Why more comms doesn’t build trust

It’s a common scenario. An issue emerges, and the response is immediate: communicate more. The assumption is that more communication will rebuild trust. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.  

Organisational trust forms when people have confidence in three core dimensions: ability to deliver, integrity and care for the people it serves. 

Not all of these matter equally at all times. And when trust is weak in one area, more communication can make things worse. 

Take a Local Government facing service disruptions, such as missed bin collections or unplanned facility closures. Trust erodes because there is a gap between what people expect and what they experience.  

The instinct is to respond with communication, often including apologies for the inconvenience and explanations about what went wrong. That can work if the issue is isolated, and only if trust is already strong. 

If service failures are ongoing and the same messages continue, people start to question whether what they are being told is actually true. 

At that point, it has become a question of integrity, which is much harder to recover once it starts to break down. 

This pattern isn’t unique to Local Government. Post-COVID-19 Qantas has faced sustained criticism over delays, cancellations and customer experience. The organisation communicated regularly, including public apologies and explanations about operational challenges. 

But as the issues continued, sentiment shifted. People stopped reacting to the incidents themselves and started questioning whether the organisation’s messaging reflected reality. 

At that point, the issue was no longer just about performance. It became a question of whether the organisation meant what it said. That clearly showed up in reputation benchmarking, in 2021 trust in Qantas was relatively stable, that had all changed by 2023 when it had surged to the among the top three most distrusted brands in Australia. 

There is another layer to this. Trust is formed through rational judgement and through emotional response. People need to believe an organisation can deliver before they are open to messages about care or intent. If that belief is missing, communication that leans too heavily on tone or empathy can feel tone-deaf. 

There is one situation where more communication can help, but it depends on the issue. A common Local Government example is feedback that Council does not listen. This often follows consultation on a proposal. Feedback is sought, the majority of responses are against it, and Council proceeds anyway. In that situation, the issue is not service delivery. It is whether the process was fair. 

Clear communication about how decisions were made, what was considered and why a particular path was chosen can make a difference. People may still disagree with the outcome, but they are more likely to accept it if they understand the process. 

More communication doesn’t build trust. The right communication, backed by reality, does.