What do you think?
Rate this book
Building Trust: In Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life
In business, politics, marriage, indeed in any significant relationship, trust is the essential precondition upon which all real success depends. But what, precisely, is trust? How can it be achieved and sustained? And, most importantly, how can it be regained once it has been broken?
In Building Trust , Robert C. Solomon and Fernando Flores offer compelling answers to these questions. They argue that trust is not something that simply exists from the beginning, something we can assume or take for granted; that it is not a static quality or "social glue." Instead, they assert that trust is an emotional skill, an active and dynamic part of our lives that we build and sustain with our promises and commitments, our emotions and integrity. In looking closely at the effects of mistrust, such as insidious office politics that can sabotage a company's efficiency, Solomon and Flores demonstrate how to move from naïve trust that is easily shattered to an authentic trust that is sophisticated, reflective, and possible to renew.
As the global economy makes us more and more reliant on "strangers," and as our political and personal interactions become more complex, Building Trust offers invaluable insight into a vital aspect of human relationships.
In Building Trust , Robert C. Solomon and Fernando Flores offer compelling answers to these questions. They argue that trust is not something that simply exists from the beginning, something we can assume or take for granted; that it is not a static quality or "social glue." Instead, they assert that trust is an emotional skill, an active and dynamic part of our lives that we build and sustain with our promises and commitments, our emotions and integrity. In looking closely at the effects of mistrust, such as insidious office politics that can sabotage a company's efficiency, Solomon and Flores demonstrate how to move from naïve trust that is easily shattered to an authentic trust that is sophisticated, reflective, and possible to renew.
As the global economy makes us more and more reliant on "strangers," and as our political and personal interactions become more complex, Building Trust offers invaluable insight into a vital aspect of human relationships.
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
74 people are currently reading
231 people want to read
About the author
Robert C. Solomon
124 books172 followersRobert C. Solomon (September 14, 1942 – January 2, 2007) was a professor of continental philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin.
Early life
Solomon was born in Detroit, Michigan. His father was a lawyer, and his mother an artist. After earning a B.A. (1963) at the University of Pennsylvania, he moved to the University of Michigan to study medicine, switching to philosophy for an M.A. (1965) and Ph.D. (1967).
He held several teaching positions at such schools as Princeton University, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Pittsburgh. From 1972 until his death, except for two years at the University of California at Riverside in the mid-1980s, he taught at University of Texas at Austin, serving as Quincy Lee Centennial Professor of Philosophy and Business. He was a member of the University of Texas Academy of Distinguished Teachers. Solomon was also a member of the inaugural class of Academic Advisors at the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics.
His interests were in 19th-century German philosophy--especially Hegel and Nietzsche--and 20th-century Continental philosophy--especially Sartre and phenomenology, as well as ethics and the philosophy of emotions. Solomon published more than 40 books on philosophy, and was also a published songwriter. He made a cameo appearance in Richard Linklater's film Waking Life (2001), where he discussed the continuing relevance of existentialism in a postmodern world. He developed a cognitivist theory of the emotions, according to which emotions, like beliefs, were susceptible to rational appraisal and revision. Solomon was particularly interested in the idea of "love," arguing against the notion that romantic love is an inherent state of being, and maintaining, instead, that it is instead a construct of Western culture, popularized and propagated in such a way that it has achieved the status of a universal in the eyes of many. Love for Solomon is not a universal, static quality, but an emotion, subject to the same vicissitudes as other emotions like anger or sadness.
Solomon received numerous teaching awards at the University of Texas at Austin, and was a frequent lecturer in the highly regarded Plan II Honors Program. Solomon was known for his lectures on Nietzsche and other Existentialist philosophers. Solomon described in one lecture a very personal experience he had while a medical student at the University of Michigan. He recounted how he stumbled as if by chance into a crowded lecture hall. He was rather unhappy in his medical studies at the time, and was perhaps seeking something different that day. He got precisely that. The professor, Frithjof Bergmann, was lecturing that day on something that Solomon had not yet been acquainted with. The professor spoke of how Nietzsche's idea asks the fundamental question: "If given the opportunity to live your life over and over again ad infinitum, forced to go through all of the pain and the grief of existence, would you be overcome with despair? Or would you fall to your knees in gratitude?"
Solomon died on January 2, 2007 at Zurich airport. His wife, philosopher Kathleen Higgins, with whom he co-authored several of his books, is Professor of Philosophy at University of Texas at Austin.
Early life
Solomon was born in Detroit, Michigan. His father was a lawyer, and his mother an artist. After earning a B.A. (1963) at the University of Pennsylvania, he moved to the University of Michigan to study medicine, switching to philosophy for an M.A. (1965) and Ph.D. (1967).
He held several teaching positions at such schools as Princeton University, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Pittsburgh. From 1972 until his death, except for two years at the University of California at Riverside in the mid-1980s, he taught at University of Texas at Austin, serving as Quincy Lee Centennial Professor of Philosophy and Business. He was a member of the University of Texas Academy of Distinguished Teachers. Solomon was also a member of the inaugural class of Academic Advisors at the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics.
