How broken promises erode trust at work

But we agreed on something else

During the recruitment process, Marta learns that the company is focused on development and that after the onboarding period, she will be entrusted with her own project. For the next few months, she takes over the urgent tasks of others. When she asks about the project, she learns that there is no capacity for it at the moment. The manager believes they did not make a formal promise. Marta feels that this prospect was a key factor on which she based her decision to accept the offer. They are talking about the same history, but each remembers a different commitment. This is a typical situation in which to examine the psychological contract. It is not an additional contract hidden in an employee's file. It means individual beliefs about what the parties owe one another. The employee can assume that in exchange for flexibility they will be given the opportunity to develop, and the employer can assume that autonomy is associated with solving problems on their own. The contract is based on perceived promises and reciprocity. Not every hope is therefore part of it. The desire for a quick promotion does not automatically become a company obligation if nothing in communication or practice has given grounds for such a belief. The difference is particularly important when an employee is making a decision that requires real sacrifice. They may opt out of another offer, agree to move, or accept a larger burden for a period of time. The more firmly such a choice is based on the organization's assurances, the more important it is to clarify the discrepancy later. This does not mean the company must fulfill every expectation, but it should take an interest in the obligations the other party reasonably believes were created. In Marta’s case, discussing only her current duties would ignore the earlier decision and the reason behind it. To understand the disappointment, we also need to go back to the time when both sides agreed on terms of cooperation and imagined the future of this role.

Promises are also made between the lines

Expectations may arise from job postings, recruitment interviews, earlier decisions and the conduct of people representing the organization. If the company regularly rewards extra effort with a specific type of opportunity, the employee can treat the practice as a rule. The words of the manager are also important. “Let’s revisit this after the quarter” may merely announce another conversation, but the same words spoken after a detailed discussion about a promotion may be understood as a conditional promise. Ambiguity does not have to result from bad faith, but it does not remove the need to check what the other person actually heard. In Marta’s case, it would be helpful to break down the arrangements into parts: what project, when, under what conditions, and who is to make the decision. Such clarification is not a sign of distrust. On the contrary, it limits situations in which each party acts on its own version of the agreement. Assurances made by someone who cannot control whether they are fulfilled are especially risky. A manager may sincerely want an employee to be promoted, but good intentions are not an organizational decision or a guarantee that a position will be available.

From disappointment to a sense of betrayal

The literature distinguishes between the perception of an unfulfilled commitment and the emotional experience of breaking it. The first concerns an assessment: “I did not receive what we agreed on.” The second can include anger, hurt, or feeling cheated. They don't always come together or with the same force. Explaining the circumstances, the previous relationship, and the meaning of the promise can change how the situation is perceived. A meta-analysis by Zhao and colleagues links psychological contract breach with trust, satisfaction, commitment, and intention to leave, among others. Zhao et al., 2007. It is important to be precise: the intention to leave is not the same as the actual departure. This meta-analysis did not show a significant link between the breach and all the results analysed; the exception was actual turnover. This has practical significance: someone may remain with the company for financial or family reasons while no longer treating it as a partner worth making an extra effort for. The absence of a resignation does not prove that the problem has been resolved, just as disappointment alone cannot predict what a particular employee will do. A breach can also change the meaning of further communications. Previously, an employee heard a genuine opportunity in the announcement, now he may hear a way to get extra effort. A manager is surprised by such caution and reads it as a lack of commitment. Then it's easy to get another misunderstanding: a person who doesn't want to base another decision on a vague assurance may be labeled demanding. It is worth asking what would make a new agreement credible: identifying the decision-maker, setting a specific date for the next conversation or defining the conditions for implementation. It should not be promised that such an arrangement will immediately restore confidence, but it provides a basis for evaluating further action, rather than requiring the employee to trust the organization’s word again.

How to discuss an unfulfilled commitment

The employee can start by explaining their understanding of the agreement: “From the interview in January, I concluded that I would lead the project once I completed onboarding. I would like to see if we understand this in the same way.” Then it is worth pointing out the point: “This was an important reason I accepted the role.” Such openness does not require abandoning of one's own perspective, but it gives an opportunity to determine whether the problem is a different interpretation, changed conditions or failure to deliver on a specific promise. Each situation calls for a somewhat different solution. On the part of the supervisor, one response is unlikely to help: “That is not in your contract.” The conversation is also about the reliability of previous communications. It will be more helpful to revisit what was agreed and accept responsibility for your own part of the uncertainty. If the promise cannot be fulfilled, you need to be straightforward, explain the reasons and present the real possibilities. Another vague announcement will only postpone the disappointment. Any alternative should be something the employee knowingly agrees to, not a unilateral declaration that another benefit has settled the account.

Update expectations before a crisis

The psychological contract changes with the role, manager, and situation of the company. After reorganization, it's good to return to questions about autonomy, access to development, priorities, and recognition criteria. The new manager should ask about prior arrangements, rather than assume that the history of the relationship begins on the day they arrive. It's also worth writing down important commitments in a short summary of the conversation. Updating expectations should also cover what the organization will no longer require. It's not about recording every courtesy, but about the issues on which the other person bases their career decisions. If the development project is postponed and the employee continues to perform all the tasks assumed in return for this opportunity, it is easy to create a sense that the relationship is one-sided. An honest conversation can therefore involve a new division of responsibilities, another form of development, or a decision that the current role no longer meets the needs of both parties. Not every disagreement can be resolved with additional benefits. One person may value autonomy most, while another values stability or the opportunity to learn. You need to check that, instead of assuming that a proposal that's attractive to the manager will be just as valuable to the employee, Reciprocity requires agreement on the value of a new agreement, not just its formal announcement.

Confidence in the company also depends on the consistency between what the employee has heard and what they experience afterwards. Clear terms for promises and honest updates do not eliminate all disappointments, but they allow you to talk about the real situation before both parties begin to interpret it as evidence of disloyalty.

Using Empatyzer to discuss a broken promise

Empatyzer can help prepare a conversation about a commitment that each party understands differently. The Motivations feature provides a starting point to look at why a given promise is so important to the user. However, it does not determine what was actually promised. In Talk to Em about a specific person, you can then prepare a way to present your own understanding of the agreement and questions about the other person’s perspective. The practical goal is a message that clearly names the discrepancy without immediately alleging deception or bad faith. The manager can use the same context to prepare an honest explanation of the changed conditions and realistic alternatives. The evaluation of the organisation's capabilities remains the manager’s responsibility. Em supports the choice of words and order of conversation but does not approve promotions, does not verify the history of promises and does not guarantee that trust will be rebuilt. A new agreement becomes credible only when the actions that were agreed upon actually take place.