239. How to Build Trust When You've Already Been Burned
Betrayal at work doesn't break us, but it does teach us to trust more selectively instead of not at all. Together we can rebuild boundaries, delegate without losing our standards, and take emotional risks without catastrophizing the outcome. When we learn to read power dynamics and act with integrity, politics becomes a tool for us to protect ourselves and grow, not something we have to fear.
It lets you make deliberate choices about how you package your assertiveness, how you time it, who you display it in front of, instead of being blindsided by a reaction you didn’t see coming.
Are you pulling back at work after someone betrayed your trust, sabotaged your efforts, or left you out of important conversations? Are you struggling to delegate because you don't trust anyone else to do it right? Are you wary of office politics, worried that becoming more savvy means compromising your integrity?
You'll learn that safety at work doesn't come from disclosing less, but from being more discerning. A boundary, unlike a wall, only protects you if you stay engaged.
WHAT YOU WILL DISCOVER
Why testing and verifying protects you better than determining everyone is untrustworthy
4 practical ways to improve your political savvy
Why refusing to engage in office politics doesn't put you in a better position
SUBSCRIBE: APPLE PODCASTS | SPOTIFY | AMAZON | PODBEAN | POCKETCASTS
TRANSCRIPT
Welcome to the Stop Sabotaging Your Success podcast, episode two hundred and thirty-nine. I'm your host, Cindy Esliger. This is the podcast focusing on what we can do today to take control of our careers and overcome the inevitable barriers to success that we encounter along the way.
If you've recently been burned at work and that betrayal still feels pretty raw, I'm not here to tell you to just trust people again. For me, that advice was not just unhelpful, I found it a little insulting. It's true that in any workplace, you have to trust the people you work with, so you have to keep putting yourself out there. But unfortunately, it may not always go well. Telling someone in that position to "just be more open" is like telling someone who broke their leg to just get up and walk it off.
In this episode, we're going to get into how to rebuild your ability to connect and collaborate at work without putting yourself at more risk to get burned again. It's important for us all to get savvier about where we place that trust. That's what it means to become more 'politically savvy'. It's not about manipulation, and it's not about becoming someone you're not. It's a skill set you can develop for reading the room accurately, protecting yourself appropriately, and still being able to do meaningful work with other people, who are, indeed, flawed. So, let's get into it.
Betrayal at work isn't just disappointing; it's disorienting, because work relationships run on an assumption most of us don't examine until it's violated. We assume that people are roughly who they present themselves to be. When someone sabotages you, excludes you from a conversation that affects you, or uses information you shared in confidence against you, it doesn't just cost you the outcome of that one situation; it rewires your baseline assumption. Your brain, very reasonably, updates its threat model. That's your brain noticing patterns in behavior, which is exactly what it's supposed to do.
So, if you've noticed yourself pulling back—saying less in meetings, keeping your ideas to yourself a little longer, feeling a flicker of suspicion when someone's unusually friendly—that's not you being broken. That's you being appropriately cautious based on this new information. The problem isn't that you've become guarded. The problem is that when guardedness calcifies into your default way of operating. Because then it starts protecting you from the harm that isn't actually there, and it costs you the support you still need to do good work.
The goal isn't to throw caution to the wind. The goal is to become more selective—to get back to a place where you can assess a specific person, in a specific context, instead of running everyone through the same jaded filter. That takes time, and it takes rebuilding trust in your own judgment, not just in other people. Because you don't just stop trusting those around you. Most of the time, you stop trusting your own read on people. You start wondering what else you missed. Part of what we're doing today is giving you back some of the diagnostic tools that make your judgment more reliable so when you're ready to trust people again, it doesn't feel like a blind leap.
Let's separate three things that tend to get lumped together: betrayal, sabotage, and exclusion. Because they don't call for the same response.
Betrayal is usually personal and direct—someone you trusted did something with your information or access you gave them that harmed you.
Sabotage is often quieter and more structural—someone undermining your work, your reputation, or your resources, sometimes without you ever catching them in the act.