His interests were in 19th-century German philosophy--especially Hegel and Nietzsche--and 20th-century Continental philosophy--especially Sartre and phenomenology, as well as ethics and the philosophy of emotions. Solomon published more than 40 books on philosophy, and was also a published songwriter. He made a cameo appearance in Richard Linklater's film Waking Life (2001), where he discussed the continuing relevance of existentialism in a postmodern world. He developed a cognitivist theory of the emotions, according to which emotions, like beliefs, were susceptible to rational appraisal and revision. Solomon was particularly interested in the idea of "love," arguing against the notion that romantic love is an inherent state of being, and maintaining, instead, that it is instead a construct of Western culture, popularized and propagated in such a way that it has achieved the status of a universal in the eyes of many. Love for Solomon is not a universal, static quality, but an emotion, subject to the same vicissitudes as other emotions like anger or sadness.
Solomon received numerous teaching awards at the University of Texas at Austin, and was a frequent lecturer in the highly regarded Plan II Honors Program. Solomon was known for his lectures on Nietzsche and other Existentialist philosophers. Solomon described in one lecture a very personal experience he had while a medical student at the University of Michigan. He recounted how he stumbled as if by chance into a crowded lecture hall. He was rather unhappy in his medical studies at the time, and was perhaps seeking something different that day. He got precisely that. The professor, Frithjof Bergmann, was lecturing that day on something that Solomon had not yet been acquainted with. The professor spoke of how Nietzsche's idea asks the fundamental question: "If given the opportunity to live your life over and over again ad infinitum, forced to go through all of the pain and the grief of existence, would you be overcome with despair? Or would you fall to your knees in gratitude?"
Solomon died on January 2, 2007 at Zurich airport. His wife, philosopher Kathleen Higgins, with whom he co-authored several of his books, is Professor of Philosophy at University of Texas at Austin.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
May 5, 2025
Despite its importance, trust is often assumed rather than discussed
context:
- Psychologist Erik Erikson argued that infants develop a fundamental sense of trust – or distrust – based on how their caregivers respond to their needs. A child raised with reliable, attentive care grows up believing that people can be trusted. On the other hand, unpredictable or neglectful caregiving fosters lasting patterns of anxiety and suspicion.
notes:
- When trust is broken, ignoring the issue only deepens the damage.
- Andrew Grove, the former CEO of Intel, once said that if employees never made mistakes, they weren’t trying hard enough. His approach runs counter to fear-driven workplaces, where mistakes invite punishment rather than learning. Organizations that rely on strict control create defensive environments, stifling creativity and innovation, and limiting long-term success.
- Renaissance philosopher Machiavelli argued that power and fear are more reliable than trust, since people act in their own interests. This mindset persists in many organizations, but at great cost. When fear replaces trust, workplaces become inefficient, morale declines, and employees focus on self-preservation rather than collaboration.
- Fear-driven leadership fosters compliance, not commitment. People do the bare minimum to avoid consequences rather than working toward shared goals. In personal relationships, excessive control leads to alienation, as trust can’t grow in an atmosphere of suspicion. Organizations that prioritize power over trust create cultures where anxiety flourishes, making honest communication nearly impossible.
- How can you trust others if you don’t first trust yourself? Self-trust is often the most fundamental and overlooked form of trust. People who lack confidence in their own judgment are more likely to second-guess others and misinterpret uncertainty as a sign of deception.
bt notes:
- Trust is the foundation of strong relationships, effective organizations, and functional institutions. It shapes how people work together, communicate, and make decisions. When trust is absent, relationships weaken, workplaces become disengaged, and progress slows. Many people assume trust is naturally present, but without effort, it fades.
- Repairing it requires open conversations, accountability, and a willingness to make lasting changes. Leaders and institutions that prioritize trust create environments where people contribute ideas, take initiative, and work toward shared goals.
- Once distrust takes root, it becomes self-perpetuating. When people expect betrayal, they act defensively, pushing others away. Suspicion breeds resentment, which in turn fuels more suspicion, creating a cycle that’s hard to break. Cynicism – distrust in a socially acceptable form – erodes cooperation and limits possibilities for genuine engagement. When people assume the worst, they disengage rather than seek understanding. In both personal and professional settings, distrust makes collaboration difficult and trust-building even harder. The more people operate with paranoia, the less room there is for creativity, cooperation, and meaningful connection.
- The strongest trust is reinforced through repeated, reliable actions. In organizations, clarity and accountability strengthen trust between leaders and employees.
- When trust is assumed to be absolute, any error – even a minor one – can feel like a betrayal, making it harder to repair relationships. Others mistake trust for blind acceptance, failing to recognize that real trust involves active engagement and discernment. These misunderstandings encourage defensiveness and can turn workplaces, families, and institutions into systems of suspicion rather than cooperation.
