Trust Spotlight — Organizational View

1. Executive Summary

Trust is a core psychological health and safety condition that shapes how work is coordinated, how decisions are understood, and how concerns are raised across the organization.

Within established psychological health and safety frameworks (e.g., ISO 45003, CSA Z1003), trust influences whether people feel able to raise concerns, share information, and engage with decisions without risk. From a compliance perspective, trust supports the reliability of reporting, participation, and communication systems that organizations are expected to maintain.

When trust is consistent, people are more likely to:

• speak up early

• surface risks and issues

• contribute ideas and different perspectives

When trust is not consistent, these behaviours reduce. Information flow narrows, concerns may not be raised, and teams are more likely to rely on workarounds.

Improving trust strengthens the conditions required for psychological safety to function in day-to-day operations.

When trust is consistent, people are more likely to understand decisions, feel supported by leadership, and have confidence in how issues will be handled. This reduces ambiguity and helps manage day-to-day pressure.

The Rapid Assessment identified Trust as one of the highest contributing factors to psychological health and safety risk.

This Spotlight Assessment builds on that result by identifying where focused improvement within Trust will have the greatest impact.

This is the purpose of the Spotlight:
to move from broad signal → to a clear, practical starting point for action.

2. Trust in Context

Trust reflects how reliably leadership actions, decisions, and workplace practices are experienced across the organization.

It is based on what people consistently observe in how the workplace operates.

Within a psychological health and safety framework, trust shapes how core workplace conditions function in practice, including:

• how openly information is shared

• how clearly decisions are understood

• how predictable leadership actions and decisions are over time

• how early concerns and risks are raised

• how concerns are acknowledged and responded to

• how consistently teams align with direction

When trust conditions are consistent, teams are more likely to:

• raise concerns early

• engage with decisions

• coordinate effectively across roles

When trust is not consistent, communication can narrow and uncertainty can increase, particularly for managers responsible for translating direction into day-to-day operations.

This has implications not only for coordination and execution, but also for how workload pressure and uncertainty are experienced within teams.

These conditions support the reliability of communication, participation, and risk reporting expected within psychological health and safety standards.

3. Psychological Safety Signal

One of the signals we use to measure overall psychological health & safety is the level of comfort employees have in raising concerns or speaking up without fear of negative repercussion. Building trust has a direct connection with building overall psychological health & safety.

This cohort shows that 70% of respondents report that it is not consistently safe to raise concerns or different views

This signal reflects how underlying conditions — including trust — are being experienced.

At this level, it indicates that uncertainty or risk may be influencing how concerns are raised and how information moves through the organization.

(suggested visual — two bubbles)

PH&S Risk Indicator: 70%
PH&S Risk Level: 70.6

A majority of respondents do not consistently feel it is safe to raise concerns or different views.

At this level, it suggests that:

• concerns may not always be raised early

• operational risks may not be fully visible

• alternative perspectives may not consistently surface

This has implications for learning, coordination, and how effectively teams respond to emerging issues.

This signal is not directly actionable.

It reflects the combined effect of underlying conditions — in this case, how trust is being experienced.

As trust conditions improve, we would expect to see a measurable reduction in disagreement on this signal, indicating that more people feel able to raise concerns and share different views in practice. This typically results in earlier visibility of issues, more consistent reporting of risks, and greater contribution of ideas and perspectives, strengthening how teams learn, coordinate, and respond to day-to-day challenges.

4. Results Overview

This section presents the results in two steps to support focused action.

First, each statement is shown individually, starting with the highest level of disagreement. This highlights where conditions are most visibly experienced as inconsistent in day-to-day work.

Second, these statements are grouped into their respective drivers to show how specific conditions combine into broader organizational mechanisms that influence trust.

The Trust Spotlight is designed using a driver-based methodology.

Each driver represents a leadership behaviour or workplace system that shapes how trust is experienced. Drivers are selected based on three criteria:

• they have a meaningful impact on trust when improved

• they can be observed and evaluated based on workplace experience

• they can be translated into practical action

Each driver is measured using two targeted statements that reflect observable conditions in the workplace.

This structure allows the results to move beyond general concepts such as “improving trust.”

Instead, it narrows the focus to:

• the specific conditions that are most visible

• how those conditions group into a driver

• and where focused improvement will have the greatest impact

The outcome is a clear, practical direction:
rather than addressing multiple areas at once, leadership can focus on one driver — and, where needed, one specific condition within that driver — over a defined period.

This creates a manageable starting point for change, supports consistency in execution, and allows for measurable improvement through re-assessment.

This framing:

• reinforces your methodology

• sets up the flow (statements → drivers → focus)

• clearly differentiates Q2 from generic surveys

• anchors the “one thing” approach without sounding simplistic

5. Results

(insert visuals here)

• Decision Transparency — 68.89

• Responsiveness to Concerns — 57.78

• Leadership Follow-Through — 56.94

• Predictability of Leadership Behaviour — 56.39

Decision Transparency is the most visible leverage point within Trust.

This is where improvement is most likely to create movement not only in trust, but in how decisions are understood, communicated, and acted on across the organization.

