I recently received a well-crafted LinkedIn message from someone claiming to be the CEO of a premium international company.
She expressed deep admiration for my work, praised my expertise, and described organizational challenges that closely aligned with our work at Peernovation. She was interested in scaling her leadership team, strengthening execution, and leveraging peer insights to drive growth.
As unsolicited messages go, it was impressive, perhaps a little too impressive.
Nevertheless, I responded warmly and suggested we arrange a brief introductory Zoom call, my preferred way to connect given the unreliable cell service at my home office.
That’s when things got interesting.
My new admirer explained that her company’s strict security protocols prohibited the use of Zoom. Instead, she insisted that we communicate via Signal, an encrypted messaging app, and asked for my phone number. Interestingly, she’d already shared more about her business on LinkedIn than her stated security concerns would have suggested.
I politely explained that I take security seriously, too. Since I’d already provided my business email address, she was welcome to contact me there, and we could arrange a conversation.
Apparently, her admiration for my work had its limits. Our conversation ended there.
Whether the approach was legitimate or not, the exchange illustrates something worth considering about trust, psychological safety, and the conditions we create for people to work together effectively.
Trust Is Not the Absence of Boundaries
We talk a great deal about trust in leadership and organizational life. And rightly so.
Without trust, people withhold information, avoid difficult conversations, protect themselves from perceived threats, and hesitate to ask for help.
Psychological safety fosters an environment where people can speak candidly, acknowledge uncertainty, challenge assumptions, and take interpersonal risks without fear of humiliation or retaliation.
But somewhere along the way, it’s possible to confuse being trusting with being unquestioning.
They’re not the same.
Trust doesn’t require us to suspend judgment. Nor does psychological safety demand that we accept every assertion at face value.
In fact, the opposite may be true.
The stronger the culture of psychological safety, the more comfortable people should feel about asking questions, requesting clarification, and setting appropriate boundaries.
Consider the implications for cybersecurity.
An employee receives an urgent email purportedly from the CEO requesting a confidential financial transaction. The message appears authentic, the language sounds familiar, and the request seems unremarkable.
Does the employee feel comfortable questioning it?
Can they contact the CEO directly to verify the request without worrying that they’ll appear distrustful, uncooperative, or incompetent?
Or does the organization’s culture make challenging authority feel riskier than complying?
The technology matters, certainly. But so does the environment in which people make decisions.
The Social Engineering of Trust
Cybercriminals understand something that organizational leaders sometimes underestimate: Human behavior is shaped by social expectations.
People want to be helpful, demonstrate competence, and respond appropriately to authority. They generally prefer cooperation to confrontation.
These are often admirable qualities. They’re also vulnerabilities when exploited.
Social engineering attacks often exploit familiar psychological triggers: authority, urgency, reciprocity, familiarity, and the desire to maintain a positive relationship.
An apparent executive requests immediate assistance. A prospective client presents an exciting opportunity. A trusted colleague appears to need a favor.
The request itself may seem unusual, but the social pressure to accommodate it can be powerful.
That’s where psychological safety is especially relevant.
When people believe they can question a request without facing negative consequences, they’re better positioned to interrupt the sequence that social engineering relies on.
They can say, “Something about this doesn’t seem right.”
And perhaps more importantly, they can hear a colleague say it without dismissing the concern.
The People Beside You Are Part of Your Defense
Cybersecurity is often framed as an individual responsibility.
Employees are trained to recognize phishing attempts, safeguard passwords, and follow established protocols. These practices are essential, but they tell only part of the story.
In organizations, people rarely work in isolation. They observe one another, share experiences, and establish informal standards. They learn which behaviors are acceptable by watching how their colleagues respond. This is where peer influence becomes especially consequential.
Imagine two teams.
On the first, someone who questions a suspicious request is told they’re overreacting. Colleagues routinely bypass security procedures to save time. Employees hesitate to report mistakes for fear of embarrassment.