- trust itself helps cultivate responsibility
- Trust and trustworthiness are related but not the same. Trusting is an action – an intentional choice to place confidence in someone despite risk. Trustworthiness, on the other hand, is a personal quality built on integrity, responsibility, and consistency. A well-functioning society requires both. People need to trust wisely, but they also need to prove themselves worthy of trust.
- Leaders who struggle with self-trust hesitate in their decisions, making those around them uncertain. Within organizations, low self-trust leads to rigid oversight and excessive control. Instead of encouraging initiative, environments like this rely on micromanagement, where no one feels empowered to act. A lack of self-trust creates hesitation, defensiveness, and a need for external validation. By contrast, when people trust their own abilities, they contribute to a stable and reliable workplace where decisions are made with confidence rather than fear of failure.
- Trust influences how leadership functions. Leaders who build trust create environments where people feel secure enough to contribute ideas and take meaningful risks. Trust transforms leadership from mere management into something larger: the ability to guide others toward new possibilities. When employees believe their leaders act with integrity, they contribute more openly and take calculated risks. Organizations that prioritize trust create conditions for long-term adaptability and success, while those that ignore it struggle with disengagement and hesitation. A lack of trust leads to stagnation, while trust allows for creativity and progress.
context:
- Psychologist Erik Erikson argued that infants develop a fundamental sense of trust – or distrust – based on how their caregivers respond to their needs. A child raised with reliable, attentive care grows up believing that people can be trusted. On the other hand, unpredictable or neglectful caregiving fosters lasting patterns of anxiety and suspicion.
notes:
- When trust is broken, ignoring the issue only deepens the damage.
- Andrew Grove, the former CEO of Intel, once said that if employees never made mistakes, they weren’t trying hard enough. His approach runs counter to fear-driven workplaces, where mistakes invite punishment rather than learning. Organizations that rely on strict control create defensive environments, stifling creativity and innovation, and limiting long-term success.
- Renaissance philosopher Machiavelli argued that power and fear are more reliable than trust, since people act in their own interests. This mindset persists in many organizations, but at great cost. When fear replaces trust, workplaces become inefficient, morale declines, and employees focus on self-preservation rather than collaboration.
- Fear-driven leadership fosters compliance, not commitment. People do the bare minimum to avoid consequences rather than working toward shared goals. In personal relationships, excessive control leads to alienation, as trust can’t grow in an atmosphere of suspicion. Organizations that prioritize power over trust create cultures where anxiety flourishes, making honest communication nearly impossible.
- How can you trust others if you don’t first trust yourself? Self-trust is often the most fundamental and overlooked form of trust. People who lack confidence in their own judgment are more likely to second-guess others and misinterpret uncertainty as a sign of deception.
bt notes:
- Trust is the foundation of strong relationships, effective organizations, and functional institutions. It shapes how people work together, communicate, and make decisions. When trust is absent, relationships weaken, workplaces become disengaged, and progress slows. Many people assume trust is naturally present, but without effort, it fades.
- Repairing it requires open conversations, accountability, and a willingness to make lasting changes. Leaders and institutions that prioritize trust create environments where people contribute ideas, take initiative, and work toward shared goals.
- Once distrust takes root, it becomes self-perpetuating. When people expect betrayal, they act defensively, pushing others away. Suspicion breeds resentment, which in turn fuels more suspicion, creating a cycle that’s hard to break. Cynicism – distrust in a socially acceptable form – erodes cooperation and limits possibilities for genuine engagement. When people assume the worst, they disengage rather than seek understanding. In both personal and professional settings, distrust makes collaboration difficult and trust-building even harder. The more people operate with paranoia, the less room there is for creativity, cooperation, and meaningful connection.
- The strongest trust is reinforced through repeated, reliable actions. In organizations, clarity and accountability strengthen trust between leaders and employees.
- When trust is assumed to be absolute, any error – even a minor one – can feel like a betrayal, making it harder to repair relationships. Others mistake trust for blind acceptance, failing to recognize that real trust involves active engagement and discernment. These misunderstandings encourage defensiveness and can turn workplaces, families, and institutions into systems of suspicion rather than cooperation.
- trust itself helps cultivate responsibility
- Trust and trustworthiness are related but not the same. Trusting is an action – an intentional choice to place confidence in someone despite risk. Trustworthiness, on the other hand, is a personal quality built on integrity, responsibility, and consistency. A well-functioning society requires both. People need to trust wisely, but they also need to prove themselves worthy of trust.
- Leaders who struggle with self-trust hesitate in their decisions, making those around them uncertain. Within organizations, low self-trust leads to rigid oversight and excessive control. Instead of encouraging initiative, environments like this rely on micromanagement, where no one feels empowered to act. A lack of self-trust creates hesitation, defensiveness, and a need for external validation. By contrast, when people trust their own abilities, they contribute to a stable and reliable workplace where decisions are made with confidence rather than fear of failure.
