The ‘trust me’ campaign: Why trust employers and politicians? This election cycle isn’t only about the president

Editor’s note: This year's election will impact companies in every industry. That’s why Harvard Business School’s Institute for Business in Global Society (BiGS) is launching its first-ever election guide for business leaders, offering insights from experts to help you navigate. In the coming weeks, we’ll publish a series showing how the Harris and Trump agendas will affect everything from trade and labor to diversity and environmental regulations. After the election, we’ll package these insights into a comprehensive guide showing what to expect in the months ahead. We hope you enjoy it.

BOSTON — Forget the typical debates about whether we can trust the presidential polls — after all, they were off the mark in 2020. There are bigger problems on the horizon.

Americans do not trust government leaders to tell the truth, with seven out of 10 saying the leaders purposely try to mislead people with lies or gross exaggerations, according to the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer. In fact, trust in government is at near-historic lows, according to the Pew Research Center. Another poll shows the partisan split on election integrity is getting wider. And don’t forget about misinformation and “deepfake” videos, such as the one that falsely claimed Taylor Swift backed Donald Trump for president.

The 2024 election is notable not only for its stark policy choices, but also for the fundamental questions it raises about trust. This extends beyond politicians such as Trump and Kamala Harris to include companies and business leaders as well.

Businesses are facing unprecedented scrutiny as they’re forced to address politically polarizing and deeply personal issues such as abortion, reproductive rights, and transgender care, as well as opportunity and inclusion — matters that directly affect the lives of their employees. Candidates’ policies on these matters could profoundly impact workforce productivity and morale, talent acquisition and retention, and company culture.

The theme of trust repeatedly emerged in conversations at the Harvard Business School’s Institute for Business in Global Society (BiGS) as we prepared the inaugural BiGS Election Guide, speaking with scholars, labor leaders, business executives, and other stakeholders to discuss these hyper-personal and divisive issues.

So, as voters get ready to head to the polls or vote by mail, I turned to one of the world’s foremost scholars to explore the trust minefield in the upcoming election. Harvard Business School Professor Sandra Sucher has studied trust for years, and in her latest book, The Power of Trust: How Companies Build It, Lose It, Regain It (2021), she makes the case that trust matters more than ever for leaders of all kinds: CEOs, managers, and heads of state.

To successfully navigate trust and its trade-offs, Sucher argues, people must rethink how trust can be built and how it can be recovered if lost. But first, they must understand what it is and what it isn’t. The following interview has been edited for length, clarity, and style.

As a trust scholar, you’re looking at this election cycle in a very different light and see ‘trust’ as a central theme. Can you explain why?

In this election, the stakes for companies are higher because the issues at play — such as fundamental rights to control my own reproduction and family care, my ability to advance at work, my status as a citizen who immigrated to the U.S. — directly affect employees' lives more prominently than in past elections. That’s not standard fare. Candidates more often talk about topics like the economy, trade, and America’s place in the world. “Kitchen table” issues always matter and they feature hugely now, but the topics driving people in this election are far more personal than what they can afford, as important as that is. And these are matters on which people strongly disagree. For better or worse, companies have to survive and thrive regardless of who wins.

First, let’s back up. What exactly is trust?

It’s quite specific. It's a willingness to be vulnerable to other people's actions and intentions. I can't just ask you to trust me. That doesn't work. It’s the other party who gets to decide — like employees. And while we may think of them as trusting the individual, there’s an intervening variable: the action the trusted party is expected to perform. What matters to me — whether you are my president or my employer — is the effect that your actions have on my life. Business leaders repeatedly overestimate the degree to which they're trusted. The latest PWC study estimates there’s a 16- to 18-point gap between how much a leader thinks they’re trusted and how much employees actually trust them. It’s much larger — three times bigger — at the customer level. So, when you think about an election, an election is basically a “trust me” campaign.

Is trust taking a bigger role in this election?

Yes. Just look at all the headlines out there. Can we trust Kamala Harris on the economy? Can we trust Donald Trump to treat all people fairly? We’re always, in an election, invoking the notion of trust and that's basically what the candidates are asking us to do — look into the future and trust me. Do you think your life will be better or worse if you trust me with your vote? That’s why elections matter, and this particular election presents a starker choice than ever — people with different world views and the kinds of actions that could make an individual's world either a better or a worse place to be. Part of that stark choice focuses on issues that are important to women.

How are the candidates trying to convince voters to trust them?

Donald Trump has been credited with engineering the repeal of Roe v. Wade through his selection of Supreme Court justices. He stated clearly in the presidential debate that he believes abortion laws should be determined at the state level. This stance aligns with his broader view that certain decisions are better made locally rather than federally. Harris has positioned herself as the champion of freedom: freedom to make decisions on matters that affect your life without government interference, regardless of where you live, a “whole country view” that some rights are so fundamental they should not be subject to local decision-making.

Depending on who wins, companies may wind up in a position where they have to do even more than they are doing right now to help employees receive the medical care they need, or where they could eventually do less if new federal legislation about reproductive rights is adopted. Either way, they will need to rethink how employees can trust them to take care of them.

Is trust a critical factor for employees in this election?

It’s crucial. Employees’ fundamental rights and daily lives are directly impacted by the outcomes. Issues being [disputed] — such as reproductive rights, family care, housing affordability, and health-related work conditions — are extremely personal. Employees need to trust that these essential aspects of their lives will be protected and supported, making trust in their employers and elected officials more important than ever.

What’s an example of how a company builds trust?

The simple act of gathering data and feedback on how well the company’s childcare and family leave policies are working — and then making changes if needed — demonstrates a commitment to employees' welfare that builds trust. Another example would be paying attention to employees’ health. One company I study has developed a program to support employees who are battling cancer, making a real difference in the lives of people living with cancer.

You argue that the outcome of this election has the potential to undermine workers’ trust in their organizations. How so?

Research has consistently shown that trust in employers far exceeds trust in business in general, or in the government, media, and nongovernmental organizations. Employees expect their companies to protect their employees, regardless of election outcomes. The issues being debated are fundamental to employees' well-being, meaning CEOs can't sit on the sidelines and be apolitical. Even if they claim to be neutral, the proposed policies directly affect their workforce — which means their employees’ morale and their trust in them. This creates a significant stake for companies, beyond the usual concerns about regulation and economic continuity.

Some people think that the election outcome won’t cause businesses to reset their strategy. What do you think?

CEOs must align their companies’ internal policies with the broader political landscape, as trust is increasingly shaped by issues such as health care, reproductive rights, and childcare. These are now central concerns that significantly impact employee satisfaction and retention, requiring a corporate response.

How would you suggest people who are going to the polls in November think about trust?

Voters can consider trust in four key dimensions:

• Competence. Can the candidate effectively lead the country? Employees go through a similar process and ask how effective their company’s CEO is at meeting their needs.

• Motives. Whose interests are the candidates most interested in serving? Who will they take care of? Employees similarly want to know if company policies truly support them or are just superficial.

• Fairness. Are the methods used to achieve goals fair? Both voters and employees expect fairness in policy enforcement and corporate practices.

• Impact. What are the real-world effects of policies? Voters consider how their lives will improve under a candidate, while employees think about the tangible effects of company policies on their daily lives.