On the second, verification is a professional responsibility. Colleagues share suspicious messages so others can recognize similar tactics. When someone makes a mistake, the team focuses on understanding what happened and preventing it from recurring.
Both teams may have received identical cybersecurity training. Yet the behaviors that become normal within each team could produce very different outcomes.
The difference isn’t simply what people know. It’s what they reinforce in one another.
That’s the power of peer influence, for better or worse.
What Are We Teaching One Another?
There’s another dimension to this discussion that warrants attention. Every interaction yields learning, whether we intend it or not.
At Peernovation, we distinguish between intentional learning (what we deliberately set out to understand or improve) and collateral learning (what people absorb from the experience itself).
Suppose a team member identifies a suspicious message and brings it to a colleague’s attention. The immediate outcome may be preventing a security breach.
But what else happens?
If the colleague responds appreciatively, takes the concern seriously, and helps investigate, the experience reinforces a broader lesson: Raising concerns is valued here. If the colleague dismisses the concern or criticizes the employee for wasting time, a very different lesson takes hold.
The same principle applies when leaders respond to mistakes.
An organization may tell employees to report cybersecurity incidents immediately. But if the first person who admits clicking a malicious link is publicly embarrassed, what have others learned?
The official policy may encourage transparency. The lived experience may teach concealment.
When those experiences repeat, they become part of the culture.
Making Verification a Team Standard
The challenge for leaders isn’t simply to tell employees to be more careful. It’s to create conditions where sound judgment becomes a shared expectation rather than an individual act of courage.
That begins with several questions:
Do our people feel comfortable questioning requests from senior leaders?
When someone raises a concern, do colleagues respond with curiosity or irritation?
Are security protocols reinforced through everyday peer behavior, or quietly circumvented when they become inconvenient?
When mistakes occur, do we create opportunities for learning while maintaining accountability?
What are people learning about trust and verification from the way we work together?
These questions extend well beyond cybersecurity.
They apply to financial controls, customer commitments, operational decisions, and countless situations where people must balance responsiveness with responsibility.
The goal isn’t to create an organization where everyone suspects everyone else. It’s to establish a culture where verification is understood as an expression of professionalism and mutual accountability.
Trust, but Make It Intelligent
My brief LinkedIn exchange was a useful reminder that being open to new relationships doesn’t mean abandoning established practices.
I was happy to engage. I was curious about the opportunity. And I was perfectly willing to have a conversation. I would do it again.
I’m not going to become less curious, less generous, or less open to new relationships just because some people may try to exploit those qualities. When I do, they win.
What I can do is become more discerning. I can remain open while setting reasonable boundaries, extend trust without abandoning judgment, and recognize that verification isn’t an expression of distrust. It’s an act of responsibility.
Organizations face versions of this choice every day. They need people who are open, collaborative, generous, and willing to help one another succeed.
They also need people who can recognize uncertainty, challenge questionable assumptions, and exercise sound judgment. Those qualities aren’t competing priorities. They’re complementary capabilities.
Psychological safety gives people the confidence to speak up. Mutual accountability gives them a reason to act. And healthy peer influence helps make both behaviors part of how a team operates.
Trust isn’t strengthened when people stop asking questions. It’s strengthened when people know they can.
Have you read?How Invisible Health Challenges Drive Women Out of Workplaces.How AI-Powered Intelligence Is Transforming Business Decision-Making.Why Courageous Leadership Matters Most During Times of Change.Belize Proposes $500,000 Investor Residency Program for Foreign Investors.Why Retirement Planning Requires More Than a Financial Plan.
Note: The views expressed are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those
of CEOWORLD Magazine, its Editorial Board, or
management. Content is provided “as is,” may
contain monetized links, and is not professional
advice. See our
Ethics & Guidelines
for details. Reproduction requires prior written
permission.
Contact
[email protected]
for inquiries or media requests.
——————————————————-
Click Here For The Original Source.
