The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer, fielded across nearly 34,000 respondents in 28 countries between 23 October and 18 November 2025, contains the headline number every CEO has been quoting this spring: trust in My Employer sits at 78%, fourteen points ahead of business as a whole and twenty-five points ahead of government. Employers are still, by a margin, the most trusted institution employees have.
The number that should be sitting on the same slide is colder. 42% of employees say they would rather switch departments than report to a manager with different values from theirs. 34% say that if their project team leader held different political beliefs, they would put less effort into helping that leader succeed. Richard Edelman, the firm's CEO, framed the year's release in plain language: "Insularity has emerged as the next crisis of trust. Over the past five years, we have seen a descent from fear to polarization to grievance and now to insularity."
What The Edelman Survey Actually Found
The 78% trust-in-employer figure is the comfortable half of the report. The detail underneath is where the operational risk sits.
Across the 28 countries, 70% of respondents said they were unwilling, or hesitant, to trust someone who differs from them in values, background, culture or approach to social issues. That is not a generational sliver. It is the median respondent. When the same population is then asked about the workplace specifically, the 42% switch-departments figure and the 34% reduced-effort figure follow logically. People are bringing the broader pattern of insularity to work, and the workplace is the institution most exposed to it because it is the one where contact with difference is unavoidable.
The CEO question is the third number worth holding next to those. 75% of respondents say CEOs are obligated to help bridge trust divides. Only 44% say their CEO actually does it well. The gap between expectation and observed behaviour is thirty-one points. That gap is not solved by a values statement, a town hall, or a values-week campaign. It is the question of whether the most senior person, in the meetings that exist anyway, behaves like someone who can talk across difference.
Why The Standard Diagnosis Misses
The default response to a "values" finding is procedural. Update the values deck. Run an inclusion workshop. Put a respect statement on the intranet. None of those touch the moment a manager realises one of their direct reports has, on the basis of difference, started withholding effort.
Two findings from the wider research literature explain why awareness training so rarely shifts the 42%. The first is Roediger and Karpicke (2006), in Psychological Science: being asked to retrieve and apply material increases long-term retention by around 50% compared with re-reading the same content. A two-hour module on inclusive leadership behaves like the re-reading condition. Eight weeks later, the manager who is sitting across from a report whose values they do not share is operating on instinct.
The second is Edmondson (1999), in Administrative Science Quarterly, on psychological safety, defined as "a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking." The behaviour Edelman is measuring, the quiet effort-withdrawal under a leader the employee disagrees with, lives almost entirely in the gap between what people think and what they feel safe saying out loud. Google's Project Aristotle ranked psychological safety first among the dynamics distinguishing higher-performing teams. A team whose members would rather switch departments than raise a disagreement is not safe in Edmondson's sense, regardless of what the engagement-survey average reads.
What Most Organisations Do (And Why It Stays At 42%)
The recognisable 2026 response to the Edelman release is a values refresh, an inclusion-leader training cohort, and a senior-leader video. The dashboard then shows participation rates, not behaviour change. The 42% stays at 42%. The team meeting in which the difference shows up still ends without anyone having said the actual thing.
Edelman's data does not support reading that as a "polarisation problem" outside the organisation's reach. The same workforce, under leaders who can hold a conversation across difference without retreating to script, behaves differently. The lever is at the manager layer, where the insularity meets the work.
What Works
The organisations whose retention, internal-mobility and engagement numbers have moved share three habits.
They define the behaviour, not the value. The point is not whether managers can recite the values. The point is whether, in the meeting where a direct report says something the manager strongly disagrees with, the manager pauses, asks the question that keeps the conversation open, and stays in the room. That is a skill, and skills decay without rehearsal.
They put the cross-difference conversation in front of leaders in a low-stakes setting before the real one arrives. Building on academic behaviour-change work from UCL, Cambridge and Bocconi, our own research found that immersive role-play with professional actors was around 20% more effective than passive modalities such as slide-show or video e-learning at moving observed skill. The same study found participants overestimated their skill before measurement, and underestimated it after, the Dunning-Kruger pattern that "values" workshops tend to reward.
They re-measure. Not training completion, not engagement-survey averages. The honest test is whether the requests for transfer from a particular manager's team have fallen, whether the reduced-effort behaviour Edelman measures shows up on retention or quality data, and whether the senior leader can name three difficult cross-difference conversations they have had this quarter. If none of those moves, the 42% is a forecast.
This is the work behind our leadership rehearsal labs and our immersive simulations. Professional actors stage the meeting where the disagreement is real, with the social pressure intact, before the real version arrives unannounced on a Tuesday afternoon.
The honest test for any organisation reading the Edelman numbers this month is simple. Pick the manager in your business with the highest internal-transfer-out rate over the last twelve months. Ask them when they last practised the conversation that would have kept one of those people in role, with a coach, in conditions close to the real ones. If the answer is "never", the 42% is not a global statistic. It is a local forecast.
Book a free 30-minute consultation → or read about our research-backed approach.