Trust at work is one of the pillars of a strong corporate culture. It is the moment when people accept to “let go a little” because they perceive that the organisation, the managers and the occupational health and safety practices are reliable. In work psychology, trust builds gradually through daily experiences rather than through slogans or posters on the wall.
Research in QWL, QVCT, HSE, occupational risk prevention, stress management and psychosocial risks (PSR) converges: trust relies on three interconnected dimensions that strengthen or weaken together.
The Three Dimensions of Trust at Work
Cognitive Trust: “Can they be relied on?”
The cognitive dimension is based on the coherence of decisions, the clarity of rules, the stability of processes and the credibility of competencies. In other words: is what is announced understandable, consistently applied and supported by competent people?
It becomes visible in the way the organisation manages risk prevention, risk analysis, updates of the Risk Assessment Document (DUERP), safety indicators, or the deployment of safety training, HSE training, QHSE training, first-aid/SST training, root-cause analyses, or accident-prevention systems. When these elements are clear and structured, teams know what to expect.
A readable framework reduces uncertainty and improves focus and performance. Employees spend less energy guessing “how things work” and can focus on their actual tasks.
But excessive trust can lead to overlooking weak signals: small anomalies, near misses, or everyday inconsistencies. Maintaining the right balance between trust and vigilance is essential, especially in high-risk environments.
Affective Trust: “Do I feel safe with them?”
This form of trust is based on listening, support, recognition and the right to make mistakes. It is linked to a simple question: “If something goes wrong, can I say it without being punished or labelled as a problem?”
Workplaces that foster psychological safety show better results in well-being, mental health, burn-out prevention and the reduction of occupational diseases. Teams are more willing to report difficulties, share doubts and suggest adjustments.
When promises are broken or managerial behaviour is inconsistent, affective trust deteriorates quickly. Restoring it takes time and concrete actions: clarifying decisions, acknowledging mistakes, managerial support or coaching for supervisors to help evolve daily practices.
Social Trust: “How do we treat each other every day?”
This dimension reflects fairness, transparency and reciprocity in relationships. It relates to how people feel regarded within the organisation: fair workload distribution, rules applied consistently, decisions explained.
It becomes visible in the implementation of prevention plans, behavioural safety visits, workplace ergonomics, clarity of priorities and the way alerts are handled. For example, when a safety concern is taken seriously, it reinforces the belief that “speaking up matters.”
A climate perceived as fair encourages cooperation, reduces tension and strengthens collective performance. Conversely, perceived injustice fuels resistance, conflict and disengagement.
How Trust Shapes Performance and Prevention
Stronger Collective Performance
Trust facilitates coordination, information sharing and engagement. Teams communicate more easily, anticipate better and support each other in complex or high-pressure situations.
It strengthens the effectiveness of industrial safety initiatives, chemical risk prevention, risk management processes, SST audits or ISO 45001 certification. Tools and procedures do not remain “on paper”: teams adopt them, question them and improve them.
Continuous Learning and Greater Innovation
The freedom to try, adjust and improve enhances practices such as musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) prevention, safe manual handling, skills development, or Shared Vigilance approaches. Errors become learning opportunities rather than sources of blame.
In such environments, feedback, incident analyses and continuous improvement processes truly take root. Employees feel permitted to propose, test, refine—not just apply procedures mechanically.
More Stable Psychological Health
Work environments with high trust show fewer psychosocial risks, less absenteeism, lower burnout levels and better mental and physical health. The psychological load linked to uncertainty, distrust or injustice decreases.
This stability does not eliminate difficulties, but it gives teams more resources to cope: asking for help, adjusting workflows, realigning priorities without exhausting people.
The Limits and Modern Challenges of Trust at Work
A Fragile Dynamic
Trust can collapse after a poorly managed accident, an outdated risk assessment document, a lack of transparency or an unfair decision. What felt “obvious” for years (“here, people can speak openly”) can be questioned within days.
Once damaged, trust cannot be repaired with a communication plan. It requires visible actions, clear explanations and long-term consistency between words and practices.
New Work Contexts
Remote work, digitalisation, AI: these environments profoundly shift the usual reference points. Interactions are more mediated, informal signals are less visible, and boundaries between personal and professional life are changing.
Such contexts require explicit rules, transparent processes and structured communication. Without these, misunderstandings multiply, tensions rise and trust erodes—even without negative intentions.
Our Contribution
A Structured, Human and Operational Approach
At C2D Prévention, we help organisations reinforce the three pillars of trust through concrete, measurable interventions. Our aim is to connect safety culture, workplace health and performance—without opposing human and business priorities.
We provide:
- in-depth work on safety culture, behaviours and positive influence levers
- HSE training, SST training, manual handling, psychosocial risk training, conflict management and stress management programmes designed to build competence and autonomy
- methodical support for DUERP updates, risk analyses, root-cause investigations, prevention plans and Shared Vigilance
- guidance for HR teams and supervisors to improve communication, managerial consistency and relationship quality
- a systemic approach connecting safety, well-being, performance and shared responsibility
Our Objective
To create work environments where:
- rules are understood, discussed and applied
- teams feel recognised, heard and safe to speak up
- cooperation becomes natural, even under tension or change
- risks decrease sustainably thanks to a living, shared prevention culture
- collective performance grows through alignment and maturity, not pressure
We work with organisations aiming to build a mature prevention culture, combining high standards, humanity and measurable results.
Our view is simple: investing in trust means investing in safety, health and long-term organisational performance.
Key Takeaways
- Trust at work is neither an abstract notion nor a “soft value.” It has concrete, measurable effects on daily operations.
- It directly influences:
- workplace safety, risk management and accident reduction
- cooperation quality and problem-solving effectiveness
- psychological health and team stability
- long-term safety culture and HSE practices
- When cognitive, affective and social dimensions are aligned, organisations experience more involvement, more vigilance, fewer conflicts and higher performance. Trust becomes a true driver of prevention and sustainable performance.
- When trust deteriorates, human, organisational and operational risks increase dramatically: errors, conflicts, turnover, incidents, accidents.
Trust is therefore a strategic lever that must be developed intentionally—not just mentioned in corporate value statements.
Colquitt, J. A., Baer, M. D., Long, D. M., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2016).
Trust in typical and high-reliability contexts: Building and reacting to trust among coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000052
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005).
Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002).
Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
Edmondson, A. (1999).
Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017).
Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
Hofstede, G. (2001).
Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995).
An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
McAllister, D. J. (1995).
Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. https://doi.org/10.5465/256727
Newman, A., Kiazad, K., Miao, Q., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2014).
Examining the cognitive and affective trust-based mechanisms underlying the relationship between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship: A case of the head leading the heart? Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1803-2
Rousseau, D. M. (1998).
Psychological contracts in the workplace: Understanding the ties that motivate. Academy of Management Executive, 12(1), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1998.254703
Searle, R., Weibel, A., & Den Hartog, D. (2011).
Trust in the workplace: A review of the literature and emerging issues. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1138–1167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310390286