Fixing the trust crisis with Rachel Botsman
43:17 Share

This podcast is brought to you by WISE, the app for doing things in other currencies. Sending or spending money abroad, hidden fees may be taking a cut. That's why you should use WISE. Get the currency you need where you need it for less. Tap to pay in pesos in Cancun, easily move pounds to London. From paying overseas bills to sending money to family back home, you have up to 40 currencies in the palm of your hand.

But your fitness goals don't have to suffer for it.

Skip the crowded gyms and embrace a better way to get fit in 2025. Bring an uninterrupted, low-impact, full-body workout into the comfort of your home with the Hydro Rower. Designed by rowers and led by Olympians, Hydro offers the largest library of immersive rowing workouts filmed in stunning outdoor locations.

Kick off the new year with a full-body workout all from the comfort of your home with Hydro. Head over to hydro.com and use code TED to save up to $475 off your Hydro Pro Rower. That's H-Y-D-R-O-W.com code TED to save up to $475. Hydro.com code TED.

With the Redfin app, you'll know the moment your next place hits the market. Whether you're looking to buy your dream home or rent a sweet apartment, give Redfin your gotta-have-it wishlist of property features and you'll receive real-time notifications tailored just for you. Ready to see it up close and personal? Scheduling a tour is just a tap away. Don't wait to find your perfect match. Download the Redfin app and start searching today. It's a good time to have a conversation about trust.

Hey everyone, it's Adam Graham. Welcome back to Rethinking, my podcast on the science of what makes us tick with the TED Audio Collective. I'm an organizational psychologist, and I'm taking you inside the minds of fascinating people to explore new thoughts and new ways of thinking.

My guest today is Rachel Botsman, my favorite thought leader on trust. She teaches at Oxford. Her TED Talks have millions of views, and she regularly motivates me to rethink my views. If I could blow up a misconception about trust, it would be that transparency leads to more trust. If you make that a value in your organization, I would seriously question, like, what are you promising?

Rachel is a dynamic speaker and a relentlessly curious conversationalist. She's the host of a new audiobook, How to Trust and Be Trusted. It's perfectly timed to a moment when so many people and institutions are facing a crisis of trust. There are a lot of misconceptions about trust out there. So let's start to blow some up by doing a quick exercise together. I'd now like you to think about three people in your life. It could be a friend...

A family member? A work colleague? Someone famous? It really doesn't matter. Now, what I want you to think about is who do you trust the most? Of those three people, who do you really trust? I know it's a bit odd to think about, but nobody's going to know. Not even me. Rachel Botsman, do you have trust issues?

Do I have trust issues? Yes. I think everyone has trust issues in different contexts. I find it very easy to trust myself around creative risks and financial risks, weirdly, but find it quite tricky to take physical risks. So I think trust issues doesn't have to look like relationships that you struggle with or that it's difficult to make friends.

I think a lot of trust issues stem from your relationship with risk and look really different in different people. So...

From a young age, I was really interested in how people selected friends in bullies, in the relationships between adults and children and how that power dynamic worked. Bad boyfriends broke my trust, but we're not going there. So that's a different story. I think that might also be a universal human experience. And good for you as well. Yeah.

Maybe. Maybe. I really like your definition of trust, and it's different from, I think, how most people think about trust. Describe it for me. So the way I define trust is that it's a belief and that it's a confident relationship with the unknown. There's more definitions of trust than there are of love. A lot of trust definitions, they define it as knowing what to expect, knowing what the outcome is.

And I think trust is the opposite of that. That's why trust and uncertainty is so intrinsically linked. If you have high trust...

