01-06-2026
The act of trusting is often described as a leap of faith, but what happens after you leap?
A new Academy of Management Review article by the Daniels School’s David Schoorman and Purdue PhD alumni Gary Ballinger (OBHR ’04) and Kinshuk Sharma (OBHR ’22), “What We Do While Waiting: The Experience of Vulnerability in Trusting Relationships,” explores this neglected but highly consequential period in every trusting relationship: the time between your decision to trust and the moment you find out whether that trust was rewarded. The authors call this the vulnerability phase, and they argue that this stretch — sometimes brief, sometimes prolonged — is filled with shifting emotions and measurable behavioral responses that shape the trajectory of work relationships.
At the heart of their model is a deceptively simple insight: after choosing to trust, people don’t simply wait. They watch, interpret new information and imagine possible futures. These mental processes trigger two core emotions — hope and fear — which the authors define using classic emotion theory. Hope, they note, is “being pleased about the prospect of a desirable event,” while fear is “being displeased about the prospect of an undesirable one.” These emotions fluctuate independently and can rise simultaneously, depending on what the trustor learns during the wait.
Much of that fluctuation comes from new information about the trustee’s ability, benevolence and integrity — the three dimensions widely used to evaluate trustworthiness. If a manager assigns a critical report to an employee and later hears that the employee has solved tough problems in other recent tasks, hope may rise. If that same manager hears about missed deadlines or unprofessional behavior, fear may spike. Not all information is weighted equally: negative information, especially about integrity, has an outsized impact. A single sign of dishonesty is far more emotionally jolting than an equivalent sign of competence or goodwill.
Context also matters. If the resource at stake becomes more important — for example, an upcoming bonus suddenly feels vital for personal financial reasons — both hope and fear intensify. A person’s regulatory focus shapes reactions as well. Promotion-oriented individuals (those attuned to gains, growth and aspirations) are more responsive to positive cues and increases in hope. Prevention-oriented individuals (those attuned to avoiding losses) react more strongly to threats and increases in fear.
Time is another powerful driver. When a deadline is fixed, negative information becomes more emotionally potent as the delivery moment approaches. The closer the moment of truth, the more vividly trustors imagine bad outcomes, amplifying fear. But in situations where no clear deadline exists — such as trusting someone to keep a secret — the simple passage of time without a breach tends to reduce fear, because each day without failure feels like one more small “delivery.”
These emotional shifts lead to behavioral responses. When fear rises, people engage in avoidance behaviors aimed at preventing loss. This can include monitoring, asking for early delivery, creating backup plans, or, in extreme cases, reneging or abandoning the arrangement altogether. The authors emphasize that these behaviors are not necessarily irrational; they are attempts to protect one’s ability to reach important goals, even if they sometimes damage the relationship.
When hope rises, people exhibit approach behaviors that seek to capitalize on perceived opportunity. They may ask more exploratory questions, monitor progress for coordination rather than control, or — in moments of heightened optimism — pursue extra benefits, such as requesting additional resources.
For managers and organizations, the implications are clear. First, trust isn’t static; it is a dynamic emotional process that continues long after an agreement is made. Leaders should recognize that employees are constantly updating their assessments, and even minor signals can meaningfully tilt hope or fear. Second, transparency plays a key role in the vulnerability phase. Because negative information carries more emotional weight than positive information, proactively communicating competence, reliability and intent can stabilize emotions before fear-induced behaviors escalate.
Third, relationship strength is protective. Stronger relationships buffer negative information, making trustors less reactive and reducing the likelihood of damaging defensive behaviors. Finally, timing matters. Managers should expect heightened sensitivity — and perhaps heightened monitoring — as deadlines approach and should manage communication accordingly.
Ultimately, this conceptualization reframes trust not as a binary yes/no decision but as an emotional journey. Understanding the vulnerability phase equips leaders to better support others during the uncertainty that sits at the heart of all meaningful cooperation.
