Building Trust on LinkedIn® When AI Gets It Wrong
Full Transcript – Link∙Ability [IN]sights Livestream
Event: Building Trust on LinkedIn® When AI Gets It Wrong
Series: Link∙Ability [IN]sights
Host: Lynnaire Johnston
Guest: Melanie Richards
Date: Jan 29, 2026
Time: 1pm NZDT
Format: Online (LinkedIn Live)
Replay: Watch the replay on YouTube
Executive Summary
This Link∙Ability [IN]sights session explores how trust is built, tested, eroded and rebuilt in professional environments – particularly on LinkedIn and in AI-influenced communication spaces.
The discussion covers:
• How trust functions as energy in motion rather than a static trait
• The difference between confidence and credibility in an AI-driven world
• Trust signals on LinkedIn – consistency, judgement, behaviour patterns
• What breaks trust fastest in leadership environments
• How organisations erode trust unintentionally
• Rebuilding trust after rupture
• The difference between being trust pessimistic, trust willing, and trust optimistic
In a world where AI can generate polished content instantly, the conversation emphasises that judgement, care, and consistency are what now signal credibility.
Who This Transcript Is For
This session is relevant for:
• Senior leaders navigating AI visibility
• Board-level executives concerned about credibility
• Communications and marketing leaders
• HR and culture leaders rebuilding trust
• Professionals building authority on LinkedIn
• Anyone questioning how to assess trust signals in digital environments
Key Insights from This Session
• Trust is contextual – it is not binary, and it varies by environment and lived experience.
• AI has increased confidence signals but not necessarily credibility signals.
• Trust on LinkedIn is built through observable behavioural patterns over time.
• Listening – not reacting – is a core leadership trust skill.
• Broken trust requires more than apology; it often requires mediation, time and recalibration.
• Leaders erode trust when they insist on conversations on their terms rather than mutually agreed terms.
• Trust willingness is a deliberate choice – not a personality trait.
• In AI-saturated environments, judgement is the new differentiator.
Why Trust Is Under Pressure in an AI World
The session opens by framing trust as something most people rely on unconsciously:
• We trust recipes, books and instructions.
• We distrust cold sales pitches and scam emails.
• We constantly assess credibility signals without realising it.
The complication now is volume and speed.
AI enables:
• Rapid content production
• Confident tone regardless of accuracy
• High polish without lived experience
As discussed in the livestream, this creates a world where confidence is easy – but credibility must be earned.
The shortcut signals we previously relied on are less reliable.
Trust as Energy in Motion
Melanie Richards introduces the concept of trust as:
“An emotion and energy in motion.”
Trust is not static. It shifts based on:
• Lived experience
• Culture
• Generational lens
• Emotional state
• Context
The conversation explores “trust lenses” – the idea that each person interprets behaviour through their own internal filters.
This explains why:
• The same message can build trust with one person
• And erode trust with another
Trust Signals on LinkedIn
LinkedIn is described as a “trust environment.”
People decide:
• Who to follow
• Who to listen to
• Who to recommend
• Who to work with
Based on signals over time.
Key LinkedIn trust signals discussed:
• Profile consistency
• Behaviour alignment with stated values
• Content judgement
• Treatment of others in comments
• Whether someone listens or immediately pitches
Trust-based engagement contrasts with:
• Automated connection templates
• Immediate sales messages
• High-volume, low-care outreach
The session reinforces that trust on LinkedIn compounds – but so does distrust.
What Breaks Trust Fastest
Several rapid trust-breakers were discussed:
• Lack of acknowledgement of different lived experiences
• Dismissing someone’s perspective
• Interrupting without listening
• Reacting without reflection
• Dehumanising communication via automation
In workplace contexts, additional trust erosion behaviours include:
• Public contradiction after private agreement
• Gossip culture
• Insisting on conversations on one party’s terms
• Dismissing emotional context during high-pressure situations
As noted in the discussion, trust is often broken unintentionally – especially when people are processing grief, stress, or change.