5.1 Decision Transparency

(visuals here)

• Leadership explains the reasoning behind decisions

  • Risk Level: 67.2 | 70% disagreement

• Leadership communicates how decisions will impact people

  • Risk Level: 70.6 | 70% disagreement

A majority of respondents do not consistently experience clear explanation of decisions or how those decisions impact their work. This indicates that decision-making is not consistently visible in practice, which can create uncertainty in how direction is interpreted and applied. From a business productivity perspective, this can lead to misalignment, rework, and slower execution as teams spend additional time clarifying intent or adjusting to unclear direction. From a mental health perspective, lack of clarity increases uncertainty and cognitive load, which can contribute to stress and ongoing worry, particularly for managers responsible for translating decisions into action. This pattern also contributes directly to the elevated Psychological Safety Signal, as unclear decisions reduce confidence in how and when to raise questions or concerns, limiting the flow of information and alternative perspectives.

5.2 Responsiveness to Concerns

(insert visual)

• Concerns can be raised with expectation of response

  • Risk Level: 55.6 | 50% disagreement

• Concerns are acknowledged and followed up on

  • Risk Level: 60.0 | 50% disagreement

Concerns can be raised, but they are not consistently acknowledged or followed up on in practice. This indicates that the response loop is not reliably experienced, which can reduce confidence that raising issues will lead to meaningful action. From a business productivity perspective, this can result in delays in identifying and addressing operational issues, allowing problems to persist or escalate before they are resolved. From a mental health perspective, inconsistent response can contribute to frustration and ongoing concern, particularly when issues are raised but not visibly addressed. This pattern contributes to the elevated Psychological Safety Signal, as uneven follow-up reduces confidence in speaking up, limiting the consistent flow of concerns, risks, and operational feedback.

5.3 Leadership Follow-Through

(Add visual)

• Leadership follows through on commitments

  • Risk Level: 57.8 | 53% disagreement

• Commitments are tracked and visibly followed up on

  • Risk Level: 56.1 | 43% disagreement

Leadership commitments are not consistently experienced as tracked or visibly completed in practice. This indicates that follow-through is not always observable, which can affect confidence in how decisions and commitments translate into action. From a business productivity perspective, this can lead to gaps between planning and execution, creating inefficiencies and requiring additional effort to confirm status or next steps. From a mental health perspective, inconsistent follow-through can contribute to uncertainty and reduced confidence in direction, particularly where teams rely on commitments to plan and deliver work. This pattern contributes to the elevated Psychological Safety Signal, as when commitments are not consistently reinforced, confidence in raising issues or relying on outcomes may decrease, limiting engagement and follow-up on concerns.

5.4 Predictability of Leadership Behaviour

(Insert visual)

• Leadership behaviour is consistent and predictable

  • Risk Level: 57.2 | 47% disagreement

• Leadership priorities remain stable once communicated

  • Risk Level: 55.6 | 47% disagreement

Leadership behaviour and priorities are not consistently experienced as stable over time. This indicates that direction may shift or be interpreted differently in practice, which can create uncertainty in how teams plan and execute their work. From a business productivity perspective, this can lead to rework, shifting priorities, and reduced efficiency as teams adjust to changes or unclear continuity in direction. From a mental health perspective, variability in leadership behaviour can contribute to ongoing uncertainty and increased cognitive load, particularly for managers responsible for aligning teams and maintaining delivery. This pattern contributes to the elevated Psychological Safety Signal, as inconsistent direction can reduce confidence in when and how to raise concerns, limiting the steady flow of information and perspectives needed for effective coordination.

6. Focus Signal

The results identify Decision Transparency as the most effective starting point for improving Trust.

Within this driver, the highest concentration of disagreement is found in how decisions are communicated in terms of their impact on people:

“Leadership communicates how decisions will impact people” (70.6 | 70%)

This indicates that while decisions are being made, their implications are not consistently clear in practice. As a result, teams may interpret direction differently, leading to variation in how work is aligned and executed.

This condition represents the clearest and most practical point of focus.

7. Focused Improvement

The objective is not to improve all aspects of trust at once.

The objective is to focus on this one condition and improve how it is experienced in day-to-day operations.

This means strengthening how decision impact is communicated through existing leadership routines, communication channels, and operational processes.

What this enables

Improving this one condition is expected to create measurable movement across multiple areas:

• clearer alignment across teams

• more consistent execution of decisions

• reduced need for rework and clarification

• increased confidence in direction

As clarity improves, there is typically a corresponding shift in how comfortable people feel raising questions, concerns, and alternative perspectives.

This supports movement in the Psychological Safety Signal, as improved understanding reduces uncertainty around how decisions are made and how input is received.

Why this approach works

This focus area is prioritized because it represents:

• the highest concentration of visible experience

• the most direct connection to how trust is formed in practice

• the greatest opportunity to create measurable change within a defined cycle

By focusing on one clearly defined condition:

• effort remains manageable

• changes can be applied consistently

• impact can be observed and measured over time

Next Step

The next step is to work with leadership to translate this focus into practice within the organization’s existing systems and workflows.

This includes identifying:

• where decisions are currently communicated

• how impact is (or is not) explained

• where small, consistent adjustments can be made

This is carried out over a defined 60–90 day cycle, followed by re-measurement to assess movement and determine the next area of focus.

8. Methodology

(suggested visual — collapsible)

The Trust Spotlight measures one psychological health and safety condition (Trust) using focused leadership drivers and observable workplace statements.

• 7-point agreement scale

• Risk-weighted scoring (0–100)

• Driver Scores reflect grouped statements

• Trust Component Score provides a baseline

• % disagreement reflects visible employee experience

The Psychological Safety Signal is reported separately and reflects overall experience, not a standalone driver.

This assessment is designed to support focused action and re-measurement as part of an ongoing improvement cycle.