The Calculus of Trust – Part II
- Brainz Magazine
- Sep 8, 2025
- 8 min read
Updated: Sep 9, 2025
Written by Matthew Hutcheson, E.P.I.C.™ Philosophy
Matthew Hutcheson is well-known for having survived a politically motivated false allegation leading to his eventual incarceration. Now, Hutcheson and his wife advise law firms and organizations of all sizes on leadership and strategy. He is the author of the book Rapport, published in 2025, and the host of the E.P.I.C. podcast.
The Calculus of Trust, Part II extends the original model developed by Matthew Hutcheson by moving from axioms to instruments, transforming trust from a philosophical ideal into a functional system of leadership. Hutcheson advances the formula of trust through three interlocking elements (Hutcheson, 2021a).
The three coefficients of trust
Law 1 (L1): Reliability is defined here as the discipline of doing what one has agreed to do. Reliability is more than intent, it is the act of consistently following through. Anything less is simply dishonest.
Law 2 (L2): Respect is expressed here as the fulfillment of one’s promises. Once a commitment has been made, keeping it is not an optional courtesy but the essence of respect itself. Failure to do so is the very definition of disrespect. And disrespect, at its core, is encroachment.
Vulnerability (V): High-Risk Transparency is the courage to reveal mistakes, failures, or embarrassing truths despite the risk of loss, whether of relationship, employment, or reputation. Vulnerability often presents a double bind, concealment may feel safer, yet when discovered, it produces the very losses one sought to avoid. Thus, transparency, though costly, is the only path consistent with trust.
Related article: The Calculus of Trust Part I
Ethos is the binding thread
The thread binding L1, L2, and V is strikingly simple, ethos. Reliability is ethos in action. Respect is ethos in promise-keeping. Promise-keeping is ethos that prevents encroachment. Vulnerability is ethos in exposure. When threaded together, it becomes clear that trust is not an abstract virtue but a measurable system built upon this elementary truth, when ethos governs reliability, respect, and vulnerability, trust becomes both calculable and operational.
The concepts of honesty, ethos, and probity
Using the word “honesty” in place of ethos is too cliché to fully capture and convey the meaning intended here. Even a man of malicious intent can be honest when convenient. But only a man governed by ethos is honest when it is costly. Honesty, therefore, often feels situational, transactional, and contextual. Ethos, by contrast, is the very nature of probity, the incorruptible alignment of word, deed, and principle.
Ethos as the internal architecture of character
Ethos is not merely a projection of one’s values or a crafted reputation, it is the internal architecture of character. Probity is the incorruptible adherence to truth, fairness, and uprightness, it is the living essence of ethos. To possess ethos is to embody probity so fully that even unseen actions, silent thoughts, and unrecorded choices align with what is right.
Probity transcends situational ethics and transactional honesty. It is not honesty “sometimes” or honesty “when convenient,” but honesty as a permanent state of being. When a leader’s ethos is grounded in probity, trust ceases to be negotiable or conditional. It becomes inevitable because the leader cannot act outside of uprightness.
The marrow of character
Thus, ethos is not a mask worn for credibility. It is the marrow of character. And probity is its defining quality, incorruptible integrity, visible or invisible, tested or untested. Ethos without probity is pretense, ethos with probity is power.
This probity elevates ethos as the infrastructure of reliability, establishes transparency as proactive vulnerability, and codifies gossip resistance as both respect and boundary enforcement. It further integrates contemporary social-psychological findings to refine emotional intelligence, cautioning against premature emotional disclosure in conflict and emphasizing the sequencing of facts, motives, and feelings.
Together, these refinements advance a higher-order calculus of trust, one that enables individuals and organizations to construct durable, resilient trust architectures. The result is a shift from the poetry of trust to its calculus, a disciplined equation that leaders can practice, replicate, and institutionalize.
Trust is not static even though ethos is
Trust is not static, it is a living equation that recalibrates with each interaction. The Calculus of Trust Part I proposed that reliability and respect form the twin axioms of durable human relationships, (1) Do all you agree to do (L1), and (2) Never encroach on others (L2). These axioms, while foundational, invite refinement when tested against lived experience and emerging research in psychology, as articulated in Hutcheson’s Trust (2021c) and The Two Laws (2021).
Related Article: The Ally Ethos
Ethos as reliability (L1) infrastructure
Law 1 (do all you agree to do) presupposes ethos, but ethos deserves elevation as its own infrastructure of reliability. Without probity at the point of commitment, the architecture of reliability collapses. Saying “yes” without intent to deliver is not merely a broken promise later, it is sabotage at inception (R. Lenack, personal communication, August 17, 2025). Further, when ethos is demanded at the intersection of action and consequence, and ethos is given, reliability expands exponentially with influence, even if the consequence was unfavorable.
Operationalizing ethos requires more than virtue, which Aristotle called “excellence of character”, it demands practices such as:
Explicit verification of intent before agreement.
Formal acknowledgment of capacity and limits.
Institutional cultures where refusal is safer than deception.
By embedding ethos as infrastructure, trust shifts from an abstract virtue (character excellence) to an operational guarantee (Aristotle, 2000).
Transparency as proactive vulnerability
Law 2 (never encroach on others) naturally encompasses vulnerability, but its potency is multiplied when transparency is formalized. Transparency is not indiscriminate disclosure, it is proactive vulnerability across three stages:
Expectation-setting before commitments are made.
Process-sharing during execution, allowing others to see progress, friction, and adjustment.
Post-action debriefs, regardless of outcome, reframing both success and failure as collective learning.
This moves vulnerability from reactive apology to proactive trust scaffolding. Transparency signals not only intent but also availability for verification, a crucial accelerant in the calculus of trust.
