TThe Diary of a CEO
← All frameworks
Influence

Sensemaking-to-Trust Ladder

Move a new relationship from avoidance to predictable trust

Difficulty
Advanced
Time to result
~months to results
Steps
5
Confidence
94%

Bustamante nests two models into one relationship-building sequence. In his sensemaking “cylinder,” a new relationship moves through avoidance, competition, and compliance. Competition here means reciprocal investment—questions, ideas, disagreement, and attention—not defeating the other person. Compliance means that the parties have established some workable power or participation pattern, even if they merely agree to disagree. This feeds a know-like-trust progression: discovery creates awareness, accumulated interaction produces enough acceptance to continue, and consistency eventually makes some behaviour predictable. Bustamante uses “trust” in this narrow predictive sense, including trust that someone will behave badly. The ethical use of the model is to understand relationship formation and invest consistently, not to trap someone in escalating commitment or misrepresent who you are.

Origin

Bustamante presents sensemaking and know-like-trust as nested influence frameworks derived from intelligence training. Extracted from The Diary of a CEO.

Core principles

  • 01New relationships begin with uncertainty and often avoidance
  • 02Mutual investment creates enough information to make sense of a relationship
  • 03Trust means perceived predictability, not necessarily affection
  • 04Influence is earned through repeated interaction

How to run it

  1. 1

    Create discovery

    Make the person or idea visible in a context where the other party can freely choose to engage.

    Watch out Attention is not consent to continued contact.

  2. 2

    Pass avoidance

    Use respectful, relevant interaction to reduce the uncertainty attached to something new.

    Pro tip Keep the first investment small and useful.

  3. 3

    Compete through exchange

    Exchange questions, ideas, effort, and even disagreement so both parties invest in understanding the relationship.

    Pro tip Treat competition as a scrimmage that improves shared understanding.

    Watch out Do not mistake conflict intensity for relationship quality.

  4. 4

    Establish compliance

    Reach a clear pattern for how the parties will interact on this topic, including a respectful agreement to disagree.

    Pro tip Make expectations explicit rather than relying on implied power.

    Watch out Compliance obtained through coercion is not healthy trust.

  5. 5

    Build predictability

    Behave consistently enough that the other party knows what to expect in the relevant area.

In the wild

Debate becomes a predictable friendship

Bustamante describes two people who disagree about politics but repeatedly meet for a Friday drink and debate. They may not agree or broadly admire each other, yet the recurring exchange creates a trusted pattern around that activity.

Predictability and mutual investment create a limited form of trust despite disagreement.

Common mistakes

Equating trust with goodness

Predicting someone's behaviour does not mean that behaviour is benevolent or that the person deserves broader trust.

Forcing the ladder

Repeated contact that ignores refusal is pressure, not ethical relationship-building.

Is it for you?

Best for

It is best for ethical relationship-building where both parties can choose whether to engage.

Not ideal for

It is not ideal for engineering dependency, overriding consent, or manufacturing trust through deception.

From the transcript

the bottom third of the cup is what we call avoidance

Andrew Bustamante · (1:41:00)

the last third is called compliance

Andrew Bustamante · (1:42:00)

trust it just means a predictable outcome

Andrew Bustamante · (1:47:00)

From the episode

The Manipulation Expert: CIA Spy Reveals You're Being Controlled! "You're Being Manipulated Without Realising It"! Andrew Bustamante