You could navigate uncertainty. You could be really comfortable with the unknown. And the reason why when I started to see trust through that lens, it really started to reframe everything because I started to understand why there was a relationship between high trust cultures and innovation, why there was a relationship between high trust families and

openness, why there was a relationship between people that deeply trusted one another and could disagree. It's because of that confidence in the unknown. As a relatively trusting person, I've done things when it comes to, you know, whether it's helping a stranger who reaches out for an introduction or advice or, you know, taking a gamble on someone I don't know that well who has a startup idea and investing in it.

those have never felt like risky decisions to me because I'm confident that even the worst case scenario is not going to hurt me in a meaningful way. And I think that captures for me the lived experience of saying, yeah, I trust that even if this person wants to take advantage of me, I can protect myself against that. You can trust people when the worst outcome is actually pretty low risk to you, whether that's physical risk or financial risk.

more trust is required when that risk level goes up, which is why, you know, in times of uncertainty, in times of chaos, when there's lots of unknowns, that's when you need more trust in your life. And it's when you don't have that trust and there is that uncertainty that things really start to break down.

One of my favorite studies of trust asks the question of whether people who are highly trusting are Pollyannas. This is Carter and Weber, I think, are the authors. They show that people who tend to trust others more are actually better at detecting lies because they get lied to more often. But they also see the full range of what human beings are capable of.

If you are somebody who doesn't trust others, you're constantly guarded and you don't get to see the full spectrum. Whereas if you are trusting, you get to see people who are kind and honest and you get to see people who are deceitful and manipulative and observing that, I guess, that complexity and that variety helps you get more attuned to what is trustworthy and what isn't.

And I'd love to hear you riff on that a little bit. And I think in that study, they tested interview context, right, as well, that people were better educated.

tuning into trust signals so they could detect when someone was lying or slightly embellishing the truth, which I think is really interesting that once you open yourself up, and this is where I think the vulnerability piece comes in with trust. Like once you allow yourself to be exposed to different situations and different people, you become a better read as to whether someone is telling the truth or whether someone is lying versus being really guarded and shut down. I think

think there is a difference between giving your trust away too easily and people who make fast trust decisions.

So this is something I've personally had to learn, that I have gained so much in life by being a trusting person. I would say the positives far outweigh the negatives, both professionally and personally. I think it makes me a better friend. I think it makes me a better parent, a better teacher, all those things. But what I used to do is make very quick decisions in high stakes environments. And that...

is something where I think we need to recognize that we need to slow down, that we don't have enough information

to make a decision about this person. You may have seen a study on this, but poor hiring decisions that were made due to speed and the damage that caused, there must be a high correlation where people went with intuition or they did those terrible reference checks where you're just reinforcing what you know. So I think this idea of

knowing, I call it a trust pause, but being really conscious of when in your life you make a quick decision and what really drives that. So for me, it's when I'm under pressure, I really need to fill a gap, I'm a little bit desperate, that drives the poor decision-making. This goes to something else that you've highlighted that I've found really helpful, which is to be a little more nuanced about what do I trust someone to do? I keep thinking about this with Elon Musk. I trust him a lot more on hardware than software.

Even before he bought Twitter. He's very good at building rockets and electric cars. I don't think he knows that much about programming, let alone managing a tool for people to communicate and share information.

I have many pet peeves around trust, but the generalized way we talk about trust in the world today is just not helpful. So context is everything. Asking someone what you trust them to do and what you don't trust them to do is a really powerful differentiator. And like you said, there's people you might not describe as trustworthy, like Elon Musk, but they are very competent at certain things. So trust really only becomes useful when

when you put it in context, which is why, you know, when you see, with all due respect, these trust barometers and these surveys or companies that try and measure trust in a very generalized way, I question their usefulness because it's missing context. If you bring it down into a personal level, context has also really helped me in terms of understanding narrative. So sometimes when you think there's a breakdown of trust,

It's because you don't understand the context or the narrative around the other person, what their intention, what their motive is. And if you actually ask that question, you realize that they didn't intend to do any harm. There was just something going on in their life. This speaks to so many different levels of trust. It's true for people. It's true for organizations.

I think you've used an example of Amazon and your trust in them and your distrust in them. Walk me through that one because I found that illuminating. So I do this thing sometimes when I'm speaking to audiences and I ask the audience to clap for the brand that they trust the most. And 99% of people clap for Amazon.

And the reason why, when you ask the audience, is they start talking about how, well, you know, Amazon delivered the packages on time and it's really easy to return these things. And then I say, well, is that convenience or is that trust? And there's a pause. And then you say, well...

