Trust Tuning in the Heat of Crisis
“When trust is present, information flows quickly, decisions are made confidently, and strategies are carried out with precision. When trust is absent, communication slows, misunderstandings multiply, and responses become fragmented.”
On the Morning of June 1, 2020, as Washington, D.C. braced for demonstrations destined to ignite nationwide unrest, the city’s emergency operations center brimmed with government representatives meant to coordinate strategies, share information, and maintain order. Yet collaboration faltered under the invisible weight of “for your eyes only” directives — words intended to protect sensitive data that instead stifled communication, eroded confidence, and slowed every decision. The summer’s events exposed a profound truth: in crisis management, success isn’t driven by technology or resources but by the speed of trust. Recognizing how essential yet fragile that speed can be invites us to embrace a new concept—trust tuning—the deliberate practice of dialing an organization’s level of trust up or down to match evolving needs.
Trust as the Bedrock of Crisis Management
The 2020 protests highlighted a problem that practitioners in public safety and emergency management have long felt: the fragile balance between confidentiality and cooperation. Every agency recognizes the importance of protecting sensitive information. Yet, when critical details are withheld from partners in the midst of a crisis, the entire system falters. Decisions are made with partial knowledge, coordination breaks down, and opportunities to prevent harm are lost.
Trust is not a soft or optional virtue in this context — it is the bedrock of effective crisis response. When trust is present, information flows quickly, decisions are made confidently, and strategies are carried out with precision. When trust is absent, communication slows, misunderstandings multiply, and responses become fragmented.
The familiar phrase “trust but verify” often circulates in government settings. On the surface, it seems like a reasonable compromise between confidence and caution. But the phrase carries an inherent contradiction. If genuine trust exists, constant verification is unnecessary. If constant verification is required, then trust was never truly present. This paradox illustrates the central challenge: leaders cannot rely on either blind trust or perpetual suspicion. Instead, they must cultivate an environment where trust is deliberately built, reinforced, and tuned to the needs of the moment.
Defining Trust and Distrust
Trust is a psychological leap of faith, a willingness to be vulnerable because we expect reliability, integrity, or goodwill. Distrust, by contrast, is a confident expectation of disappointment—a protective posture that, when dominant, fragments collaboration. In public safety and homeland security, trust unfolds across multiple dimensions:
General trust – the basic belief in the goodwill of others and institutions, crucial during times of social unrest.
Interpersonal trust – confidence built on individual actions and integrity, the lifeblood of teamwork.
Organizational trust – faith in an institution’s consistency and reliability, essential for motivating personnel and ensuring alignment.
Cross-disciplinary trust – confidence across professional boundaries, such as police, fire, medical, and intelligence partners.
Cultural trust – the ability to navigate different organizational norms and values without undermining cooperation.
Each layer shapes how effectively teams/people/organizations unite under pressure.
The Social Nature of Trust and Its Types
Trust is not static; it is dynamic, shaping how groups communicate, decide, and act under pressure. In high-trust environments, information flows openly and collaboration flourishes. In low-trust environments, hesitation and doubt lead to missteps.
Scholars and practitioners describe several distinct types of trust that influence behavior in crisis management:
Deterrence-Based Trust – compliance through consequences, driven by fear of penalties for protocol violations
Calculus-Based Trust – a rational weighing of risk versus benefit, which can slow decisions when caution dominates
Relational Trust – bonds built over time through repeated interactions, underpinning candid collaboration
Probabilistic Trust – predictions about others’ behavior in uncertain scenarios, guiding choices about information sharing
Swift Trust – immediate confidence formed under urgent conditions, enabling rapid cooperation even among strangers
Each type has its place. Together they reveal that trust is not a single trait but a set of mechanisms influencing behavior across relationships, time frames, and contexts.
Trust Tuning: A Framework for Leaders
If trust is central to success, leaders must stop treating it as an afterthought and start managing it like any other resource. Trust tuning calls for transparency when secrecy isn’t essential, intentional exercises — both formal and informal—to build relational and cultural trust inside and between teams, and the agility to dial up cooperation in a crisis or dial down exposure when safeguards matter most. It’s not about blind optimism or perpetual suspicion; it’s about making collaboration the default, not the exception.
A Call to Action
The lessons of 2020 were clear: secrecy born of habit, not malice, cost lives and opportunity. As threats evolve — from cyberattacks to pandemics and domestic unrest — the urgency to embed trust tuning into every unit, squad, and command grows ever more acute. Leaders must challenge every “for your eyes only” directive and assess which details, if shared, would accelerate response and innovation internally even as they strengthen external partnerships. They must examine habits of verification that slow critical decisions and weave trust calibration into every exercise and after-action review. In tomorrow’s complex public-safety landscape, no technology or tactic will prevail without the confidence that colleagues at every level will share what they know, challenge assumptions in good faith, and move together at the speed of trust.
About the Author
Captain Craig T. Solgat serves with distinction in the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC, where he brings over two decades of law enforcement experience and leadership to the nation’s capital. He is also a Fellow of the Future Policing Institute. He holds a Master of Arts in Homeland Defense and Security from the United States Naval Postgraduate School and a Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice from Michigan State University. He is also a published author whose work has appeared in numerous professional journals, contributing valuable insight on public safety, national security, and police leadership. To read his full bio, click here.