When Frequency Equals Trust

Was this essay forwarded to you? Join for Free Here

A few weeks ago, after presenting at a university function, I found myself sitting in a circle of mostly Gen Zs, with a couple of Millennial and Gen X professors sprinkled in. I wasn’t talking much, just observing. The conversation turned to a recent news event, and I noticed something fascinating. The Gen Zers didn’t just reference the story, they referenced versions of the story: “Did you hear it on this podcast?” “Did you see that influencer’s take?” “There’s a TikTok breaking it down.”

The Gen Xers seemed content knowing the facts from a single article. The Millennials had read the headlines and maybe skimmed a summary. But the youngest in the group had absorbed the story repeatedly, through loops of content, creators, and commentary. Each repetition didn’t add much new information, but it deepened their confidence in the narrative.

That moment crystallized something I’ve been seeing in workplaces, media, and leadership alike: for Gen Z, frequency equals transparency.

Every generation has had a different relationship with communication rhythms and by extension, trust. Boomers grew up in an age when the evening news and the Sunday paper served as the authoritative voice. Trust was institutional. Transparency meant the thoroughness of information, an expert’s assurance that you were getting the full story.

Gen X came of age as the media landscape fragmented. Cable news, talk radio, and the first internet forums made it clear that not every authority agreed. They learned to “trust, but verify,” triangulating information across sources before forming an opinion.

Millennials matured during the rise of social media, when the goal wasn’t just information but efficiency. They preferred quick hits, headlines, and bullet points. I am guilty of this. I can report a great deal of headlines, but with little depth. Transparency meant access and being able to find the information themselves, not waiting for someone to release it.

And then came Gen Z. Gen Z is the first generation raised entirely inside algorithmic media. For them, truth has a rhythm. They’ve grown up with the same story appearing in countless micro-variations across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter (or whatever we’re calling it this week). Repetition is not redundancy; it’s validation. The more often something appears, the more real it feels.

Psychologists call this the illusory truth effect. This is the tendency to believe information is true simply because we encounter it repeatedly (Hasher et al., 1977). The internet turned that bias into a feature. Algorithms reward engagement, which amplifies repetition, which amplifies perceived truth. Gen Z has been conditioned to trust not what’s said once, but what’s said again and again.

Data supports this shift. Institutional trust has been declining across all generations, but the drop is steepest among the youngest. Gallup’s 2024 findings show that no major U.S. institution commands majority trust among Gen Z. Even science, historically the most trusted category across generations, only garnered about a 71% confidence from Gen Z. Further, five out of every six Gen Zers ditrust the presidency, Congress, or large media companies (Gallup, 2024).

Media trust tells a similar story. Only 26% of Americans under 50 say they trust mass media “a great deal or a fair amount,” compared with 43% of those 65 and older (Gallup, 2024). And Pew Research reports that adults under 30 are almost as likely to trust information from social media (52%) as from national news outlets (56%), though local news still tops the list at 71% (Pew Research Center, 2024).

This is not just a data story, it’s a communication story. Gen Z’s baseline skepticism doesn’t stem from apathy, it comes from overexposure. They live in a world where every truth has multiple feeds, and silence looks like deceit. If you’re not posting, updating, or responding, you’re not seen as careful; you’re seen as hiding.

In fact, this is one of the biggest questions I hear from leaders I work with. They ask when they should speak up and when they should stay silent. And with Gen Z, who expects their companies and their bosses to have a stance on every political and cultural event, leaders find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they speak up, they exercise “transparency” and cater to those who agree with them. If they remain silent, Gen Z views the silence as an even louder opinion than stating your own viewpoint.

For leaders, this shift changes everything. We’ve long equated transparency with openness and the willingness to share information. But for Gen Z, transparency is less about access and more about cadence.

Research backs this up. A study in Frontiers in Psychology found that communication frequency significantly increases perceived trust across generations, especially in remote teams (Zhang et al., 2023). The same pattern appears in earlier organizational behavior research: “trust increases with the frequency of communication” because silence creates suspicion and weakens perceived alignment (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Thom-Santelli et al., 2003).

The same dynamic even shows up in healthcare. Patients who communicate more frequently with their doctors report significantly higher levels of trust, regardless of the content quality (Zhao et al., 2023). Frequency signals care, and by extension, honesty.

So when Gen Z says they want transparency at work, what they often mean is: keep talking to us. Don’t just send quarterly updates. Don’t wait for the polished announcement. Keep the loop open, even if the news is incomplete.

The generational decoding of “transparent”
Every generation defines transparency through its own formative information environment:

These aren’t just communication preferences, they’re cognitive defaults shaped by media ecology. The Boomer brain was trained to trust once. The Gen X brain was trained to question once. The Millennial brain was trained to scroll once. The Gen Z brain was trained to refresh constantly.

Leaders who fail to adjust their communication rhythm are often misdiagnosing disengagement as apathy. It’s not that Gen Z doesn’t care, it’s that they can’t hear you if you only talk every quarter.

In corporate settings, many leaders resist frequent updates out of fear of noise: “We don’t want to overwhelm people.” But to Gen Z, silence is more overwhelming than information. They’ve been trained by platforms that never stop talking.

This doesn’t mean you should flood your team’s inbox. But it does mean the perception of transparency now depends not only on how much you disclose, but also on how regularly you appear. Consistency communicates safety.

Think of it like a heartbeat. A steady rhythm builds trust. A sudden pause creates anxiety.

Leaders who understand this don’t wait for perfect clarity before communicating. They share what they know, admit what they don’t, and promise to keep updating. That cadence, not the content alone, is what reads as authentic.

Of course, cadence without candor backfires. The same Gen Zers who reward consistent communication are also the first to sense when it’s hollow. Authenticity remains the backbone of trust. The word authenticity is the anthem of the Gen Z generation. Frequent spin is worse than rare silence.

As one leadership study put it, “communication frequency fosters trust only when paired with perceived honesty and consistency” (Zhang et al., 2023). The algorithm may have trained Gen Z to crave repetition, but it’s also trained them to spot fake news and insincere communication.

The new transparency equation

I think this is what many leaders are missing when they call Gen Z “disengaged.” They’re communicating in paragraphs; Gen Z is listening in pulses.

Transparency used to be about how much you shared. Now, it’s about how often you show up. The future of trust, especially in organizations, will belong to leaders who understand this rhythm, who keep showing up with truth in smaller, more frequent doses. Not to flood, but to build faith.

Because in a world shaped by algorithms and echo chambers, credibility is no longer a statement. It’s a signal. And the signal only works when it stays on.