The three elements the Sydney Swans need to rebuild trust

“We want to work very, very hard to rebuild your trust” - Andrew Pridham, Chair, Sydney Swans. 

Written by Shanna Crispin

The Sydney Swans are working through a classic reputational crisis - they had banked reputational capital over years, and woke up on Monday morning to find a massive withdrawal had eroded their savings. 

The allegations and the Club’s response divided fans, while Matthew Pavlich was criticised for language widely perceived as clumsy. 

The Club’s response on Monday followed the conventional crisis-communications playbook: issue a holding statement and appear before the media to establish its position. 

Two days after the news broke, the Swans’ position was, quite rightly, that it needed to rebuild trust. But trust is complex, and that complexity is why parts of the Swans’ response may have felt performative to a cynical viewer. 

Three legs of a stool 

The foundational theory on trust is the ABI model - ability, benevolence and integrity. 

These three elements are all required for strong trust to form and be maintained, like three legs of a stool providing a stable platform.  

If there is weakness in one of those three areas, trust begins to fracture, and the stool begins to wobble. 

The sexual assault allegations – and the way the Club responded to them – put two of the three dimensions under pressure: benevolence and integrity. 

Audiences were looking for the Club to act with integrity while also demonstrating genuine care for the people at the centre of the story. 

That takes more than saying the right thing at the right time. 

Integrity is important, but so is benevolence 

Integrity gets a lot of attention when it comes to discussions about trust and reputation, but it’s only part of the picture – one leg of the stool. 

The Swans took some important steps to preserve trust through integrity; they addressed the issue early and took action that aligned with the Club’s values. 

But people also need to feel genuinely cared for before they can fully trust a person or an organisation. And that’s where the Swans’ response let the Club down. 

In the flurry to front-foot the news and demonstrate action, the humanness of the crisis was overlooked, and that contributed to anger surrounding the response. 

Benevolence is difficult to fake 

People assess sincerity through more than words. Tone, body language, emotion and the actions that follow all influence whether a response feels genuine. 

That authenticity is difficult to fake. 

While all the words said in a statement or at a press conference can point in the right direction, if they’re not backed by genuine care and intent, they will likely feel hollow. 

That’s not to say there isn’t genuine care within the Swans’ response. However, Pavlich himself acknowledged that the initial response was focused on demonstrating integrity. 

Questions around ability 

Ability is the third dimension: whether audiences believe an organisation is competent and capable of managing the situation effectively. 

When things have gone wrong, and audiences don’t feel satisfied with demonstrations of integrity and benevolence, this can raise questions about the ability of an organisation to handle the crisis. 

And when all three trust dimensions are under pressure, trust can’t be rebuilt by focusing on one element of trust alone – all three dimensions need to be demonstrated.  

In the case of the Sydney Swans, genuine empathy needs to be strengthened and expressed through actions founded on integrity. Only then will questions about ability begin to quieten. 

The case study shows there is no universal response to a crisis. Every crisis involves people. Checklists can provide a framework for action, but rebuilding trust requires the delivery, and the actions that follow, to demonstrate integrity, genuine care and organisational competence.