- Trust influences how leadership functions. Leaders who build trust create environments where people feel secure enough to contribute ideas and take meaningful risks. Trust transforms leadership from mere management into something larger: the ability to guide others toward new possibilities. When employees believe their leaders act with integrity, they contribute more openly and take calculated risks. Organizations that prioritize trust create conditions for long-term adaptability and success, while those that ignore it struggle with disengagement and hesitation. A lack of trust leads to stagnation, while trust allows for creativity and progress.
May 6, 2025
DON'T TRUST WORDS, QUESTION ACTIONS TOO
Despite positioning itself as a guide to strengthening and rebuilding trust, this book “Building Trust: In Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life” by Robert C. Solomon and Fernando Flores often overstates its insights and simplifies complex human dynamics. It starts with the well-worn idea that trust is the cornerstone of all successful relationships, institutions, and societies. Yet this premise, while valid, is treated as a revelation, as if readers are unaware that trust matters. The authors seem to believe that merely naming the problem and offering obvious prescriptions—such as 'act with integrity' or 'follow through on commitments'—can remedy deep-rooted interpersonal and systemic issues.
While it acknowledges that trust deteriorates in the absence of effort, the book struggles to explain 'how' to rebuild it in ways that feel realistic for the average person or leader. It proposes that open conversation, accountability, and consistent behavior are keys to restoring trust, but it doesn’t confront how difficult, emotionally charged, or nuanced those steps can be. Leaders are expected to model vulnerability and offer clarity, yet the book offers few strategies for when the risk of doing so is genuinely high or when the surrounding system discourages transparency.
The authors spend a considerable amount of time reinforcing the dangers of fear-based leadership, using quotes and anecdotes to show how punishment, control, and defensiveness stifle creativity and trust. However, these arguments rest heavily on broad generalizations. Their depiction of fear-driven organizations ignores situations where structure and caution are necessary. Not every expression of authority is automatically a threat to trust. The text is quick to condemn command-and-control environments but slow to explore the real reasons many organizations adopt them—such as legal liability, scale, or actual employee underperformance.
This one-size-fits-all diagnosis flattens the intricacies of power, trust, and human motivation. Trust is portrayed as the obvious moral choice, while fear and self-protection are demonized, even though in real-world scenarios, a balance of both is often required. Not everyone has the luxury to 'trust first' or be radically transparent. The authors imply that distrust stems mostly from personal flaws or unresolved issues, rarely recognizing that systems themselves can breed distrust through exploitation, inequality, and inconsistent leadership.
In tracing the origins of trust back to childhood psychology, the book makes a sweeping connection between early caregiver relationships and adult capacity for trust. Though Erik Erikson’s developmental theory is valid in parts, the book leans heavily on it without addressing more current or diverse perspectives. It suggests that those who had unreliable childhoods are more likely to struggle with trust—a point that borders on deterministic and disregards the impact of healing, growth, or external support systems later in life. Readers who have worked hard to overcome adversity may find the framework reductive or pathologizing.
When it turns to the modern world and trust between strangers—such as in business or digital transactions—the book attempts to widen its scope but again relies on broad strokes. It praises the role of reputation and reliability but skips over the deeper implications of how systems fail, how institutions lose credibility, or how bad actors exploit trust in tech and commerce. Instead, we’re offered general advice: be transparent, communicate clearly, hold people accountable. These reminders, while not wrong, feel more like slogans than transformative insight.
A recurring flaw in the book is its reliance on hypothetical scenarios that feel overly neat and unrepresentative. Take the story of David, the manager who fails to communicate expectations and blames his employee, Alex, for poor performance. While this example is used to highlight common workplace misunderstandings, it sets up a false dichotomy between clueless leaders and noble underdogs. In reality, issues of performance and trust involve multiple layers of context, competing pressures, and subjective interpretation. But the book’s tendency is to oversimplify, always siding with the person who 'trusts more' as the enlightened figure.
Similarly, the contrasting story of Charlotte and Rahul, where trust is given despite inexperience, plays out like a tidy leadership parable. It doesn’t deal with the real consequences of misplaced trust—what happens when a gamble on an unprepared employee results in actual harm to a team, project, or client? The risk of trusting too early or too broadly is glossed over, and the text barely engages with the fallout of broken trust beyond saying that 'effort' can repair it.
Though the book tries to distinguish between trust and trustworthiness, it often conflates them. It claims trust is a gift that must be offered before it is earned, while trustworthiness is a quality proven over time. This distinction, while superficially helpful, doesn’t provide much clarity on 'how' to evaluate either trait. People are encouraged to 'trust wisely' and 'engage despite risk,' but little attention is given to what to do when trust is weaponized or manipulated—an unfortunate gap considering how common such scenarios are.
In its more philosophical chapters, the book explores 'authentic trust,' describing it as a mature, self-aware decision to trust while acknowledging doubt. But even this concept is framed in aspirational, abstract terms rather than practical ones. A woman who suspects infidelity but continues to act with trust is held up as an example of emotional maturity. Yet readers may question whether such behavior is healthy resilience or simply denial. The book doesn’t offer sufficient tools to distinguish courageous trust from self-deception.