Trust Pessimist vs Trust Optimist vs Trust Willing
An important distinction emerged:
• Trust pessimist – cautious due to lived experience
• Trust optimist – inclined to give benefit of the doubt
• Trust willing – chooses openness deliberately
Trust willingness was framed as an intentional stance rather than naïveté.
This distinction is particularly relevant in AI-driven environments where scepticism and openness must coexist.
Rebuilding Trust After It Breaks
Rebuilding trust is not immediate.
Key themes discussed:
• It often requires more than two people
• Mediation or structured conversation may be necessary
• Time must elapse
• Both parties must be trust willing
In some cases, trust may not be repairable.
In organisational contexts, rebuilding trust may require:
• Leadership acknowledgement
• Cultural recalibration
• Structured listening sessions
• Circles of trust or facilitated conversations
AI, Dehumanisation and Credibility
A powerful theme in the session:
When AI “gets it wrong,” it can feel dehumanising.
Examples discussed:
• Automated responses in sensitive contexts
• Platforms labelling real content as deepfake
• Replacing conversation with automation
AI can support communication.
But when it removes human awareness, responsiveness and empathy, trust erodes.
Judgement becomes the differentiator.
Frequently Asked Questions About Trust on LinkedIn and AI
Is AI destroying trust on LinkedIn®?
Not inherently. AI amplifies content production, but trust is built through judgement, consistency and observable behaviour over time.
How can I build trust faster on LinkedIn?
Focus on:
• Listening before pitching
• Consistency of tone and values
• Public behaviour alignment
• Thoughtful engagement
• Long-term relationship building
Can trust be rebuilt after a rupture?
Sometimes. It requires:
• Acknowledgement
• Mutual willingness
• Time
• Context awareness
• Often structured conversation
Full Transcript
Below is the cleaned transcript, formatted for readability and search.
Why Trust Is Under Pressure in an AI World
Lynnaire Johnston:
Welcome to Link∙Ability [IN]sights for 2026. Today we’re talking about trust – a timely topic in an increasingly AI-influenced world.
Trust is something we rely on more often than we consciously realise. We trust family and friends. We often trust books and written instructions. We might trust a YouTube video explaining how to fix something. At the same time, we’re cautious. We don’t automatically trust social media. We’re wary of unexpected emails claiming to be from the bank or the tax department. We pause at LinkedIn connection requests followed immediately by a pitch.
All of these situations force us to make quick trust decisions.
Trust isn’t binary. It isn’t simply on or off. It’s contextual. We weigh familiarity, intent, credibility and consistency – often subconsciously – and decide how much belief or action something deserves.
In business, trust becomes even more consequential. It affects how quickly decisions are made, how much friction exists between people, and whose judgement carries weight.
And now, AI has added another layer.
Content is faster. It’s more polished. It sounds confident – even when it’s wrong. The shortcuts we used to rely on to assess credibility no longer hold in the same way.
That brings us to LinkedIn®. LinkedIn® is a trust environment. People decide who to follow, who to listen to and who to work with based on signals they observe over time.
Today’s conversation is about how trust is built, tested and sometimes eroded – and what leading with trust looks like in a world where confidence is easy, but credibility is not.
Trust as Energy in Motion
Melanie Richards:
Trust is shaped by our lens. We don’t all walk the same paths. We don’t share the same lived experiences, cultures, communities or family structures. All of that influences how we interpret trust.
I often ask people: what is your lens? Is it shaped by lived experience? By stories you’ve read? By films? By books?
For many of us, broken trust has shaped our lens. That certainly influenced mine. Trust can be cultivated like a plant – nurtured, watered and strengthened. But it can also wither if it’s not cared for.
Online, trust is especially complex. We can’t always hear tone. We can’t always see body language. Sometimes we’re too tired to process properly.
