Interpreting Results & Prioritizing Fixes

From scores to patterns

Calculate average scores for each survey item and compare them to the overall trust score. Look for dimensions where the item score is both below the overall trust score and below the team average — these are meaningful gaps. Cross-check with observational notes and the comment themes.

Common trust gap clusters and likely root causes

• Low reliability + low follow-up: Root causes often include unclear owners, overloaded people, or missing processes.
• Poor information sharing but high competence: Indicates process gaps (no async updates, unclear meeting rituals) rather than capability problems.
• Low psychological safety: Often correlated with punitive responses to mistakes, public shaming, or leaders who rarely admit uncertainty.
• Low fairness + low recognition: Signals perceived favoritism, opaque decision-making, or unequal distribution of visible work.

Prioritization matrix: impact vs effort

Map candidate interventions by estimated effort (low / medium / high) and expected impact (low / medium / high). Prioritize:

1. Quick wins: high impact, low effort (e.g., meeting norms, simple follow-up discipline).
2. Strategic changes: high impact, medium-high effort (e.g., role clarity work, decision rights matrix).
3. Deprioritize low impact / high effort items.

Sample interventions by dimension

• Reliability: Introduce a visible action tracker and weekly check-ins for the next 6 weeks.
• Information sharing: Create a concise update template and a single place for status updates; set expectations for timing.
• Psychological safety: Leaders model admitting mistakes, invite clarifying questions, and run a facilitated retrospective focused on learning rather than blame.
• Role clarity: Run a short RACI-style mapping for the team’s critical workflows and publish it.
• Fairness & recognition: Regularly rotate visible assignments and adopt a brief system for public acknowledgment tied to behaviors the team values.

Making decisions with imperfect data

Trust audits create hypotheses. Treat the top 2–4 interventions as experiments: define success criteria, owners, and time-boxed reviews. Use observational checklist items as your evidence dashboard.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Fixing culture with one-off perks or social events without addressing predictable workflow pain points.
• Treating low scores as individual failings rather than system-level signals.
• Starting too many initiatives at once — prioritization matters more than goodwill.