Likewise, when discussing self-trust, the book implies that trusting oneself is foundational and that lacking it leads to poor leadership or constant second-guessing. While there’s truth in that, the treatment is superficial. The complex relationship people have with their inner judgment, shaped by trauma, societal expectations, or legitimate failures, is acknowledged only in passing. Instead, readers are nudged toward vague notions of 'confidence' and 'independent thinking' without much scaffolding on how to develop them.
The book also underdelivers when it comes to its global or institutional insights. The example of an American and Japanese bank illustrates cultural differences in trust but is handled with little depth. There’s a missed opportunity to explore how different societies conceptualize trust, responsibility, and relationship-building. Instead, the takeaway is again a moral lesson: trust people, not contracts. This may be inspiring, but it’s also dangerously naive in contexts where legal protections exist for a reason.
The conclusion, much like the beginning, returns to the idea that trust is essential and must be earned, repaired, and maintained. While these affirmations are heartfelt, they’re ultimately repetitive. After reading, one is left with the sense that the book preaches more than it teaches. It recognizes that trust is difficult and multifaceted but insists on treating it with simplicity and optimism that feel disconnected from the messiness of real life.
In sum, while “Building Trust” aims to elevate our understanding of trust in relationships, leadership, and institutions, it too often reduces complex emotional and social dynamics into tidy rules and anecdotes. It doesn’t fully reckon with how hard trust is to build when structural, psychological, and cultural barriers exist. Readers hoping for deep strategies or fresh thinking may find its advice thin, repetitive, and overly moralistic. Trust, the book says, is the foundation of everything—but this foundation deserves a more critical, grounded, and practical examination than the one offered here.
Despite positioning itself as a guide to strengthening and rebuilding trust, this book “Building Trust: In Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life” by Robert C. Solomon and Fernando Flores often overstates its insights and simplifies complex human dynamics. It starts with the well-worn idea that trust is the cornerstone of all successful relationships, institutions, and societies. Yet this premise, while valid, is treated as a revelation, as if readers are unaware that trust matters. The authors seem to believe that merely naming the problem and offering obvious prescriptions—such as 'act with integrity' or 'follow through on commitments'—can remedy deep-rooted interpersonal and systemic issues.
While it acknowledges that trust deteriorates in the absence of effort, the book struggles to explain 'how' to rebuild it in ways that feel realistic for the average person or leader. It proposes that open conversation, accountability, and consistent behavior are keys to restoring trust, but it doesn’t confront how difficult, emotionally charged, or nuanced those steps can be. Leaders are expected to model vulnerability and offer clarity, yet the book offers few strategies for when the risk of doing so is genuinely high or when the surrounding system discourages transparency.
The authors spend a considerable amount of time reinforcing the dangers of fear-based leadership, using quotes and anecdotes to show how punishment, control, and defensiveness stifle creativity and trust. However, these arguments rest heavily on broad generalizations. Their depiction of fear-driven organizations ignores situations where structure and caution are necessary. Not every expression of authority is automatically a threat to trust. The text is quick to condemn command-and-control environments but slow to explore the real reasons many organizations adopt them—such as legal liability, scale, or actual employee underperformance.
This one-size-fits-all diagnosis flattens the intricacies of power, trust, and human motivation. Trust is portrayed as the obvious moral choice, while fear and self-protection are demonized, even though in real-world scenarios, a balance of both is often required. Not everyone has the luxury to 'trust first' or be radically transparent. The authors imply that distrust stems mostly from personal flaws or unresolved issues, rarely recognizing that systems themselves can breed distrust through exploitation, inequality, and inconsistent leadership.
In tracing the origins of trust back to childhood psychology, the book makes a sweeping connection between early caregiver relationships and adult capacity for trust. Though Erik Erikson’s developmental theory is valid in parts, the book leans heavily on it without addressing more current or diverse perspectives. It suggests that those who had unreliable childhoods are more likely to struggle with trust—a point that borders on deterministic and disregards the impact of healing, growth, or external support systems later in life. Readers who have worked hard to overcome adversity may find the framework reductive or pathologizing.
When it turns to the modern world and trust between strangers—such as in business or digital transactions—the book attempts to widen its scope but again relies on broad strokes. It praises the role of reputation and reliability but skips over the deeper implications of how systems fail, how institutions lose credibility, or how bad actors exploit trust in tech and commerce. Instead, we’re offered general advice: be transparent, communicate clearly, hold people accountable. These reminders, while not wrong, feel more like slogans than transformative insight.
A recurring flaw in the book is its reliance on hypothetical scenarios that feel overly neat and unrepresentative. Take the story of David, the manager who fails to communicate expectations and blames his employee, Alex, for poor performance. While this example is used to highlight common workplace misunderstandings, it sets up a false dichotomy between clueless leaders and noble underdogs. In reality, issues of performance and trust involve multiple layers of context, competing pressures, and subjective interpretation. But the book’s tendency is to oversimplify, always siding with the person who 'trusts more' as the enlightened figure.