I think of trust like traffic signals. Sometimes there’s a stop sign and someone drives straight through it. Sometimes there’s a yield sign and someone refuses to yield. We’re constantly navigating intersections.
Trust is energy in motion. We sense it shifting. We feel it when something is aligned – and we feel it when something is off.
Trust Signals on LinkedIn
Lynnaire Johnston:
On LinkedIn, there are patterns that act as trust signals.
For me, geography can matter. Profile completeness matters. Do they post? Do they engage thoughtfully? Who are they connected to? How do they behave in comments?
When I accept a connection, I’ve already done due diligence. From there, I give people the benefit of the doubt and see how the relationship develops.
Trust is reinforced when someone:
• Asks genuine questions
• Listens to the answer
• Responds thoughtfully
• Behaves consistently online and offline
I’ve experienced meeting someone in person after many online interactions and finding they are exactly the same. That consistency is powerful.
Melanie Richards:
I would add that authenticity is important – but for me, I look for what feels genuine.
There’s a difference between sounding authentic and being aligned internally. When trust is broken, our lens shifts. We lean back physically and emotionally.
On LinkedIn, if someone sends a connection request, I look at their intent. Are they seeking clients immediately? Or are they building relationships?
Trust-based sales and trust-based engagement are different from automated outreach.
What Breaks Trust Fastest
Melanie Richards:
One of the fastest ways to break trust is failing to acknowledge that we don’t all share the same lived experience.
Dismissal erodes trust quickly.
So does reacting instead of listening.
Sometimes trust breaks unintentionally. I once had a deeply meaningful professional relationship shift because we were processing life events differently. One of us was in a season of grief and growth; the other was focused on business momentum. Neither intended harm – but misalignment damaged trust.
Rebuilding takes more than two people. It can require time, mediation, and a willingness on both sides.
Lynnaire Johnston:
In workplaces, trust can erode subtly.
Gossip at the water cooler contradicts what was said in the meeting. Departments operate in silos. Leaders control rather than empower.
When leaders don’t trust their teams, pace slows and confidence drains.
When leaders do trust their teams, ownership grows.
Trust affects performance.
Trust Pessimist, Trust Optimist and Trust Willing
Melanie Richards:
Through my certifications, I learned that I’m naturally a trust pessimist because of lived experience. But I choose to be trust willing.
Trust willingness is deliberate.
It means choosing to lean in carefully rather than closing off entirely.
Lynnaire Johnston:
I would describe myself as more of a trust optimist. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt once I’ve done my due diligence.
But even then, reflection matters. If I receive a negative message, I write a response – and don’t send it immediately. Reflection protects trust.
Speed can undermine judgement.
Rebuilding Trust After It Breaks
Melanie Richards:
Rebuilding trust isn’t immediate.
It may require:
• A mediator
• Time
• Structured conversation
• Privacy
• Mutual willingness
Sometimes trust can’t be rebuilt.
And sometimes, the other person doesn’t even realise trust has been broken.
We never fully know what season someone else is in.
AI, Dehumanisation and Credibility
Lynnaire Johnston:
AI can generate polished content instantly. That doesn’t make it credible.
Judgement stands out more clearly now.
What we choose to share, automate or attach our names to sends signals.
Confidence is easy.
Credibility is earned.
Melanie Richards:
AI can help bridge cultures and languages. But when it dehumanises – when it replaces empathy with automation – it damages trust.
If we forget there is a human on the other side, trust erodes.
Final Reflections
Lynnaire Johnston:
Trust isn’t a brand claim. It isn’t something you declare once and assume is permanent.
It is built or eroded through patterns of behaviour.
It shows up in small, observable moments over time.
On LinkedIn, people are constantly deciding who to follow, who to recommend and who to work with based on these signals.
Trust isn’t about sounding confident.
It’s about being careful with influence.
And in an AI-influenced world, that matters more than ever.