Do you trust that Amazon treats all their employees fairly? Or do you trust that they pay their fair share of taxes? And it's a completely different conversation. It sounds so obvious when you say it, but I think it is a real shift in the way you think about trust because I know I've been skiing with you and I don't trust your sense of direction. Neither do I. But

But that is really useful to know, right? I mean, I find it refreshing because I can trust you with so many things and you're so competent, but the fact that you have no sense of direction, but that's really useful to know, right? If you know those things about people and that if you can really own those things and say, don't trust me to drive you. I'm a really bad driver. Don't trust me for directions. And sometimes I don't think we're honest enough about that. So this idea of context and trust really is key. Yeah.

Yeah, you definitely shouldn't ever trust me for directions anywhere, including to places I've been to many times. But I think that a lot of people struggle with this. I think they struggle with it in part because...

they only are thinking about trust in the domain in which a promise has been made or where they've had a chance to observe the behavior, right? So in the Amazon context, I can trust Amazon because that's what they stand for. Reliable, fast customer service. And that customer obsession is something they deliver on over and over and over again. And

And I'm not thinking about maybe the more character-related elements of trust. I'm not a fan of everything Amazon does, but I think it's very smart in terms of brand strategy and even culture strategy is that they are...

very clear about what they are and they're very clear about what they're not. And, you know, if you talk to Amazon leadership team, they won't really talk about sustainability. And they're quite comfortable with that because their brand proposition is purely built around the capability side of trust. It's purely built around competence and especially reliability. Like that is the number one trait. And this is where I think

a lot of brands and companies and cultures go wrong is they make it too complicated. They try and think that they have to be everything, all these dimensions of trust. In psychology, I was trained to think about the character element as having a benevolence component and an integrity component where the benevolence is, I have good intentions toward you. I care about your interests. And integrity is, I have good principles and you can count on me to basically walk my talk.

Yeah. I mean, integrity, I've always found the idea of alignment really useful, like visually useful. So like if you imagine...

two lines, right? And when they are lined up, you've got shared interests, you've got shared motives, you've got really importantly shared intentions and expectations, right? That leads to integrity. It's interesting you use benevolence, I use empathy, and I'd love to understand like how you think about those two things differently. Empathy, I think, is a really tricky one that many organizations are struggling with, like what it means to be

empathetic and whether that empathy just extends in a professional context or where that line is around being empathetic to what's going on in someone's life. So that is really interesting in terms of leadership and the character side of trust, how that trait is changing.

Yeah, I think I've become less enthusiastic about empathy over time, in part because of Paul Bloom's research showing that you don't have to feel other people's feelings to be concerned about their feelings. And sometimes feeling others' feelings actually leads to biased and distorted decision-making when you prioritize the people you empathize with over those that you don't, which tends to mean you favor your in-group and you don't show enough compassion for your out-group.

It also means that sometimes you get overloaded by empathic concern and you end up managing your own pain and distress as opposed to reaching out to the person who's suffering. So I think if I were to get rid of all the jargon, I would just say we're looking for care and integrity as the two dimensions of character. I love...

care and caring because it's active, right? To me, when you say you care about someone, you have to move from that state of just listening to support and action. And sometimes that's missing when we talk about empathy. One of the things that I've found troubling over probably the past decade is whenever I've done surveys asking people how much do they trust their manager or their CEO,

I found when I measured the care and integrity components, they correlate so highly that they're basically redundant. And so if you think that your boss is caring, you also think they have integrity and vice versa. And I think for me, that's a massive halo effect. The people who are kind to you are not always honest with you. And the people who are candid with you don't always care about you.

And I think we're too quick to lump those two qualities together and assume they go hand in hand. You can care about someone and not necessarily be on their side. You can be a kind and charismatic person, but not be willing to put your neck out for people. I mean, that's another thing. Kind people and charismatic people are often really concerned about their reputation. So stepping out that zone and really backing someone is key.

I know you shouldn't pick traits, but I do think the deepest trait is integrity. If I don't believe someone has integrity, I cannot trust them, even if they score ridiculously high on the other things. So I'm always looking for that trait first. And again, I think it's something can really change how you show up in life and at work.