Similarly, the contrasting story of Charlotte and Rahul, where trust is given despite inexperience, plays out like a tidy leadership parable. It doesn’t deal with the real consequences of misplaced trust—what happens when a gamble on an unprepared employee results in actual harm to a team, project, or client? The risk of trusting too early or too broadly is glossed over, and the text barely engages with the fallout of broken trust beyond saying that 'effort' can repair it.
Though the book tries to distinguish between trust and trustworthiness, it often conflates them. It claims trust is a gift that must be offered before it is earned, while trustworthiness is a quality proven over time. This distinction, while superficially helpful, doesn’t provide much clarity on 'how' to evaluate either trait. People are encouraged to 'trust wisely' and 'engage despite risk,' but little attention is given to what to do when trust is weaponized or manipulated—an unfortunate gap considering how common such scenarios are.
In its more philosophical chapters, the book explores 'authentic trust,' describing it as a mature, self-aware decision to trust while acknowledging doubt. But even this concept is framed in aspirational, abstract terms rather than practical ones. A woman who suspects infidelity but continues to act with trust is held up as an example of emotional maturity. Yet readers may question whether such behavior is healthy resilience or simply denial. The book doesn’t offer sufficient tools to distinguish courageous trust from self-deception.
Likewise, when discussing self-trust, the book implies that trusting oneself is foundational and that lacking it leads to poor leadership or constant second-guessing. While there’s truth in that, the treatment is superficial. The complex relationship people have with their inner judgment, shaped by trauma, societal expectations, or legitimate failures, is acknowledged only in passing. Instead, readers are nudged toward vague notions of 'confidence' and 'independent thinking' without much scaffolding on how to develop them.
The book also underdelivers when it comes to its global or institutional insights. The example of an American and Japanese bank illustrates cultural differences in trust but is handled with little depth. There’s a missed opportunity to explore how different societies conceptualize trust, responsibility, and relationship-building. Instead, the takeaway is again a moral lesson: trust people, not contracts. This may be inspiring, but it’s also dangerously naive in contexts where legal protections exist for a reason.
The conclusion, much like the beginning, returns to the idea that trust is essential and must be earned, repaired, and maintained. While these affirmations are heartfelt, they’re ultimately repetitive. After reading, one is left with the sense that the book preaches more than it teaches. It recognizes that trust is difficult and multifaceted but insists on treating it with simplicity and optimism that feel disconnected from the messiness of real life.
In sum, while “Building Trust” aims to elevate our understanding of trust in relationships, leadership, and institutions, it too often reduces complex emotional and social dynamics into tidy rules and anecdotes. It doesn’t fully reckon with how hard trust is to build when structural, psychological, and cultural barriers exist. Readers hoping for deep strategies or fresh thinking may find its advice thin, repetitive, and overly moralistic. Trust, the book says, is the foundation of everything—but this foundation deserves a more critical, grounded, and practical examination than the one offered here.
November 8, 2020
This is a particularly interesting book; one that presents trust not as a feeling or a principle but rather as a practice. When looked at that way, it is clear that most of us do not know how to build trust, how to maintain it nor how to recognize opportunities for doing so.
Perhaps this is due to the way the media presented us about trust -- with ideas like undying love, superheroes, and fights to the death... our everyday life is far removed from such drama and as such, as often do not recognize when people place our trust in us, as I believe most of us take trust to be merely a feeling rather than seeing that it does take faith and the openness to betrayal... that trust is something that can only be understood given the possibility of losing it.
There are so many good ideas in this book, such as understanding that trust is about the relationship -- not about specific instances -- but the one that I will leave you with is the one that comes originally from Heidigger -- that trust is a mood, one that requires attunement, so that we can share in another's concern. Because for Heidigger the core of one's being is care. What we care about characterizes the nature of how we are in the world, our being, and that care extended to others requires attuning to their cares. Trust ultimately is about the belief and practice of caring for another's concerns as they care for yours. And that requires attunement.
Perhaps this is due to the way the media presented us about trust -- with ideas like undying love, superheroes, and fights to the death... our everyday life is far removed from such drama and as such, as often do not recognize when people place our trust in us, as I believe most of us take trust to be merely a feeling rather than seeing that it does take faith and the openness to betrayal... that trust is something that can only be understood given the possibility of losing it.
There are so many good ideas in this book, such as understanding that trust is about the relationship -- not about specific instances -- but the one that I will leave you with is the one that comes originally from Heidigger -- that trust is a mood, one that requires attunement, so that we can share in another's concern. Because for Heidigger the core of one's being is care. What we care about characterizes the nature of how we are in the world, our being, and that care extended to others requires attuning to their cares. Trust ultimately is about the belief and practice of caring for another's concerns as they care for yours. And that requires attunement.