Exclusion is the slow freeze—meetings you're no longer invited to, decisions made without you, or a sense that the informal network has closed around you.
All three tend to produce the same instinct: play small, don't draw attention to yourself, and stop giving people ammunition to use against you. And in the short-term, that instinct isn't necessarily wrong. Immediately after a betrayal, some contraction is healthy—you genuinely do need to reassess who has access to your vulnerabilities. But if that contraction never expands back out, you end up running your whole career from a defensive crouch. You become so focused on not exposing yourself again that you stop creating the visibility, alliances, and momentum that can help you in protecting yourself long-term.
So, here's a reframe I want you to sit with: safety at work doesn't necessarily come from disclosing less about yourself to others. It comes from being more discerning. The people who navigate betrayal well aren't the ones who decide no one is trustworthy—they're the ones who get much more precise about who earns access to what, while still staying engaged enough to build the relationships that create real security. Isolation may feel like safety, but often it's just a slower-acting vulnerability, because a completely isolated person has no allies when something goes wrong.
Which brings us to boundaries. And I want to be really specific about what a healthy, professional boundary is, because a lot of people, once they get burned, build a wall instead of setting a boundary. And those are not the same thing.
A wall keeps everything out indiscriminately, never allowing anyone to get close to you.
A boundary is a filter which lets some things through and stops others, on purpose, based on your own criteria. When you set a boundary, you've decided what you want to share initially, what you will share only once you've seen how someone handles those smaller disclosures first, and what you want to keep to yourself, regardless.
Practically, this looks like a form of graduated trust instead of all-or-nothing trust. You certainly don't have to tell a new colleague your career anxieties in week one. You can share low-stakes information and watch what they do with it. You can take some time to determine whether they keep confidences, whether they credit others accurately, and whether they follow through by doing what they say they'll do. If so, then you can decide whether you feel comfortable enough to expand their access to you based on this evidence. That's not being paranoid. That's just doing reasonable due diligence, the same kind you'd apply to any other important decision.
And when people ask very direct, somewhat inappropriate questions, having boundaries means politely redirecting the conversation or stating clearly that you're not going to share that information yet, without over-explaining or apologizing for it. You don't owe anyone your full openness on their timeline.
But the part most people miss is that a boundary only works as protection if you remain engaged. If you set a boundary and then also withdraw from every meeting, every optional project, every relationship-building conversation, you haven't protected yourself, you've just removed yourself from experiencing any of the good parts of human connection. The healthiest version of this is remaining guarded, but present. Be selective, but ensure you're still in the game.
Betrayal can lead you down the path to isolation. Burnout and career setbacks are another, and they deserve their own moment here. Because a lot of you listening may have pulled away from people, not because someone betrayed your trust, but because you simply ran out of capacity, or you've hit a setback that made you not want to be seen.
If you've gone quiet—stopped showing up to the informal lunches, let the check-in coffees lapse, stopped reaching out to those you normally would when something good happens because you didn't have anything good to report—the way back in is rarely one big gesture. It's a series of small, low-stakes attempts at re-entry. Whether that's a short message, a specific question when you're curious about someone else's work, or simply showing up to one thing you're invited to, not everything.
And I want to say something about who you reconnect with, because not everyone deserves equal access to your reinvention. As you rebuild, pay attention to who responds to the new version of you with curiosity versus who only wants the old, easier to manipulate version of you back. The people who ask good questions about where you're headed now, who don't need you to stay in your old box—those are the people worth investing your limited social energy in. You are allowed to be selective about who gets to be part of your comeback.
This is where vulnerability, used well, becomes a bridge instead of a barrier. Not oversharing. Not turning every interaction into a confessional. But being willing to say, in the right moment, to the right person, "that experience was harder than it looked", or "I'm figuring out what's next and I don't have it all mapped out yet". That kind of measured disclosure is often what allows someone else to drop their own guard and actually meet you where you're at.