Even thinking about those questions, like how do you figure out someone's interests and motives? It has got me thinking that the caring or the empathy trait can have a louder signal. I think it's often more visible and easy to display, whereas the integrity piece takes more time and information, which is maybe why we get them conflated. I'm thinking about the...

now a pretty vast literature on integrity testing in interviewing and hiring and how a lot of it really is anchored in the idea that, to your point, you can't ask people directly, do you have integrity? Who's going to say no to that question? I'd love someone if they did. And then I'd be like, well, you've got integrity if you said no to the question. Yeah. And maybe that's proof that honesty and integrity can diverge. Totally. I can count on you to tell me the truth, but not to do what you say you're going to do.

One of the workarounds for that is you ask people to predict others' integrity.

And in general, people who are suspicious about other people's principles are generally doing it because they tend to project their own lack of integrity onto others. And so people who think others are thieves, for example, are more likely to steal themselves. So what's your favorite integrity question? Because even the question also, like, why do you want this job? That's not a great, like, deep integrity question. Like, is there one that you find that is really revealing? Yeah.

The one that I like most is to ask what's wrong with our interview process. You've been through it now. Tell us how to fix it. And I'm looking for whether the person is willing to stand up for a principle they believe in, even if it might be uncomfortable or...

potentially jeopardize their ability to get the job. It's such a great question because also like the way they think about design, the way they think about systems, the way they think about culture, the way they think about what's been missed about them. I love that. That's brilliant. It's also a learning opportunity, right? A long time ago, a lot of organizations figured out that if they wanted to serve their customers better, they should ask their customers what they wanted and what they thought of the quality of the service they were getting.

Same thing here. If you want to create a better interview experience, why would you not ask people what that was like and how you could improve it? I've often wondered about the merit of making someone really angry. Wait, what? In an interview. Like I've never seen it as a technique, but like if you could make someone really angry or frustrated and how they responded to that situation.

Oh. We stay in one temperature, one emotion is where I'm getting at in interviews. How much can you see of a person? How much do they really reveal when they're in that one emotional temperature? Whereas if you go to the hotter emotions like jealousy and anger and frustration, I really don't know how you do this in a responsible way, but it's something that's really intrigued me that I think you'd get to their motivations and who they are as a person. I actually have been in some ways thinking about the opposite.

Too many interviews are basically showing us how you perform under anxiety. And in most jobs for most people, your baseline is not going to be extreme nervousness. And so that's not necessarily a representation of your best performance.

And so what I'm always trying to do is figure out how do we dial down the anxiety so that people can relax and put their best foot forward. I think your approach might be more palatable to say, look, you're going to feel some strong negative emotions. Why don't we convert some of the anxiety into frustration? It's a more active emotion. It tends to lead people to feel stronger. And then let's see if they can stand up for themselves in a way that's still respectful. Yeah.

I don't think it's just happening in education. You see it in the workplace as well. This idea of a comfortable culture. And this ties back to trust, right? There is this conflation that high trust means comfort. And it's the opposite of that. Like it's those relationships where you have high trust and

that you can cope with that conflict, you can cope with that discomfort and that disagreement. So how can we bring that into environments so that it comes back into the classroom, it comes back into the workplace, that the first challenge, people are not taking it personally and walking away and getting defensive. You have this great distinction that I think is utterly overlooked in the entire field of trust research,

which is we shouldn't just look at capability as unidimensional. You say there's a competence component and a reliability component. And I think we tend to lump them together. Talk to me about the virtue of splitting them apart.

I see them as so different. They're like two children. They're just different makeup. That's how different I see them. So the competence piece is the easiest to understand. And competence really is whether you have the skills, the knowledge, the

the resources, the experience, and even the time to do what you say you're going to do. So can you follow through? Do you actually know where your skill gaps are? And do you have the humility to relay those? So that's competency. We work on that from a really young age. So you look at most education, you look at most training and development, it's built around that competency piece. Reliability

is totally different. So you've got people who are highly competent and then really unreliable. And reliability has a very strong relationship to time and our respect for time. Are you someone that runs late? Are you someone that reschedules at the last minute? You know, those people that you always get the email from like, I'm sorry, I'm really busy. I'm going to have to reschedule again. And then this one I find quite tricky is

Are you consistent in your behaviours over time?

