Combatting mistrust in institutions

This week, I’m in Berlin delivering training on the importance of robust and inclusive disaster risk reduction (DRR) policy. The discussions have been insightful, but one theme keeps emerging: the importance of trust. Participants have shared real-world examples of how communities’ willingness to engage with DRR initiatives, especially those inclusive of particularly at-risk or marginalised communities, is shaped by their trust in institutions, policymakers, and each other. Without trust, even the best-designed policies risk failing at the implementation stage. Building that trust means ensuring DRR efforts are transparent, inclusive, and responsive to the lived realities of those most at risk. This reminder aligns closely with a piece I’ve had published this week on PreventionWeb, exploring the role of misinformation and trust in DRR. The piece was based on a report I launched last month (https://lnkd.in/eniYeaNM), the piece examines how misinformation doesn’t just distort public understanding of risk: it actively undermines confidence in scientific expertise and disaster governance, disproportionately affecting marginalised groups. As we refine DRR policy, we need to recognise that trust isn’t an abstract ideal, it’s a core component of effective disaster preparedness and response. Without it, the best policies remain words on a page. Building trust requires deliberate effort. Key steps include: 1️⃣ Understanding the community by analysing cultural, social, and political dynamics and engaging key leaders 2️⃣ Engaging from the start using participatory approaches and consulting diverse community groups 3️⃣ Communicating openly by providing clear, honest, and timely information 4️⃣ Ensuring inclusivity by engaging marginalised groups and avoiding reliance on elite voices 5️⃣ Delivering on commitments by following through on promises and providing regular updates 6️⃣ Maintaining long-term engagement by fostering sustained partnerships and resilience-building By prioritising trust through transparency, inclusivity, and sustained engagement, DRR efforts can become more effective, ensuring that policies translate into meaningful action for those most at risk. The link to the PreventionWeb article can be found here: https://lnkd.in/ecdZMQt7 #InclusiveDRR #LeaveNoOneBehind

💬 “My mind frame was that I could not trust my own bank.” That sentence hit me like a ton of bricks. In 2022, a scammer posing as Europol stole €35,000 from a victim over the course of just 2.5 days. The tactics were textbook—pressure, fear, isolation, remote access, fake officials, fabricated investigations, and “just one more wire.” But the trigger wasn’t the script. The trigger was mistrust. The victim already had doubts about their financial institution—and the scammers knew exactly how to exploit that. When the victim called the bank to stop one of the wires (due to a delayed receipt), the bank asked no questions. 👎 No red flags were raised 👎 No one asked about the purpose of the transfer 👎 No intervention, just more automation That vacuum of trust was all the scam needed to thrive. 🧠 Here’s the hard truth: We are either earning trust or eroding it—every single day. People choose our financial institutions for a reason. But are we proving, through our actions, that we’re worthy of that trust? ✅ Do our systems and humans recognize distress patterns? ✅ Are we asking the right questions before moving large sums? ✅ Are we equipping our teams to pause, probe, and protect? And just as critically: 🔍 Are we educating our customers about how these scams work? 🔍 Are we providing transparency about real-world risks—without fear, but with clarity? 🔍 Are we giving our members and customers the knowledge to pause, question, and call us when something feels off? 🛡️ Trust is built before the scam call ever comes. Let’s do the work now—not just with smarter systems, but with proactive conversations, clear communication, and a culture of care. Let’s be the financial institution that prevents the loss—because we earned their trust and helped them spot the scam. Operation Shamrock Erin West #FightFraud #FinancialSecurity #ScamAwareness #FraudPrevention #TrustAndSafety #PigButchering #BankingResponsibly #CustomerEducation #EmpoweredConsumers #ShamrockSurvivorStories

When We Say “Please Don’t Say Bad Things About Our…” In nearly 30 years in academic dentistry, I’ve often heard leaders caution: “Please don’t say bad things about our program, clinic, or school.” But here’s the truth—when we try to silence criticism, it doesn’t go away. It grows louder. Why do people complain? Because they’re frustrated. Because unresolved issues linger. Because unclear, unfair, or outdated policies are affecting their work, their students, or their values. Telling people to stop complaining only pushes the frustration underground. It doesn’t solve the problem—it amplifies it. Instead, we need to listen better. We must create safe, open forums for people to speak freely—without fear of retaliation or dismissal. But beware: listening without action can cause even more distrust. Taking input and making no changes may worsen morale and disengagement. Even more dangerous? Abrupt decisions to pacify the crowd—firing someone, reassigning roles, launching sudden policies, closing a program, or publicly blaming others—without a thoughtful, strategic plan with long term goals in mind. These reactive moves often backfire. They don’t build trust. They erode it. They will very likely cause long term damage to the team and the leaders themselves. So what should we do? We need methodical, transparent solutions— 🟦 Engage all stakeholders early. 🟦 Acknowledge what’s not working. 🟦 Map out solutions with clear timelines. 🟦 Communicate the “why” behind every decision. 🟦 Follow up with action—and reflection. In leadership, it’s not the criticism that hurts us. It’s the inability to respond to it with humility, grace, and structure. Let’s build institutions that don’t fear criticism— Let’s build ones that grow because of it. #Leadership #DentalEducation #OrganizationalCulture #PsychologicalSafety #FeedbackCulture #AcademicLeadership #SystemsThinking

Recent client meetings have left me a bit stumped! Because I keep hearing the following: “We don’t trust our data.” It's not the first time I've heard it, and I bet it won’t be the last. The irony? Those same businesses were using data every single day to pay invoices, run supply chains, and make strategic calls. So it’s not really the data they mistrusted. It must be something deeper. So where does this mistrust come from? Sometimes it’s a cover for not liking what the numbers say (because numbers don’t bend to opinion). Other times, it’s really about trust in the data team rather than the data itself. Occasionally, it’s just become a lazy throwaway line. If organisations want to break this cycle, both leaders and data teams need to change the way they work together. Here’s a 5 point playbook that stops “data mistrust” in its tracks: 1. Define Once, Use Everywhere: agree common definitions for key metrics. Document them, make them visible, and hold teams accountable for sticking to them. Consistency builds confidence. 2. Show the Journey: make data lineage transparent. Leaders should see where a number originates, how it’s transformed, and why it ends up in a dashboard etc. Traceability removes suspicion. 3. Shared Accountability: data isn’t an “IT product.” It’s a joint effort. Business leaders must own the accuracy of inputs; data teams must own the quality of models and outputs. Co-ownership prevents finger-pointing. 4. Resolve Issues Quickly: don’t let data concerns fester. Implement visible feedback channels, track issues openly, and close them with clear communication. The faster issues are addressed, the stronger trust becomes. 5. Normalise Hard Truths: not all insights will be comfortable. That’s the point. Leaders must be ready to hear what the numbers say, and data teams must present them clearly. Data itself isn’t untrustworthy. It’s the behaviours, mindset, and responses around it that determine whether people believe it. So let’s stop hiding behind the lazy phrase “we don’t trust our data.” 👉 Business leaders are you really questioning the data, or just avoiding what it’s telling you? 👉 Data teams are you giving the business clarity, speed, and confidence, or just more numbers to argue over? Because until both sides stop passing the blame, “data mistrust” won’t go away, it will just keep undermining decisions. Mark Stouse Bill Schmarzo Malcolm Hawker Eddie Short Kyle Winterbottom Edosa Odaro Joe Reis Matthew Small Dan Everett