A Penny for Your Trust

Why trust remains the most valuable currency for success in business, policy, and markets

When we think of currency, we typically think of money — a medium of exchange, a store of value, or a unit of account like the dollar or the euro. These monetary currencies make transactions efficient by eliminating the need for bartering when goods and services change hands. But beneath even the most advanced financial systems, we find a more fundamental, non-fungible currency — one that is often overlooked but makes all others possible: the currency of trust.

Money, after all, relies on trust; without trust in this type of currency, it may not be even worth the paper it is printed on. In financial markets, policymaking circles, or business negotiations, trust is the invisible infrastructure that allows decisions to be made, innovation to be nurtured, changes to be agreed upon, and systems to function optimally. In international relations, when trust has been built, we have a significantly better chance of peace. On the other hand, if the proliferation of mistrust is allowed to fester within the international system, then the prospect of conflict increases.

Trust, essentially, is the conscious decision that those with whom we deal will have the integrity, reliability, capacity, and good intentions to work positively together on an agreed agenda in a predictable, mutually beneficial, or at least an unharmful way. There is also a certain vulnerability involved because trusting others involves a certain amount of risk-taking.¹ Trust is a two-way flow involving the capacity to trust others and be trusted in different contexts. When trust is possible, it acts as a fundamental driver of success because it fosters cooperation, increases confidence, lowers transaction costs, reduces uncertainty, and the costly need for extensive monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.

Aristotle recognised this long-lasting truth about trust. In Nicomachean Ethics, he wrote that “when people are friends, they have no need of justice,” arguing that mutual trust and goodwill are the foundations of community life. We only need justice or corrective mechanisms after a betrayal of trust. Or, as the old saying goes, once bitten, twice shy.

Social contract theory, which emerged during the Enlightenment, places trust as the cornerstone of political governance. Citizens trust that ceding individual autonomy to their governing authority will provide them with collective protection and the maintenance of the social order. The alternative would be a form of chaos, what Thomas Hobbes once described in Leviathan as a state of nature that would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Trust is also foundational in economic theory, even when not explicitly named. It is implicit in many of Adam Smith’s arguments in The Wealth of Nations. For example, he wrote that “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Even when self-interest drives economic cooperation, it is built on economic participants' willingness to trust and care about the system enough to engage in it repeatably. Without this implicit trust in reciprocity and enforceable institutions, self-interest could lead to chaos rather than cooperation. When we buy goods online, customer feedback systems institutionalise trust in order to sustain repeatable exchange.

In business, trust is a currency that fuels customer loyalty and stakeholder confidence. Context increasingly matters, so as workplaces grow more diverse and remote, direct management oversight is fading, making trust in people and business policy even more essential to deliver results. Businesses crave innovation and agility, but they only thrive in cultures where trust is intentional. A business culture of psychological safety—where mistakes are learning opportunities—encourages employees to take risks. Research² shows people trust others based on three key traits: ability (can they deliver?), benevolence (do they care?), and integrity (do they act on shared values?). So, for remote teams, this means the need to prove their competence without micromanagement, showing empathy across their laptop screens, and aligning the decisions they take with shared principles. Consistent demonstration of skills, prioritisation of well-being, and ethical integrity enable agile collaboration and smart risk-taking. Business, economic, and political life are thus all successfully built on the expectation that others will keep their part of the bargain.

Mistrust, whether of governments, markets, or within the workplace, often stems from a lack of confidence in the intentions, integrity, or competence of others or the system they operate within. When people suspect that their leaders, institutions, or co-workers are acting in bad faith — or for narrow, self-serving reasons — it is to be expected that trust will erode. When the system is rigged against a group of people or is not delivering as promised, it is understandable that trust will be difficult to come by without change. Conversely, when leaders suspect that institutions, citizens, employees, or their representatives are acting in bad faith, their trust in them is also likely to erode – as a consequence, they may seek to increase surveillance of them or even reduce their freedom to act against what leaders interpret as the greater good. It sounds basic, but it is fundamental.

Paradoxically, the acknowledgement of mistrust can also be a healthy development in building trust. Acknowledging that there is a potential for the misuse of power, bias, or hierarchical blind spots within institutions and organisations can help lead to deeper, more durable trust because it demonstrates self-awareness and integrity, which are key components in fostering trust. We see examples of this in politics and business. Political systems build their legitimacy through internal checks and balances, grounded in the assumption that unchecked power may be abused. In international relations, it is good practice to trust — but also verify — when engaging with foreign nations. In business, 360-degree feedback systems not only acknowledge the existence of hierarchical blind spots but also foster transparency, enhancing trust in leadership teams and fairness across the organisation. In economic transactions, transparent information for all stakeholders increases confidence. In all these cases, trust is not assumed — it is built through structural processes that prioritise accountability.

Political and business leaders who can demonstrate the integrity of their intentions, the competence of their decisions, and who can also foster a system and culture that reflect those same values are arguably better placed to earn their credibility and secure the support they will need if they are to successfully lead their people through times of change and transformation. Trust may not be tangible, but it’s the most valuable currency we have — and a good place to begin ahead of any serious change. In a world where change demands more than transactions, perhaps it's worth offering a penny for your trust — because once trust is earned, the real work of transformation can begin.

Further Reading on Organisational Trust:

1. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Roger C. Mayer, James H. Davis and F. David Schoorman. The Academy of Management Review, Jul., 1995, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Jul., 1995).

2. As above.