And the reason why I find that one quite tricky is because we all show up in different ways, right, on different days. So how we feel and how we behave on a Monday is going to be different to a Thursday. But there is consistency in expectations, what people can expect, how you're going to show up that is really, really important to trust. Well, I have a little bit of a problem with the way that you're talking about this because I am reliably late. You are. Yeah.

But you know you can rely on me to show up. And you know that responsiveness is one of my core values. And I think that's what people care about. It's not whether you can count on me to be on time. You know that if you add five to 10 minutes, I will be there. And you also know that whenever you need me, I'm going to be available and helpful. Isn't that what matters? But you're consistent. So do you know what I mean? Like it's a consistent expectation. And then when you do show up,

It's the erratic behavior that is the issue. So not knowing how someone's going to show up. My pet peeve, I think more and more people are just not replying to email. They open it like five times and then they don't reply. Just reply. Just say you're not interested or close the loop, whatever it may be. That is all tied to this trait of reliability.

Look, I don't think we should all face pressure to be responding rapidly to everybody who reaches out. I think that's a recipe for just letting your inbox control your life. But I also think ghosting someone electronically should be considered, unless it's a stranger spamming you, it should be considered as rude as passing someone in the hallway and not saying hi to them. Yeah.

even worse because sometimes I think when people have made an outreach to me and you can tell it's not necessarily someone I know, they've taken a risk there, right? And you can tell when someone's really invested the time to think about the email and the outreach to the email. So to not reply is really disrespectful. But I also think like what might that do to them? What might they think about their idea or their project through the non-response versus the

Just being really honest that it's not something you're interested in. It's not something that you're experienced with, but here's a recommendation or here's something you might want to read. And then that person feels seen and heard, which ultimately I think is what most people want at the end of the day. I want to talk about the crisis of trust that we're facing in the world. I think that from all the polls and surveys that I've read, it's

It does look like we're at or near historic lows on trust in the media and journalists, on trust in government, on trust in science and scientists. And I think these major institutions are the bedrock of democratic society. And I'd love to hear your perspective on how we think about why that's happening and what we do about it.

The decline of institutional trust is probably now a 25-year trend, but rapidly accelerated over the last two years, particularly in military, judges, law, certain professions. And so much of it is tied around information and trust and information as well, and not knowing what information to trust. I wrote a book called

like six years ago now, that was called Who Can You Trust? And it charted this shift from what I call institutional trust to distributed trust. And it was really about this idea that for the last 150 years, we had designed these systems and the leaders within them that were really top-down and hierarchical. And we expected people to look up and be very deferential to the people at the top.

And the argument was that what technology inherently wants to do is to take that power and trust and distribute it through networks and platforms and marketplaces, which is why you see people saying that they trust their peers on social media more than a traditional news outlet. And I still think that idea is right, but I think I've missed something really big here.

So from a design perspective, one of the things I'm generally interested in is whether trust can scale and that these systems have just got too big, too bureaucratic, that you cannot find any smallness within bigness or whether these systems are now so disconnected from our emotional needs that they feel unbearable.

irrelevant. The complexity and the size is a huge part of the problem. And so I'm a huge believer that we have to start to find smallness within bigness. We have to revive trust at a local level, really repair the fabric of communities and the things that people can touch and see when they leave the house. And once we feel like the things working closely

to our lives and our homes are working, that then starts to transcend upwards into these larger institutions. So it's this top-down approach to fixing trust that is not going to get us anywhere. This speaks to one of the most profound points that you've made about trust for me, which is about transparency.

I think particularly with government and with media, I see constantly calls for, well, too many things are happening behind closed doors. We can't be in the room where it happened. So we need these institutions to be more transparent, and that's the only way we can trust them. And you say, not so fast.