Vulnerability, deployed strategically, without judgment about audience and timing, is one of the most underrated tools for rebuilding a professional community. Vulnerability deployed indiscriminately, to anyone who will listen, is what may have contributed to you getting burned out in the first place. The skill isn't choosing one or the other; it's knowing what the situation calls for.
There's another angle to consider when you are reluctant to trust people, one that's about you not trusting anyone to do it right, so you struggle with delegation. This was me for many years.
If you've been burned, or you're simply a recovering perfectionist, delegating can feel almost physically uncomfortable. You know exactly how the thing should look. You can see, in advance, all the ways someone else might do it differently. And right now, slightly differently feels like a risk you can't afford. Especially if your reputation took a hit once already and you feel like you can't afford to take another one so soon.
But here's the reframe that matters: delegation is a leadership skill, and it's also an act of self-preservation. If you can't let go of anything, you cap your own capacity at exactly what your own two hands can do. You also quietly signal to the people around you that you don't trust them, which is its own way of damaging relationships and reputation—the very things you're trying to build and protect. And you burn yourself out doing work that isn't actually the best use of your time, which leaves you with less energy for the strategic, visible work that actually builds your standing and advances your career.
The way through isn't about lowering your standards; it's about learning to delegate the outcome and keeping your thoughts to yourself on the method. Get specific about what doing it the "right" way actually means by clearly identifying two or three things that truly matter for this task and letting go of the fifteen things that are just your personal preference, not a real requirement. Check-in at meaningful checkpoints instead of hovering. And notice every time you delegate successfully, you're not just freeing up your time, you're also rebuilding your own capacity to trust in a lower-stakes, more controlled setting than perhaps the one where you got burned. Delegation, done thoughtfully, is actually a low-stakes way to rebuild trust in general.
Now, underneath a lot of what we've covered so far is one core fear because emotional risk-taking at work feels dangerous. Whether it's sharing an idea in a meeting, setting a boundary with a colleague, or asking a question that might expose what you don't know, all of these require a small act of courage. And if you've been burned before, your nervous system has learned to treat anything like that as a five-alarm threat.
Here's where catastrophizing tends to come into play, at least for me. It's the mental habit of predicting the worst possible outcome and then responding to it as if the outcome is already certain. You imagine the question you ask making you look unprepared. You imagine the boundary you set making you look difficult. You imagine your idea getting shot down in front of everyone, and it becomes the story people tell about you, behind your back, for months. While that might be a possibility, your brain presents it to you as more than likely, and that's the distortion.
The course-correction here isn't forced positivity; it's accuracy. Ask yourself: what's the actual, evidence-based range of outcomes here, not just the worst one my anxiety is showing me? Most of the time, the realistic range includes a lot of mundane, survivable outcomes—where someone says, "good question", or simply nods and moves on, or mildly disagrees and the meeting continues. The catastrophic outcome is possible but rare, and even when a version of it happens, it is almost never as damaging or as central to other people's memory of you as it feels to you in the moment. People are mostly thinking about themselves, not building a permanent case file on your one awkward question.
This matters because emotional risk-taking is required for much of what we've covered so far, whether that's reconnecting with people, delegating, setting boundaries, or being savvy enough to advocate for yourself. If catastrophizing shuts all of that down, you may feel safe but also stay stuck. So, part of the work here is learning to take calculated risks—not reckless ones, but ones where you've done a real assessment of what's at stake here, and where you have some kind of strategy for handling it, if it doesn't go as planned.
So, if you've been burned, and you don't want to blindly trust, and you also don't want permanent isolation, what's left? This is where most career advice stops short. And this is exactly the gap that becoming more politically savvy in the workplace can fill.
I want to be clear about what I mean, because office politics has a terrible reputation, and sometimes, for good reason—most people's mental image of it has some combination of manipulation, sabotage, sucking up, or taking credit for other people's work. That's real and it does exist. And we'll get to some ways to help you with early detection. But that's not the only kind of political behavior, and it's not the kind I'm recommending.
