What Employees Really Trust AI to Do at Work

Matt Allen • May 5, 2026

Share this article

At a glance

  • People are increasingly willing to use AI for speed, structure, and routine work.
  • They are much less willing to trust AI the way they trust a human colleague.
  • Trust rises sharply when a person remains accountable for the outcome.
  • Higher AI use did not make respondents value human relationships any less.


Organizations everywhere are trying to answer the same question: How much trust will people actually place in AI at work?


A March 2026 survey summarized in the AI and Trust at Work white paper suggests a clear answer. People are open to AI as a useful helper. They are not yet ready to treat it as a trusted peer. That distinction matters because it tells leaders where adoption is most likely to succeed and where it is most likely to stall.


The strongest pattern in the data is simple: operational usefulness is moving faster than relational trust. Respondents gave AI a moderate score for day-to-day task support, but a much lower score when asked whether AI-generated insights were as trustworthy as those of a human colleague. In other words, many people are comfortable using AI to move faster. Far fewer are comfortable granting it the same credibility they would give a person.


That gap is not a small technical detail. It is the heart of the trust question.


1. AI is earning a role in the workflow, not in the relationship.


Across the survey, daily-task trust averaged 5.6 out of 10. Trust that AI insights are as trustworthy as a human colleague averaged just 4.2. Only one respondent rated that peer-equivalence question at 8 or higher.


That tells us people are finding value in AI, but they are still keeping it in a bounded role. It can help draft, summarize, research, organize, and analyze. It has not replaced the need for human judgment, credibility, or lived context.


2. Human accountability is the biggest trust amplifier in the data.


When respondents considered AI use in situations where a person remains accountable, the average score rose to 7.4 out of 10. This was one of the strongest signals in the entire white paper.


The implication is practical. If leaders want healthy adoption, they should not lead with autonomy. They should lead with visible ownership, review, and decision rights. People trust AI more when they know a human being is still responsible for what happens next.


3. Human relationships remain the foundation.


The strongest item in the survey was not about AI at all. It was the statement that human relationships remain essential for trust at work, which averaged 9.6 out of 10.


Just as important, this belief did not weaken among people who were more comfortable using AI. The data found essentially no negative relationship between stronger AI use and belief in the importance of human relationships. That is a crucial reminder for leaders who worry that AI adoption and human trust are somehow on a collision course. In this sample, they were not.


4. Trust appears to deepen in stages.


The most interesting correlations in the white paper point to a trust ladder. People who trust AI for daily tasks are more likely to trust it in more personal or reflective contexts. The strongest relationship in the dataset connected daily-task trust and sensitive or personal AI use. So routine usefulness appears to be the gateway to trusting AI with more sensitive material.


A second strong relationship connected daily-task trust and peer-equivalent trust. The message is not that everyone is moving toward deep trust. It is that routine usefulness appears to be the entry point. When AI proves itself in lower-risk work, some people begin extending that trust further.


5. The role split is remarkably consistent.


The qualitative responses reinforce the quantitative story. Respondents repeatedly described AI as strongest in speed, summarization, drafting, coding, and repetitive work. They described humans as strongest in empathy, judgment, creativity, leadership, and morally consequential decisions.


This is not a workforce asking to outsource trust. It is a workforce asking for help with speed and structure while preserving human authority in relational and consequential work.

Key data points

What should leaders do with this? Start by framing AI correctly. Position it as a co-pilot, not a peer replacement. Make human accountability visible. Roll out low-risk use cases first. And do not make the mistake of treating efficiency gains as a substitute for trust-building between people.


The organizations that handle AI well will not be the ones that push the hardest for full automation. They will be the ones that understand the difference between assistance and authority, then design their systems around that reality.


Don’t guess why people hesitate with AI. Measure trust directly.