You know, you have to go back to the definition of trust, which is that trust is a confident relationship with the unknown. So what are we doing when we call for transparency? We're calling for visibility. We want to see inside things. We want to understand. Essentially, it's information disclosure, right? We want to know what's going on. And it's not that I'm saying transparency is a bad thing. I think transparency can be

highly effective when it's a tool to help people understand the context around a decision. So gender pay, right? We need that information disclosed so that you can drive some kind of accountability and change. But it's when transparency is more like a Jackson Pollock painting or a hose, right? You're just going to spray it everywhere and you don't even know what you're trying to

illuminate or bring to the surface. And if you speak to people in HR or governance or regulation, transparency often just leads to a culture of compliance and paperwork. Bureaucracy 101. One of the most powerful conversations I had around this was actually...

with a major bank during the financial crisis where someone said, seniors said, look, everyone's calling for transparency. Everyone says that I should share everything that's going on. If I share everything that's going on, I'm going to create blind panic, which is going to make a lot of people's lives a lot worse. I need the trust that I'm going to share the right information at the right time. Like that's why you've put me in this role. And ultimately, I think that is one of the most powerful expressions of trust is

secrecy isn't the enemy of trust, it's deception. And often with transparency, you're trying to reveal secrets, which doesn't get to the systemic issues of what caused the deception in the first place. Say that again. Secrecy is not the enemy of trust, deception is? We've entered this culture where transparency has become surveillance. And I even see this in parenting, where the tracking happens.

Right. Oh, it's for safety. I like to know you like to know where they are. And I'm like, yeah, but when does that become surveillance and monitoring? And so the intention behind transparency might be good, but how it's experienced by the other person can be completely different. It makes me think a little bit about what is transparency if it's not the solution to our trust problems, right?

It's often a sign of trust problems. When people call for transparency, it's a clear message saying, I do not trust you. Therefore, I need to look under the hood. Like, I don't trust you. Therefore, I need your phone password. I don't trust you, so you need to come into the office. I don't trust you, so I need to know exactly what work you're doing. I don't trust you, so you need to sit in front of me and do your homework. Once you see it, it's everywhere. It allows us to proceed with a relationship better.

because we have more information, but it doesn't solve the underlying trust problem. Yeah. And I think it's a very tempting stopgap because it can make things feel better, right? But nothing really changes underneath in the relationship or the system or the culture. So what do we do then when you have breached someone's trust by deceiving them or letting them down and failing to deliver on one of your promises? What do you do to repair it?

Well, I think actually before we get at the institutional level, you have to look at incentives and you have to look at accountability, right? Like those two things are often at the root cause of some kind of trust crisis that people have been incentivized to demonstrate the wrong behavior or practice the wrong values. And they haven't been held accountable for those actions. There are solutions to a trust crisis that don't need to call for transparency in a relationship that

It requires an uncomfortable conversation around why you don't trust that person, which is the rub of it, right? Like you have to say, the reason why I need to track you or the reason why I need to know what you're spending is because you did this in the past.

And now that has made me skeptical or second guess or and letting that other person explain why they did that and moving on from it can really fix the trust issues. But what we often do is we go to the solution or the band-aid without that. What was that moment of disconnect on both sides where the trust really started to break down? Rachel, do you actually do this? Do you sit down with someone and say, I don't trust you?

I would never use those words. Why not? Because I actually, I find the candor refreshing as I hear you say it out loud. You're making me sound like someone who makes people walk into interviews and makes them anxious and frustrated. I'm making you? They're your words, not mine. I am a very candid person and I hope people find that refreshing. I've noticed over the years.

Don't ever do a British accent again, Adam. No, no, definitely don't. I do have those conversations with people who are really close to me. My immediate family, my parents, my sibling, my children, my

my husband, that circle is pretty small. And some colleagues that I've worked with for a long time. So I will say, I experienced this. This was my observation. Now you tell me your side of the story. And again, there's usually some disconnect in the narrative that I formed, or there's dots that I've joined that are very different from how they see the situation.

That is very consistent with what I learned when I went through conflict mediation training, which was to say, here's what my experience has been. Tell me your perspective because I'm sure there's information I'm missing and I don't live in your head. And also saying, I don't want to track you. I don't want to watch what you're spending. I don't want to have that relationship. So

Really expressing that something is at stake, that you're going to lose something with this person if we don't fix this is really powerful. Thinking about how direct and candid you are.

