There’s a kind of magic that happens when we trust someone—but have you ever stopped to wonder what kind of trust you’re feeling?
Not all trust is created equal. Some trust lives in your head, built on logic and consistency. Other trust? It blooms in your heart, born from warmth and connection. I call these two types head trust and heart trust, and understanding the blend of both can transform how we lead, collaborate, and show up for one another.
Head trust sounds like this: “I trust her because she always follows through.” It’s grounded in reliability, competence, and good judgment. Head trust grows when people do what they say they’re going to do. It’s the kind of trust that makes you feel safe putting someone in charge of the numbers, the project, the car keys.
Heart trust, on the other hand, whispers: “I trust him because he truly listens.” It’s the emotional side of trust—rooted in empathy, care, and emotional availability. Heart trust shows up when someone remembers your coffee order, checks in after a hard day, or sits with you in silence without needing to fix anything.
Here’s where it gets interesting: we can actually map our trust experiences by looking at the levels of head and heart trust we feel toward someone. Think of it as a matrix, with head trust on one axis and heart trust on the other, ranging from low to high. The combination of these levels creates four distinct kinds of trust:
- Balanced Trust (High Head + High Heart): This is the gold standard. You believe in someone’s competence and feel emotionally safe with them. These are the relationships where trust multiplies and collaboration thrives.
Calculated Trust (High Head + Low Heart): You trust someone’s skills but keep your emotional guard up. This works well in transactional or task-focused situations, but it may feel cold or disconnected over time.- Emotional Trust (Low Head + High Heart): You feel a strong personal connection but question their reliability or competence. This can lead to warmth without results—and that can create friction when performance matters.
- Suspicious Trust (Low Head + Low Heart): Neither competence nor connection are present. This is where mistrust lives, and where collaboration tends to stall before it even starts.
Most of our deep, enduring relationships are built on some mix of head and heart trust. But the balance shapes how those relationships feel and function.
So next time you’re wondering why a relationship feels flat or fragile, ask yourself:
- Is the head trust strong, but the heart trust missing?
- Or is there heart, but not enough follow-through?
- Am I dealing with calculated, emotional, or even suspicious trust?
And most importantly:
- How can I offer both head and heart trust to the people around me?
Because trust isn’t just something we receive. It’s something we build—with our words, our actions, our presence. And when we build it with both head and heart, we don’t just create better teams.
We create better humans.
Randy, I think you are 100% right about this approach (meaning, of course, it’s analogous to my view of trust 🙂 )
Most, if not all, trust models contain at least one element of what you’re calling “the head,” and at least one of “the heart.” In my own trust equation, I call them the “rational” (credibility and reliability) and the “emotional” (intimacy and other-orientation). Same stuff.
I love what you’ve done with that oldest and coolest of simple models, the 2×2 matrix. Wish I’d thought of that.
For what it’s worth, we get the same patterns in using our TQ (Trust Quotient) model. And in my own work with (primarily) professional services and B2B sales folk, the predominating cell of the matrix is your calculated mode – strong on head/rational, and weak on heart/emotional.
Yet we also find that, if you quantify some of our results, the most powerful combination is your balanced cell. Also, in our model, the two heart/emotional components are slightly more powerful. Finally, lower standard deviations among the various components have a meta-effect of increasing total trust. In simple terms, that means consistency and balance, when it comes to trust, has a sort of multiplier effect.
None of this, on reflection, is surprising. Gallup’s annual survey of professions consistently shows politicians, lawyers and car salesmen as ranking the lowest; and nursing consistently ranks the highest.
I love what you’ve done here; it reminds of BCG’s old Barnyard model of corporate strategy. The 2×2 format is intuitive, accessible, and very informative. I think this simple way of explaining trust is a real contribution to thinking about the subject. Congrats, and thanks.
Hi Charlie,
I greatly appreciate your feedback! Your TQ model is an excellent way to assess the head/heart interplay of trust, and as you said, a simple 2×2 model is an easy way to conceptualize those dynamics in a different way. Your experience with the emotional component of trust carrying extra weight makes sense and mirrors my own. Although we are rational beings, our snap judgments and decisions are often rooted in the emotional reactions we have toward people and situations.
Thanks for being a standard-bearer in the field of trust. I admire you and your work.
Randy
Pingback: Ne Tür Bir Güven Hissediyorsunuz? Bağ Kurmanın 4 Yolu Üzerine Basit Bir Rehber – Blanchard Liderliği