There's another version of being politically savvy where you develop high-integrity political skill. It means understanding how decisions actually get made in your organization—as opposed to how the org chart says they get made. It means reading power dynamics, both formal power and informal. It means understanding the unwritten rules, managing how you're perceived by those around you, building real professional relationships, and communicating in a way that lands with the specific person in front of you. None of that requires lying, undermining anyone, or becoming someone you don't recognize. It requires developing an understanding about how organizations actually work instead of operating only on how you wish they worked.
Unfortunately, refusing to engage with any of this doesn't make you above the game. It usually just means you're playing it badly, without realizing you're playing it at all—while other people, some with much less integrity than you, are playing it skillfully. The choice was never "politics" or "no politics". It was always "politics done to you", or "politics done by you, with your values intact". Getting savvy is how you stop being the person things happen to and reclaiming your power.
Studies on political skill and career outcomes have found that those with higher political skill are generally perceived more positively by their superiors and experience greater promotability—but for women specifically, that benefit shows up mainly when the behavior is perceived as gender-congruent. In plain language, women tend to be rewarded for political skill when it's expressed in a way that fits societal expectations of how women "should" behave and penalized when it isn't. One study found that the higher a woman's level of assertiveness—a trait that tends to be culturally coded as masculine—the lower her supervisor rated her, even when the underlying competence was the same.
That's not a reason to diminish ourselves or hide our capabilities. It's simply good information to have and factor it in. It means the same tactic can land differently depending on who is using it and how it's perceived. And pretending that isn't how it is doesn't make it any less true—it just leaves you unprepared for it.
Increasing your own awareness of these dynamics is itself a form of becoming more politically savvy. It lets you make deliberate choices about how you package your assertiveness, how you time it, who you display it in front of, instead of being blindsided by a reaction you didn't see coming. This isn't necessarily about playing smaller; it's about becoming more strategic in choosing your moments and your framing with full knowledge of the playing field, rather than assuming the playing field is fair when it often isn't.
Some people in every organization are skilled at impression management—by carefully curating how their work and talents are perceived, sometimes well beyond what their actual results would justify. They're good with words, which buys them credibility that isn't always earned. They study how decisions really get made—whether it's the stated process or something that actually happens in side conversations before the real meeting—and they use that knowledge to steer outcomes their way. They align themselves with successful projects and capable people, and quietly distance themselves from anything that's failing.
You don't have to become that type of person to protect yourself from that type of person. You just need to build a few diagnostic habits that will help you in expecting and detecting deception, without becoming cynical about everyone. Pay attention to a person's history—do their claims usually hold up under scrutiny, or do they tend to exaggerate? Notice whether they ever tell you something you don't want to hear, or whether they only ever mirror your position back to you. Genuine advisors sometimes disagree with you, but people managing your impression of them rarely do. Ask follow-up questions and notice whether there's real depth to their answer or just confident generalities. And watch tone and body language for the accommodating over-eagerness that shows up when someone is more invested in receiving your approval than in giving you an honest opinion.
None of this requires being suspicious of everyone. It requires screening information the way you'd assess anything important—not blind trust, but not blanket distrust either. Just genuine discernment applied consistently.
In your own communication, here are a few habits that protect you regardless of who you're dealing with:
Say what's informationally necessary and no more—you don't owe every colleague your full reasoning, your doubts, or your backup plan.
Watch people's nonverbal cues when you're talking—a shift in posture, a glance at the door, or a flattening tone can tell you someone's bored or annoyed without them saying so, and that's your cue to wrap up or change direction.
When you're not sure whether you've said too little or too much, just ask: does that answer what you needed or should I go further? That one question does more for your credibility than almost anything else you can say in a meeting.
Now, let's look at four ways to improve your political savvy:
Start with how you package ideas. Most people pitch an idea from their own point of view. For instance, here's what I want, and here's why I think it's good for me, and maybe for you, too. Savvy people flip that—they figure out what the decision-maker already cares about, and they show the connection explicitly. Something like, "This idea supports your goal of reducing onboarding time by addressing the specific bottleneck in week two". That's not manipulation. That's making sure a good idea actually lands in language the other person can act on.
