it. That meant showing up—not just once or twice, but consistently. → Sitting under trees and listening to their stories. → Respecting their skepticism and their pace. → Engaging local leaders to vouch for our intentions. Over time, we saw something remarkable. People began opening up. They shared their stories and their challenges. Only then did the technology become meaningful—it became a tool they could see themselves using, not something imposed on them. This is what made us achieve an incredible milestone: ➜ 2,500 plots documented. ➜ 99% loan repayment rate. Then I realized that trust is slow to build but incredibly fragile. And when you’re working with communities, it’s non-negotiable. Technology might be exciting, but relationships are what sustain progress. Today, every certificate we issue and every loan we facilitate is built on a foundation of trust—not just innovation. And that, I’ve learned, is the only way real change happens. Thoughts? Do you believe a lack of trust can impact the success of a project? Follow 👉 Darius and repost! #communitydevelopment #trustbuilding #socialimpact #sustainability #changemaking

Local governments are grappling with how to embrace AI in their work and in their communities. The agencies that recognize AI as one of many tools (with its own limits) and effectively engage with constituents will be better able to use AI in ways that support strong systems in their communities. The City of Long Beach is undertaking a process to implement these concepts. 1️⃣ They started by identifying their responsibility and being transparent about their limitations: "We don’t have all the answers yet. But we’re not shying away from the tough questions. Our commitment is to approach this work with transparency, build trust, and continuously refine our engagement strategies as we learn." 2️⃣ Then, they went to hear what their community members had to say. The City of Long Beach developed and distributed a survey about Gen AI use, distributed both online and in community spaces such as libraries and neighborhood centers. From the City: "A clear takeaway from the survey was the presence of an information and trust gap between the City and residents when it comes to AI...Without this clarity, it is difficult for residents to feel confident that AI is being used responsibly, ethically, and in alignment with community values." 3️⃣ Next, the City built a strategy that addressed what they learned from the community. An initiative now outlines concrete steps to address the information and trust gap, and the City launched a series of five, free community workshops (that offer food and refreshments, will be hosted in ADA-accessible spaces, with interpretation services available) about navigating the new digital age. Aside from seeing some of the values articulated in The Tech That Comes Next clearly put into action here, this process excites me because it highlights that tech/digital interaction with communities presents an opportunity to build or break trust. More on Long Beach's work: https://lnkd.in/eWVcFtuX CC: Małgorzata (Małgosia) Rejniak #PublicInterestTech #AI #CivicTech #CommunityBuilding

You can't rush trust. I just returned from Pakistan, and what I saw in Karachi proved this beyond doubt. We walked up the stairs at Cantt transit station, crossed the bridge at the top of the escalators. A father passed by with his child. "Has your child been vaccinated recently?" "No." We gave the drops. Sometimes parents come to you instead of you going to them. They want their child to have the polio vaccine. This interaction didn't happen overnight. We hear so much about Pakistan's challenges. The difficulties delivering vaccines. The dangerous situations. What I saw was different. Karachi's polio infrastructure is remarkable. The processes work. The readiness is real. One Rotarian told me they run 62 permanent transit points across the city. Keeping tallies of how many cases they've seen, They check them every single day. Making sure stops are being made, Making sure vaccines are there. how many children vaccinated, where they came from, how old they were. The data goes to World Health Organization and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI). This level of infrastructure doesn't appear because someone issued a memo. It exists because people committed to showing up, day after day, building relationships one conversation at a time. The Karachi transit stations prove that vaccination isn't just medical intervention. It's community relationship, repeated consistently, until trust becomes automatic. And that is the essential ingredient there for trust. Trust can't be rushed. But once you have it, you can move mountains.