May 5, 2025
Building Trust (2001) explores the essential role of trust in business, politics, and personal relationships. It challenges the idea that trust is a static quality, arguing instead that it’s an emotional skill that must be actively built, sustained, and, when necessary, restored. By examining the consequences of mistrust and the dynamics of authentic trust, it provides valuable insights into creating meaningful and resilient connections.
“trust isn’t just a feeling but an active, ongoing process essential for meaningful relationships, successful organizations, and a functioning society. Trust must be built through integrity, clear communication, and consistent actions rather than being assumed or demanded. While fragile, it’s foundational for collaboration, innovation, and engagement, both in personal and professional settings. Fear-based leadership and rigid control structures erode trust, leading to disengagement and inefficiency, whereas transparency and shared responsibility strengthen it.”
Trust is often misunderstood as blind faith or mere reliability, but authentic trust involves awareness of risks, ethical commitment, and a willingness to engage despite uncertainty. It’s cultivated through self-trust, accountability, and mutual respect, rather than rigid rules or contracts alone. Once broken, trust is difficult but not impossible to restore, requiring deliberate effort, open dialogue, and a commitment to long-term relationships.
“trust isn’t just a feeling but an active, ongoing process essential for meaningful relationships, successful organizations, and a functioning society. Trust must be built through integrity, clear communication, and consistent actions rather than being assumed or demanded. While fragile, it’s foundational for collaboration, innovation, and engagement, both in personal and professional settings. Fear-based leadership and rigid control structures erode trust, leading to disengagement and inefficiency, whereas transparency and shared responsibility strengthen it.”
Trust is often misunderstood as blind faith or mere reliability, but authentic trust involves awareness of risks, ethical commitment, and a willingness to engage despite uncertainty. It’s cultivated through self-trust, accountability, and mutual respect, rather than rigid rules or contracts alone. Once broken, trust is difficult but not impossible to restore, requiring deliberate effort, open dialogue, and a commitment to long-term relationships.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 12, 2020
The topic is interesting, the book appears confusing.
Eye opener: „It is true that the „good old days“ of a job for life and the parent company are gone. But what has taken their place is a new and exciting set of possibilities, in which comfort must be replaced with self-confidence, and trust - not just the simple trust of continuing familiarity, but authentic trust - becomes utterly necessary.“
Neither were the "old days" good as a company isn't a family, even if it tries to mask as it, nor was it "comfort". The development into the new "untrustable", where everybody has to be as self-confident as possible, because everybody is fighting for her / his own survival and has to develop "trust" is downright cynical.
Eye opener: „It is true that the „good old days“ of a job for life and the parent company are gone. But what has taken their place is a new and exciting set of possibilities, in which comfort must be replaced with self-confidence, and trust - not just the simple trust of continuing familiarity, but authentic trust - becomes utterly necessary.“
Neither were the "old days" good as a company isn't a family, even if it tries to mask as it, nor was it "comfort". The development into the new "untrustable", where everybody has to be as self-confident as possible, because everybody is fighting for her / his own survival and has to develop "trust" is downright cynical.
July 6, 2025
What is trust? What do we get from trusting (even if we sometimes put our trust in the wrong people)?
These are the two questions that authors Solomon and Flores examine in Building Trust. The book has some great insights and the reader can gain a lot by reading it. Also, at just 150 or so pages of text, it doesn’t take a lot of time to read. However, the authors write in academic style that isn’t always entertaining to read. If the book had been 250 pages, I probably wouldn’t have finished it.
But, if you’re interested in a meditation on trust, this isn’t a bad place to start.
These are the two questions that authors Solomon and Flores examine in Building Trust. The book has some great insights and the reader can gain a lot by reading it. Also, at just 150 or so pages of text, it doesn’t take a lot of time to read. However, the authors write in academic style that isn’t always entertaining to read. If the book had been 250 pages, I probably wouldn’t have finished it.
But, if you’re interested in a meditation on trust, this isn’t a bad place to start.
October 27, 2024
This could’ve been a long format blog post or essay… it boils down to companies tend to preach trust and teamwork while also setting up their reward systems to encourage the opposite. Trust and trust worthiness are different sides of the same coin, and in a group environment it’s hard to have one without the other. The book is fine, just unnecessarily long to hit on those 2 themes.
April 13, 2025
think this could’ve been 60 pages less - great book despite lots of fluff
January 2, 2015
I read this book expecting to find a virtue ethics take on trust in business, because Robert Solomon is reputed to be one of the earliest to apply virtue ethics to business ethics. Instead, the approach centered more on Heidegger's notion of authenticity.
Nevertheless, this is a fantastic exploration of trust, looking at it from angles I wouldn't have considered. Soloman and his co-author Flores talk about "simple trust", the sort of unquestioning trust a child gives their parents or the trust of an early amiable relationship, as opposed to "authentic trust" which includes an awareness of the possibility of trust being betrayed. It is, in short, a wiser trust, a trust by choice and deliberation rather than by default. It is a trust that is born in dialectic with distrust rather than in naive assumption of its absence.