Timing matters as much as content. If your organization's real decisions happen in side conversations before the meeting, and you only ever speak up in the meeting room, you will consistently lose ground to people who did their lobbying beforehand—not because their ideas were better, but because they understood how the system works. Ignoring it and hoping merit alone carries the day is how good ideas quietly die.
Relationships matter. This is where gratitude becomes a genuine tool. When someone does you a favor, thank them for it clearly and in a way that makes it count. A specific thank you note, copying the people who should know your colleague helped you, costs you nothing and can be beneficial. It makes the helper look good, and it makes you look like someone who notices and credits others. And it deposits real goodwill for next time. Similarly, if you have to say 'no' to someone, say it in a way that leaves the door open. Let them know you took their request seriously, and be clear that while it can't happen this time, you might be able to help them out next time. People remember how you decline far more than they remember what you declined.
Self-promotion. This deserves a direct mention, because a lot of us have an internal block against it. Letting people know about your work isn't bragging—it's making sure your actual contribution is visible, since invisible work doesn't get considered for the next opportunity, no matter how good it was. You can do this in a way that documents what you learned, not just what you achieved, thanks the people who helped and lets your enthusiasm about the result carry the message instead of it coming across as a tally of personal credit. Done that way, it reads as leadership rather than ego.
All of this requires a steady nervous system, which requires managing your own reactions, because none of those tactics work if you're activated every time you walk into a room.
Here are five tools worth practicing until they become a habit:
Stay present—most of the dread around political situations comes from imagining a negative future outcome, not from what's actually happening right now. Your performance tends to be better when you're responding to the present moment instead of a hypothetical one.
Visualize the outcome you want—see yourself handling the hard conversation calmly and in a professional manner, before you're actually in it.
Reprogram the automatic negative self-talk—swap the thought that you always get burned when you speak up for something more accurate, like sometimes this does go well and you're getting better at determining when it will.
Reframe your thinking around office politics itself—it's not a dirty word or a last resort, and becoming more politically savvy is a necessary skill in any organization where you're working with other people.
Keep perspective—remind yourself that even if a specific interaction goes badly, you can handle it, and it is rarely as damaging as it feels in the moment.
None of this is about talking yourself into ignoring real red flags. It's about making sure your reactions are calibrated to what's actually happening, not to old wounds replaying on a loop.
There is no quick fix here, and if anyone offers you one, be skeptical of it. This is incremental work. It's a slightly more selective disclosure this week, to one person who seems trustworthy. It's one well-timed conversation before the meeting instead of during it. It's one delegated task you are ready to let go of. It's one thank you note copying the right people. These types of small deposits build up your social capital and when they are made consistently, they help you rebuild both your standing in the organization and your trust in your own judgment.
Be patient with the work culture around you, because organizations can change slowly over time. But be just as patient with yourself. No one is politically savvy all the time. No one reads every room correctly. No one delegates perfectly on the first try or sets a strong professional boundary every single time.
You're allowed to be a work in progress here. You were burned by someone. That's real and it matters. You don't have to trust blindly to move forward, and you don't have to stay closed off to stay safe. You just have to be patient with the process of learning to trust others again.
And that's it for this episode of Stop Sabotaging Your Success. Remember to download your Guide to Rebuilding Trust Without Losing Your Edge at cindyesliger.com/podcast, episode two hundred and thirty-nine.
Thank you to our producer, Alex Hochhausen and everyone at Astronomic Audio. Get in touch, I'm on Instagram @cindyesliger. My email address is info@cindyesliger.com.
If you enjoy listening to this podcast, you have to come check out The Confidence Collective. It's my monthly coaching program where we dig a little deeper into what's holding you back in your career and we find the workarounds. We help you overcome the barriers and create the career you want. Join me over at cindyesliger.com/join. I'd love to have you join me in The Confidence Collective.
Until next week, I'm Cindy Esliger. Thanks for listening.