I'm struck by that as maybe an accelerator for you to figure out who's trustworthy and who isn't and in what ways. Because I think the way that you're direct with people, it leads them to put their guard down a little bit and feel that they can be more forthcoming with you. And I think that means you get sort of a less performed, more authentic version of other people showing up for you. Yeah. Sometimes I think I can be too direct. I've had that feedback.

With the Redfin app, you'll know the moment your next place hits the market. Whether you're looking to buy your dream home or rent a sweet apartment, give Redfin your gotta-have-it wish list of property features, and you'll receive real-time notifications tailored just for you. Ready to see it up close and personal? Scheduling a tour is just a tap away. Don't wait to find your perfect match. Download the Redfin app and start searching today. What makes a great pair of glasses? At Warby Parker.

It's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95, including prescription lenses, plus scratch-resistant, smudge-resistant, and anti-reflective coatings, and UV protection, and free adjustments for life.

To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses, or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com. That's warbyparker.com. My dad works in B2B marketing. He came by my school for career day and said he was a big ROAS man. Then he told everyone how much he loved calculating his return on ad spend.

My friend's still laughing at me to this day. Not everyone gets B2B, but with LinkedIn, you'll be able to reach people who do. Get $100 credit on your next ad campaign. Go to linkedin.com slash results to claim your credit. That's linkedin.com slash results. Terms and conditions apply. LinkedIn, the place to be, to be.

in the past. I think that's gender bias, but go on. Yeah, it's funny. I've always wondered, why do powerful people want to be around me? I've asked this question so many times, right? They can get counsel and advice from whoever they want. Like, why did they drop their guard? It's not oversharing. It's not like being too direct with them. But there is something about the candor that leads to a very honest dynamic pretty quickly. Yeah.

I mean, this is so important, like when you give feedback and sometimes you are a rare person in their life that's not trying to sell them something, doesn't want anything from them, doesn't need them to approve what you're saying. And like, that's what I think they're looking for. I want to make sure we get to a lightning round. Are you ready? Yes. Tell me about the worst advice you've ever gotten. I've received terrible advice around...

public speaking that I should use humor to connect with an audience when I open. So risky. If it lands, it's great. If it doesn't, it's a disaster and really hard to recover. And humor is harder for women. And so if you go out there and you're trying to be funny, it's kind of like people who look for trust, right? You're trying to seek a response.

And I realized pretty quickly that the magical moments that happen, whether in a classroom or on a stage, is when you've got that resonance. And that resonance cannot be planned or it cannot be contrived. And it rises up and you feel that energy and you feel that connection. And so it's funny, those first few moments of wherever I'm doing something public are

I don't overthink them anymore. Like I really go out there and just settle and let the audience know that this is going to be fun. They're going to feel something. They are okay with me. And then I go from there. I relate to the uncertainty and the tension of getting on stage and wanting to know that the audience is with me and wanting to feel that connection and knowing that the audible sound of laughter is going to create that. And you don't get that kind of immediate feedback with people

Like with an inspiring moment. People don't just stand up and clap, right? I think a lot of this as a speaker is just getting over the desire for immediate feedback. It's totally, right? And also finding a different mechanism that works for you. So I ask the audience a question and then I hear lots of different responses and I'm pretty good at rifting off that things. And humor comes from that because you can tie them all together really naturally. But knowing that that's my mechanic...

to create the energy and create the connection is really changed things. I'm going to have to try more of this as I notice half my opening jokes bomb. What's the best advice you've ever gotten? I had a boss pretty early on in my career that said that I was going to struggle to work in large organizations. And

the culture of whatever I was working on would be the most important thing. That's easy to see why. Probably too direct. I was going to say too creative, but both. Tell me something you've rethought lately. I mean, we're speaking like right after the election and this might sound so obvious, but I'd never thought that hope isn't an emotion. Oh, it sounds like you've been reading some C.R. Snyder.

No, I haven't been reading that. But I always thought that hope was an emotion that pulled people forwards. And I've realized now that it's not. It's more like a compass or a promise. So that when you campaign purely around the emotion of hope versus a campaign that is built around emotions that push against, the louder, more negative emotions will cut through.