Recent Posts

Why Human Accountability Still Matters in the Age of AI
By Matt Allen May 5, 2026
This blog explores why human accountability remains essential as organizations adopt AI at work. Drawing from the AI and Trust at Work white paper, it shows that employees are more willing to trust AI when a person still owns the outcome, reviews important outputs, and preserves human judgment in consequential decision
6 Signs Low Trust Is Draining Your Team's Energy
By Matt Allen May 5, 2026
Low trust does not always look like conflict. This blog breaks down six quieter signs that trust may be draining a team’s energy, from flatter participation and self-protective behavior to reliability problems, under-support, and early retention risk. Drawing from TrustBuilder’s Trust and Workplace Depression Survey wh
 Relationship-Quality-Matters
By Matt Allen May 5, 2026
More workplace interaction does not always mean stronger workplace trust. This blog explores why relationship quality matters more than relationship quantity, drawing from TrustBuilder’s Trust and Workplace Depression Survey white paper. It explains how reliable, safe, and supportive relationships shape employee well-b
By Matt Allen May 5, 2026
Explore five ways workplace trust impacts employee well-being, from emotional burden and burnout risk to engagement, support, and performance. Based on TrustBuilder’s Trust and Workplace Depression Survey.
By Matt Allen April 27, 2026
Stop brand crises before they start. Learn how trust research acts as an early-warning system to identify internal failures, improve employee safety, and protect your reputation long before a public disaster hits.
By Matt Allen March 27, 2026
In a world of distributed work, trust is the foundation of success. Learn how to intentionally build and measure organizational trust in remote and hybrid teams with expert insights from TrustBuilder.
Top 8 Ways to Earn Customer Trust and Loyalty
By Matt Allen February 6, 2026
Trust leads to loyalty, and loyalty leads to long-term relationships, repeat purchases, and brand advocacy.
By Matt Allen January 8, 2026
Trust is not soft; it’s structural. In an organization, trust shapes the security, pace, dedication, decision quality, and discretionary effort of your staff. And while many leaders assume the trust level within their enterprises is “fine,” early indicators of erosion often show up long before a crisis hits. At TrustBuilder, we measure trust with precision—across individuals, teams, and the enterprise—because the costs of low trust compound quickly. But how can you prevent a crisis that results from a fundamental lack of trust? Below are several critical warning signs your organization may be operating in a low-trust environment. If these signs manifest themselves, you can take steps now to build or rebuild trust to improve performance and establish better cohesion within your organization. 1. People hesitate to share bad news or warn of risks In high-trust environments, concerns surface early because people feel safe bringing up problems. When trust is low, silence becomes the norm. In low-trust environments, you’ll see delayed reporting, overly polished (or excused) updates, or teams who wait until the last minute to bring issues to the surface, even when they were sensed beforehand. Hesitancy or refusal to be candid is one of the earliest yet most dangerous signals of trust erosion. If people can’t speak the truth or feel compelled to sweep bad information under the rug when that information is material, leaders can’t make informed decisions. That leads to poor decisions that further erode both trust and performance, leaving employees and managers feeling frustrated and deceived. 2. Collaboration feels “transactional,” not relational When trust is healthy, cross-functional work moves with ease. People give each other the benefit of the doubt. However, in low-trust environments, collaboration becomes rigid and contractual: Teams over-document to protect themselves Meetings turn into negotiations Information is withheld as leverage or to sabotage others People default to “us vs. them” thinking All of these behaviors slow down your ability to execute projects, and fractures your organization’s culture. 3. High performers quietly disengage People rarely quit suddenly; they first withdraw. If you notice once-energized employees becoming passive, protective of their time, or less willing to contribute beyond the basics, trust may be the root cause, not workload or compensation. Disengagement isn’t always loud and dramatic, although it can be. But it is often the quiet achievers who check out first when trust breaks down. 4. Decisions require excessive layers of approval Low trust leads to an overreliance on control systems. When leaders start requiring sign-offs for routine actions, employees sense that the organization does not want them to move forward without explicit permission. This “permission-based culture” is one of the clearest signs that an organization does not trust its people, and that taking initiative is not encouraged or rewarded. As a result, speed drops, innovation stalls, and change becomes difficult. 5. Feedback conversations are rare or overly guarded When trust is strong, coaching and candor are normal. When trust is weak, feedback becomes: Avoided (“We’ll address it later…”) Sanitized (“Everything is great—just keep it up!”) Weaponized (“This is being noted for your file…”) A lack of direct, open, and constructive dialogue signals that psychological safety is not a priority. Employees will begin to feel anxious when problems or conflicts are not addressed, fearing that their jobs may be jeopardized or that things are being said regarding these problems behind closed doors. In turn, they begin to be guarded in how they interact with colleagues, making the atmosphere uncomfortable for all. 6. Rumors and speculation fill information gaps In low-trust cultures, uncertainty doesn’t lead to passivity. It does the opposite: erroneous information fills the void. You’ll hear hallway chatter, assumptions about leadership decisions, and narratives that spread faster than facts. This is almost always a sign that communication is inconsistent, incomplete, or not believed. Being completely transparent is not always possible, especially when it comes to protected information, but communication and accessibility are essential. Trust Can Be Measured—and Built If any of these signs resonate, you’re not alone. Most organizations encounter periods of trust erosion at some point, especially during growth, transition, or leadership turnover. The key is not to guess how badly it may be affecting your organization. Trust can be measured with rigor; once measured, it can be strengthened through clear, actionable steps. That’s the work TrustBuilder does every day: helping organizations pinpoint trust gaps and build a roadmap to a healthier, higher-performance culture. If you’d like a structured way to diagnose trust levels across your teams or enterprise, we can help. Contact TrustBuilder today to learn more or to set up a discovery meeting. Find out how trust can improve performance, help you retain quality personnel, and stimulate innovation.
Merry Christmas from TrustBuilder
By Matt Allen December 9, 2025
We hope you have a warm and meaningful holiday season filled with good times spent with those who matter the most to you.
8 Steps for Rebuilding Trust After a Conflict
By Matt Allen November 7, 2025
Conflict has the potential to damage relationships and erode trust between individuals, within teams, or among members of management.
Show More