In the last week, as the Middle East crisis escalated, some of the loudest communication in the world came from the US President. But with the use of memes and viral videos, it has also become some of the least trusted. In a world where information overload is deployed as a strategy, the trust challenge has shifted from visibility to how to demonstrate tangible, meaningful action.

The instinct to tackle trust by taking a stand is not limited to governments. Often, organisations respond to challenges with statements, charters, and campaigns, without equally investing in the relationships or the practical, specific actions to translate those words into sustainable change.

As Dr Steve Van Riel of Teneo argues, the distinction is between “capital-T Trust” — the macro shift leaders aim for when they commission values statements or publish residents’ charters — and “small-t trust,” which is earned in specific relationships through concrete actions that people can see and verify.

Addressing today’s trust challenge requires a shift from the macro to the specific; from only thinking about visibility to combining action with communication on outcomes and experience. In this way, trust is not performed but is earned, relationship by relationship, through consistent, visible action reinforced by clear and accessible communication.

Blame has dominated politics this week, with the rapid fallout from the departures of Lord Mandelson and Angela Rayner in the UK, and the immediate accusations following the killing of US commentator Charlie Kirk. In a crisis, the rush to assign blame may feel decisive, but the likely outcome is to undermine trust, weaken culture and damage reputation. The blame game is corrosive for leaders and organisations with effective crisis management relying on accountability, transparency and a commitment to learn from what happened.