Give me, Rachel, a hot take, an unpopular opinion that you are excited to defend. I think you should live your life by seasonal time and rhythms. I think clock time is one of the worst inventions. I really do not like the modern day notion of productivity. Even the idea that a human being should be at their most productive and their most efficient is really problematic to me. What's the question you have for me? It's a question I get asked a lot, which is,

What's the difference between confidence, faith, and trust? And it's a tricky one to answer. So interesting. I'm the wrong person to ask about faith, for sure. I don't have faith in anything that can't be verified. Full stop. I also don't doubt anything that can't be falsified. But that is another conversation.

I think on the one hand, your intuition is right from the evidence I'm familiar with, which says that it's much easier to build trust one-on-one even than it is in a group setting. And so one of the mistakes that I see people make all the time is they try to do team trust falls.

And forget that, like, yeah, you may trust the group overall to, you know, to do a few things. But ultimately, it's your relationship with each person in the group that determines the confident relationship they have with the unknown. I think that's a reminder that we need to spend much more time in dyads as opposed to just in groups.

On the other hand, there are things that we would all trust groups to do and large groups to do that we would never put in the hands of single individuals. There's a part of me that thinks, actually, it's the largest organizations that are able to be the most trustworthy, and maybe it's the in-between that's an uncanny valley. We can trust individuals. We can trust huge organizations that have high reliability practices, but

And it's the messy middle where we run into a lot of trouble. That's super interesting. You told me you don't trust me to navigate anywhere, especially when skiing. What else do you trust me and not trust me for? I trust you 100% with your generosity and your ability to give advice. And I don't say that to many people. What do you not trust me for is what I really want to know. I'm not sure I would trust you to give me advice personally.

on creative things. And I mean this in the nicest way, like visual things that are in their infancy or things that don't have hard evidence or data, but that are quite organic and evolving and are going to have to go through like multiple iterations.

I wouldn't come to you for feedback on that because I'm not sure it's how your mind works. It's definitely not. I'm glad you know that because I would just end up like ruining the vision with my linear thinking and my desire to anchor the image in a study. I think the takeaway for me from this conversation is that my right brain cannot be trusted because it doesn't exist.

that's slightly extreme, but probably like my right brain can be trusted, but my left brain can be a little wobbly at times. That's part of why it's always interesting to talk to you. Rachel, I trust you more than anyone when it comes to helping me think more clearly and more accurately about trust. And I've learned a ton from you about it. And today is no exception. Thank you. I really appreciate that. Thanks.

My biggest takeaway from Rachel is that the key to trust is not transparency. It's integrity and reliability. There's nothing more important than following through on your commitments and making it clear that people can count on you when it counts most. Rethinking is hosted by me, Adam Grant. The show is part of the TED Audio Collective. And this episode was produced and mixed by Cosmic Standards.

Our producers are Hannah Kingsley-Ma and Asia Simpson. Our editor is Alejandra Salazar. Our fact checker is Paul Durbin. Original music by Hansel Su and Alison Leighton Brown. Our team includes Eliza Smith, Jacob Winnick, Samaya Adams, Roxanne Heilash, Banban Cheng, Julia Dickerson, and Whitney Pennington-Rogers. What else do you trust me and not trust me for? Are you looking for compliments, Adam Grant? No, I'm actually trying to find out what else I need to get better at.

Because directions are hopeless.

Try it at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states. My dad works in B2B marketing. He came by my school for career day and said he was a big ROAS man. Then he told everyone how much he loved calculating his return on ad spend.

My friend's still laughing at me to this day. Not everyone gets B2B, but with LinkedIn, you'll be able to reach people who do. Get $100 credit on your next ad campaign. Go to LinkedIn.com slash results to claim your credit. That's LinkedIn.com slash results. Terms and conditions apply. LinkedIn, the place to be, to be. What makes a great pair of glasses? At Warby Parker, it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost.

Their designer quality frames start at $95, including prescription lenses, plus scratch-resistant, smudge-resistant, and anti-reflective coatings, and UV protection, and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses, or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com. That's warbyparker.com.