Gossip resistance as boundary enforcement
Trust fractures often metastasize through gossip. Its existence within a relationship or organization is a strong indicator of poor leadership and deteriorating trust (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2025). While Law 2 prohibits encroachment, specificity matters:
The no third-party rule: Discuss concerns only with those directly involved. Bowen (1978) showed how, under rising anxiety, a dyad “pulls in” a third person to stabilize tension, creating an odd-person-out dynamic that can perpetuate conflict, spread anxiety, and undermine direct problem-solving in relationships (R. Lenack, personal communication, August 17, 2025).
Redirection protocols: Skillfully pivoting conversations away from gossip. (Team ritual): “We keep trust by speaking to people, not about them. We assume good intent, say the hard thing with care, and close loops quickly. We protect one another.”
Repair strategies: When boundary breaches occur, acknowledge, correct, and recommit.
Gossip corrodes trust less by the size of any single offense and more by its insidious capacity to multiply small fractures into systemic cynicism (Martinescu et al., 2019). Thus, gossip resistance is not mere etiquette, it is boundary enforcement that preserves relational integrity. See also Kurland & Pelled (2000), DiFonzo & Bordia (2007), Ellwardt, Labianca, & Wittek (2012), Begemann, Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Beckmann (2021), and Giardini & Wittek (2019).
Emotional intelligence reconsidered
Recent findings in social psychology complicate common narratives about emotional intelligence (Gross, 2015). Emotional intelligence is not simply emotional fluency; it is equally, or perhaps even more importantly, about when (timing), what matters (relevance), and in what order (sequence). The traditional advice to “start with your feelings” in conflict overlooks three critical truths:
Disagreement on events: Conflict often arises from differing recollections of what occurred. Leading with feelings presumes shared facts that may not exist.
Correction: Establish a shared factual basis first. (“Here’s my recall of events, what’s yours?”)
Assumptions about motive: Feelings are often shaped by speculative attributions of why something occurred. These assumptions, tied to existing trust levels, are frequently inaccurate.
Correction: Suspend judgment and solicit the other party’s account of motive. (“I presumed this was because, but I’d like to hear your perspective.”)
Feelings change with context: Once facts are clarified and motives explored, emotions often shift. Leading with feelings risks cementing a version of the conflict that dissolves upon clarification. Yet this is a risk worth taking when the alternative is refusal or inability to understand the nuance of a situation or the uniqueness of another person’s experience.
Correction: Circle back to feelings after shared understanding emerges.
The integration with the formula of trust is clear: ethos, transparency, and gossip resistance are the mechanical enablers of trust, while calibrated emotional sequencing ensures trust is not undermined in the heat of conflict. Each of these enablers falls under L1, L2, V, or i, which, when explained to others after a trust-altering event in light of its consequence, almost always alters that relationship for the better.
Conclusion: Toward a higher-order trust calculus
Part I of The Calculus of Trust provided axioms. This Part II provides instruments. Ethos operationalizes reliability and respect. Transparency institutionalizes vulnerability. Gossip resistance enforces boundaries. And emotional sequencing refines the practice of conflict resolution by anchoring trust in shared facts before shared feelings.
This higher-order calculus transforms trust from a moral aspiration into a replicable system, one that individuals, leaders, and organizations can practice deliberately. Trust is no longer a vague ethos but a disciplined equation, a system both calculable and institutional.
The complete trust equation
Trust = (L² × V)i
Where:
L² = The Two Laws (Hutcheson, 2021b, “Two Laws”)
V = Vulnerability
i = Influence (Reputation × Credibility) (Hutcheson, 2021a, “Influence”)
In this, we move from the poetry of trust to its geometry, and ultimately, its calculus. Trust, like mathematics, is precise, like music, it is harmonious, and like ethos, it is lived.
Read more from Matthew Hutcheson
Matthew Hutcheson, E.P.I.C.™ Philosophy
Matthew Hutcheson is a leader's leader. After years of working with elected officials in Washington, D.C. and powerful law firms around the world, he found himself in federal prison following a political dispute turned political attack. There, he developed a philosophy for overcoming trauma titled E.P.I.C.™ and helped over 200 inmates earn their GED's. Today, he provides leadership training to organizations on every continent and advises premier law firms on strategy. His mission: Help others to "defeat anything, triumph over everything, be limited by nothing, and emerge as an unstoppable force."
References:
Aristotle. (2000). Nicomachean Ethics (R. Crisp, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published ca. 4th c. BCE).
Begemann, M., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Beckmann, N. (2021). Capturing workplace gossip as dynamic conversational events: First insights from care team meetings. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 718170.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York, NY: Jason Aronson. (Foundational account of “triangles/triangulation,” i.e., pulling a third party into a dyadic tension.)
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor psychology: Social and organizational approaches. American Psychological Association.
Ellwardt, L., Labianca, G. (Joe), & Wittek, R. (2012). Who are the objects of positive and negative gossip at work? A social network perspective. Social Networks, 34(2), 193–205.
Giardini, F., & Wittek, R. P. M. (2019). Silence is golden: Six reasons inhibiting the spread of third-party gossip. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01120
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26.
Hutcheson, M. D. (n.d.). The Philosophy of Hutch™.
Hutcheson, M. (2021a). Influence - The Philosophy of Hutch Part 53.
Hutcheson, M. (2021b). The Two Laws - The Philosophy of Hutch Part 27.
Hutcheson, M. (2021c). Trust - The Philosophy of Hutch Part 28.
Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 428–438.
Martinescu, E., Janssen, O., & Nijstad, B. A. (2019). Gossip as a resource: A group-level framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1374.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (2025, August 26). How to stop workplace gossip. U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
.