Other interesting notions introduced by the book include what they call "congenial hypocrisy"; a strategy that attempts to maintain order when trust has been perceived to be lost, rather than attempting to rebuild that trust. "Blind trust" is another similar strategy though we often mistake it for simple trust in that both can appear naive; but the latter is defined as an absence of awareness of the possibility of betrayal whereas blind trust parallels psychological denial; we are made aware but we react with the blunt strategy of pretending the possibility of betrayal does not exist.
In short, this is a very detailed exploration of a concept that is extremely central to the operation of human cooperation beyond the level of a handful of individuals. And what is amazing is that they manage to pack all of this into merely 150 pages. My only criticism would be that it felt as though they could have done it in even less! Often they repeated themselves, especially in the first two parts.
Nevertheless, a great read and a quick one.
Nevertheless, this is a fantastic exploration of trust, looking at it from angles I wouldn't have considered. Soloman and his co-author Flores talk about "simple trust", the sort of unquestioning trust a child gives their parents or the trust of an early amiable relationship, as opposed to "authentic trust" which includes an awareness of the possibility of trust being betrayed. It is, in short, a wiser trust, a trust by choice and deliberation rather than by default. It is a trust that is born in dialectic with distrust rather than in naive assumption of its absence.
Other interesting notions introduced by the book include what they call "congenial hypocrisy"; a strategy that attempts to maintain order when trust has been perceived to be lost, rather than attempting to rebuild that trust. "Blind trust" is another similar strategy though we often mistake it for simple trust in that both can appear naive; but the latter is defined as an absence of awareness of the possibility of betrayal whereas blind trust parallels psychological denial; we are made aware but we react with the blunt strategy of pretending the possibility of betrayal does not exist.
In short, this is a very detailed exploration of a concept that is extremely central to the operation of human cooperation beyond the level of a handful of individuals. And what is amazing is that they manage to pack all of this into merely 150 pages. My only criticism would be that it felt as though they could have done it in even less! Often they repeated themselves, especially in the first two parts.
Nevertheless, a great read and a quick one.
November 23, 2021
In a former life I ran a Novell MHS based mail delivery system. This was before the Internet was commercial and when I was working with suppliers from across the globe. We found that faxes weren’t very reliable and we needed a better way to deliver mail. The email client was The Coordinator by Action Technologies. It had the distinction of mapping email messages into types of commitments that we were making with one another (request for action, request for meeting, etc.) It was based on the thinking of Fernando Flores and to a lesser extent his book (together with Terry Winograd) Understsanding Computers and Cognition. Because of this I had a sense of nostalgia when I was researching building trust and saw Building Trust: In Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life by Fernanando Flores and Robert Solomon.
Click here to read the full review
Click here to read the full review
August 7, 2013
This is a perfectly named book. It is exactly what it says it is, and is a fascinating journey into the heart of trust, beginning with simple, or "blind trust" which repels mistrust, and leading us into an understanding of authentic trust which embraces mistrust as an essential aspect —they use the "two sides of the same coin" analogy.
The book is ripe with examples from all four aspects. Of particular interest to me were the business and personal stories. But more than stories and examples, this book gets the reader thinking deeply about his/her own relationships, and seeking ways to create environments of authenticity.
As many of my GoodRead friends are in the business of organizational transformation, I'd say this is a must-read. We often talk about trust, as if it is something either there or not there. This book will help you see the space in between.
The book is ripe with examples from all four aspects. Of particular interest to me were the business and personal stories. But more than stories and examples, this book gets the reader thinking deeply about his/her own relationships, and seeking ways to create environments of authenticity.
As many of my GoodRead friends are in the business of organizational transformation, I'd say this is a must-read. We often talk about trust, as if it is something either there or not there. This book will help you see the space in between.
July 19, 2012
A moving argument for developing authentic trust in business, politics and life. This kind of trust differs from the naïve kind because it’s knowing, worked-for, and hard-won. It survives betrayal, which the authors argue is an inevitable part of trust, and it as all about action. The book is a thoughtful look at how much we depend on all sorts of trust in our frenetic world economy, and a helpful reminder of what matters.
December 29, 2015
Not an easy read because Flores & Solomon introduce philosophic concepts that take the reader some time to think about. They do a great job putting the concepts together but because I am predominantly a visual learner I found the lack of charts, graphs and illustrations disappointing. It took awhile for me to "get" the concepts but once I understood them -they changed my view of trust. I will never think of the concept of trust in quite the same way again!
August 25, 2013
This is a wordy very good book. It covers philosophically every aspect of trust. Some may not like it for that. Wanting a more emotional person treatment. But I think this authors treatment is a fair and more accurate account of trust.
December 30, 2011
Book club pick for November 2011
August 3, 2013
A must read for leaders in the 21 C
May 15, 2016
The book is just full of meaningless sentences and ideas! I couldn't find any useful information from what I've read. Such a great waste of time.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews